ML20058C281
| ML20058C281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop, Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1990 |
| From: | Mendonca M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-77590, NUDOCS 9011010132 | |
| Download: ML20058C281 (21) | |
Text
s October 26, 1990
, Mr. Reis indicated th6t the hearing had been put in abeyance and that the NRC staff would need to address the requirements for additional hearing notifications.
Furthtr, although there were some precedents, the exact conduct of a hearing i
process on Units I and 3, or regulatory action after the hearing process, still needed to be resolved.
An item of special interest to the Supply System was the review on Unit 3 seismic issues, which the NRC staff indicated was currently in progress and appeared to be on schedule.
Mr. Miraglia indicated that he appreciated the early dialogue on the restart of the licensing and hearing processes, that he agreed that a continuing dialogue should be established. The next step is to outline the issues that need to be addressed by the Supply System and milestones to proceed on this effort.
The Supply System asked for clarification on Project Management assignnent and Mr. Crutchfield confirmed that Mr. Mendonca of the Non-Power Reactors, Deconsnis-sioning, and Environnental Project Directorate should be the contact while Mr. Adams is on temporary rotational assignment.
Dr. Murley asked if the Supply System had seen the "Crutchfielo" report on NRC's-capability to process CP and operating license reviws, and they indicated they had.
The meeting adjourned at about 11:00 a.m.
Original signed by:
Marvin M. Mendonca, Senior Project Manager Non-Power Reactor, Decommissioning and Environnental Project Directorate 9o11010132 901026 Division of Reactor Projects - III, PDR ADOCK 05000460:
IV, Y and Special Projects g
PNV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/cnclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION teocaat711es2(60-460/60-508)3 MMendonca TMurley FMiraglia NRC or Local PDRs OGC JPartlow DCrutchfield PDNP r/f EJorden DCrutchfield MVirgilio 3
ACRS(10)'
MSlosson SWeiss RDudley WTravers
,) y a.
Plant file PEng JBradfute i
EHylton AAdams EReis AHodgdon gN
)
[MMMEETING
SUMMARY
]
$u G w iM
- See previous concurrences:PDNP:PM* ge PDNP:LA*gh*M' PDNP:PM*
PD R\\ g EHylton MMendonca:dmj AAdams
.SWeiss 10/25/90 vt 10/25/90 10/25/90 10/f/90
[,m i
i'
['
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES W ASHING T ON, D. C. 20$$$
(.....,/
October 26, 1990 Docket Nos. 50-460 and 50-508 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT HOLDER: WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM i
FACILITIES: WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 3
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
- POTENTIAL RESTART ON LICENSING AND HEARING PROCESSES FOR WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 3 (TAC NOS.
77590AND77573,RESPECTIVELY)
This meeting was held at the request of the Washington Public Power Supply System (the Supply System) to discuss the potential restart of licensing and hearing efforts on Washington Nuclear Project (WNP) Units 1 and/or 3.
The meeting was convened at approximately 9:00 a.m. on October 18, 1990. Meeting participants are listed in Enclosure 1.
Mr. Bouchey opened with some introductory remarks.
He indicated that the Supply System planned to go through the status of the WNP Units 1 and 3, and to establish a dialogue for potential restart of hearing and licensing activities. This dialogue was precipitated by potential power needs in the Northwest Power Planning Council's Regional Plan, and the Council's reouest for Bonneville Power Authority and the Supply System to assess the actions that l'
would be needed to reduce the uncertainties related to WNP Units 1 or 3 including those involved in the licensing and hearing processes. Mr. Bouchey emphasized that no decisions had been made concerning the future of the WNP Units 1 or 3, that the Supply System was not very far in their study of the effort, and that this represented a departure from previous licensing actions.
Mr. Miraglia indicated that although the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) staff has evaluated restart of deferred plants, the potential restart of licensing and he6 ring processes was also new for the NRC. Mr. Miraglia indicated that he understood that the Supply System had a tracking system for comitments i
and requirements so that all activities to complete licensing were available or understood by the Supply System. Mr. Bouchey confirmed this understanding.
The meeting w)as then turned over to Mr. Sorensen who presented a set of handouts (Enclosure 2 that he used in his discussion. This meeting summary will not repeat the information in the handouts, but will only sumarize major points of regulatory interest that were elaborated on in the related ciscussions.
l Mr. Sorensen emphasized that the Supply System wanted to establish a dialogue and a basis for future discussions on the restart of licensing and hearing activities.
