ML20213C972
| ML20213C972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1979 |
| From: | Lynch M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0269, CON-WNP-269 NUDOCS 7906110420 | |
| Download: ML20213C972 (7) | |
Text
.
f DISTRIBUTION M et File R. DeYoung LWR-4 File J. Knight b
APR 171979 R. Boyd S. Hanauer D. Ross R. Tedesco D. Vassallo V. Moore S. Varga R. Denise OEW
[
Docket No.
50-397 MEMORANDUM FOR:
S. A. Varga, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, DPM-FROM:
M. D. Lynch, Project Manager, Light Water Reactors Branch 4, DPM
SUBJECT:
PRESENT STATUS OF THE ROUND-0NE QUESTIONS FOR WNP-2 AND AN ESTIMATE'0F THE FUTURE COURSE OF THE OL REVIEW, INCLUDING A RECOMMENDATION OF A TWO MONTH SCHEDULE SLIP.
This memo summarizes the present status of the round-one questions for the OL review of the WNP-2 facility, an estimate of the future course of the staff review and a recommendation for a two month slip in the present schedule.
Briefly, about 500 round-one questions will be sent to the applicant by the end of this month and a grand total of about 1300 questions will probably be generated prior to issuance of the SER.
Both the large number and the complexity of these questions will probably cause a slip of several months in the present schedule.
A schedule slip of two months is recommended.
Status of Round-one Questions To date, a total of 395 round-one questions covering about 100 pages (single-spaced) have been sent to the applicant.
Another 60 questions covering about 23 pages will be s nt by April 19th (RSB) and it is antici-e pated that the last batch w W. ht-sent during the latter part of the month. The number of ro 4 nu 4, lestions should total about 500 questions covering about 132 page,.
he. t tal number of questions (i.e., acceptance review and round-one) wi'is then ca about 730 questions covering about 220 pages.
I have reviewed each of these questions to determine if they were valid review questions and discussed a number of them with the individual reviewers.
A very small number were eliminated by this process with the agreement of the appronriate review personnel..Accordingly, the questions which were transmitted represent, in my opinion, valid areas of staff concern.
Estimate of the Future Course of the Staff Review l'
Assuming that the number of round-two questions and positions will be about 20 percent less than the number of round-one questions, the number of questions at the end of the round-two phase of our review should be about 1100 questions covering about 340 pages with the exception of the plant unique questions related to the Mark II dynamic pool loads.
This 6 $1Idt/
a
latter review area will result in a number of questions related to: (1) the plant unique WNP-2 methodology for the chugging loads; (2) the plant unique DAR; and (3) the plant unique WNP-2 SRV methodology.
I estimate that about 150 questions covering about 30 pages for the three items listed above will be generated by CSB (including our consultants to CSB), MEB and SEB.
The grand total of questions which will be issued by the staff prior to preparing the safety evaluation input to the SER, should be about 1300 questions covering about 370 pages (single-spaced).
l From the foregoing estimates, I have developed the following four principal concerns to be considered by DPM:
1.
WPPSS will have considerable difficulty maintaining the presently scheduled turnaround time of 12 weeks for its responses.
For example, the second set of round-one questions (56 questions covering 13 pages) were received about 3-1/2 weeks late and the third set of round-one questions (25 questions covering about six pages from ASB) will probably be four weeks late according to the applicant's licensing engineer.
2.
The staff will take longer to evaluate the applicant's responses than is presently scheduled due to the number and complexity of the ques-tions, especially in the four branches listed below.
3.
The slippage due to Items (1) and (2) above may be about 6 to 12 weeks.
4.
The SER presently scheduled to be issueu by the beginning of April 1980, can easily slip about two to three months and will probably contain a large number of outstanding and unresolved issues.
To identify those review branches which may represent problem areas in the WNP-2 review, I have prepared a listing of the round-one questions (Table 1) indicating the number of questions generated by each branch. The number of pages is also tabulated since I've observed that the complexity of the questions was roughly correlated with the length of the questions (i.e.,
the average number of questions per page). While this might appear self-evident, it was nevertheless useful to establish this correlation.
