ML20207D712
| ML20207D712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/02/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-86-359, NUDOCS 8612310172 | |
| Download: ML20207D712 (33) | |
Text
$*)
90C-peg POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote)
December 2, 1986 SECY-86-359 For:
The Commissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Exccutive Director for Operations
Subject:
DEFERRED PLANT POLICY STATEMENT
Purpose:
To present to the Commission a Policy Statement for Deferred Plants in response to several directives and requests listed in Enclosure 1 and in accordance with the ED0 Memorandum to the Commissioners of January 2,1906 concerning development of a Commission policy statement on deferred ard cancelled plants.
Background:
In response to Commission directives listed in Enclosure 1, a staff task force consisting of members of NRR, IE, OGC, RES, ADM and the Regional Offices was formed to develop a Policy Statement addressing the following:
- 1) maintenance, preservation and documentation requirements for deferred plants;
- 2) applicability of new regulatory staff positions for deferred plants when they are reactivated;
- 3) procedures for reactivating deferred plants.
In addition, the task force also addressed the following two items:
- 1) improvements to the regulations, guides and procedures that might be needed ant! identification of any new research initiatives for deferrec plants; and
- 2) population and status ci deferred and terminated plants.
The staff has addressed cert.11n aspects of terminated plants but has postponed treatment of cancelled plants because of lack of interest on the part of owrirs of cancelled plants.
{lQ{<
'3 b )3(\\1.J[p { f) (V CONTACT:
i T. Michaels f
NRR/PBSS 400-8251
6b j
O The Commissioners Discussion:
Two of the items the Comission requested the staff to review are: (1) the quality assurance requirements for plants in deferred status and (2) the applicability of new regulatory requirements for deferred plants which are reactivated.
For purposes of this discussion, a " deferred" plant is defined as a plant at which the licensee has ceased construction or reduced activity to a maintenance level, maintains the Corstruction Permit (CP) in effect and has not announced termination of the plant; and a " terminated" plant is a plant for which the licensee has announced that construction has been permanently stopped, but which still has a valid CP.
(1) The Policy Statement in Enclosure 2 discusses the present regulatory requirements with regard to the quality assurance of deferred plants.
The licensee is responsible for preparation and submittal of the cuality assurance plan for an extended construction delay in accordance with 10 CFR Section 50.54(a)(3). The Office of Inspection and Enforcement and the regional offices are responsible for reviewing the OA program for compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
When a plant is deferred, the licensee can continue to follow the approved quality assurance program used during active construction or can choose to modify the quality assurance program to make it commensurate with the expected activities during the deferral period. Modified quality assurance programs focus on the documentation, preservation and maintenance recuirements and require less resources en the part of the licensee; the inspection requirements of the NRC are also less.
The Office of Inspection and Enforcement has procedures which are sufficient for review and inspection of extended construction delays.
Improvements to these procedures will be made, as needed, from review of inspections performed on deferred plants.
In particular, the readiness review process may prove beneficial in this area.
The NRC and Washington Public Power Supply System are currently engaged in per-forming a pilot program of the readiness review process for reactivation of a deferred project (WNP-3).
The conclusion of this pilot program may result in revisions to NRC's procedures or regulations for reactivation.
(2) Under the present regulations, new plant-specific staff positions would be applied to deferred plants upon reactivation, subject to the requirements of the backfit rule. Generic issue backfits, which apply the same new NRC staff position to more than one licensee, are reviewed and approved in conjunction with resolution of the issue, i
.i j
The Commissioners If the deferred plant falls within the class of plants for which the generic issue resolution is approved and a staff position is formally promulgated in accordance with the backfit rule, then the backfit would be applied to the plant upon reactivation.
The Policy Statement also clarifies the staff's intent with regard to applicability of other policy statements that apply to plants under construction. For examph, the Severe Accident Policy Statement (NUREG-1070) refers to an integrated systematic approach to examine each nuclear power plant, now operating or under construction, for possible significant risk contributors that might be plant-specific and might be missed absent a systematic search. Deferred plants will have to perform this plant-specific vulnerability analysis; however, the backfit rule will be used to decide which identified plant vulnerabilities require plant modifications.
The Policy Statement identifies the need to apply the back-fit rule for implementing new staff positions on deferred plants when they are reactivated.
The backfit rule applies to all deferred plants irrespective of the duration of the deferral period. The alternative to this approach would be to eliminate application of the backfit rule for plants deferred beyond a certain period of time. The staff decided against this alternative for the following reasons:
a.
If the design of a deferred plant was in conformance with the regulatory requirements when its Operating License (OL) application was docketed, then it follows that any backfits subsecuent to the time frame of the backfit rule (6 months before the OL applica-tion was docketed) would have to be justified. The duration of the deferral period is immaterial, when compared to an operating plant of the same design class as the deferred plant, because the operating plant would be subject to the backfit rule up to the end of its operating life, f.e., 40 years.
b.
