ML20210S709
| ML20210S709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1974 |
| From: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Donoghue D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1431 NUDOCS 8605290364 | |
| Download: ML20210S709 (6) | |
Text
I k .
l t l l
l Locket Nos. 50-400 g g 9 g4 e and 50-51 Daniel J. Donoghue, Director of Administration EFFORT ON VASHINCTON PUBLIC P0;'ER SUPPLY SYSTIM (WPPSS) PRIOR TO SITE RELOCATION AND TLA*rr DUPLICATION Summry This meno is written to doctneut the Directorate of Licensing evaluation and judgnent of the nuount of non-recoverable and site-related ef fort expended on the WNP-1 license application (Docket No. 50-460) prior to the WPPSS site relocation and addition of a duplicate plant. L"!P-4. Thfa judgnent will be considered by the Business Management Office in deciding whether to assess the Washinc, ton Public Power Supply Systen OTpFSF, applicant) n accond application foe for the license amendment eubraitted on August 9, 1974.
Availatie mnpower expenditure records show that about 526 man-hours were spent by review groups ou PSAR tw.terial that was subsequently nodified or replaced due to the site relocation and plant duplication. Of these hours, over half are directly applicsLle to the review of the a:nended application.
Sir.co the averap,e application for a construction permit (CP) takes 8 to 10 thousand man-hours of Kwgulatory staff effort prior to completion of review, the approximately 260 can-hours spent in review activity not applicable to the ancuded application is less than 3.5! of the normal CP review ef fort.
Both plants have been under concurrent review at the new site since July 1974. In our view, the nan-hours spent prior to the application a:nondment are lov enough so that ancessteent of a second full application fee is not justified.
Eapground At a 10/24/74 meeting attended by W. Miller and J. Holloway, Business Manage-ment Branch, J. Fonner, OCC, and A. Schwencer and T. Cox of Reactor Projects (LUR 2-3), it was agreed that Mr. Schwencer's office would initiate docu-nantation for the Directorate of Licensing concerning the Regulatory staff effort on the WPPSS application. This effort in man-hours would be compared to the approxinately 8 to 10 thousand licensing man-hours normally spent on a CP application. If the effort on the application as originally docketed l I I 8605290364 741217 PDR ADOCK 05000460 A PDR case v . . - - - -
Iots: AIC 31L (Rev. 943) AICM C240 W u. s. novannasant resutine orrecsa te,4.eae tes
4
)
Daniel J. Donoghue is a relatively low fraction of the normal overall effort
, then considerable relocating WNP-1 and duplicating it with VNP-4. or justificatio decision that this man-hour comparison is serranted are:The factors leading to the (1) application fee for the addition of a reactor unit o whom the multiple units are reviewed concurrently.
(2)
The 1REF-1 and -4 plants are being reviewed concurrently e:
sinc (a)
PSAR plast-related material reviewed prior to the formal i
plant because the two plaats are duplicates. addition (b) t Three PSAR the relocation andhduplication s between of the 5/31/74 original WNF and18/9/74 addressed
. An It amendment dated 7/10/74 provided appropriate environment information. a l schedule approved These amendments 4/29/74 for review beveof been reviewed a relocated on the WNP-1
' starting at the Q-2 stage of review. ,
(3)
Very (UNP-1) little site.site-related licensing work was done for the g nal ori i (4)
The of WFFSS sitemanagement.
relocation was brought about by factors beyond n rol the co t Discussion 1 The 1stF-1 application was docketed ou October 18 1973.
an amendment to the original application was rece,ived rmally which foOn August 9, 1974 reservation, and to the duplication of the n ord originally pla power plant with the WNF-4 plant to be located about 3000 feet morth of th plant.
i Site relocation action was initiated following en inquiry e WP-1b Senator Eenry Jackson, who in November 1973, asked bothy th Power Matrifstration and the AEC to investigate ethe Bonneville feasibilit y of continued operation of the N-reactor past the planned 1977 shutdous e. dat Af ter dockating in October 1973, the Enviroamantal Projects' en the original Esaferd 1 site, was not pursued, firstreview due te besod em 1
staff delay is engaging a motional laboratory review team unavoidable the applicant's latter to D. Maller en February 21 ,
and then due to I
L reachadeling the environmental xeview after a site relocation on.
decisi, 1974 f
( -
opric s * .
sva=aus *
--- - ~
gmagg > %. ..-.