On this basis, the following four branches probably represent those review areas where the maximum anticipated schedule slippage will occur.
3
. Number of Branch Pages Questions Comment RSB 35 107 Two batches ICSB 13 34 Round-cne 37 113 Total to date MEB 11 37 CSB 150 Estimated total The total number of CSB questions of the end of the round-one phase of our review is a very preliminary estinate since the staff has not yet received the report on chugging loads, Revision 2 to the DAR nor the SRV methodology.
However, the plant unique character of the WNP-2 methodology for chugging loads and the SRV loads will probably result in a large number of questions.
Briefly stated, the WNF-2 review will not benefit from the generic Mark II program in these two areas since nothing in this generic program is directly applicable to the WNP-2 plant unique proposals.
(The schedule for these submittals is discussed in greater detail below.)
Some of these branches (e.g., RSB, and ICSB) may be severely impacte'd by the accident at THI-2. Additionally, MEB is presently impacted by the review of the Stone & Webster piping seismic analysis of the five plants ordered shutdown by NRP..
While the impact of TMI-2 accident and the review of the S&W pipir<g seismic analysis on the WNP-2 licensing schedule in general is difficult to estimate, it is clearly apparent that the branch with the largest number of round-one questions (RSB with about 107) will be the most impacted due to the nature of the accident at TMI-2.
Another potential impact on the licensing schedule is the present proposal to transfer the preparation of the round-two questions and the safety evaluation for PSB to a national lab (i.e., ORNL).
Since the proposed time intervals for these two stages are about 6-1/2 weeks longer than previously scheduled, this slip plus the impact of factors affecting the LPM's transmittal of the round-one questions (i.e., higher priority case work on Bailly, the February backlog in CRESS and the sheer volume of the round-one questions) will probably result in a two month slip in schedule.
One final consideration in my evaluation of the future course of the WNP-2 review is the effect of the sli' ping schedule for the submittal by WPPSS p
of its plant unique methodology for the Mark II pool dynamic loads.
In a phone conversation with the WNP-2 licensing engineer on April 12th, the following tentative dates for the WNP-2 submittals were indicated:
i 1.
The plant unique methodology for chugging loads, prepared by Bedrosian of Burns & Roe, will be submitted in mid - April.
(A " prettier" version which is technically identical will be submitted at a later date.)
2.
Revision 2 of the DAR will be submitted in mid - June.
}
3.
The plant unique methodology for evaluating the SRV loads will be submitted in either July or August.
This methodology is for the four-arm GE quencher; Zimmer,'LaSalle, Shoreham and Susquehanna will be using the KWU quencher and methodology.
4.
The evaluation by Burns & Roe of the effect of the SRV loads on the mechanical components, the piping systems and the civil structures will be submitted in either October or November.
A comparable evalu-ation by GE will be submitted in the same time frame.
Assuming that the SRV methodology (Item 3) is pacing and that Item 4 is only confirmatory in nature (i.e., these submittals will demonstrate that 4
{
the structural and mechanical acceptance criteria are satisfied), I estimate that the earliest completion date for the staff's evaluation of these plant unique treatments of the Mark II pool dynamic loads will be about May 1980; a more realistic estimate would be September 1980.
Clearly, our evaluation of the pool dynamic loads must be covered in a supplement to the SER rather than in the SER presently scheduled to be issued by i
April 1, 1980. Whether any significant improvement in the review schedule of the unique Mark II loads for WNP-2 can be achieved depends mostly on the applicant; i.e., clear and acceptable submittals by the applicant for the four items listed above would minimize the time required for staff 4
questions and positions and applicant responses.,
Counter-balancing these highly probable slips in the review schedule are the following three factors:
(1) intervention has been denied by the Licensing Board; (2) the applicant has slipped its estimated fuel load date twice from March 1980 (it's original estimate) to September and thence to December 1980; and (3) the probability of a further slip to March 1981. Accordingly, I believe our review schedule should be predi-cated on a fuel load date sometime during the first quarter of 1981. The fuel load schedule is entirely compatible with the estimate of the Case-load Forecast Panel.