The four presently deferred plants have docketed OLs, two have final Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) and one has a draft SER (see Enclosure 4 Table 1). The aarliest SER date is Grand Gulf's, which is September 1981. Thebackfitrule,10CFR50.109(b), excludes staff positions formally imposed prior to October 21, 1985 from a backfit analysis and determination.
Backfits would only need a backfit analysis and determination if imposed after October 21, 1985.
c.
Rulemaking would be required to create an exception to 10 CFR 550.109 for deferred plants.
j The Commissioners d.
Applying a different backfitting standard to deferred plants would' lead to uncertainty in the licensing process and possibly affect decisions regarding reactivation of deferred plants.
Although the staff found the present regulatory framework adequate with regard to deferral and reactivation of deferred plants, it identified are'as where improvements could be made.
These areas, included in Enclosure 3, will be developed and addressed as proposed regulation changes or Regulatory Guides.
A summary of the population and status of deferred, terminated and cancelled plants is included in Enclosure 4.
plants are those which no longer have a valid CP.)(Cancelled is a NUREG report (NUREG-1205) entitled " Reactivation of Nuclear Power Plant Construction Projects:
Plant Status, Policy Issues, and Regulatory Options," which contains additional relevant infomation regarding deferred and terminated plants.
A memorandum on the " Extended Commission Agenda - January - June 1986" dated November 7, 1985, T. A. Rehm to Office Directors and Regional Administrators, requested the staff to prepare a ceneric letter identifying the necessary maintenance / preservation concerns or special testing for long-term storage and the regulatory requirements for restmption of construction.
If the Commission approves publication of the proposed Policy Statement, copies will be provided to affected licensees by a generic letter such as the draft letter in Enclosure 6 when the Policy Statement is to be implemented. The above-referenced memorandum also indicated that the generic letter should request a statement of intent from utilities with deferred plants. The staff obtained input from industry via the Atomic Industrial Forum and from informal contacts with individual licensees.
Thatinformation(Enclosure 4), together with the information in NUREG-1205, provides valuable insight into industry's intent and capabilities regarding interest in reactivation of deferred plants.
In view of that information, and considering the notifications of deferral, terminations and reactivation requested of licensees in the Policy Statement, the staff does not believe a request for statements of intent is necessary at this time.
) is the AIF proposal for a policy statement. Although the AIF position is the same for reactivation of deferred plants 4
as the staff's, they have recommended that reactivation of cancelled plants be handled on a case-by-case basis. The AIF i
has reviewed a draft of this Policy Statement and provided I
comments which have been addressed in this final version.
4 i
1 u
1
40 '
The Commissioners..
Coordination:
The Office of The General Counsel has reviewed this paper i
and has no comment.
Recommendation:
The staff recommends that the Commission publish Enclosure 2 for comment in the Federal Register for a period of 30 days.
/
/
7ictor Stellor @ f '*
Executive DirW tor for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Commission Directives on Deferred / Cancelled Plants 2.
Proposed Commission Policy l
Statement on Deferred Plants 3.
Proposed Regulatory Improvements for Deferral /
Cancellation and Reactivation of Nuclear Power Plants 4.
Nuclear Power Plants Currently in Deferred and Terminated Status 5.
NUREG-1205 (Commissioners, SECY, OGC only) 6.
Draft Generic Letter to CP Holders 7.
Memorandum to H. R. Denton from G. K. Dyekman, AIF, dated March 31, 1986
9' l ;
1 Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, December 19, 1986.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, December 12, 1986, with an 4
information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC (H Street)
OI i
OCA OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO OGC (MNBB)
i r
b h
r l
<j O
DIRECTIVES ON DEFERRED / CANCELLED PLANTS 1)
Portions of the 1985 Policy and Planning Guidance. Item IV.B - Planning Guidance 2. " Preparing to License Future Facilities" 2)
Memorandum for Office Directors and Regional Administrators from T. A.
Rehm, " Extended Commission Agenda - January - June 1986," dated November 7, 1985 Procedures to Reactivate a Project after Construction and Licensing Tave 5 topped
" Provide for the Commission's approval of a generic letter identifying the necessary maintenance / preservation concerns or special testing for long-term storage and the regulatory requirements for resumption of construction and requesting a statement of intent from utilities with deferred plants."
3)
From Staff Requirements Memorandum, November 20, 1985 dealing with Year-End Program Review held November 7, 1985.
" Commissioner Zech requested the staff to consider the need for utilities with plants that are either closed or at which construction has been halted to maintain operational, construction and maintenance records in the event the utility contemplates reactivation or sale of the plant or plant equipment to another utility. The staff is to also examine the method by which the NRC could institute guidance or reouirements in this area."
4)
The Severe Accident Policy Statement and the proposed revision of the Standardization Policy Statement refer to development of a deferred / cancelled plant policy statement.
