ML20198E939

Comments on Reasons for Delays in Hanford 2 BWR & Proposed Hanford 1 Pwr.Const Delays Beyond Control of AEC

ML20198E939
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia, Washington Public Power Supply System
Issue date:	11/01/1973
From:	Oleary J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Muntzing L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
CON-WNP-0920, CON-WNP-920 NUDOCS 8605280360
Download: ML20198E939 (3)

Text

. .

f*

/ hocVd h "1 p .k* UNITED S TATES EE

/- yd ~/ 5 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSICN

%{ %- j w u m oros o c. os e

' %n * / NOV 1 0 73 h- 0 L. Manning Muntzing, Director of Regulation HANFORD DELAY SITUATION The articles that you questioned all appeared in the Tri-City Herald and related to delays or potential delays for the Hanford No. 2 BWR and the proposed Hanford No.1 PWR. The articles seemed to randomly attribute delays in both nuclear projects to construction delays, to new AEC regulations and safety requirements, to increased time required for environmental impact studies, to steadily increasing quality assurance requirements, and to AEC regulations prohibiting construc-tion prior to the issuance of a construction permit.

We have examined the overall AEC review schedule for each of these two projects and provide first, the following comments relating to each of the aforementioned reported causes of delays, and second, our understanding of construction progress for Hanford No. 2.

I. Reported Reasons for Delays

1. Construction delays, as identified in the articles, are beyond the control of the AEC and utilities should include such factors into their overall construction schedule and should be prepared for such occurrences.

2. Although AEC regulations and safety requirements are con-stantly being refined and reevaluated, such changes have not resulted in significant delays for either of the Hanford projects,

a. Hanford No. 2 (BhR) was docketed with the AEC on August 19, 1971. A construction permit was issued on March 19, 1973, five weeks later than WPPSS's requested issuance date. During the review of Hanford No. 2 the AEC regulations relating to pre-CP site construction activities did become more restrictive. However, in order to prevent a delay in the construction and eventually the operation of Hanford No. 2, a construction exemption was issued to WPPSS on June 28, 1972. This exemption permitted WPPSS to essentially begin construction en the facility at that time.

1 8605280360 731101 PDR ADOCK 05000397 A PDR i

l

p /\'

, . 3 L. Manning Muntzing b. Hanford No.1 (PUR) was tendered with the AEC on July 16, 1973. The ER was found acceptable on August 7,1973, but the PSAR was found unacceptable on August 20, 1973. The application was resubmitted for a second acceptance review in early October 1973.

Our second acceptance review has been completed; the application has been found acceptable and was docketed on October 18, 1973. The guide to the preparation of PSAR's was first published by the AEC in February 1972.

As such, the applicant had sufficient advance notice of the requirements for PSAR in order to prepare an acceptable document.

3. The increased time required for environmental impact studies has not resulted from any new AEC requirements. A guide to the preparation of environmental reports was first published in August 1972 and revised in March 1973. As such, no new envircnmental requiremenes have been imposed on the applicant which would result in a significant delay to the overall projects.

4. Steadily increasing quality assurance requirements have been cited as reason for delay to the overall projects.

a. For Hanford No. 2 there were no major changes in quality assurance requirements prior to a CP that delayed the issuance of the CP. As such, quality assurance require-ments have not delayed construction of this facility.

b. Although our implementation of- quality assurance requirements has become more restrictive in the past few months, this changed approach has not resulted in a significant delay for the proposed Hanford No. 1 facility.

5. The referenced AEC "new" regulations prohibiting construction prior to the issuance of a CP were also cited as reason for delay of the Hanford projects.

a. Hanford No. 2 was given relief from our "new" regulations (published in March 1972) in the form of a construction exemption issued in June 1972. As such, this regulation did not delay the overall project. At the time of issuance of a CP, only about 20 percent of the work authorized by the exemption had been completed.

/ t

["

NOV 1 T3 L. Fanning Muntzing b. 'Ihe Hanford No.1 application was found acceptable and doca ted on October 18, 1973. Since the "new" regulations referred to were published in March 1972, the applicant could have at least tair= this factor into effect to a certain extant. In addition, the applicant could always explore th.a possibility of an exemption if the project is significantly behind schedela.

II. Actual Construction Schedules The applicant has recently atacea (input to OPS Tallow Ecd to be published in late October) that his schedula now calls for complation

.; . of construction by April 1,1977. This in identical to the estimated date for completion of constraction initially proposed by the applicant.

For the proposed Hanford No. I facility, since the application has recently been docketed and no detailed schedule has yet been prepared, discussion of AIC related causes of schedule slippage are manningless.

.~t:: ?

bn. . . .g ...

John F. O' Leary Director of TM-ing cca L. V. Coesick DISTRIBUTION Docket Files L Readir.g RP Read ng -

BWR Fife J. F. C' Leary A. Giambusso J. Hendrie R. S. Boyd E. Case V. A. Moore l R. DeYoung D. Muller W. Mcdonald D. Eisenhut D. Elliott T. Cox E. Hughes

B}TRf L. \D(EWR L:AD/ g 'I). .. L: D OFf tCE , .- .. \ . . . . . . . . . ~ . ". . . . n . . ~ . .

L:DDL L:

l D Wettbt'.J V- . . . . h [jo e R. +folag R. S. cyd E. Case i s.;ns aua .

. 7221.- - -

J.F.0' Leary 10/30/73 . , .10 h.h73 10/Jo/73 10/ /73

OATE

• i...,...........,..,......

10/3.7/73 10/ /73 .