ML20052A063
| ML20052A063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1982 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204270011 | |
| Download: ML20052A063 (16) | |
Text
g[ MII
- ~
t UNITED STATES g
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WAS' fINGTON, D.C. 20555
- .+
OFFICE CF THE March 31, 1982 CHAIRMAN a) v os fx 8
I ppr -
The Honorable Tom Bev111, Chairman E.0 S; #RaceAEkl 6Qp/s Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development P(p Comittee on Appropriations W
United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515 T
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This monthly status report is in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093. Enclosed is our seventeenth report covering the pericd from February 15, 1982 to March 15, 1982. This seventeenth report discusses actions that were taken during this period on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities.
During this report period, changes in the construction completion dates for Waterford 3. (from October 1982 to January 1983) and Zimmer 1 (July 1982 to December 1982) have been announced by the utilities.
These plants did not have a projected regulatory delay.
The report discusses the recent events concerning cracks found in nozzles on makeup water lines at three operating plants, degraded bolts found at Maine Yankee, followup actions regarding the Ginna steam generator tube rupture report last month, the status of the restart of THI-1, and the. status of the hearing on Indian Point 2 and 3.
Sincerely,
~
Nunzio J. Palladino
Enclosure:
NRC Monthly Status Report to Congress cc: The' Honorable John T. Myers Sgog o d
C 3..
NRC MONTHLY STATUS REPORT TO CONGRESS i
This is the seventeenth monthly status report to Congress in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093. This report provides a discussion of tne major actions that were taken on operating reactors ar.d on licensing reviews of new facilities during the period of time between February 15,1982 and March 15,1982.
THI Unit 1 Restart As reported previously, the Licensing Board has issued its initial decision on the TMI-1 restart hearing, with the exceptio'n of the issue concerning cheat-ing on the NRC operator licensing exam. The Special Master who presided over the reopened hearing on the cheating issue is expected to issue his initial decision in.mid-April. The Board's decision is now expected in mi,d-May 1982.
Considering the Board's schedule on the cheating issue and the delays incurred due to steam generator problems, the Commission issued an order, dated March 10, 1982, indicating that the Commission will not make any decision regarding restart until the Licensing Board has rendered its decision on the
~
cheating incidents.
As reported last month, the staff is undertaking actions to develop an environmental assessment on the effect of psychological stress on residents near TMI, as ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The staff and its consultants have met with the licensee, the intervenor group involved in the lawsuit which led to the Court decision, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to develop a consensus on the steps necessary to develop an acceptable environmental assessment. Current plans call for completion
' of the assessment by mid-Summer 1982. The Commission has decided to seek rehearing by the Court of Appeals on the psychological stress issue following receipt of the Judges' opinions.
With regard to the steam generator problem at THI-1, it appears that as many as 10,000 out of a total of approximately 31,000 tubes in both steam generators may be defective.
GPU has not yet completed its failure analysis efforts and has not yet proposed a method for repair.
In addition, since the corrosion was initiated from the primary or reactor coolant side of the steam generators, GPU intends to at least partially defuel to facil-itate inspection of the primary system piping and components potentially susceptible to corrosion. The staff will be meeting with GPU in early April to discuss its plans for resolution of this problem. The steam generator problem, at the present time, still appears to be the pacing item for plant readiness to restart.
Ginna Rechester Gas and Electric Corporation has completed extensive inspections of t,oth steam generators at its R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. A number of foreign objects and sections of broken previously plugged tubes were found in the "B" steam generttor where a tube ruptured on January 25, 1982.
In addition, several smaller foreign objects were found in the "A" steam generator.
Through the use of video equipment, a number of tubes that had been previously plugged were found to be damaged.
The licensee is continuing its investigation of the cause of the tube rupture and is required to obtain the NRC's authoriza-tion prior to the undertaking of significant or irreversible modifications or other corrective measures.
The NRC has given the licensee permission to remove, for metallurgical examination, a small number of tube samples i
through a hole that has been cut in the side of the steam generator shell.