...a
O o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Commission Policy Statement on Deferred Plants AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission ACTION:
Proposed Policy Statement on Deferred Plants
SUMMARY
This draft Policy Statement presents the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with regard to deferred plants and the procedures that apply while in a deferred status and when reactivating these plants. The areas addressed include the regulations and guidance applicable to deferred and terminated plants, maintenance, preservation and documentation requirements, the applicability of new regulatory requirements and other general administrative considerations. A NUREG report, which contains relevant information regarding deferred and terminated plants entitled " Reactivation of Nuclear Power Plant Construction Projects: Plant Status, Policy Issues, and Regulatory Options,"
NUREG-1205, (July 1986) has been published separately.
DATES:
Submit coments by Coments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to co;nments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Submit comments, suggestions, or recommendations to the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention:
Docketing and Services Branch.
Copies of comments received may be examined in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theodore S. Michaels. Office c.' Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Washingtcn, D. C.
00555. Telephone (301)492-8251.
. ~
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 4 I.
BACKGROUND In the last few years a number of nuclear power plants have been deferred or terminated. A deferred plant is one for which the licensee has ceased construction or reduced activity to a maintenance level, maintains the construction permit (CP) in effect and has not announced the termination of the plant.
In most cases the licensee defers a plant with the expectation that its construction will be reactivated and it will be constructed and operated as a nuclear power plant.
For purposes of this Policy Statement, a terminated plant is one for which the licensee has announced that construction has been terminated permanently 1
but which still has a valid CP. At the present time there are four nuclear power plants that are considered deferred.
There are twelve plants that are considered terminated.
The present regulations, guidance and procedures permit nuclear power olant deferral and reactivation and, indeed, such actions have occurred (e.g., Limerick 2wasadeferredplantthatwasrecentlyreactivated).
In the interest of providing predictability and stability to this process, to clarif its pcsition on the applicability of new regulations, and to j
develop and implement a regulatory process that can deal effectively with the varie*,' of regulatory issues when construction of deferred plants is reat:ivated, the Commission is issuing policy guidance in this area.
f
~
. ej t
e I
' II. DISCUSSION This Policy Statement has been structured to address the significant regulatory aspects of nuclear power plant 6.ferral, termination and reactivation of deferred facilities.
Two items of primary interest in this Policy Statement are:
(1) the quality assurance requirements for plants in a deferred status, and (2) the applicability of new regulatory requirements for deferred plants which are subsequently reactivated.
A.
Cuality Assurance Recuirements for Plants in Deferred Status When a plant is deferred, the licensee may continue to follow the approved construction phase quality assurance program or may modify the quality assurance program to reflect anticipated deferral activities. Modified quality assurance programs focus on the maintenance, preservation and documentation activities and a cost-effective reduction in licensee and NRC resources.
The policy guidance addresses these requirements.
The major areas of concern for extended construction delays are the(1)maintenanceandpreservationofequipmentandmaterials.
(2) verification of status of construction, and (3) retention and protection of records.
Section !!I.A.3 of the policy guidance cutlines the requirements in these areas for deferred plants.
(.
4 B.
Applicability of New Regulatory Requirements for Deferred Plants Under the present regulations, new plant-specific staff positions would be applied to deferred plants upon reactivation, subject to the requirements of the backfit rule, 10 CFR 550.109.
That is, if the plant falls within the time frame indicated in 10 CFR 550.109(a)(1), then the NRC staff would be required to
.iustify any new plant-specific backfits in accordance with 10CFRll50.109(a)(2),(a)(3),and(a)(4). The appeals procedures applicable for plant-specific backfits are appliable to deferred plants. Generic issue backfits, which apply the same new NRC staff position to more than one licensee, are reviewed and approved in conjunction with resolution of the issue.
If the deferred plant falls within the generic issue concern, as determined by NRC staff analysis for approval of the generic issue resolution, then the backfit would be applied to the plant upon reactivation.
Regulations that have integral update provisions built into them will be applied to deferred plants, as they are to other plants under construction, without the use of the backfit rule.
For example, the update provisions of 10 CFR 550.55a, Codes and Standards, require that certain editions of the codes and standards be used dependino on the CP or OperatingLicense(OL)issuancedate. Application
O of 10 CFR 650.55a to a deferred plant will be governed by the date specified in the regulation without the need for a backfitting justification.
The provisions of other policy statements, such as the Standardization and Severe Accident Policy Statements, that apply to plants under construction will also have to be implemented.
For example, the Severe Accident Policy Statement (NUREG-1070) refers to an integrated systematic approach to examine each nuclear power plant now operating or under construction for possible significant risk contributcrs that might be plant-specific and might be missed absent a systematic search. Deferred plants will have to perform this plant-specific vulnerability analysis; however, the backfit rule will be used to decide which identified plant vulnerabilities reoufre plant modifications.
Section III.A.5 of the Policy Statement identifies the need to apply the backfit rule for implementing new staff positions to deferred plants when they are reactivated.
The Commission published for comment in May 1984, and subsequently forwarded to Congress a report entitled
" Improving Quality and the Assurance of Quality in the Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-1055. This 1
t.
report contains a number of lessons learned concerning significant quality failures in commercial nuclear power plants under construction and makes recommendations concerning their avoidance in the future. These lessons learned are equally applicable to deferred or terminated plants for which construction may be resumed.