In his discussion of the status of the units, Mr. Sorensen indicated that in early 1991 the Supp)ly System planned to raake a request for extension of theConstructionPermit(CP on Unit 1 to match the-CP expiration date of July 1, 1999 on Unit 3.
In response to a question by Mr. Partlow, the Supply System indicated that they did not believe that Units 1 or 3 had been the subject of a NRC Construction Appraisal Team inspection, but th6t they had undergone an independent review process on concrete work that included NRC staff oversight.
)
2 The Supply System irdicatto that sower supply prioritizations by tb Northwest Power Planning Council wcs such t1at Units 1 and 3 were not deemed needed unless power demer.ds reached the mid to high range of estimated demands.
However, the Supply System also indicated that tae power planning process was a complicated issue, in that the needs for the future were not certain, and many factors can change supaly or demand figures. For example, the hydro power supply figures could quickly ch6nge to accomodate proposed water diversion to protect poten-i tially threatened or endangered fish species.
The Supply System did feel that Units I and 3 provided a financially competitive power su ply and were an option that the Council would consicer. Also in the financia orea, the Supply System felt th6t through debt restructuring by issuance of new bonds, they hao cemonstrated financial capability and they had removed that as an uncertainty.
Further, the Supply System indicated that if 4
the licensing and heoring processes were in a st6te that provided a relatively well defined set of requirments for the units, a construction cuntractor could more readily be induced to take on the project.
In response tc a question by Mr. Adams, Mr. Burn indicated that the Supply System estimated the construction time required to cor.iplete either unit as about five years. The Supply Systm indicated that they were confident in their design and construction preservation programs to facilitate restart of construc-tion, if that decision were made. This confidence was based on:
(1)these ef forts were audited by an independent group and (2) the equipment status and j
activities to complete construction were readily availeble as demonstrated in a recent effort to assess the potential for using the Unit 3 ger:erator as a synchronous cendenser for the grid.
Further, in response to questions, the Supaly System indicated that they found they had the expertise and continuity, botl in licensing and (ngineering, on the subject units and were confident that they had the staf f to restart the licensing and hearing processes.
Mr. Crutchfield incicated that the Supply System would have to consider the various Bulletins, Generic Letters and other regulatory changes since deferral, l
and the Supply System recognized this point. Mr. Partlow inoicated that the Supply Systun would have to respond to changes in regulatory requirments not only since deferral of the units but also throughout the licensing and hearing processes. The Supply System indicated that they also recognized this uncer-tainty. Mr. Mendonca indicated that the deferred plant policy statement provided scee guidance on the restart process, and the Supply System indicated they were intimately f amiliar with the policy statement and recognized that they were considering ceviation from that policy statement in regard to their desire not l
to start construction in conjunction with the licensing and hearing processes.
The Supply System also indicated that they did not plan to try to use the 10 CTR Part 52, standardized plant design licensing process for Units 1 or 3.
Hr. Crutchfield indicated the need for an Emergency Preparedness exercise within two years of licensing could provide further uncertainties or even hearing contentions. The Supply System recognized this possibility.
- Terther, Mr. Crutchfield asked for the Supply System's position on hearing contentions that would have to be addressed and they indiccted that their position was that only the previcusly admitted contentions should be addressed.
+
.,.e i.,-.wi-%wyy-
]
, Mr. Reis it.dicated that the hearing had been put in abeyance and that the NRC steff would need to address the requirements for additional hearing notifications.
l Further, although there were some precedents, the eFact Conduct of a hearing process on Units 1 and 3, or regulatory action aftee the hearing process, still needed to be resolved.
An item of special interest to the Supply System was the review on Unit 3 seismic issues, which the NRC staff indicated was currently in progress and appeared to be on schedule, Mr. Miraglia indicated that he appreciated the early dialogue on the restart of the licensing and hearing processes, that he agreed that a continuing dialogue should be establisaed. The next step is to outline the issues that 4
need to be addressed by the Supply System and milestones to proceed on this effort. The Supply System acknowledged these statements and indicated thut they would continue to contact their Project Manager for WNP 1 and 3 to proceed with this effort.
