ML20150A611
| ML20150A611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1978 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Boyd R, Mattison R, Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7809070143 | |
| Download: ML20150A611 (4) | |
Text
._
^
ENCLOSURE 1 pa %g'o, s
UNITED STATES
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
h
,c WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 4
g,.....f AUG 151978 tocket Nos. STN 60-592 and STN 60-S93 pagt BRIGINA MEMORANbuM FOR:
Roger S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project Mdndgealeilt Roger J. Mattson, Director, Division of Systeias Safety Daniel R. Muller, Acting Director, Uivision of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis V. Stello, Director, Division of Operating Reactors FROM:
Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SUBJ ECT:
REVIEW SCHEDULE FOR PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 4 AND 5 fia purpose of this memorandum is to establish the schedule and scope
' of '.he construction permit review for Palo Verde Units 4 and S.
To the exttnt practical, considering the status of the application, the guide-lines of NUREG-0292, " Nuclear Power Plant Licensing: Opportunities for Improvement," June 1977, should be itaplemented.
In particular, Recom-mendation No. 5 will be implemented to develop an early Safety Evaluation Report which would be issued within six months of the start of our review.
We intend to start our plant safety review on Septeraber 15,1978, and our review of site-reldted safety matters on October 4,1978, with the objective of issuing the Safety Evaluatich, Report on or preferably before March 9,1979.
We will eliminate the rounds of fortaal questions and perform the review on the basis of the applicant's responses to staff positions and questions that were developed during our qualification review of Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3 as the base plant for Units 4 and 5.
The applicant has made a partial response to the qualification review items in Amendment 17 to the PSAR'for Units 1, 2, and 3 which is incor-porated into the PSAR for Units 4 and S.
The applicant intends to couplete its responses on plant safety matters in Amendment 13 to the PSAR on Units 1, 2, and 3, and on site-related safety matters in Amend-ment 1 to the PSAR on Units 4 and 5.
These amendments are scheduled to be submitted by September 1,1978, and October 1,1978, respectively.
9 5 0 9670LY3 79%910)/99
J' hultipleAddressees AUG 15197$
i We expect the NRC staff to prepare its positions following the review of the amendments to the extent it is practical to do so.
Where this is not practical because of incomplete or inappropriate information in the applicant's submittals, the Licensing Project Manager will arrange meetings with the applicant to clarify our positions and to define the additional information needed by the staff. We.do not expect to issue formal requests for additional information; however, these requets will be identified in the reports of such meetings.
It may be necessary for the applicant to submit additional amendments following the meetings with the staff.
When able to take positions on all outstanding matters, we will then issue the Safety Evaluation Report.
Differences, if any, remaining between the NRC staff and the applicant will be identified in the Safety Evaluation Report.
We will continue to attempt to resolve these differences prior to the ACRS meeting and thereafter. Any differ-ences that can be resolved will be reported in the DMt-A'.RS Supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report. The remaining unt eso' <ed differences will be resolved in the construction permit hearing.
Some of the review meetings between the staff and the applicant will be conducted at a location near the plant site.
Intervenors and parties who have indicated an interest in the proceedings will be invited to these meetings, as well as all meetings conducted in Bethesda. This will be done in accordance with Recommendation No. 6 of NUREG-0292 which calls for the staff to arrange for increased public participation.
You are requested to assign reviewers and to identify the impact of these assignments on other plant reviews.
These reviewers are to be dedicated to the review of Palo Verde Units 4 and 5 in the sense that no other work assignments should interfere with their review of Palo Verde Units 4 and 5.
,7 The following major steps should be followed in accomplishing the review:
(1)
Branch Chiefs will designate the reviewers and instruct the reviewer that this project has priority over any other work assignments.
The Branch Chiefs will instruct the reviewers that the scope of the review, consistent with the replication option of the Connission's standardization policy, is to be limited to the matters identified in the qualification review and other applicable Category 2, 3, and 4 matters approved since that review.
(2)
Branch Chiefs will determine what impact this assignment is likely to have on any other work assignments.
The impact will be assessed not only for the assigned reviewer but also for the Section Leader, Branch Chief, and Assistant Director to whatever extent these persons must become involved in the review process.
(3)
The plant safety review will begin on September 15, 1978, and the review of site-releed matters on October 4,1978.