III. POLICY GUIDANCE This policy guidance outlines:
(1) the NRC's regulatory provisions for deferring and preserving a deferred nuclear power plant until such time as it may be reactivated, and (2) the applicability of new regulatory staff positions to a reactivated deferred plant.
Also, because of the possibility that the plant and/or its equipment may be sold to another utility, some general guidance with regard to terminated plants is presented. The following definitions apply to this policy guidance:
Deferred Plant - A plant at which the licensee has ceased construction or reduced activity to a maintenance level, maintains the CP in effect and has not announced termination of the plant.
Terminated Plant - A plant for which the licensee has announced that construction has been permanently stopped, but which still has a valid CP.
~
G
. A.
Deferred Plants Areas that should be addressed by a licensee and the NRC when a plant is deferred are as follows:
1.
Notification of Plant Deferral A licensee should inform the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) when a plant is to be deferred, within 30 days of the decision to defer.
Information to be'made available should include the reason for deferral, the expected plant reactivation date (if known), whether a CP extension request will be submitted and the plans for fulfilling the requirements of the CP, including the maintenance, preservation and documentation requirements as outlined in Section III.A.3 of this Policy Statement.
2.
Extension of CP Licensees must assure that their cps do not expire.
10 CFR 92.109, "Effect of Timely Renewal Application," provides that if a request for renewal of a license is made 30 days prior to its expiration, the license will not be deemed to have expired until the application has been finally dispo-sitioned. CP extensions will be considered in accordance with 10 CFR 650.55(b).
t
. 3.
Maintenance, Preservation and Documentation of Equipment The NRC requirements for verification of construction status, retention and protection of records, and maintenance and preservation of equipment and materials are applied through:
10 CFR 550.54(a), " Conditions of Licenses," and 10 CFR 550.55(f), " Conditions of Construction Permits," which requires that a quality assurance program be implemented; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, which requires that all activities performed to establish, maintain, and verify the quality of plant construction be addressed in the licensee's quality assurance program; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices A and B, which recuire that certain quality records be retained for the life of the plant; 10 CFR 550.55(e), which requires reporting of deficiencies in design, construction, quality assurance, etc.;
10 CFR 950.71, which applies to the maintenance of records; and 10 CFR P6rt 21, which applies to reporting of defects and non-compliance. The NRC Regulatory Guides which endorse the ANSI N45.2 series of standards, " Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants," are also applicable. These include Regulatory Guides 1.28, 1.37, 1.38, 1.58, 1.88 and 1.116. Of particular importance is the guidance on packaging, shipping, l
receiving, storing and handling of equipment, as well as on i
collecting, storing and maintaining quality control documentation.
The,maintanance, preservation and documentation requirements outlined above apply to plants under construction.
l L
Q
. The licensee may choose to modify existing commitments during extended construction delays by developing a quality assurance plan that is commensurate with the expected activities and expected (or potential) length of delay. The licensee should discuss with the NRC the expected construction delay period and the quality assurance program to be implemented during the deferral.
The program should include a description of the planned activities, organizational responsibilities and procedural controls which apply to the verification of construction status, maintenance and preservation of equipment and materials, and retention and protection of quality assurance records. The program will be reviewed and approved by the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 550.54(a)(3), 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B and inspection procedures as apprcpriate.
Implementation of the program will be periodically examined to determine licensee compliance with commitments and overall program effectivesness.
4.
Conduct of Review During Deferral When a plant is deferred, the staff will normally bring all ongoing post-CP and Operating License (0L) reviews and associated documentation to an appropriate termination point.
Normally, new reviews will not be initiated.
If the review has progressed sufficiently, a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) will be issued, which assembles and discusses the status of the completed work and lists all outstanding open items. Subject
~
c
. to availability of resources, the staff miaht perform specific technical reviews or complete SER supplements.
5.
Applicability of New Regulations During Deferral With respect to applicability of new regulations, guidance and policies, deferred plants of custom or standard design will be considered in the same manner as plants still under construction.
Proposed plant-specific backfits of new regulatory staff positions promulgated while a plant is deferred will be considered in accordance with the backfit rule, 10 CFR 950.109. Other modifications to previously accepted staff positions will be implemented either through rulemaking or generic issue resolution, which themselves are subject to the backfit rule.
Regulations that have integral update provisions built into them will be applied to deferred plants, as they are to other plants under construction, without the use of the backfit rule.
Provisions in other policy statements which are applicable to pl' ants under construction will also have to be implemented.
Any resulting backfit reccmmendations will have to be supported in accordance with 10 CFR 550.109. Appeals procedures applicable to plant-specific backfits would be applicable to deferred plants. Appeals filed by a licensee during deferral will be considered and processed by the NRC while a plant is in a deferred status.
o'
.. 6.
Information to be Submitted by Licensee when Reactivating The licensee shculd submit a letter to the Director of NRR at least 120 days before plant construction is expected to resume.
The letter should include the following information, to the extent that such information has not been submitted to the staff during the deferred period:
a.