1 The Supply System askea for clarification on Project Management assignnent and Mr. Crutchfield conitrmed that Mr. Mendonca of the Non-Power Reactors, Decommis-sioning, and Environrental Project Directorate should be the contact while Mr. Ad6ms is on temporary rotaticnal assignment.
Dr. Murley asked if the Supply System hcd seen the *Crutchfield" report on NRC's I
cdpability to process CP snd operating license reviews, and they indicated they had.
The meeting adjourned at about 11:00 a.m.
7 yh N
l Marvin M. Mendonca, Senior Project Manager Non-Power Rebctor, Decomissioning and Environnental Project Director 6te Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
l As stated 1
cc w/ enclosures:
See next page n
e
- e
-n.-
,.n,-.--
e
,.r--
Mr. D. W. Mazur WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1 Washington Public Power Supply System (WNP-1)DocketNo.STN50-460 cc:
Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division 1700 Rockville Pike Suite 525 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Bishop. Cook, Purcell & Reynolds Law Offices 1400 L. Street, N.W.
Washington,D.C. 20005-3502 4
G. E. Doupe, Esq.
Washington Public Power Supply System 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. Curtis Eschels, Chairman Energy' Facility Site Evaluation Council Mail Stop PY-11 Olympia, Washington 98505 Mr. Richard Latorre Regulatory Programs Washington Public Power Supply
+
l System P. O. Box 968 l
Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. William Ang Region Inspector /WPPSS 3/5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane - Suite 210 i
Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mr. Eugene Rosolie Director Coalition for Safe Power 408 Southwest Second Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Mr. G. C. Sorensen, Manager i
l Regulatory Programs l
Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968
?
Richland, Washington 99352 i
i
Mr. D. W. Mazur WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3 Washington Public Power Supply System (WNP-3)DocketNo.50508 t
cc:
I Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager Mr. William Ang Washington Nuclear Operations Region Inspector /WPPSS 3/5 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 1450 Maria Lene - Suite 210 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Walnut Creek, California 94596 l
L Nicholas S. Reynolds. Esq.
Mr. Eugene Rosolie Director Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds Coalition for Safe Power 1400 L Street, N.W.
408 Southwest Second Avenue Washington, D.C.
20005-3502 Portland, Oregon 97204 G. E. Doupe, Esq.
Mr. G. C. Sorenson, Manager Washington Public Power Supply System Regulatory Programs 3000 George Washington Way Washington Public Power Supply i
Richland, Washington 99352 System P. O. Box 968 Hr. Curtis Eschels, Chairman Richland, Washington 99352 Energy f acility Site Evaluation Council Mail Stop PY-11 Regional Administrator, Region V Olympia, Washington 98505 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Mr. Richard Latorre Suite 210 l
Regulatory Programs Walnut Creek, California 94596 Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 l
t
,e
~
. ~ _
?
l i
ENCLOSURE 1 MEETING PARTICIPANTS ON POTENTIAL RESTART OF LICENSING AND HEARING PROCESSES FOR WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT UNITS 1 AND 3 NAME ORGANIZATION
)
NRC PARTICIPANTS T. Murley NRR/DONRR F. Miraglia NRR/DONRR J. Partlow NRR/ADPR D. Crutchfield NRR/DRSP M. Virgilio NRR/ADR45 S. Weiss NRR/PDNP R. Dudley NRR/DRSP M. Mendonca NRR/PDNP A. Adams NRR/PDNP P. Eng NRR/PD-5 J. Bradfute NRR/PD-5 E. Reis OGC A. Hodgdon 0GC SUPPLY SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED PARTICIPANTS G. Bouchey WPPSS J. Burn WPPSS G. Sorensen WPPSS M. Philips Winston & Strawn Attorney N. Reynolds Winston & Strawn Attorney C. Brinkman Combustion Engineering R. Borsum Babcock and Wilcox PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS L. Blumenthal McClatchy Newspapers S. Sommer Associated Press I
e r
m
,..-.,.m--._.~--
J.