The assigned staff will work full time to develop positions on the matters
.l
y
'~
- ~,
' Multiple Addressees '
AUG 151978' raised in the qualification review.
Staff positions will be developed and sent to the Licensing Project Manager as quickly as these positions can be developed in eacn review area.
-~
(4)
The Licensing Project Manager will arrange meetings with the appli-Cdnt to discuss and Clarify our positions and to inforn the appli-i cant of the additional information we will need to reach positions where the information provided to date is inadequate for this pur-pose.
The applicant will be expected to respond to these requests dnd to Our positions dt these meetings dnd to provide foriltal docu-mentation in additional amendments.
(S)
The reviewers will develop input to the Safety Esaluation Report in each review area as soon es positions can be developed on the basis of the meetings. Any differances between the staff and the applicant that reinain after the staff is able to take a position 7
on each review matter will be addressed in the Safety Evaluation Report.
The dedicated reviewers will attempt to resolve these differences so that such resolution can be reported in the post-ACRS supplement but, if necessary, they will be carried forward for ultinate resolution at the public hearing.
(6)
The review should focus on the items listed in cur December 12, 1977 letter to the applicant which reported the results of our qualification review.
In addition, June 30, 1978, is established ds the cutoff date for RRRC Category 2 and 3 natters. A copy of the December letter and a list of the Category 2 and 3 matters that should be added to those in the December letter will be distributed to the assigned reviewers by the Licensing Project Manager. DSS will review NRR Category 4 aatters that have been approved since issuance of the December letter.pnd identify to the LPN which of these must be added to those list %d in the December letter.
This information should be provided to the LPM as soon as possible so the.t the applicant can be informed of our additional requirements.
(7)
The review need not address subjects common to the CESSAR System 80 design.
The applicant will be required to cornait to accepting i
the resolution that will be agreed to between the staff and Combustion l
' Engineering on the CESSAR docket for applicaole RRRC Category 2 l
and 3 and NRR Category 4 matters.
(8)
The input to tN Safety Evaluation Report should not repeat any information already contained in the report and its supplements for the base plant.
Instead, the input shoula reflect our evalua-tion of the qualification review items and otner items, as necessary, to update information in the case plant report.
(9)
The objective is to complete the review sc that the Safety Evaluation Report can be issued by March 9,1979.
To achieve this objective,
vm.
)
hultiple Addressees
'4-
' ~ NJG f 51975 the input to the Safety Evaluation Report must be given.to the Licens',ng Project Menager no later than January 15, 1979.
It is imperative that staff posi:ioas be developed as expeditiously as possible in each technical review area and sent to the Licensing Project Marager in order to avoid a pileup toward the end of the review process.
This will allow all parties to expeditiously re' solve the positions.
Two milestones in the review will be designated:
(1) the deadline of January 15,1979, for input to the Safety Evaluation Report and (2) the deadline date of March 9,1979, for issuance of tne Safety Evaluation Raport.
No intermediate milestonas will be designated because all a:tivities are to be accomplished on an expedited basis to make it possible for us to meet these two milestones.
Progress in the review will be assessed by the Licensing Project Manager 2 1212 who will then alert management if any anticipated or perceived delays threaten the deadline dates, Tne review of environmental natters should be conducted on a schedule i
consistent with the schedule established for the safety review.
1 l
/c Harold. R. Denton, Director Office of I4uclear Reactor Regulation cc:
E. Case J. Collins D. Vassallo W. Kreger D. Skovholt J. Stepp W. Gannill L. Hulman P. Collins
- 7. Moore R. Houston W. J.egan l
W. Haass R. Gilbert l
L. Gittleman F. Schroeder C. Heltemes R DeYoung l
J. Stolz J, Angelo l
J. Knight R. Clark D. Ross J. Reece R. Tedesco J. Miiler R. Bosnak M. Grassman S. Pawlicki S. Schinki I. Sibweil R. Satterfield T. Novak G. Chipman K. Kniel F. Rasa Z. Rosztoczy R. Vollmer V. Benaroya R. Denise W. Butler J. Fouchard l
F. Ingram 1
.._..._._........_.._.._u..-_.,.,......-_
-.... _... _, _ _ _ _. _....... _. - _. _.