Proposed date for resuming construction, a schedule for completion of the construction, and a schedule for submittal of an operating license application, including a Final Safety Analysis Peport (FSAR), if one has not already been submitted.
b.
The current status of the plant site and equipment.
c.
A description of how any conditions established by the NRC during the deferral have been fulfilled.
d.
A list of licensing issues that were outstanding at the time of the deferral and a description of the resolution or proposed resolution of these issues.
e.
A listing of any new regulatory requirements applicable to the plant that have become effective since plant construction was deferred, together with a description of the licensee's proposed plans for compliance with these requirements.
f.
A description of the management and organization responsi-ble for construction of the plant.
. 4 J
L
. 4 4
g.
A description of all substantive changes made to the plant design or site since the CP was issued (for those plants for which an OL application has not been submitted).
h.
Identification of any additional required information which is not available at the time of reactivation and a commitment to submit such information at a specific later date.
i.
As necessary, an amendment to the OL application (revised FSAR) and a discussion of the bases for all substantive site and design changes that have been made since the last FSAR revision was submitted (for those plants which were already under OL review at the time of deferral).
7.
Staff Actions When Notified of Reactivation The acceptability of structures, systems and components important to safety (10 CFR Part 50. Appendix A, GDC 1) upon reactivation from deferred status will be determined by the NRC based on the following:
l a.
Reviews of the approved preservation and maintenance program, as implemented, in order to determine whether or not any structures, systems or components recuire special NRC attention during reactivation.
l 1
m ew,--,-
v---,
,_.------,---,----,,,-,,,---,n,,e-,--
- - - - ~, - - - - - - - - +. - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,.,.,,
-m,
---,,--,,m-
4
. b.
Verification that design changes, mo'difications, and required corrective actions have been implemented and documented in accordance with established quality f
control requirements.
c.
The results of any licensee or NRC baseline inspections which indicate that quality and performance requirements have not been significantly reduced below those originally specified in the FSAR. Structures, systems and components that fail to meet the acceptability criteria or will not meet current NRC requirements will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
B.
Terminated Plants 1.
Plant Terminations A licensee should inform.the Director of NRR when a plant is placed in a terminated status.
In the event that cancellation of a CP is sought, the permit holder J
\\
should provide notice to the staff sufficiently far in e
)
advance of the expiration of the CP to permit the staff to determine appropriate terms and conditions. Until cancellation is authorized, a permit holder must adhere to the terms of the CP and should submit suitable plans for the termination of site activities, including redress,
c i
as provided for under 10 CFR 951.41, for staff approval.
Also, if the plant has been completed to a point that it can function as a utilization facility, the licensee should take all necessary actions to dismantle the facility sufficiently such that it cannot be considered a facility for which an NRC license is required.
Prior to formal cancellation of the permit by the Commission, the permit holder is expected to comply with the Commission's rules including taking affirmative steps to extend permits which may expire before Commission action on the termination reauest can be completed.
2.
MeasuresthatS$ouldbeConsideredforReactivationof Terminated Plants or Transfer of Ownership of Terminated Plants Owners of terminated nuclear plants planning to maintain the option of plant reactivation or transfer of ownership to others - either totally or in part - should consider the following actions:
1 1
a.
Foit the removal and transfer of ownership of plant 1
corponents and systems important to safety, make t
necessary provisions to maintain, collect and transfer to the new owner appropriate performance
o O and material documentation attesting to the quality of the components and systems that will be required of the new owner if intended for use in NRC-licensed facilities.
b.
Develop and implement a preservation and maintenance program for structures, systems and components important to safety, as well as documentation, substantially in accordance with Section III.A.3 of this Policy Statment.
If these provisions are implemented throughout the period of terminated activity, a terminated plant may be reactivated under the same provisions as a deferred plant.
Such-licensees must also assure that any necessary extensions of the CP are requested in a timely manner.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission
=
r 1.-
a Enclosure.3 Proposed Regulatory Improvements for Deferral / Cancellation and Reactivation of Nuclear Power Plants 1.
The present regulatory framework with regard to cancellation of a CP is vague in that the regulations would appear to permit a CP holder to simply allow the CP to expire without requiring anything of the CP holder.
New regulations will be developed, as appropriate, which provide that announcement of the termination of a plant does not eliminate the licensee's responsibility to provide certain information or maintain an appropriate response capability until the CP is officially withdrawn by the NRC.
e NRC af i 1 eo ir t pp e te on f he CP. C r en it appears that licensees either follow tha past examples of others who have surrendered a CP or improvise in their submittals.
For example, a site stabilization plan must be submitted to the NRC for evaluation to ensure that no significant environmental impact will result from the action of withdrawing the CP.
In the past, the details given in these plans have varied in significant respects.
i l
Internal NRC guidance will also be prepared for use by the NRC staff in i
their review of requests for CP withdrawals.
In the past, the staff has folicwed previous examples of withdrawals because there is no written guidance.