- ^
3 The licensee plans to refuel and perform scheduled maintenance during the present outage, with restart tentatively set for May 1,1982. The NRC met with the licensee for discussion of the licensee's recovery plans on March 23,1982.
The NRC Task Force discussed ir, last month's report is completing its review of the Ginna event. The interim report is scheduled to be completed on April 2, 1982. The staff is also continuing its generic review of recent steam generator problems with meetings involving the various steam generator vendors and owners groups.
~
Make-Up Nozzle Cracking in Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) Plants Recent inspections at the Crystal River 3 plant (2/5/82), and subsequent inspections at the Oconee 2 (3/5/82) and Oconee 3 (3/4/82) plants, indicate that cracks are present in one of the nozzles used for normal makeup flow to the primary system.
The other three nozzles to the reactor coolant system (three dedicated to High Pressure Injection (HPI) at CR-3, two dedicated to HPI, and one shared as HPI/ makeup flow at Oconee) did not display cracks.
Preliminary results indicate thermal cycling is the major contributor. A subsequent inspection of Oconee 1 by the licensee revealed no cracking in-dications in any of the HPI or makeup nozzles.
This is a matter of generic concern to other B&W plants. The B&W Regulatory Response Group met with the NRC staff on March 8,1982 to describe the findings to date and suggest future inspection actions at other B&W oper-ating plants (Arkansas Nuclear 1, Davis Besse 1 and Ranch? Seco). From the information supplied on March 8,1982, the NRC staff concluded that immediate shutdown of these other B&W plants was not necessary but that l
additional information should be developed to support this position. Davis-Besse Unit 1 stated they planned to shut down on March 13 and A' kansas Unit 1 on March 26 and would each conduct inspections during these outages.
The staff again met with these B&W licensees on March 16, 1982. Davis-Besse Unit 1 indicated that preliminary inspection data revealed no cracking. As a result of that discussion, Arkansas Unit I reiterated its intent to shut down on March 26 and Rancho Seco agreed that they would shut down for inspection in early April 1982. The licensees of the B&W plants not yet inspected submitted formal evaluations supporting their continued operation until the inspections are completed. These responses are currently being reviewed by the NRC staff.
Indian Point 2 and 3 A Probabilistic Safety Study which presents the licensee's evaluation of the risks associated with the operation cf Indian Point 2 and 3 was sub-mitted to the NRC staff on March 5, 1982. The NRC will evaluate this study and determine its effect on testimony in the Indian ~ Point 2 and 3 proceeding. A Board Order is expected this month which will identify the participants, the contentions, and schedule for the hearing.
Currently, the i
hearing is expected to begin this June, with the Board's recommendation issued to the Commission by September 18, 1982.
l Maine Yankee On March 11, 1982, during disassembly of a steam generator primary side manway (16" in diameter) at Maine Yankee, 6 of the 20 studs which held the manway closure in place were found completely broken.
Ultrasonic testing revealed crack indications in four additional studs. The studs had been exposed to boric acid, high temperature and high humidity from a small primary leak, and to Furmanite sealing compound applied last autumn to seal this leak.
The cause of the leak apparently was an improper fit between the steam
generator clad and the gasket retainer plate (part of the manway closure).
All 20 studs have been replaced and all three steam generators will be checked for the fit problem. The studs of these manways will be tested by ultrasonic and magnetic particle techniques.- This event can be considered a precursor to a large loss-of-coolant accident.
Maine Yankee is a CE three-loop design rated at 2630 Mwt.
Other PWR license'es have been alerted to this experience by an NRC Informtion Notice.
CE is per-forming an analysis of the failure mode and is notifying its customers of the fit problem since it may apply to other CE plants, particularly the older designs. The use of bolted primary boundary components with bolts / studs in an environment similar to that at liaine Yankee and the use of Furmanite to seal primary boundary and stop leakage are being addressed by the NRC staff on a generic basis.
OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATIONS Licensing Schedules During the past month, considerable emphasis continued to be focused on operating license applications activities.
The present licensing schedules for all plants with pending OL applications are given in Table 1.
Plants are listed chron-ologically according to Commission decision date.