' m.mm-===
..j foran Atc.318 (Re. 9 55) AECM 0240
..g . . . . .
W u. a. eovsamassme aanwreme opetess love.saa-ese
,- -,_...-..,__m..-
7i e
.q_ J. -
-l
. . . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . - . . ~ . .
Lact'r d b b if 7 09/26/74 TOTAL H4S FY 74 0000046d . C 03G DCC<CT ACT REG NON= REG C00C NO CODE NRS FR$
. K320 05000400 113 0,0 4.0 05000460 24.0 8.0 L , 050C0460 0,0 0 05000460 8,0 0 ACI. CODE TOTAL K320 113 @,0 23.0 ,
00000482 212 0.0 2,0
. .ACT. Coat TOTAL K320 212 8,0 2.0 ORG. CODE TOTAL K320 gb 39
- "_0
.Q.:d.,.,f x i u k - r. K33a -
- - - + 112 15,0 ,0
, 00000482 4,0 0 0000n482 7,0 1.5 00000462 2.0 0 ACT. CODE TOTAL K330 112 29.0 't,5 --
, 05000'160 til 2,0 2.0
. 05000460 26.0 2.0 0500*400 4.0 0 05000400 6,0 0
! 0S000460 1.0 2.5-0$000460 5.0 0
' C5000400 2.0 0 05000c60 4.0 0 ,
05000nbo 2.0 0
,. 05000460 3,0 0
' ./ 05000460 1,0 0 ACT.C00E TOTAL K330 113 y g5 00000482 122 7,0 1.5
~
ACT. CODE TOTAL K330 122 7.0 J 13 ._ ..
00000482 212 5,0 9,5 f.-t 00000482 4,7 4.0 00000462 lb,0 8,0 00000482 4.0 0 8-00000462 8,0 0 00000482 5,0 0 ACT.COOC TOTAL K330 212 y 35,,
05000400 213 2.0 0 05000460 10 J 0 05000400 3.0 0 ACI.C00t TC??L K330 213 15,0 0 0%. CODE TOTAL K330 149,0 31,0 cs .y a e 9 .. . 9 .
- e. We ee
i .. ..%.,.......- . - . . --- . .. .
- L' . '
__.c_m...;__- _ .~
s
- _
07/26H4 .
C450. ( & h ff TOTAL HRS FY 74 000004b- *
'I . . . . . . . . . . .03G. . . . . . . . .DCCMCT
. . . . . . . . . .ACI.......................................
C00C AEG NGs.4EG
........ NO CODE NRS '
I M .M 4 *z.........................................................
FRS
- f[> K310 -
00000482
'lil 8,0 i 0 00000402 2.0 0 ,
ACT. CODE TOTAL K310 -
- i til 10.0 j%
.0 00000482 112 12.0 00000482 1.0 11.0_ , 2.0 00000402 12.0 0 00000432 12.0 .j 0 00000402 12,0 . 0 00000482 . 8.0
- ?. 0 00000452 : 4.0 1 0 ACT.CC3C TOTAL K310 y 112 71,0 ' 3.0 05000460 113 16.0 0 05000460 39,0 0 05000300 3.0 00000482 0 05000400 4.0 .0 8,0 0
' 00000482 6.0 0500c460 5 24.0 0 ACT. CODE TOTAL K310 !!3 100.0 .! 5 00000482 212 3,0 ,0 ACT. CODE TOTAL K3to 212 3,0 0 CRG.C00t TOTAL K310 .