Staff guidance will address the criteria for determining the acceptability of terminating the CP.
l In addition, guidance will be prepared on the criteria for site stabilization for use by licensees and for NRC site inspection and i
w-
-- +
,~._y_
_e,-..,,m y,___,
p-
.,.v.
7._,
,m
.,- -... m 9
2
. verification.
In the past, the staff has, in some cases, inspected sites to ensure that plans have been successfully implemented.
In one case, the staff inspected the site and found that the stabilization plan had been only partially implemented.
In this case, the NRC accepted commit-ments from the licensee that the remainder of the plan would be carried out.
The absence of NRC jurisdiction over future activities once the CP has been withdrawn implies that all site stabilization should be successfully completed before the CP is withdrawn. This could require that the CP remain in effect for many years.
2.
10 CFR Part 51 does not explicity require that the NRC prepare an environmental assessment for its regulatory action associated with withdrawing the CP. Although it appears that such assessment would be called for under NEPA, such eventuality is not addressed by the staff in its EIS regarding issuance of a CP.
In order to prepare the environmental assessment, the staff will require certain information from the licensee regarding environmental impacts associated with abandoning the construction site. The staff may request information pursuant to 10 CFR 951.41.
Currently there is no guidance as to the information which the staff requires to prepare its environmental assessment. The staff will prepare guidance for licensees as well as a Standard Review Plan-type of guide for staff review of the site stabilization plan.
3.
The NRC does not have in place at this time detailed guidance or procedures for the inspection of deferred plants preparatory to reactivation. The Readiness Review project at WNP-3 is an example of procedures that will be implemented as appropriate.
o' Nuclear Power Plants Currently in Deferred and Terminated Status Following the reactivation of the deferred Limerick-2 unit on December 23, 1985, there are presently four nuclear power plants that are considered deferred plants. Summary data for these four plants are provided in Table 1.
Additionally, the licensee for WNP-3 has submitted a preservation program for an extended construction delay for WNP-3. All deferred plants have docketed OL applications; two plants have a Final SER and one has a Draft SER issued.
Table 2 contains a list of plants that are either terminated or cancelled. Of the 38 plants in this status, twelve are considered terminated because their CP expiration date has not passed or because the licensee has submitted a timely request for extension of the CP.
These plants are Harris 3 and 4, Hope Creek 2, !!arble Hill 1 and 2, Seabrock 2, Hartsville Al and A2, Midland I and 2, and Yellow Creek 1 and 2.
The first six plants have CP expiration dates in the future and the licensees for the latter six have submitted timely requasts for CP date extensions,
D Encirsure 4 i
e TA8tf 1 Summary Data for Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities Issued Construction Permits Whose Construction has been Deferred Preservation Initial CP OL Program CP Extension Constr'n SER date Submitted-Reactor CP Issue Expirat.
Deferral Date OL Docket (draft Approved g
Reactor Unit Licensee Vendor A/E Date Date Date.
Request Complete Date or final) (dates)
Grand Gulf 2 Niss. P&L GE Bechtel 09/04/74 10/01/84 08/15/84 04/30/91 35 06/30/78 09/81f None Perry 2 Clev. Elect.
GE '..
Gilbert 05/03/77 06/30/84 07/17/84 11/30/918 44 01/30/81 05/82f Mone WMP-1 Washington B&W '
U.E.
12/24/75 01/01/82 04/30/82 06/01/918 62 07/16/82 None 8
WNP-3 Pubile Power C-E E8ASCO 04/11/78 01/01/85 07/08/83 07/01/99 75 08/27/82 11/19/85d 05/24/85-09/18/85 l
1 U.E. - United Engineering
)
i I
8 CP has been extended.
- Permittee plans to submit.
i
8 intersurs e o
q TABLE 2 Summary Data for Nuclear Power Reactor facilities issued Construction Permits Whose Construction has been Terminated or Cancelled OL SER Current Licensee Constr'n OL SER date Site Stabill-NRC CP Reactor CP issue CP Empirat. Terminat. %
Oocket (draft ration Plan Cancellation R; actor Unit Licensee Vendor A/E Date Date Date Complete Date or final) Submitted Letter 8-illy 1 No. Ill. P.S. GE S&L 05/02/74 05/06/82 08/81 1
None None 08/82 11/02/82 Callaway 2 Union El.
We Bechtel 04/16/76 02/28/84 10/09/81 1
None None 08/17/82 03/10/83 Cherokee 1 Duke C-E Duke 12/30/77 05/31/84 04/29/83 18 None None 09/21/83 09/12/85 Cherokee 2 C-E Duke 12/30/77 11/3.0/86 11/02/82 0
None None 09/21/83 09/12/85 Cherokee 3 C-E Duke 12/30/77 05/31/89 11/02/82 0
Mone None 09/21/83 09/12/85 Clinton 2 Ill. Pwr.
