ML20209B287
| ML20209B287 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, San Onofre, 05000000, Shoreham, Crane |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1982 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B118 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203150015 | |
| Download: ML20209B287 (17) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
??pn$.k&$EY-.
?$h??!?$
.0W-h$.'*'*?$*?
?
,e
[9,,
UNITED STATES
/['(
NUCLEAR REGULATOFLY COMMISSION I
waswmaTom. o. c.aosas rf.
)9 SN*
February 26, 1982 CHAfRMAN The Honorable Tom Bev11s1 -Chairman Subcomittee on Energy a'nd Water Development Cerr.ittee on Appropriations-United States House of Representatives
. ' Washington, D.C.,20515
Dear Mr. Chainnan:
This monthly status report is in response to the direction given in House
. Report 96-1093.
Enclosed is our sixteenth report covering the period from January 15, 1982 to February 15, 1982. This sixteenth report discusses actions that were taken ~during this period on operating reactors and on licensing reviess of new facilities...,
Shortly after this report period (February 16, 1982), an operating license restricted to 5% power was. issued to San Onofre 2.
Alse, on February 16, Public Service Company of' Oklahoma announced the cancellation of Black Fox 1 and 2..During this report period', changes.in the construction empletion date for LaSalle Unit 1 (from' February 1982 to March 1982), Grand' Gulf Unit 1 (from' March 1982 to April 1982)p)WNP-2 (from December 1082 to March 1983), Perry 1(Ma'y 1983 December:1984) have been; announced by the utilities. These plants did not have a projected regulatory delay.
The construction completion date for Virgil C. 'Sumer NuclearjPower Station was changed from February 1982 to March 1982;, which reduced the regulatory delay for this plant to one month. A refusal.of The Suffolk County Council to ratify an agreement developed by
. counsel. for the parties in the.Shoreham 1 proceeding has resulted in 'a projected one-month regulatory delay for this plant.
As indicated in last month!s report,' the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for TMI-1. issued a Partial Initial Decision on December 14, 1981.
Last month, the HRC staff was involved in" filing arguments before the Commission on whether the
. Board's decision should be' made effective. The Special Master, appointed to preside over.the hearing on the cheating matter, is expected to issue his report
.in March. The NRC staff haslinit'iated actions necessary' to comply with
' ne U. :S.. Court *of Appeals. Order to keep TMI-1 shut down until the NRC conducts t
an envir6nmental a.ssessment of psychological stress. The Comission is also considering other alternatives while awaiting receipt of the judges' opinions.
Beginning this month, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) licensing review status will be reported. The schedule for CRBR is shown in Table 2.
Sincerely, A
A*bbo /
Nunzio 'h v
.j F. Palladino O 2031GOOI5 l7 o
q, s
Enclosure:
T XA MRC Monthly Status. Report to Congress The. Ho,nor.a,bjedohn,T. My.ers cc:
-- - we:m 4,;; m, w gg.,yyp2.p..:s
_ _. m.
t NRC MONTHLY STATUS rep 0RT TO CO.';GRESS This is the sixteenth monthly status report to Congress in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093. This report provides a discuss' ion of the major actions that were taken on operating reactors and on licens,ing reviews of new facilities during the period of time between January 15,1982 and February.15,1982.
TMI Unit 1 Restart As discussed in.last month's report, the Licensing Board issued a Partial Initial Decision on plant design, plant separation and emergency planning issues on December 14, 1981.
The Board has recommended -hat TMI'-l be allowed to operate up to five percent of design power pendinc the Board's decision con-g cerning the cheating issue on NRC operator licensing exams.
Efforts this N month involved filing of briefs before~ the Comission on whether the Board's Partial Initial Decision should be made effective and,continui.ng inspection efforts to' determine the licensee's compliance with restart requirements'.
The Special Master, appointed to preside over the hearing on the cheat.ing matter, is expected to issue h'is report in late March, with a Bosrd decision exp,ected in March or April 1982.