tuctosune 2 l
AGENDA NRC/ SUPPLY SYSTEM WNP-1/3 LICENSING OCTOBER 18,1990
\\
= PURPOSE
= BACKGROUND - WNP-1 AND WNP-3 l
l
= ISSUES CAUSING DEFERRAL l
(
a CURRENT STATUS OF DEFERRAL ISSUES
= PLANNih G CONSIDERATIONS
= PROPOSED ACTIONS l
l h
PURPOSE OF MEETING
=
UPDATE STAFF ON WNP-1/3 STATUS AND REGIONAL POWER NEEDS
=
DISCUSS POSSIBLE ROLE OF WNP-1/3 IN MEETING NEEDS
=
ADDRESS NECESSARY ACTIONS PRIOR TO DECISIONS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION RESTART OF WNP-1/3 PURSUE POSSIBILITY OF LICENSING a
REVIEW PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION RESTART
= OBTAIN NRC AGREEMENT TO ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE
=
LAY GROUNDWORK FOR SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS
BACKGROUND-WNP-1 AE - UNITED ENGINEERS -AND m
CONSTRUCTORS B & W 205 FA
=
CP ISSUED - 12/75 CP EXPIRATION - 0 6/01/91
=
OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATION
=
FILED - 11/81
=
DOCKETED - 07/82
=
CONSTRUCTION DEFERRED - 04/29/82
=
=
STATUS
=
CONSTRUCTION 63% COMPLETE DESIGN 85% COMPLETE e
STATUS OF OPERATING LICENSE REVIEW I
i WNP-1
=
APPLICATION FILED - 11/81 APPLICATION DOCKETED - 07/82 e
1 5 FSAR AMENDMENTS FILED a
I RESPONSE TO ACCEPTANCE REVIEW m
QUESTIONS ADDRESS CONFORMANCE TO SRP
=
FEDERAL REGISTER-NOTICE
=
a OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING - 08/16/82 ASLB ORDER - 10/14/83 m
1 ADMITTED CONTENTIONS
=
PLACED PROCEEDING IN ABEYANCE
=
l l
/D
.I BACKGROUND j
WNP-3 AE - EBASCO SERVICES
=
- s. CE SYSTEM 80
-CESSAR REFERENCE PLANT 3
CP ISSUED - 04/78 i
=
CP EXPIRATION - 07/01/99 l
=
OPERATING LICENSE' APPLICATION
=
FILED - 06/82:
=
DOCKETED - 08/82
=
l CONSTRUCTION DEFERRED - 07/08/83 j
=
STATUS
=
CONSTRUCTION 76% COMPLETE
=
DESIGN-90% COMPLETE i
=
i
I 1
STATUS OF OPERATING LICENSE REVIEW 4
WNP-3
-ii i
APPLICATION FILED - 06/82 I
=
APPLICATION DOCKETED - 08/82
=
7 FSAR ~ AMENDMENTS FILED e
4
=
RESPONSE TO' ACCEPTANCE REVIEW OUESTIONS
= - ADDRESS CESSAR-AMENDMENTS-1 !
=
ADDRESS CONFORMANCE TO SRP-t DRAFT EIS ISSUED - 01/13/84
=
4 DRAFT SER ISSUED - 11/19/8 5 I
=
i FINAL EIS ISSUED - 05/13/85 1
=
i l
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
=
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING - 09/15/82 ASLB PREHEARING CONFERENCE - 08/17/83-
=
ASLB ORDER - 09/27/83-
=
=
ADMITTED CONTENTIONS ~
PLACED PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE
=
3
o ISSUES CAUSING: DEFERRAL NEED FOR POWER-
=
=
N. W. LOAD GROWTH DROPPED SHARPLY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
=
ALUMINUM INDUSTRY
=
CONSERVATION l
=
=
SLOW GROWTH IN'PUBLIC SECTOR i
FINANCING
=
u
=
DEFAULT ON WNP-4/5 BONDS
=
LARGE REMAINING CbSTS FOR WNP-1, 2, 3 LEGAL
=
L
=
DEFAULT RAISED ISSUE OF!
a SEPAR ATION' OF-FUNDS
=
BONDHOLDER SUIT-
... =.
=....
CURRENT STATUS OF DEFERRAL ISSUES FINANCING
=
SINCE 09/89' $2.4 BILLION
=
OUTSTANDING BONDS REFINANCED-FINAL SALE $600 MILLION
=
BYTEND OF CY 90 TOTAL SAVINGS TO REGION m
$1 BILLION
=
COST OF CAPITAL REDUCED FROM
- 10% TO
- 7.25%
il LEGAL
=
=
COURTS-REAFFIRMED SEPARATION
[
OF PROJECT FUNDS
=
SETTLEMENT OF BONDHOLDER SUIT FROM WNP-4/5 DEFAULT-n L
4 i
[
a 4,.-.. - _..,, -,
,--..,,-.....~._.--,---,,,.-...-..m.-.