13 0 . ' 32
[th! * ' #
K320
- 00000482 111 2
.5. -
00000402 c.0 00000482 2.0 +
,0 12.0 0 ACT. CODE TOTAL M320 111 16,0 4.0 00000402 112 12.0 00000482 0 4.0 0 000004P2 2.0 0 00000482 1.0 0 00000402 16.0 0 00000462 2.0 0 00000482 12.0 10,3 ACT.CC3E TCTAl, K320 112 49,0 .10,0 05000400 113 6.0 0 05000460 1.0 0 05090sbu 4.0 0 0S0004b0 a,0 0 05300460 0,0 0 05093400 0.0 0 0"a 0 0 0 4 6 0 32.0
., l 11,0 D
l l
A *
. . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . - _ . _ . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . - . . . . _ _ . ~ . . . , _ . - - - -
S 09/26/74 -TOTAL HR5 FY 74 00000aSM ORG DOCKET ACT REG NON-AEG CODC NO CODE HRS ISRS
-) . ... . .. ..... ...... ......... ..........
'n !
()
~]C ~ . . .. . . 3 -K34C f(f) -
000004S2 212 6,0 -
0 ACT-C00E TOTAL K340 212 6,0 0 ORG-CODE. TOTAL K340 0
,., ;. a c. .,.-c-r s . .,. '. ' "6.0 '_ ""
. K350 00000482 212 1.0 ,0 0000040.2 0,0 . li , 0 00000462 , 4.0 . 0 ACT. CODE TOTAL K350 212 13,0 4,0 ORG. CODE TGTAL K350 .
13,0 '
- 4,0 W
e..~.~ . . _ .
..4 ...
0 (For period 10-73' to Aug.10,' 1974) -
11/21/74 PAGE 1 Time Reported by the Electrical, Yestrumentation & Control Systems tranch 0
00CWCT C3G RC3 NON-REG TCTAL NO CODE NRS wR3 -WJURS ORG. CODE TCTAL C5000460 K120 135,0 :5,0 140,0 00CMETN* TCTAL 05000460 135.0 5.0 -140,0 S
+
I i
l' l
1 l
I t
}
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Files LWR 2-3 Rdg ASchwencer Docket Mos. 50 60 CC 2 754 CStahle
-513 TCox 50-514 EGoulbourne i
'. g
. Technical Review Branch citafs REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AT CP STACE FOR 1 AND PEBBLE SPRINGS are reminded that each TR branch is responsible for the reviewing of technical specifications in the PSAR. This responsibility is in addition to any being exercised by the QA branch in Reactor Projects.
The schedule for requesting additional information and stating staff positions on technical specifications is, of course, the sace as for the other aspects of your review (see Q-1, Q-2 and SER draf t input target dates) . For Pebble Springs these daten are 12/13/74. 4/11/75, and G/1/75 respectively. SER inputs to LI"! should address the accept-ability of the appropriate preliminary technical specifiestions relative to the requirements of section 50.34(a)(5) of 19 CFR 50. Regarding the WPPSS 1, 4 review, several branches have aircady submitted their SER input and none of these have specifically addressed the acceptability of the PSAR Chapter 16 material. Thema branches shovid provide a supplemental statement to Rasctor Projects covering the review of the PSAR Chapter 16 material as appropriate to the systems reviewed by each branch.
. Orig %! d.w1 Fy, A. Schwencer, Chief i j
~
Light Wate,r Reactors Branch 2-3 Directorate of Licensing cc F. Schroeder A. Ciambusso R. DeYoung Y. Moore TR ads Cf ' { 1' A '
DM g?O 3 ')
l
- ic e
- x7 LWR 2-3 lac . -3 __. _ _ . _ .
ev=====> C a le:cjb _AS$u rchcer
- e. ,e
- 11/9 /74 _119974 . - . , . . . _ .
, e.- Ar.c sin in 9 9)) A2W 0240 2w e .ove ===ame paemve=e op ptess s.94.es see
l e
, l NOV. 2 41974 DOCELT JOS: 50-460, 50-513, SIN 50-508 AND STN 50-509 APPLICANT: MASUNGTON PUILIC POIER SUPPLY SYSTH.!