CE S&L 02/24/76 10/01/81 10/14/83 1
09/08/80 02/17/82f 8*
09/11/85 farked River Jersey C.P.L. C-E B&R 07/10/73 02/01/85 11/06/80 5
None None None None Harris 2 Carolina
- We EBASCO 01/27/78 06/01/86 12/21/83 4
12/22/81 11/83f Mone
'None Harris 3 Power &
We EBASCO 01/27/78 06/01/90 12/18/81 1
None None None None Harris 4 Light We EBASCO 01/27/78 -06/01/88 12/18/81 1
None None None hne Hartssille Al TVA GE Cf8 05/09/77 02/28/83 08/29/84 44 None None 11/85 None Hartsville A2 TVA GE CfB 05/09/77 02/28/84 08/29/84 34 None None 11/85 None Hartsville B1 IVA CE CfB 05/09/77 08/31/83 08/22/82 17 Mone None 03/22/83 Mone Hartsville B2 T.VA CE Cf8 05/09/77 08/31/84 08/22/82 1
None None 03/22/83 None 3
None Hope Creek 2 P.S.E&G, Del. GE Bechtel 11/04/74 12/31/89 12/29/81 18 None None Jamesport 1 Long Island We S&W 01/04/79 07/31/90 01/19/80 0
None None None 02/02/81 Jamesport 2 L i ot.' ing We S&W 01/04/79 07/31/92 01/19/80 0
Mone None None 02/02/81 Marble Hill 1 Public We S&L 04/04/78 03/01/88 12/31/83 55 02/25/83 None 04/04/858 None Narble Hill 2 Svcs.
Ind.
We S&L 04/04/78 09/01/89 12/31/83 35 02/25/83 None 04/04/858 Mone Midland 1 Consumers B&W Bechtel 12/15/72 17/91/f11 07/01/86 85 11/18/77 05/82f 10/02/86 Mone Midland 2 Power B&W Bechtel 12/15/72 07/01/84 07/01/86 85 11/18/77 05/82f 10/02/86 None North Anna 3 Va. Electric B&W S&W 07/26/74 12/31/83 06/22/83 8
None Nor.e Yes None North Anna 4
& Power B&W S&W 07/26/74 12/31/84 11/25/80 0
None None None None Phipps Bend 1 IVA-GE CfB 01/16/78 04/01/84 08/25/82 29 Mone None 02/16/83 None Phipps Bend 2 TVA GE CfB 01/16/78 04/01/85 08/25/82 5
None None 02/16/83 Mone
0 TA8tE 2 (Cont.)
Summary Data for Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities Issued Construction Permits whose Construction has been Terminated or Cancelled OL SER Current Licensee Constr'n OL SER date Site Stabili-. NAC CP Reactor CP Issue CP Empirat. Terminat. %
Docket (draft zation Plan Cancella!!on Reactor Unit Licensee Vendor A/(
Date Date Date Complete Date or final) Subeltted Letter River Send 2 Gulf Sta. U.
CE S&W 03/25n7 03/31/85 01/29/84 1
08/25/81 06/01/83d 06/29/84 None Seabrook 1 P.S. of N.H.
We U.E.
07/07/76 10/31/88 11/07/86 24 07/07n6 03/83f None None Sterling 1 Roch. G&E We Bechtel 08/26n7 04/01/86 05/28/80 0
None None None 02/03/81 l
Surry 3 Va. Electric B&W S&W 12/20n4 12/15/83 02/11n7 0
None None None None Surry 4
& Power B&W S&W 12/20n4 12/15/84 02/11/77 0
None Mone None None Tyrone 1 No. States We 8echtel 12/27R7 10/01/85 07/24n9 0
Mone None None None Vogtle 3 Georgia We Bechtel 06/28n4 04/01/83 09/12/74 0
Mone Mone Mone None Vogtle 4 Power We Bechte) 06/28/74 04/01/84 09/12/74 0
Mone None None None WNP-4 Washington B&W U.E.
02/21/78 12/01/85 01/22/82 15 Mone Mone 11/27/85 None WNP-L Pubile Power C-E ESASCO 07/11n8 07/01/86 03/13/84 16 Mone None Nonet Yellow Creek 1 TVA C-E TVA 11/29/78 03/01/84 08/29/84 35 None None 11/85 None None Yellow Creek 2 TVA C-E TVA 11/29n8 03/01/85 08/29/84 3
None None 11/85 None Zinser Cinc. G&E GE S&L 10/27n2 12/31/82 01/27/84 98 09/10n5 01/31#9f 06/10/84 08/ab/85 CFB - C. F. Braun BAR - 8 urns & Roe S&L - Sargent & Lundy S&W - Stone & Webster U.E. - United Engineering a Request for withdrawal of CP and submittal of site restoration plan.
2 Permittee plans to submit.
3 F5AR and Environmental Report amended to reflect stabilization of site.
Date of official request to withdraw CP is 4/09/85.
t l
g-3 a -
a
..w ar-.
-w-wn
+
.----n nu
-..-r a
n._
a e
TO ALL HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFERRED PLANTS (GENERIC LETTER 86- )
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a copy of a Policy Statement on Deferred Plants. The Policy Statement has been developed in order to provide you with the Commission's position regarding the quality assurance requirements, particularly the documentation, preservation and maintenance requirements for deferred plants, and to state how new regulatory staff positions will be applied to deferred plants that are reactivated.