Summarizing the foregoing discussion, I believe that the issuance of the SER will slip about three months and will be paced by PSB, RSB, ICSB and CSB. However, the resultant slippage in the PDD from August 1980 to November 1980 will probably not impact loading of fuel into the WNP-2 facility sometime in the first quarter of 1981.
.. Recomirendations I recommend the following course of action for DPM:
1.
Revise the present schedule to show a slip of two months in the issuance of the SER and the PDD.
(This will accomodate the transfer of the staff's review from PSB and ICSB to ORNL, reflect the antici-pated slower response by the applicant and recognize the potential impact of TMI-2 on RSB.
I am preparing a revised scheduled consistent with this recommendation.)
2.
Advise the applicant of the revised schedule and indicate that a slip of at least anoth6r month is possible unless it can maintain the presently scheduled 12 week responsa timt 3.
Further advise the app'iicant that in light of the late submittals of its plant unique methodology for the pool dynamic loads, it is essential that these submittals te thorough and complete.
gginal signed W.8-D. L75'"
M. D. Lynch,. Project Manager Light Water Reactors Brancn 4 Division of Project Management
/
&D
~
..GFa.M% a..
~............
..DLynch: a k,,
, _,,S V,a e_.-
,. 9f.1.7f.751...
.. 40.1.9....
1mc POEM 3 e (9 76) NECM 0240
- u
- e.veemme=,. mesmo oeweesi e ese see ee*
f 1
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
OF ROUNO-ONE QUESTIONS WNP-2 Transmitted Requested
Response
Question Numbers No. of Questions Total of RunningIA No. of Questions Set Branch to WNP-2
Response
Received First last Questions Per Set Ql's Total of Q's Pages_
Per Page 1
CSB 11/03/78 01/23/79 022.31 022.52 22 22 22 52 5 1/4 4.2 2
MIEB 12/08/78 03/02/79 03/27/79 121.01 121.09 9
56 31 61 3 1/2 2.6 CPB 231.03 1
232.02 232.05 4
36 36 69 3/4 5.3 AAB 312.15 312.19 5
41 88 1
5.0 ETSB 321.03 321.05 3
44 93 1/2 6.0 RAB 331.15 331.24 10 54 117 1 1/2 6.7 GSB 360.04 360.05 2
3/4 2.7 9
Y f
362.05 362.09 5
61 131 1/2 10.0 HMB 12/08/78 03/02/79 03/27/29 371.08 371.14 7
1 1/3
- 5. 2 372.08 372.17 10 78 162 3 1/3 3.0 3
ASB 01/18/79 04/09/79 05/04/79(2 010.10 010.34 25 25 103 196 5 2/3 4.4 4
AAB 02/12/79 05/07/79 432.01 432.16 16 16 119 212 4
4.0 fl Round one plus acceptance review
/2 Estimated by applicant
StM4ARY OF ROUND-ONE QUESTIONS (Continued)
WNP-2 Transmitted Requested
Response
Question Numbers No. of Questions Total of RunningO No. of Questions' M Branch to WNP-2
Response
Received First Last Questions Per Set QI's Total of Q's Pages Per Page 5
MIE B 03/07/79 05/28/79 121.10 1
76 120 213 1
1.0 l
RSS 211.02 211.48 47 167 261 12 1/3 3.8 QAB 03/07/79 05/28/79 422.01 422.09 9
1 9.0 423.11 423.29 19 195 299 10 1/3 1.8 6
AAB 03/16/79 06/08/79 005.01 1
95 196 300 1/3 3.3 PSB 040.34 040.74 41 237 374 9
4.6 SEB 130.10 130.44 35 272 418 6
5.8 AB D
221.01 221.13 13 285 431 2 1/2 5.2 p
OLB 03/16/79 06/08/79 441.01 441.05 5
290 436 1
5.0 7
MEB 03/22/79 06/13/79 110.01 110.37 37 37 327 473 11 3.4 8
ICSB 03/28/79 06/18/79 031.80 031.113 34 34 361 586 12 1/2 2.7 9
RSLB 04/05/79 06/11/79 500.01 500.34 34 34 395 620 4 2/3
- 7. 3 O Round-one plus acceptance review