Excep't for the cheating matter, these hearing matters are now before the Commission.
Also, as reported last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the Commission to keep TMI-l shut down until the NRC conducts.an environmental assessment on the effect of psychological stress on the people,in the a'rea.
The'.staf' has f
initiated actions necessary to comply with the Court Order while the Commission considers alternatives.
The Comission will review the judges' opinions which support the Court's decision before determining a course of action.
m
2 Extensive efforts are being conducted by the NP.C and the licensee to determine the cause ar.d magnitude of the steam generator :coblem reported in last month's The licensee has estimated that the prcblem will not be resolved until report'.
'at least July 1982.
Correction of this problem is, at present, the pacing item for plant readiness to restart.
Ginna Tube Break On January 25, 1982, the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant near Rochester, New York experienced a rupture of a steam generator tube.
Preliminary information indi-cates that the leak initially was about 700 gallons per minute.
The reactor was safely brought to cold shutdown.
The steam generators are presently being inspected and, the li.censee is continuing.to evaluate the cause of the tube rupture.
j The NRC is closely monitoring developments at the Ginna reactor, and will review the licensee's findings before reaching a decision regarding restart.
In addition to evaluating the licensee's proposal for restart, the NRC has also established' a Task Force to conduct a thorough examination of the event. 'Its interim report, 'due in late March, will address the plant's response, the oper-ator's ' response, and institutional responses.
The staff is also examining-research needs 'to assist with the resoltrtion of this problem that might be undertaken by the industry and NRC.
OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATIONS Licensin.g Sch' edules t
i e
During the past month, considerable emphasis continued to be focused on operating license applications' activities.
The present licensing schedules for all plants with pending OL applicatio'ns are given in Table 1.
Plants are listed chronologically according to Commission decision date.
The schedules shown
for CY 1983 plants and beyond are based on standard assump.tions for review and hearing times, except for those plants, that are expected to be heavily contested (Seabrook Unit 1, Byron 1, and Midland Unit 2).
For those plants',
the projected schedules allow for a 13-month (rather than the typical ll-month),
hearing phase from issuance of the Staff Supplemental Safety' Evaluation Report (SSER)'to Comission' decision date on a full-power license. The staff review process for those cases has been accelerated to compensate for the additional '
time allotted for the hearing process.
The estimated regulatory delays and the target dates for Comission decisiori showa in Table 1 do not reflect any potential impact from the schedules for FEMA findings on off-site emergency preparedness.
Any additional potential delays, based on the staff's analysis of the schedules for the FEMA findings, are included in a monthly report to the Senate SubcomiItee on Nuclear Regulation, which is transmitted jointly by the NRC and FEMA.
During this report period, changes in the construction c5mpletion date for LaSalle Unit 1 (from February 1982 to March 1982), Grand Gulf Unit 1 (f, rom March 1982 to April 1982), WNP-2 (from December 1982 to March 1983), Commanche Peak Unit 2 (from December 1983 to December 1984) and Perry 1 (from May 1983 to November 1983)' have been announced by the utilities.
These plants did not have a projected regulatory delay. The Hearing' schedule and subsequent Board l
decision date for Shoreham 1 has slipped by two mopths. Therefore,' Shoreham 1 1
now shows a one-month delay. The applicant changed the c.onstruction' completion date for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station to March 31, 1982, thereby reducing the projected regulatory delay for this unit to one month.
., _ _ ~ - - -
..r-r-
__N-.
..-._---------~~~<x*-
e' " -
PLANT-BY-PLANT DISCUSSION OF DELAYED PLANTS The only plants presently projected to have a regulatory delay are Su::ner 1 and'Sh.oreham 1.
Although Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and San Onofre Unit 2 do not have
,a pro' ected regulatory delay, they are included in the discussion due to other j
causes.
1.
San Onofre Unit 2 - In accordance with the Board' initial decision of January 11, 1982, the NRC has prepared and submitted to the Board an inspection report verifying the state of emergency preparedness.