The schedules shown for CY 1983 plants and beyond are based on standard assumptions for review and hearing times, enept for those plants that are expected to be heavily contested (Seabrook Unit 1, Byron 1, and Midland Unit 2).
For those plants, the pro-jected schedules allow for a 13-month (rather than the typical ll-month) hearing phase from issuance of the Staff Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) to Commission decision date on a full-power license.
The staff review process for those cases has been accelerated to compensate for the additional time allotted for the hearing process.
The estimated regulatory delays and the target dates for Commission decision shown in Table 1 do not reflect any potential impact from the schedules for FEMA findings on off-site emergency preparedness. Any additional potential delays, based on the staff's analysis of the schedules for the FEMA findings, are included in a monthly report to the Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, which is transmitted jointly by the NRC and FEMA.
During this report period, changes in the construction completion date for Waterford Unit 3 (from October 1982 to January 1983) and Zimmer 1 (July to
~
December 1982) have been announced by the utilities.
These p'lants 11d not have a projected regulatory deldy.
PLANT-BY-PLANT DISCUSSION OF DELAYED PLANTS The plants presently projected to have a regulatory delay are Summer 1 and Shoreham 1.
Although Diablo Canyon Unit 1, San Onofre Unit 2, and Midland 2 do not have a projected regulatory delay, they are included in the discussion due to other causes.
1.
San Onofre Unit 2 - The NRC issued an operating license on February 16, i
1982.
It was restricted to 5% power in accordance with the ASLB decision.
Fuel loading is in progress. The unit should be ready for operation above l
5% power in June.
Authorization of full power operation is currently l
projected for April 1982, pending a favorable Board decision. Therefore, no delay is shown for this unit.
l e
- ~ 2.
Diablo Canyon Unit 1 - On November 19, 1981, the Commission suspended the license to load fuel and conduct tests up to five percent of rated power due to the errors found in the seismic design of certain equip-ment and piping supports in the plant. The staff is continuing to evaluate the seismic design / Quality Assurance deficiencies at Diablo Canyon. A Commission decision regarding a full-power license is pro-jected for May 1982, contingent upon satisfactory resolution of the seismic design / Quality Assurance issue, and a projected date of April 1982 for a Board initial decisic1.
On March 18, 1982, the Commission declined to grant the petition by Governor Brown and the Joint Intervenors to review the ALAB 644 relating to seismic issues, thereby finalizing the Appeal Board decision regarding the seismic design.
3.
Summer Unit 1 - The projected decision date for a full-power license is May 1982, based on a projected date of April 1982 for a Board initial decision. The applicant's projected construction completion date for the facility is the end of March 1982. Assuming a favorable Board decision, an operating license restricted to 5% power is scheduled to be issued in April 1982, immediately following the ASLB initial de-l cision.
This results in a projected one-month delay for this facility.
4.
Shoreham Unit 1 - As discussed in last month's report, the hearing' regarding this facility is now projected to start in May rather than l
March 1982. Given a start date of May 1982, the projected decision date (October 1982) results in a one-month projected delay for this facility.
Representatives of Suffolk County have recently indicated
that they do not expect their emergency plan completed prior to September.
If this is the case, the projected date of October 1982 for the ASLB decision cannot be met and probably will be delayed until at least December 1982.
5.
Midland 2 - Issuance of the final version of the Midland SER is scheduled for May 1982. ACRS meetings are expected to commence the second week in June 1982. On the basis of these two milestones, the first Supplemental SER (SSER) is scheduled for July 1982. Concurrent with the OL licensing effort, a series of ASLB hearings relating to the soils settlement problems remains to be held. The soils-related hearings are presently expected to continue into May 1982. Certain i
confirmatory reviews and audits relating to the soils remedial actions cannot occur before mid-May 1982.
The assessment of the impact of the soils hearings and consequential remedial actions indicates that a number of SER sections affected by the hearings cannot be prepared in time to be included in the final SER. These sections will be addressed in later supplements, the liti-gation of which may impact the projected Commission Decision date.