FACILITY: WPSS )gICLEAP. PlWBCES 705. 1, 4, 3 M O 5 SUM 4ARY OF MEETING WTI11 DONALD F. I. FDW, PO!ENTIAL I)mRYB0R -
WPPSS MjCLEAR PROJECTS NOS.1, 4, 3 AND 5 On November 14, 1974, W. H. Regan, Jr. (Enrironeontal Projects),
T. H. Cox (Reactor Projects), R. H. Otlp (Office of Geeral Counsel),
and I met with Donald F. X. Fim. This meeting took place at Mr.
Fim 's office in San Francisco, California. 'Ihe purpose of tle meeting was to informally discuss issues of mastual interest regarding the cxmstruction permit applications for WPSS )naclear Projects Nos.1, 4, 3 and 5 filed by Washington Puhlic Power Supply System. Hr. Fina has filed petitions to intervene la both tle WPPSS Nclear Projects Nos.1 and 4 anal the WPSS Maclear Projects )bs. 3 and 5 proceedings. In addition, we were prepared to M==s the AEC's reactor licensing process and the schedules for the safety and enriremental rarisws of these applications.
Enclosure No. I contains a list of attendees.
The attendees dies ==al the contentions in Mr. Finn's petition to intervene: (1) the proposed nuclear plant would adversely affect his business interests in developing geothemal generating ceMity in those regions of the state of Washington where the proposed plants would be located; (2) the applicant's evaluation of alternste energy sources (geothermal) is inadary=te to rule cut geothermal energy "^
as a viable alternative; (3) the Regulatory staff's F";
assa==marit of alternate energy sources will not provide an adequate basis to determine wtether geothermal energy is alvihble alternative; (4) tle Ateedc Safety and Licensing Board mest consider aspects of the fuel cycle in these proceedings bar mi=* radioactive waste storage mui transportation affect the public health and safety.
i
)
l~
f a s
(
NOV.2 43gy e
2-Mr. Finn expressed his intent to pursue all of these issues to the Pederal Courts if narammary to assure that goethermal power prehetion ;
gets "a fair shaka" as an alternative to nuclear power in the pending
- p.1-
- --M==s.
He clarified the phrase, "- ~-funy appiled for," used in his i petition (Sectim II) .4..ing to "Pederal geothermal lease (sic) in the states of h shington, Oregon and Idaho." He said that the bergy Partners 1974 application was the only one filed for the partimlar land in question. Therefore, when the Federal Goverraient ,
does lease the land, Energy Partners 1974 would bs the lessor. To '
date, the Federal Government has annomced no schedule for leasingr thin land. We == lad Mr. Finn about his claim of developable geo-thernal generating capacity within the time schedules planned for ,
! tie WPPSS m clear plants. He replied that: '
t i
(1) ne burden of assessing the adarriary of the alternate power -
evaluation is on the Federal Government (ABC). The govermont's release of tle lands is necessary for contimed develognient of the geothemal potential. 'Iherefore the Governesnt itself is, in his opinion, la1.1:a po,sition of lopeding the development that it is require to objectively assess. He expressed his e r determination to obtain satisfactory resolution of this conflict.
(2) Delays that have occurred to date in the construction aml ;
licensing of inclear power plants make the a;plicant's planned schedules overly optimistic. Maas there is actually more
, time availabic for geothermal develoInsent. ,
Mr. Regan asked Mr. Fim to elaborate on the scope anl depth of ,
l goothermal assessment that he would consider adarriate. Mr. Finn said that the AEC s culd extensively consult tle open literature, recognized exIerts, including local geologists and volcanologists, and government agencies tint have pertinent data.
Mr. Finn informed us that his interest in tle licensing process is j currently limited to the procedural details regarding his participation in the hearing process. Instead of an explanation.of t!m licensing ;
process, w gave Mr. Finn a package of doctanents regarding t!c licensing process arxl our review schedules for the NPPSS applications. The contents of this peclage are listed in Enclosure No. 2.
- Original Signed by Patrick D. O'Reilly Patrick D. O'Reilly ugnt viator im ww
- =* Project.. Drarch.1-3_
L:L E M _ Directorate of Licensim PO'Reilly:pg re
- NOV. 2 4 rg74
- 3.
Enclosure ib.1:
Agtm.amar. Lht facleans Hb. 2 List of Incummets given to Mr. D. F. X. ' Film cc: Mr. J. J. Stein Jomas B. Eastts, Jr., Esq.