Additional' examinations for Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) candidates
~
were completed in late January 1982.
Twelve SR0 candidates passed the examinations.
The utility now has a sufficient number of qualified operators for power operation.
As stated in last month's report the applicant has initiated a quality assurance reverification program with
,t emphasis on the seismic design of the facility.
The General Atomic Conpany (GA) has been contracted to do an independent design review.
An interim report on GA's findings was issued on January 25, 1982, with a final report scheduled for March 1982.
The NRC staff has reviewed GA's interim report and reported the results in a supplement to the The NRC issu'ed an operating li" cense on February SER.
16, 1982.
It was restricted to 5% power in accordance with the ASLB Decision.
Therefore, no delay is shown for this unit.
Author ~ization of full-power operation is currently projected for April 1982.
2.
Diablo Canyon Unit 1 - As discussed in la'st month's report, on November 19, 1981, the Comission suspended the license to load fuel and conduct tests up to five percent of rated power due to the errors found in the seismic design 5f certain equipment and piping supports in the. plant.
The staff is continuing to evaluate the seismic design /
Quality Assurance deficiencies at Diablo Canyon.
__.........-_.m.
- ~
2_.a..
a i
The full-power " hearing started on January 19, 1982 and concluded on January 26, 1982.
An initial dec'ision is projected for April 1982 A Commission decision regarding a full-power license is projected for May 1982, contingent upon satisfactory resolution of the seismic design /
Quality Assurance issue.
Issuance of the Staff SSER on emergency preparedness has been delayed, ending receipt of additional information from FEMA.
p 3.
Summer Unit 1 - The hearing regarding reservoir-induced seismicity and 1-imited emergency planning issues began on January 11, 1982 and
^
was concluded on January 20, 1982.
The projected decision date for a full-power license is May 1982, based on a projected date of April 1982 for a Board initial decision.
The applicant's projected construction completion date for the facility is the end of March 1982.
Assuming
~
a favorable Board decision, an operating license restricted to 57, power is scheduled to be issued in April 1982, immediately following th'e ASLB initial decision.
This results in a projected one-month delay for this facility.
4.
Shoreham Unit 1 - The hearing regarding this facility is now projected to start in May rather than March 1982f During the fall of 1981, the. applicant and intervenors engaged in extensive negotiations aimed at resolving a
~
substantial number of the contentions tentatively admitted for hearing.
In December 1981, however, the County Council 'for Suffolk County refused
)
to ratify a comprehensive agreement develop'ed by counsel for the parties.
As a result, settlement negotiations were teminated. On Februairy 8,1982, the Board ordered the parties to prepare for hearing., Because th'e l
l breakdown of negotiations between the. parties.has left nearly all outstanding contentions 1n dispute, it does not now appear that the
~
~-
(
^' ;,...._.,.,; m n, m.,u.. w ;gr.;, m. w
.s.
. c.. -,-
w--
case can be placed in a postur.e for hearing prior to May of 1982. The 1
1.icensing Board has been reconstituted by rep. lacing the Board Chairman to expedite the proceeding and resolve a scheduling conflict arising out
~
of.the former Chairman's -cbligations in the Indian Point special proceeding.
Given a start date of May 1982 the projected decision date (October 1982) results.in a one-month projected delay for this facility.
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS A final rule rigarding TMI-related requirements applicable to Construction i
Permit and Manufacturing License (CP/ML) applications filed prior to the TMI-2 accident was published in the Federal Register on January 15, 1982.
The rule establishes the licensing requirements that resulted from the Commission's O. ongoing efforts to apply the lessons learned from the accident at TMI
.became effective on February 16, 1982.
On January 29, 1982, Portland General Electric Company submitted inf,ormation on TMI-related. issues for Pebble Springs Units 1 and 2.