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS
~
As stated in last month's report, a final rule regarding TMI-related re-quirements applicable to Construction Permit and Manufacturing License (CP/ML) applications filed prior to the TMI-2 accident was published in the Federal Register on January 15, 1982. The rule establishes the licensing requirements that resulted from the Comission's ongoing efforts to apply the lessons learned from the accident at TMI-2 and became effective on February 16, 1982.
.- On January 29, 1982, Portland General Electric Company submitted infor-mation on TMI-related issues for Pebble Springs Units 1 and 2.
The NRC is currently developing a review schedule for this facility.
On March 2,1982, Duke Power Company requested cancellation of the CP application for Perkins Unit 1, 2, and 3 without prejudice.
Clinch River Breeder Reactor On March 9,1982, the Commission denied the request for an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12 for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR).
The exemption would have authorized the applicants to begin site preparation in March 1982.
The appli-cents are currently pursuing a Limited Work Authorization which, if grahted, would authorize them to begin site preparation following the completion of public hearings on environmental and site suitability matters.
A decision on the issuance of a Limited Work Authorization is scheduled for June 1983.
The NRC staff is currently reviewing the radiological health and safety aspects of the CRBR plant, as well as assessing the environmental impact of the changes that have occurred since its FES was issued in 1977.
On February 11, 1982, the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ordered that the public hearings commence on August 24, 1982. A pre-hearing conference has been scheduled for April 5-6, 1982 in Bethesda, I
Maryland, to consider the intervenirs' new and revised contentions.
Tables l
l 1.
Licensing Schedules for Pending OL Applications 2.
Licensing Schedules for Pending CP and ML Applications l
4 e
TABLES e
I J
.I DIVISION OF LICENSING 3/15/82 TABLE I Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Appilcations
'(Page 1 of 4)
(includes Schedules for Additional Units with Projected Construction Completion in CY 1982-1983)
(Listed in Order of Projected Consulssion Decision Date)
SER.
SSER Est Staff Staff ASLB Conen.1/ Appl.
Plant (Months)
DES Input to DL SER Ntg FES Input to DL SSER
~7/
Start of Initial Dec.
Constr.
Delay issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue Hearing Decision Date Compt.
San Onofre 2 0 1,,1f C
C C
C C
C C
C C
04/82 02/82 LaSalle 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C Mone None 03/82 2/ 03/82 Grand Gulf 1 0
C C
C C
C C
- 04/82 04/82 summer 1 1 3/
C C
C C
C C
C C
04/82 05/82 03/82 Diablo Canyon 1 0 4/
C C
C C
C C
C C
04/82 05/82 03/81 Olablo Canyon 2 0 C
C C
C C
C C
C 04/82 05/82 07/82 Susquehenna 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
04/82 05/82 07/82 LaSalle 2 0
C C
C C
C 4/01/82 5/ 01 / 82 None None 06/82 01/83 Watts Bar 1 0
C 3/22/82 4/08/82 5/04/i.
C 5/26/82 6/12/82 Mone None 07/82 08/82 WNP-2 0
C C
3/31/82 12/ 7/08/82 C
7/22/82 8/20/82 None None
- 09/82 03/83 Zimmer 1 0
C C
C C 8f C
C C
C 06/82 07/82
- 12/82 San Onofre 3 0
C C
C C
C 6/01/82 7/01/82 C
C 08/82 11/82 Feral 2 0
C C
C C
C C
C 03/82 08/82 09/82 il/H2 Shoreham 1 1 3/
C C
C C
C C
C 05/82 10/8? 10/ 10/82 09/82 Comanche Peak 1 0 C
C C
C C
C C
C 09/82 10/82 IM/83 St. Lucie 2 0
C C
C C
4/30/82 C
C lbne None 10/02 10/82 Sub-Total 2
- Indicates changes from last report 0
4 O
.._._m
-_ _~.. _. _
3/15 DIVISIC"1 0F LICENSING
~~ ~ f~82 TA8LE 1 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL App 1tcations (Pa9e 2 of 4)
-(Includes' Schedules for Additional Units with Projected Construction Completion in CY 1982-1981 r
(Listed in Order of Projected Copustssion Decision Date)
SER SSER Est start.