Ricinni Q. Quigley, tal.
. .. e - __ _ _ . _
ewasame > , . . .
DATS > . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .
perus AEG)l0 (Rev. 9 S)) AICM 0246 W u. a. oovenmassar pnentene oppects esp..eas.tes
Q fy.. ,
m O.1
[ q. '
ENCLOSURE NO. 1' F , ATTENDANCE LIST MEETING WIll!
,1UISTIAL INTERVENOR WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECTS NOS.1, 4, 3, AAT) 5 NOVINBER 14, 1974 POIBTIAL INTERVENOR D. F. X. Finn
- C, Conde
- T. Sullivan AEC - REGUIATORY STAFF T. H. Cox R.11. Q21p W.11. Regan, Jr.
P. D. O'Reilly
- Denotes part-time attendance P
i n
k-
. .. s ,
9 ENCIDSURE NO. 2 LIST OF D00AIENTS GIVEN 'ID D. F. X. FINN AT NOVBIBER 14, 1974 MEETING 1.. Safety Review Schedules: WPPSS Nuc1 car Projects Nos. I and 4 and Nos.
3 and 5.
- 2. . Press Release of April 6,1973 on Public Participation in Licensing Process.
- 3. Federal Regulations: 10 CFR Parts 2, 20, 50, 51 and 100.
- 4. WASil-1238 - Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials To and From a Nuclear Power Plant.
- 5. Fact Sheet on Connercial fligh Level Radioactive Waste - June 21, 1973.
- 6. Licensing of Nuclear Power Reactors (Bulletin by OIS, August,1974).
- 7. WASil-1250 - The Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors and Related Facilities.
8.. 1973 Annual Report to Congress on Regulatory Activities.
- 9. Regulatory Guides: 1.17, 1. 21, 1.4 2 and 4. 2.
- 10. Atomic Power Safety - J. F. Ilogerton (IITIS)
- 11. Nuclear Power and the Envircrinent (17FIS) 9 L.
c q,
- y X, .
liistribution:
l>ocket Fil F. Schroeder AEC PDR 11. Denton Local PDR R.-Maccary
, L Reading V. Stello i R. C. DeYoung R. Tedesco R. Denise V. Benaroya K. Go11er C. Long D. Sh11er J. Kastner
'D. Skovbolt G. lainas V.' Moore- D. Ross W. Butler T. Ippolito D. Vassallo- S. Pawlicki 0.' Parr J. Knight n K. Kniel L. Shao A. Schwencer B. Grimes J. Stolz W. Gamill
.R. A. Clark R. Ballard R. Ircian! P. Fine R.'lbrple T. Novak
, D. L Zienunn M. Spargler
G. Knighton V. H. Wilson G. Dicker R. F. Fraley, ACRS (16)
B._ J. Youngblood thR 1-3 Reading
, W.11. Regan, Jr. LWR 1-3 File S. Varga .F. Kantor R. W.~ Klecker E. Ihwkins T. Jolanon C. Stepp-D. Bernreuter D. Budge T. Hur1>hy R. Kornasiewic:
C. Liang P. Stoddart J. Costello F. Cherney P. Cten E. Brooks R. Satterffeld C. Sullivan F. Ashe M. Bolotsky J. Sihweil G. Lear
,0
6 b Sd-fB 72'.
DOCKLT NOS: 50-460 and 50-513 APPLICMT: WASilING'IIW IUBLIC ITMER SUPPLY SYSTIN (WPPSS)
FACILITY: WASHING 10N IWCLEAR ONE AND ICUR (WNP-1, 4)
SlM4ARY OF ELTING HELD TO DISCUSS ONTADMNT SYS11NS DESIGN MD ANALYSIS On October 11, 1974, representatives of WPPSS, thited Engineers and Constmetors (UE4C), Babcock and Wilcox (84W), and the Regulatory staff met in Bethesda, Maryland, to discuss staff concems regarding contairsment systems. The concerns involved information needed by the Containment Systems Branch (CSB) staff in order to prepare CSB input to the Safety Evaluation Report, which input is currently scheduled for cowletion on November 15, 1974. An attendance list is enclosed. A stannary of the meeting discussion follows.