The NRC is currently
~
developing a review schedule for this facility.
e On February 3,1982, Duke Power Company
- informed the NRC that they will
, recommend withdrawal of the CP application' for Perkins Unit 1, 2 and 3 to l
the Board of Directors at its meeting on F'ebruary 23, 1982. On February 16, 1982, Public Service of Oklahoma announced the cancellation of Black Fox l
Units 1 and 2.
The Comissioners are currently reviewing responses and arguments pertaining to granting an exemption to allow non-safety construction activities at the C1' inch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) site.
A staff report on the exemption was prepared and was submitted to t'he Commissioners.
1-
_ mu....,.
m.,.m ~. c.
- m.
..j
.~
t
~.
The NRC staff is currently conducting its safety review of the Clinch River Breedet Reactor and met with the Advisory'Comittee on Reactor Safeguards c,n February 2 and 3 to discuss the safety review. The Licensing Board held a CRBR prehearing conference in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on February 9 and 10,
,l 1982 to prepare for, reopening of the formal hearings.
The projected licensing schedules for the pending CP and ML applications are given in Table 2.
1
~
Tables 1.
Li[ensing Schedules for Pending OL Applications 2.
Licensing Schedules for Pending CP and ML Applications
~
--e------
(Incl % s Schemieies eer aressateonae units ws(2 rrcJe o 7imstrwtenei t.naper.tinn an t.: rws).e wJ[
s~? e (rage i nf 4)_-
tg 6at g,
' (g
,(j (LTstWT4 drder JTr~jeTiisiT'ElBi~od liEisfu7n 2
b I
SSER
- [
SEE-
)
A5LR '
- Oiew.Y dim./ ' " / '
Est' Staff i
' Staff
\\.
c (Delay g
Plant,!,
_(Montht).
DE S.
Input to DL
_ SE R Mts;
<TE5_
Input to DI.
SJER -
Start of Initial Dec. ~ Constr.
^
N issise Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue w/
Hearin( l> cision li.itL Compt,,'
1 t
}u San Onetre 2 0 g.
C C
C C
C C
C C
C 04/s2 02/n2 i
i o
n3/n2 2/ > 4 LaSalle 1:
0 2/
C C
C C
C C
C Hone' None 03/82 2/
s-1 Crand Cutf 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C Mone Hone nl/P2 04/N2).'l Siammer 1 1 3/
C C,
C C
C C
C C.
04/82 US/n2 03/n2 Olabic Canya: 1 0 4/
C C
C C
C C
C C
04/n2 05/n2 03/HI Olablo Canyon 2 0 C
C C
C C
C C
C 04/82 05/n2 nt/n2 Suseluehanna 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
04/82 (15/n2 nt/n2 l
LaSalle 2 0
C C
C C
C 4/ 01 / 82 5/01/82 Mone Hone n6/n2 nl/n3
[8 Watts 8ar 1 0
C 3/12/82 4/05/82 5/04/82 C
5/26/82 6/12/82 None flone 01/ft2 nn/82 f
WMP-2 0
C C
3/06/82 4/09/n2 C
4/30/82 5/28/82 Mene None 01/n2 03/n3 Zlauner 1 0
C C
C C 9/
C C
C C
06/n2 01/82 ft1/n2 i
Saa Onofre 3 0
C C
',C C
C 6/01/82 7/05/82 C
C Ott/s2 II/n2 i
Farmt 2 0
C C*
C C
C C
C 03/82 08/82 09/ft2 II/I'2 Shoreham i I 3/
C C
C C
C C
2/26/82 05'/82 10/s2 II/ In/n2 t19/112 f
C<maanche Peak I O C
C C
C C
C C
C 09/82 In/ft2 Is6/ft3
,b In/n2 10/R7 St. Lucie. 2 C
C C
C C
C C
None 0
Sub-Total 2
l I
s O
l l
O e
e O
e
., -.,1;,p.
-vo
---,3,,j,.g.