Start ASL8.
Conn. l/ Appl.
. Plant (Months)
DES ' Input to DL SER Mtg FES Input to DL' SSER
-7/ Start of Initial Dec. - Constr.
Delay Issue.
Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue
_1 Hearing _
Decision Date
,CmA Callaway 1 0
.'C C
-C C
C C
C C
09/82 10/82
.06/83 Palo Verde 1 0
C C
C C
'C C
C 04/82 10/82
.11/82 11/82 Waterford 3 0
C C
C C
C C
C 03/82 10/82 11/82 01/83 Clinton l' O
C C
C C
4/30/82 6/16/82 6/30/82 08/32 12/82 01/H3 01/83 McGuire 2 0
C C
C C
C 12/01/82 1/01/8 3 C
C 03/83 04/83 E
1/01/83 2/01/83 None None 03/83 06/83 Watts Bar 2 0
C 3/22/82 4/05/82 5/04/82 C
Byron 1 0
C C
- C C
4/05/82 3/10/82 3/30/82 08/825f 03/83 04/83 04/83 Wolf Creek 1 0
C C
4/07/82 5/07/82 6/05/82 5/10/82 5/30/82 10/82 03/83 04/83 12/83 Susquehanna 2 0
C C
C C
C 2/ 01 /83 3/0l/83 C
04/82 04/83 07/83 Perry 1
'O C
4/10/82 5/10/82 6/11/82 7/05/82 6/15/82 6/30/82 11/82 04/83 05/83 11/83' Midland 2 0
C 4/06/82 5/06/82 6/06/82 7/05/82 6/10/82 7/01/8 2 11/82 SJ 6f 06/83 07/83 07/83 j
Catawba 1 0
5/05/82 7/09/82 8/06/82 9/10/82 10/05/82 9/12/82 9/30/82 02/83 07/83 08/83 08/83 l-8ellefonte 1 0
11/22/82-2/11/83 3/10/83 4/15/83 5/20/83 5/21/83-6/24/83 None None 09/83 09/83 River 8end 1 0
7/05/82 9/ 04/82 10/04/82 11/05/82 12/05/82 11/08/82 11/29/82 04/83 09/83 10/83 04/85 9f Seabrook'1 0
5/05/82 8/07/82 9/07/82 10/08/82 10/05/82 10/10/82 10/30/82 03/83 SJ 10/83 11/83 11/83-i.
Palo Verde 2 0
C C
C C
C 9/ 01/8 3 10/01/83
,* 04/82 10/82 11/83 11/83 Comanche Peak 2 0 C
C.
C C
C 10/01/83 11/01/83 C
09/82 12/83 12/84 Midland.1 J
.C 4/06/82 5/06/82 '6/06/82 7/05/82 10/01/83 11/01/83 11/82 6/
06/83 12/83 12/83 Sub-Total 0
- Indicates changes from last report i
i 9
.,n
7__._
s.
DIVISION OF LICENSING 3/15/'H2~~
TABLE 1 Licensing Schedules for All ren'dtsg OL Aprilcations (Page 3 of 4)
(Includes Schedules for Additional Units with Projected Construct.lon Compleon in CY 1982-1983)
(Listed in Order of Projected Commission Decision Date)
! SER Est Staff Staff ASL8 Conn, 1/ Appl.
Delay issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue
' Technical issue 7/ Start of Initial Dec. - Constr.
Plant (Months)
DES Input to DL SER Mtg FES Input to DL SSER Hearing,
Decision Date
_Cogp_1.
- 50. Texas 1 0
04/83 06/83 07/83 08/83 09/83 08/83 08/83 01/84 06/84 07/84 07/84-Limerick 1 0
05/83 07/83 08/83 09/83 10/83 10/83 10/83 04/84 10/84 10/84 10/84 Harris 1 0
10/82 06/83 07/83 08/83 03/83 12/83 01/84 06/84 11/84 12/84 12/84 Braidwood 1 0-01/ 84 11/83 12/83 01/84 06/84 04/84 05/84 10/84 03/85 04/85 01/85 Sub-Total 0
Total Delay 2
L-
t (Page 4 of 4)
TABLE 1 FOOTNOTES
-'l /
Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional potential delay from Emergency Preparedness Review. Commission decision dates shown are for full power, however, initial licensing may proceed (restricting power to 5% of rated full power) based on preliminary design verification by the applicant and staff.