...........~
.-6
4 CURRENT STATUS OF DEFERRAL ISSUES I
(CONTINUED)
NEED FOR POWER
=
NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING
=
COUNCIL UPDATING REGIONAL PLAN MULTIPLE LOAD GROWTH SCENARIOS
=
IDENTIFY ACHIEVABLE RESOURCES
=
TO MEET HIGH LOAD 14,000 MW - NEW RESOURCES OR CONSERVATION WNP-1 AND? WNP-3 PART OF
=
RESOURCE? STACK HIGH LOAD GROWTH IN PUGET SOUND
=
AREA-e CONTROL OF RIVER SYSTEM L
=
=
DECISIONS COULD RESULT IN, f
LOSS OF 1,000-6,000: AVERAGE MW L
e
~
cw e
e, -
.-we,e t-e.=...
-w
.-*-es,*
me.-
m
,se.-.-
e w
e<-
w
..-am
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS BPA POWER NEED - 1998 TO 2003 l
s 1
OPTIONS TO MEET"NEEDS INCLUDE:
l
=
CONSERVATION I
e GEOTHERMAL-L
=
=
WIND
= HYDRO
=
THERMAL WNP-1 AND WNP-3
=
REGIONAL ACTION PLAN
=
i BPA AND SS: REDUCE UNCERTAINTIES-a a
SHORTEN LEAD TIMES a
7 BEFORE DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION
=
RESTART, MUST REDUCE UNCERTAINTIES.
REGULATORY STABILITY m-LICENSABILITY
=
L-PROPOSED ACTIONS"TO: ACHIEVE STABILITY L
L I
=
AGREEMENToWITH. STAFF ON MAJOR ISSUES
=
COMPLETION OF HEARINGS AND STAFF REVIEW. PRIOR TO ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION i
l
=
BOARD DECISION
=
=
OPERATING LICENSE ASSURED UPON i
COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING-l.... -,:..
-,,...a.....
...=..:.-
t c
I t
POTENTIAL-COMMITMENT OF NRC RESOURCES r
l i
DEDICATED PM WITHEACCESS TO; e
TECHNICAL. STAFF-MEETING WITH. SUPPLY ^ SYSTEM TO i
a IDENTIFY MAJOR ISSUES PARTICIPATION lN OL REVIEWS
=
l l
PARTICIPATION IN OL HEARINGS
=
1 IF CONSTRUCTION RESTART, STAFF
=
REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING i
=. -..
ENCLOSURE 2 i
l l
- ADMITTED CONTENTIONS j
WNP-1 i
EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION RELEASES
=
1 L
EFFECTS OF VOLCANIC ERUPTION
=
ABILITY TO REMOVE DECAY' HEAT -
=
NATURAL CIRCULATION SENSITIVITY OF OTSG
=. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF SR EQUIPMENT EFFECT OF ASIATIC' CLAM
=
ECCS DOES NOT MEET APPENDIX K OR GDC 35-
=
FIRE PROTECTION - APPENDIX R
=
EDG'S-UNRELIABLE
=
=
SEISMIC CAPABILITY OF CLASS 1 EQUIPMENT L
EFFECT OF NEARBY INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
=
EMERGENCY-PL ANNING
=
l CONSTRUCTION IN CONFORMANCE' WITH CP
- =
i m
m 3
__te__ _ _,.., _ ___. _.,,
y%,
,y.-y mm,,,.,,
g._,.,
y_,,.
y
,,w.__q
1 1
l ADMITTED CONTENTIONS
}
WNP-3 EFFECT OF RADIOACTIVE-RELEA$ES?
a ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF
=
SR EQUIPMENT CESSAR DESIGN INADEQUACIES s
CORE COOLING INSTRUMENTATION s
l t
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS 1
a LACK OF MANAGEMENT'
=
RESPONSIBILITY - GDC 1
=
EFFECTIVENESS OF-QA/QC; PROGRAMS SEISMIC CAPABILITY
=
EFFECTS OF OPERATION ON'
=
AQUATIC BIOTA
~
....._..;...,...u_
. ~. -..