The Policy Statement does not include any new regulatory requirements. The NRC staff has applied the reculations and guides, listed in the Statement, to the deferral and reactivation of previously deferred plants.
The Statement has been prepared to combine the regulatory requirements applicable to deferral and reactivation in order to provide a focus for this activity and a level of stability and predictability to the regulatory process in this area.
J
, Any questions regarding this statement should be directed to Theodore S.
Mir.haels, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
20555,(301)492-8251.
Enclosure:
Policy Statement on Deferred Plants Sincerely.
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
< 4 e
/
4 e
Em:10sure 7 A tomic ladu o trial Foeu m, lac.
710 t WesconsM Avenue htnes4a. M3 208144805 Teleonone 13011654 9260 TWX 71oS249602 ATOMIC FOR oC i
Harch 31, 1986 h
Mr. Harold R. Denton Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
~
Dear Mr. Denton:
Subject:
REACTIVATION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS l
The AIF Ad Hoc Group on Reactivation of Construction Projects staff on Februaryappreciated the opportunity to meet with you and members 19, 1986, to discuss development of a policy on reactivation of deferred or cancelled plants.
we committed to seek input from a broader segmentDuring that meeting, and provide you with our thoughts related to the following twoof the industry items:
policy is needed, what(1) Is an NRC policy on this subject needed? and (2) If it apply?
should the policy contai,n and where should Based on discussions with industry representatives in attendance the February 19th meeting, and additional input at meeting, it since the is necessary to provide the industry and the public with assura that a. level of stability and predictability in the regulatory nce process has been achieved.
As you are well aware a lack of officers and directors for not selecting the nuclear optio believe that a policy statement on reactivation of constructionWe projects would be a major step in alleviating one of those same concerns regarding the ability to complete and license for operation plants which have been deferred for extended periods of time.
These plants represent a valuable' national resource, and it is imperative that the regulatory process support the use of that resource.
With regard to application and content, we believe that highest probability of future restart.should be directed primarily towa applied to those plants for which the applicantThus, the policy should be has not allowed the construction permit (CP) to expire.
In cases where the CP has i
a w
n,,-,-..-,--n,-,v,----,.---y-
,---.--y
,,,,r y,...,...,.
- m.,,,.,,, -
m.-
- ~
-.,,_m
.m.. - -, -,---- - - - -.,
Mr. Harold R. Denton March 31, 1986 i'.
expired, the policy should not prevent future restart, but should merely indicate that those situations will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
As to content, be non prescriptive and simple. we believe that the policy should The policy should acknowledge the adequacy of regulatory requirements which have been applied in.the design and construction of these plants.
New requirements should be imposed on these units upon reactivation unless it has been not demonstrated, through application of 10CFRSO.109 (Backfit Rule),
that those requirements would also apply to similar operating plants.
The issuance of such a policy statement would promote application ~
of regulations in a consistent manner to plants which were issued construction permits in the same general time frame, independent of whether the plant moved quickly through construction into operation or construction was deferred for an extended period.
Basic requirements for preservation of the safety related physical and design assets of nuclear projects during construction or dur-ing periods of construction delay are detailed by Appendix B to 10CFR50.
All plants with active CP's are required to have approved Quality Assurance Programs and are periodically audited by the NRC on their compliance.
In the case of extended construc-tion delay, utilities may make the conscious decision to dis-continue preservation activities associated with compliance with Appendix B on certain physical assets.
As long as adequate records are kept and actions taken to assure identification of the nature and scope of any resultant changes, to allow later evaluation and disposition (in accordance with the design basis applicable to the Project restart), the requirements of Appendix B can still be met.
In su'mmary, the Policy Statement for projects with interrupted construction schedules with active CP's thus should be limited to a statement that they continue to be subject to 10CFR50.55 and Appendix B te 10CFR50.
Additionally, changes to design and con-struction to the facility as required by the NRC will be accom-plished via 10CFR50.109, "Backfitting."
In response to your letter of March 7, 1986, to AIF Senior Vice President Robert S alay, we are in the process of gathering industry comments on Mr. Spangler's report, " Major Issue's in i
._..,_-x._
._m._
p*
Mr. Harold R. Denton.
March 31, 1986 i
i Reactivation of Nuclear Power Plant Construction Projects "
will provide the detailed comments within a few weeks We meantime, we recommend that Limerick 2 be removed from Table 2 In the We appreciate the opportunity to provide our input to this important issue interface with y,our staff in future development of thand welco policy content, as appropriate.
e specific Sincerely.
- 2. K. @
~
G. Kent Dyekman, Chairman AIF Ad Hoc Group on Reactivation of Construction Projects GXD:bpg Enclos ures cc:
Mr. Herbert Berkow, NRC/NRR Mr. Miller Span Mr. Donald Erb,gler, NRC/NRR DOE O
e
/*
e i
o I
i a
-