-2/
The decision date shown is the date that NRC will be prepared to decide on whether to issue an operating license for LaSalle Unit 1 which will authorize fuel loading ai.
operation up to 5% power.
A Commission decision regarding operation above 5% power will be,'ade on a schedule commensurate with the applicant's need for full-power authorization.
--3/
The estimated delay of this plant reflects the earliest possible date for the issuance of an operating license restricted to 5% power in the event of a favorable ASLB decision.
4/
The delay has been reduced to zero based on the delay due to design errors found at the facility.
--5/
Heavily contested plants reflect 13-month hearing schedule (vs 11 months) from SSER to Commission decision date.
Commissioner Ahearne remains convinced this schedule is too optimistic.
6/
Midland Units 1 and 2 have the same hearing.
-7/ Date shown is for first SSER following ACRS meeting.
Additional SSER will be issued to close out renaining open items.
Currently no impact on subsequent milestones.
8/ The ACRS has requested that a subcommittee review Quality Assurance issues with regard to construction.
9/ Date was recently revised.
The NRC staff is reevaluating the SER dates.
---10/ Because of the number of contentions in this case involving energency preparedness issues, the schedule for issuance of an ASLB initial decision is heavily dependent on timely completion of state and local plans a'nd FEMA review.
4
---11/ On February 16, 1982, an operating license restricted to 5% power was issued. There is no projected delay for full-power authorization.
12/ SER will omit geology-related matters which will be addressed in a June 82 supplement.
~
s TABLE 2 LICENSING SCHEDULES
-DIVISION OF LICENSING,3/15/82~
FOR PENDING CUETifUCTIUK7ERMIT APPLICATIONS
'~~
SElt SSER (TM1 Issues)
SSER (Non-TM1 Issues)
ASLB Commission
. Staff Technical Issue ACRS Start of 4/ Initial Decision Issue issue Issue Staff fechnical Issue Plant DES-FES SER In?st to DL SSER Input to DL SSER Meeting Hearing ~ Decision Date FMP 1-8 C
C C
C C
C C
C C
5/82 8/82 4
Allens Creek 1 C
C C
C C
C C
C C
8/82 11/82 Black Fox 1 & 2 6/
C C
C C
C C
C N/S 8/82 1/83 4/83 Skagit/Hanford I & 2 3/82 1/ 8/82 1/
C C
C 4/82 6/82 1/82 6/82 4/83 7/83-Pebble Springs 1 & 2 C
C C
N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S 4/82 3/
N/S 3/
N/S 3/
Perkins 1. 2, 3 2/
'C C
C N/S N/S N/S N/$
N/S N/S N/S N/S Clinch River C
C jf 3/83 6/83 7/83 6/83
'7/83 5/83 8/82 5/
5/84 6/84 If Facility is to be relocated to the Hanford reservation. Amended ER and PSAR was flied in December 1981.
j[f On March 2,1982. the utility requested cancellation of their application without prejudice.
3/ ~ The date shown is for hearings on alternative sites. The applicant has recently (1/29/82) submitted information on TMI-related issues.
The NRC is currently developing the review schedule for this facility.
4/ Dates shown are for resumption of hearings following resumption of licensing activities for pending CP applications.
~~5/ Date shown is for commencement of evidentiary hearings on issuance of limited work authorization, per Board Order of February 11, 1982.
Board anticipates filing of formal objections to tha't Order, and may endify schedule if such objections are sustained.
~
6/ On February 16, 1982 Public Service of Oklahoma announced the cancellation of Black Fox Units'1 and 2.
~~7/ A report addressing the environmental impact of the changes that have occurred since the FES was issued is scheduled to he issued in June 1982.
4
-r-
,g
,._