- a m. x g e4g g g g.g, y
..,,3
,t Y?*
e y
d b
og
-e 5.,
- Ne n.
m N
N m
m m m m m m m m e m m
e m W8
- ==
m e e e m e e e e e e e e e e e e e
=
'.%)
e
== en
=
.O.
O e O
O==
D
==
O O
O O== =====
N N
e e e N
m
== = c ari e
.
- en O
e.
=
W D
- '= l m'
8 m
m m
m m
m m N
N N
m m m m m m t
e e e m.
e
==
- W
- e. e e e m e e so e e e e o
e v.,
e O - -
N N
E $
e ~
e O
m
.e UED U
> O m
O O
O O
O O
w s=
O
.=
o a.=
N N
N N
. m m N
m m m, m m N
N m
E
-e e e e o e e en a e o e o e e e m e, -
O O
e O
O E E $
O O
N U
m m SO s-w O
c.
e
==
m
== g3
=
e Da
==
m m
i E
w el el el Ni q
C
- T N'
N N
N N
N N
m m m N
N e e e e e e e e U e e e e.O 8
O W
ee m
m N
e e O
6.L U
es se O
O O
E O -
==
O '
g m m
==
N.
O O
O
==
=
F3 eE
==
e i
8 k.l
=
- N m m N
N m
N N
N M
N N
m m m e
=! ^
-m e e
.e e e e e e EO e e e e e e 9 e' N
.&.e m =
aw U
U U== - -
O O
==
O O
O w.
m O - -==
8 a
es e M
O O
M M
O m
M M
.N N
M C
O O
0 a-e4
.a
M em N
d"b nn M
e W
m e s-O O
en e-a=
a-e-
a=
e=
e E
W C O
==
st
== 0
=, =m
enf e-en pd M a N
N m
N N
m N
N N
m N
N m
M m
.e,.
e e
e e e
e e e
.e o e e e e
,m e.
u
=es N
==
a=
O O - en O
N h
e O
-====
O e c mi =C a
- U U -
O O==
a-U O
a=
e-
==
N O -
O O
O 6
== A si
,C O
ew-M N
==
M en N
W W
m en a=
O en g
en me.e E
=
a=
a=
e=
s-
==
en
+
e=a C=o-
%l s
5 N
N N
N N
N N
M N
N N
N e
e e e e e e e e e*
en e.
=
W er" 3 en e
en to e
no en en O
en gg 1 N
O u u O
O U
C O
O N
O s.
mw u eu u O
en N
O N
W
- a. en e es.
P 9
P 4
w
==
N m
e W
s=
e=
e=
O O g 4,
a.
.,==i
- o I
N N
N N
N N
N M
N N
N e e e e e e
-.= m e
e e e e*%
ma en.
e4
- .=
== g Wi U U U to U
W tp 8
O a=
O nn to e to e
e,o O
O O
O O
em O
O U
U O
3 6
E N
e4== g
- e W
96 w==
O e
M en M
en
- w e
a=
e=
h N
N N
N N
m N
N N
T 8 Ee a
o e
.e e
.e e e 4
e e.a -
en w U U U
U U
trt u
h U
O W
O w
h
==
O O
U U
C g
em to O
O
==
O O
%.t2 eg g
==
4 e m O
pi en a
w ay en w eC.e, s=
ms nas
,a
a en en g )
h N
N N
N N
m N
N N
e e
= = m e a e e
- m. e s
WO N
O 9
==
T 8
W
.N U
C U
==
O O==
O O
O U
O en n=== e#
e U U U
U U
g.e
=
eg g ea M
M N
N m.
mE g
4 me
.g b
N Sa N
N N
e e e e e g
en, 3 en ne en sea U U U
U U U U U U U sn N
gn
- sn U
U U
g N
O N
O O
3 ee N
gn - >= en g
am g
.=
-a e.
e As e s-O O
O O
O O
O O O O
O O
O Oe O O
O Of C es e a
" &.Is l
a N
.ng es=.
- =
pe N
-e w
e=
s=.
