ML20126G597

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards OL Review Mgt Rept for Sept 1984 Re Util Intentions to Use Water from Delaware River to Suppl Condenser Cooling Evaporative Loss When Schuylkill River Unavailable
ML20126G597
Person / Time
Site: Limerick  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/01/1984
From: Eisenhut D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20126G559 List:
References
FOIA-85-103 NUDOCS 8506180112
Download: ML20126G597 (2)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. , 9 UNITED STATES f 4 g', g(>g f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 O -{YQg iE 3 . ,,, . # November 1, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Regional Administrators Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Director, Office of the Executive Legal Director Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NRR Division Directors FROM: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

OL REVIEW MANAGEMENT REPORT Enclosed is the OL Review Management Report for the month of September 1984. For the most part, the information in this report reflects the status of the subject plants as of mid-October 1984. All the inputs for this report were reviewed by the applicable DL Project Manager. Therefore, if warranted and the information were readily available, some portions of the report were updated beyond the mid-October 1984 cutoff date. The Callaway report has been deleted because a full power license was issued on October 18, 1984. Pleaseprovideyourr$ckupofthisreporttomebyCOBNovember 15, 1984, the cutoff date for the r. ext report. g . 172 4 arrell G.Clise hu d irector Division of Licensing M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation k

Enclosure:

As stated cc: H. Denton T. Novak Licensing Branches #1-4 kog61pg2850401 SUGARNA85-103 PDR

. o, Licensing Status of Limerick IDVP Review The applicant's letter of May 8,1984 submitted.a program plan for the IDVP. The staff and the applicant met on May 9, to discuss the plan. The staff's letter of May 15, 1984 stated that the staff finds the program plan acceptable subject to certain p'rogrammatic modifications. Revision A of the Program Plan was submitted by the applicant's letter of June 6, 1984. A letter of acceptance of Revision A has been issued. Subsequently, on August 8-9, 1984, the staff The communicated problems it had with the depth of the review being performed. IDVP performer, Torrey Pines Technology, agreed to changes to meet the staff's concerns. The staff issuance of an SSER on the results of the IDVP is not expected to be completed before fuel loading, since the final IOVP repsrt is not expected to be issued by Torrey Pines until October 19, 1984 By letter dated September 12, 1984, the staff requested PECO and Torrey Pines each to submit their independent assessment as to whether the findings identified to date, either individually or in aggregate, should delay granting of the low-power operating license. Torrey Pines, by letter dated September 21, 1984, and PECO, by letter dated September 25, 1984, both concluded that fuel loading and ascent to 5% power should not be delayed. On September 25 and 26, 1984, the staff reviewed the findings identified to date and made a similar finding that the low power operating license should be granted. Review of Torrey Pines' final report and implementation of all associated corrective action plans is expected before granting a full power operating license. OI Investigations Presently there is one 01 investigation involving the Limerick facility. Other Potential Problems PEco intends to use water from the Delaware River for make-up for condenser cooling evaporative loss when the Schuylkill River is not available based on flow and/or temperature restrictions. Power production would be possible only part of the year without the supplemental water. Construction of the Point Pleasant Station by the local water resource authority, which would divert Delaware River water for several uses, including Limerick, has been delayed by opposition of local county officials. The work will not be completed until well into 1985. Resolution of this issue involves the two affected counties, Local Water Rescurces Commission, as well as the applicant and other govern-

  • mental agencies.

l l 

                                                                                              \

l - 

   /pn ataqk UNITED STATES

[ T , . , *( j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

                                                                             'd g.-        -C                          WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k     .O j

June 20,198f MEMORANDUM FOR: Regional Administrators Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement Director, Office of the Executive Legal Director Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NRR Division Directors FROM: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing, NRR

SUBJECT:

OL REVIEW MANAGEMENT REPORT In a memorandum dated February 13, 1984, Harold R. Denton described the monthly report on licensing status to be issued by the Division of Licensing, NRR. This report was to cover plants within six months of the staff's estimate of ( the plant's construction completion date (CCD). Over the last two to three months the staff has also developed, in narrative form, detailed licensing status reports for each plant within 12 months of the applicant's CCD. Since the purpose of these documents is similar, we have decided to combine them into a single report which will continue to be issued on a monthly basis. Enclosure 2 is the first of such repor~ts. Enclosure 1 provides some additional guidance concerning the distribution and updating of this report. In its final form the report for each plant will consist of the following four parts:

1) a narrative sumary of licensing status;  !
2) a table of open FSAR issues;
3) a table of open allegations; and
4) an integrated schedule of NRC activities to be completed before ,

licensing. l This first report does not contain each of the four parts listed above. In particular, you will find that there are no integrated schedules and few l allegation tables. A draft table of allegations has been included for Catawba l as an example of what we expect to develop for these plants in the near ' future. The integrated schedules for Waterford, Comanche Peak, Fermi 1, Wolf Creek, Diablo Canyon 1/2, Byron 1, and Limerick 1 are being developed in accordance with the ED0's memorandum of May 25, 1984. When finalized and approved, l these schedules will become part of this monthly report. The plans for developing schedules on the remaining plants are under review. i g+ na VJ \

1 I believe this report will provide the broadest exposure of NRC issues to be solved prior to licensing and assure appropriate management attention consistent with meeting schedular commitments. k - . s I l[fLG)' arrell G4.,Eisenh t, Director 

                                                     ,  Division of Licensing f            Office of Nuclear Reactor' Regulation b

Enclosure:

As stated 4 l a 

                                                                                                  ~ _ .-,-- . - . ..

v- - - - - - _ _ , , , - - , - , , - - . - - , , , , -r -.r ,v- 

   .j:

Licensing Status of Lim; rick OI Investigations Presently there are no OI investigations involving the Limerick facility. Other Potential Problems PEco intends to use water from the Delaware River for make up for condenser cooling evaporative loss when the Schuylkill River is not available based on flow and/or temperature restrictions. Power production would be possible only part of the year without the supplemental water. Construction of the Point Pleasant Station by the local water resource authority, which would divert Delaware River water for several uses, including Limerick, has been delayed by opposition of local county officials. It is possible that the work will not be completed until-early 1985, if at all. Last fall the Public Utility Commission ruled that Delaware River Diversion will be limited to 10 million GPD until an analysis using actual data is performed which shows that there are no unacceptable environmental effects. Limerick 1 could require up to 23 million GPD, depending on power levels and the availability of Schuylkill River water. Resolution of this issue involves the two affected counties, Local Water Resources Commission, as well as the applicant and other governmental agencies. Alternative arrangements for supplemental cooling can be pursued by the applicant independent of the Point Pleasant project. I _ _ _ . . _ , _ _ , , . , . - _ , - . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20126G597&oldid=3468330"