Staff position no. 6.75* was briefly discussed by W. Pasedag of the staff.
A WPPSS cors:titment to perfom the necessary preoperational proof test was made. This comitt:aent and a pmliminary description of the test will be incitaled in a forthcoming amendment to the PSAR. The test will involve operation of the containment spray ptamps, with simultaneous flow to the pump suction from both the borated water storage tank and the sodium hydroxide tank. Tank levels or changes in level will be measured at selected time intervals. Additive concentrations will be computed frtri tank level measurements and verified by chemical analysis of samples taken from the mixed flow. Liquids used in the test will simulate the viscosity and density of the actual borated water and sodium hydroxide.
The staff position no. 6.72* regarding maxinara allowable pil (less than or equal to 11.0) of the contaiment spray solution was discussed. W. Pasedag explained that system designs and subsequent staff evaluations to date have been based on cormsion rate and magnitude data that, in the staff's judgement, will support a *==n allowabic Idl of 11.0. Use of solutions which at any time have pil greater than 11.0 will require detailed analytical justification, including as a mininur. the presentation of corrosion data for the higher pit solution. Since the staff has presented its position in this matter and l *Intter to J. J. Stein (WPPSS) from A. Sclarencer dated 9/13/74 r/ I ,,'n<. An l %Dh0Cf ilT) . Oh^
o- ~ . . - _ . . . . _
> r.n. m n , a a n n a cu n.o s........~~.~,....,.................... .
f E_
F
- 1 WPPSS Meeting Summary ;
is in the process of writing safety evaluatie wport input, additional aview of the spray system to justify a #1 af greater than 11.0 may result la a delay in completian of the staff wriaw in the catainment spray i system ama. 1he applicant decided to consider thfs issue further prior to response to the staff position ( &s to the staff an October 21,1974).
WPPSS stated that they would pie to operate centnin==nt sprays as necessary l in the post-IDCA envircreant, to assure adequate mixing of any hydrogen produced. 1his cannittuent was sought by the staff since the catain==rit fan coolers are not Category I equipment and may not be considered availabic for containment atmosphen mixing nrior to activation of the catmimmerit purge systan.
5 Sewral hours were spent in analyzing the diffennces between contairmant I pressure calculations done by the staff and those done by LE4C. 1he staff's calculations show that the dosle-ended pump suction break (11.17 ft2 area) i with as ims of full B3:S operation and no steam condensation asults in the hi t contairument pressure. The staff calculations result in an macceptably law design margin at 200 seconds after the IOCA event, with the pressure still increasing slightly. Mass and energy input data for times past 300 seconds was not available in the PSAR when the calculation was done. However,2(E4C calculations show the highest pressure case to asult frtum a 15.75 ft hot leg break. Purther, LE4C calculated pressure was decreasing after 200 seconds. It was finally concluded that additional calculatims would be needed to resolve the apparent diffenences between the staff's calculational techniques and those of IE4C. LE4C will perform I
these calculations during the week of October 14 1974. Purther staff and/or applicant actions will be based on the com,parison of-the calculations.
8$laal sisnedre ,
1hamas Cox, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Directorate of Licensing
Enclosure:
Attendance List e
i IXR 2-3 eu=-* TCOX
=* 10/-/74 -
Feren ALC 318 (Re., 9 9)) AECM 0240 # u. s. eavsanasent rasatsme erresse e.r4.sse see 1
1;;
- d
ATIENDANCE LIST DOCKE'IS 50-460 AND 50-513 EETING WI'111 WPPSS WASHINGTON NUCIEAR GE A.I) N FOUR October 11, 1974 AEC-
'T. Cox W 'Pasedag*
T. G mene*-
WPPSS A. Ilosler -
C. B. Organ UESC A. J. Friedman J. A. Daniel K. K. Niyogi
, J. M. Foremny
- V. Mani*
'P. Karousakis B.,QW, K. C. Shich K. E. Suhrke
- Denotes part-time attendance t_ .-
g