M N
e t
e a=
ed
.ef C
g a=
W
=c "t
- =
N' b
C N
a=
C 2
.=
n=
b e
G e
C G
.et L
G e
a
.e as e
o r e e -
e.
.C w
ao
.e o
e.
o es
.c av ea w
g C
O.
C 3
O em U
C A
h 9=
e e
to ed
==
en C
3 e
3 W
b 4
E
.e
.es &
ed a=
e
g
a 0
C 3
ed G
to F
6
==
g s-3 A
O 4
J gt a.=.
ed
=
43
.e 4.
==
e m
e W
g A
".U.
3 ee e.
s a=
3 eh g
e e
amm Q
e 3.n p
3 g
U S.
3 U
E 3
e,
.5 40 Am E
U e
C S.
LD E
e4
,9= us.
e e.
e==
e 6
e e
.-.,.,,.,--_m..
m.-
M*:=;**
'7' y g atG % %q 7J _~ 2 *;-.ff t_ - *m:
' TF." - s * 'etw ~ ~.wm '-
~ ?.a= 4.'
'. s 6 **
e n
e e
/
G.
el N
e me a i e an=
w art 8
-e
' E W
e e
- 0. C M
4 W Wl'
&9 N
O N
er
=
=
w G
N
%-l I.
e w
w M
==
eW e e a m
.M V =*
Eg WAO
.O E
e
- ==
N O
=
.=
- d a
w..
M e_
W 5
en 3 ee
O se m
g Mg8 M
m m
e
==
S
==
e N
O P[
e
==
==
C w
es=
w w
&=
W W
G W
4= b W
e4
== w w O
ee J O
O O
==
.C.
M.=
5
%e
==
ep
=
g m m e w e4 =
0 mE W.W W
W 8
es en w t as em M e
O
==
in u"l=
== M O
O O
=
==
ea 6s C
.U C D e
g
==
w
==
e end as e
o u M
s S.Q.
we k
e s
me we M
m m w e
C
== ed e
W W
W i
C O
e-C e
ps O==
w & es C
O N
w W e ews O
==
O en as e L T
=
M>C
==
e e
- a. W
@ W m m M
w-a
== *1 W
W e e s
e4 3M
- ==.
==
4 h
e em ned m
O m e t
ed om na.
O==
O O
s.
U
==
e, 8 G
== =e m
- m. e se 3 6
w A
m m m w en M
e
'c e e d
u K@
yg Wi E E 8 s
=
2 I
g 6
O C O m
M M
M l
6A C
- ==,%
- ==.
N P
O G
M 9
==
[
en ad==
e has e=
c N
N C
E te m O
O O
w T
w
==
M u
.v e
= =.
edh
- and 4
maa G
e-G 9=
=
e
== W 3 m m s=t Pi em t-== es e
S e
W W
eC a=
ed A ed W
- ==
ep==
g Mgg C
O.
O e
D= C.
3 e-b 3M e,
M N
e e e e e T
en led a
en O e en D
~
e-
- =
O O -
O N
~
en AE
- e =*
O O
O O
O N
em a= C saa g Q
."=
w s==
a==
h
==
e e
sa "O
O a==
su ar
=
e W
- =m m ee 9t, M
ed e
C e
==
en o
ami e e
e=
a=
==
p-
==
vf $
==.
y b
==
3 g
F4 e S
e 3
b e
ed g
<a M
a e=
o 3
e.
W e
n.---
e,----
- - - - - - - - - - ~~ --
1 l
(Paga 4 of,)
. %A I
TA'BLE 1 FOOTNOTES
)'1/
Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional potential delay from Emergency Preparedness Review.
Commission decision dates shown are for full power, however, initial licens'ing may proceed (restricting
)-
power to 5% of rated full power) based on preliminary design verification by the appilcant and starf.
-2/
March 15,1982 is the applicant's projected construction completion date.
NRC will be prepared to decide on whether to issue an operating license for LaSalle Unit 1 which will authorize fuel loading ahd operation up to 5% power prior to plant completion.
A Commission decision regarding operation above 5% power will be made on a schedule commensurate with the applicant's need for full-power authorization.
lI i
-3/
The estimated delay of this plant reflects the early issuance of an operating Ilcense restricted to 5% power immediately foll.owing ASLB decision.
4/
T'he delay' has been reduced to zero based on'the delay due to design errors found at the facility.
5/
Additional ACRS meeting for Wa'terford Unit '3' required to discuss management organization.
-6/-
Heavily contested plants reflect 11-month hearing schedule (vs 11 months) from SSER.to Commiss,lon de' cision date.
Commissioner Ahearne remafns convinced this schedule is too optimistic.
l3 J/
Midland Units 1 and 2 have the sawie hearing.
i i
-8/ Date sh'own is for first 'SSER following ACRS meeting.
Additional SSER will be issued to close out remaining j
open items.
Current 1-y no impact on subsequent milestones.
9/ The ACRS has requested that a subcommittee review Quality Assurance, issues with regard to construction.
10/ Date was recently revised.
The NRC staff is reevaluating the SER dates.
11/ Because of the number of contentions in this_ case involving. emergency preparedness issues, the schedule for issuance of an ASLB initial decision is heavily dependent on timely coinpletion of state and local plans and FEMA review.
12f On February 16, 1982, an operating license restrict,cd to 5% power was issued. There is no projected j!
delay for full-power authorization.
L L
I 1
3
ix
- *)
TARLE 2
- l.lCENSI EDiltES DIVISION OF tlc"
G 2/15/82~ t FOR PENDING CUH df.
EliMIT APPtlCATIONS
[
SER SSER (1MI Issues)
SSER (Non-THI Issues) 3 E
ASL8 ComeIssIon Plant DES ~
Issue issue Staff Technical Issue Staff Technical issue
'ACRS Start of 4/ Initial Decision 3
Issue
~~ Decision Date FES SER Input to DL SSER Input to Dt
$$ER.
Meeting Ilearint s
FNP l-8 C
C C
C C
C C
C C
5/82 0/02 j
C C
C C
C C
R/82.
11/82 Allr.s Creek 1 C
C C
Black Ftx 1 & 2 6,/
C C
C C
C C
C N/S 8/82 1/03 4/83
)
Skagtt/Itanford I & 2 3/82 1/ D/821/
C C
C 4/02 6/02 7/82 6/82 4/83 7/83 g
n:
Pebble Springs 1 & 2 C
C C
N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S 4/02 3/
N/S 3/
N/S 3/'
Pzrkins 1, 2, 3 2/
C C
C N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S f
h(
Clinch River C
C 3/4/83 6/10/83 7/03 6/10/83 7/83 5/83 O/02 SJ 5/04 G/84 If Facility is to be relocated to the llanford reservation. Amended ER and PSAR was flied in December 1901.
{
2] On February 3,1902, the utility Informed NRC that, they will recommend to their Board of Directors that the CP application p
he withdrawn.
4' f,
~3/ The date shown is for hearings on alternatt"ve sites. The appilcant has recently (1/29/02) submitted information on THI-related issues.
I ij The NRC is currently developing the review schedule for this facility.
l k
f/ Dates shown are for resumption of hearings following resumption of Ilcensing activities for pending CP applications.
.L'
-5/ Date shown is for coronencement of evidentiary hearings on issuance of Ilmited work authorization, per Board Urder of February II,1902.
I Board anticipates filing of formal objections to that Order, and may medify schedule if such objections are sustained.
]
6/ On Ftbruary 16, 1.902 Public Service of Oklahoma announced the cancellation of Black Fox linits*I and 2.
b i
y d
?
a, I
\\
?
~
t i
February 2, 1987 Harold:
We expect the CPUC to take action on our appeal next week.
A response from you needs to be in the CPUC's hands Monday, 2/9/87, for them to give proper consider-ation to this matter.
Thank you.
KENNETH P.
BASKIN 1
l j+' '
l i
l l
l
c:
h,
,,,p#":
unun l-Southem Califomia Edison Company P. O. BOX 800 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD CAllFORNIA 91770 M ENN ETH P. BASMIN TELEPHONE 4
V8CE PRESIDENT
$18 302-1400 February 2, 1987 Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Denton:
i The purpose of-this letter is to seek clarification of a matter related to the fuel loading / low power licensing of San Onofre Unit 2 in early 1982.
In a proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission-(CPUC), that Commission has concluded (based on a statement their staff attribute to you during an interview on January 28, 1985) that the NRC would have licensed San Onofre Unit 2 for fuel loading and low power on January 13, 1982 if the San Onofre senior reactor operator candidates had not earlier failed their NRC licensing examinations.
Based on this conclusion, the CPUC has disallowed more than $30 Million of the Company's investment in San Onofre Units 2 and 3.
l The Company has made an exhaustive search and examination of documents, prepared by the NRC Staff as well as the Company, which are contemporaneous to the NRC licensing activities during late 1981 and early 1982.
This examination leads the Company to conclude that there is no basis to conclude that the NRC would i
i have issued a fuel loading / low power license to San onofre Unit 2 as early as January 13, 1982.
On the other hand, the Company finds that there is considerable basis to conclude that the NRC would not have issued the San Onofre Unit 2 fuel loading / low power license as early as i
l January 13, 1982.
The basis for this conclusion includes:
1.
The NRC required the Company to perform an Independent I
Design Verification Program (IDVP) following the discovery of mirror-image design errors at Pacific Gas & Electric's i
Diablo Canyon Station in late 1981.
On January 13, 1982, the Company met with the NRC Staff and presented for the I
22o22 cot 32;
- Spp,
~
A' 24$ TGA 4
Mr. Harold R. Denton 2
February 2, 1987 first time, results from the IDVP which were referred to as Potential Finding Reports.
These Potential Finding Reports documented deviations from the intended design of the facility which had been identified and which could potentially have safety significance.
Presented with these preliminary results, it is inconceivable that the NRC would, on the same day, issue San Onofre Unit 2 a license.
2.
From the beginning of work on the San Onofre IDVP, both the Company and the NRC intended there to be an interim report concerning the IDVP which would provide a basis for NRC issuance of a fuel loading / low power license for San Onofre Unit 2.
This interim report was not completed until January 25, 1982 when it was submitted for NRC Staff review before a license could be issued.
3.
The NRC Staff required the Company to submit additional information concerning the IDVP on February 11 and February 14, 1982, before they considered their review to be sufficient to issue a license to San onofre Unit 2 on February 16, 1982.
4.
NRC review of the San Onofre IDVP was not completed until their Safety Evaluation Report Supplement (Supplement No. 5) was issued.
This supplement was required for issuance of the San onofre Unit 2 fuel loading / low power license on February 16, 1982.
The Company believes that if you did opine in January 1985, as was reported by the CPUC Staff, that a license could have been issued as early as January 13, 1982, but for the senior reactor operator examination failures, you did so without the benefit of review of contemporaneous documents.
The Company is not aware of any analysis that would lead to such a conclusion.
Please advise the CPUC as to whether or not the NRC has performed or is aware of any analysis which concludes that the San onofre Unit 2 fuel loading / low power license could have been issued as early as January 13, 1982.
Your reply should be sent to:
Public Utilities Commission of the State of California California State Building 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Attention:
Mr. Stanley W. Hulett, President I would appreciate a copy of your reply, as well.
M.
tu.
Mr. Harold R. Denton 3
February 2, 1987 Thank you for your prompt attention and reply to this request.
I cannot overstate the importance of this matter to the Company.
Sincerely, I~
r h
i i
J l
l i
,.--.,__-__..---,_--___...-------..._,--.--...,_-------.---...--,..---,.,,n~-
-... - - - - -