ML20213D634

Documents Util Verbal Request to Delay Site Visit from 810427 to June 1981.Date in mid-May Was Suggested as Compromise

ML20213D634
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	04/09/1981
From:	Rib L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-0350, CON-WNP-350 NUDOCS 8104150255
Download: ML20213D634 (9)

Text

K' T

f i(?

k

're

~

Dist.

66cket FiTD TERA APRL LRib g Nb MRushbrook

~

• • b

- (b -W1 t

(

DLynch MEMORANDUM FOR: The Files FROM:

L. N. Rib, Project Manager, Licensing Branch No.1, DL

SUBJECT:

Delay of Site Visit at WPPSS Request The purpose of this memo is to document a verbal request by Keener Earle (Licensing Project Manager for WPPSS, WNP-2) to delay my visit to the Hanford Washington site from my proposed April 27, 1981 to a date in June 1981. Believing this to be too long a postponement we tentatively set the visit for mid-May. The reason for writing this memo is because of WPPSS contact with Congressmen complaining that we INRC) are unreasonably delaying the licensing schedule for WNP-2. The letters to the two Congressmen are attached as references.

This site visit was to serve to acquaint me with WNP-2 status and meet the WPPSS management to discuss the plant completion schedule and several issues that are being evaluated for QNP-2.

In connection with an evaluation of the current construction schedule I had planned for Bill Loveless and Dave Lynch to accompany me on this visit to constitute a caseload forecast panel review for the WNP-2.

It was the latter aspect that caused Mr. Earle some concern and prompted the request for the delay. WPPSS is in the process of changing the con ~ tractor responsible for construction completion for WNP-2 and Mr. Earle said ttey would not be ready before June to discuss construction completion schedules. Mid-May was our suggested compromise.

L. N. Rib, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing l

Enclosure:

As stated q

wik >'f7 7

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS"c k

810.4150S15 FL POOR QUALITY PAGES

[V f,

\\,.

I,e DL:LB#1 dei."BI1"-

o">c4-

~51 LRiblys..ci. BJYo.u gblo.od.,

l om ).

4/f /81 4/. /81 ac row atu oo smcu c:c i

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

'*-2*'

.~a...,...#..-...,,v.

b

fre (287)

Twis L=..cn tocs? ' :ss rzer, tsrasums A usw comwirusur.

?.

I t

(332) v.wss connespenctnes nc.

~3 Ma-leck (901A)

-.;

• v g u.-

(221)

(INFOR 4ATI0fl & LETTER CONTENT COORDINATED /REVIEWD

.yn 1000)

WITH J.R. LEWIS ~, BPA, AfiD T. E. HUNT )

id E e~bsen ((420)

^

JMk,..

'; ejn:1ds N, '

.g.

W:.

2 e.[k;..

EF/IU

<i h1 February 13, 1981 g Q,,f.. ' ['l-

.:. aue r.an

. 9% y_.

i1 e/'.b/G:3 C

r q p t-1

,% o f.'

/

Tne Honorable Sid Morrison house of Re:resentatives House Office Building h

Wasnington D.C.

20515 Cetr Congressman Morrison:

Re:resentative 5evill (D-Ala.), Chairman p tne Sub ~r.r ee on Energy and W :ar Cevelopment (House Appropriations cdaitt :

f:r February 19, 1981, to receive testimo(nvNr.;d, has scheduled a~ hearing he NRC on its FY 1982 ap;ropriations reouest.

is hv objective to p6M. that certain vital issues are broucht forth f:r cis'ussicn during %

1 rings. These issues are major factors in assurinc that our North..as-/ersy needs are met with efficiency and ur ger.:y. "With % suppor U ti co cur needsjer. '_bensible My rev'nfident that the tiRC will r'espond to iews consi.stant with meeting our energy g:ais.

\\

\\

-(Ke..p..g of) heir review of our WNF-2 reactor.spueg usal t.ith the NRC's c s

, which is nearing ccm-p'.egi n on the Hanford Reservation in Richland, WA.

I believe the NRC s c; \\c eallocate their manpower resources from low pricrity items (such as tr.e e. icr to promulgate new regulations on reactor siting) to licensing e#ferts, with top priority devoted to near-term Operating Licenses.

The delay: in issuance of Operating Licenses projected by the NRC are unaccept-a:ie fr:m the standpoint of economics, societal benefits, and the reason-a:ie and ccmcetent administration of the Atomic Energy Act.

Further, it is m estimaticn, after careful review and research, that because of these celiys incurred by the NRC, we are faced with the waste of hundreds of mil'.icns of dollars on a national scale.

The NRC staff and Licensing s

3:ar:s snould be directed to expedite.he hearing process or be held a:::untacie for their failure to do so.

The se::nd issue deals more directly with the eminent energy shortage in tr e ':orthest. Specifically, I am concerned about NRC's schedule for

leti:n of their Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for WNP-2 which I be-l' eve is an example of the NRC's lack of proper prioritization.

Currently, lAtm:=:

3:4 Roney f ro!t sicNaruns cri RL Ferouson

' w.:.

l l

l l

n ~= = n At ep.

I t

l l

! Ane :. t :

i i

l t

CAn i

j i

l l.

w,:n

,~

4 t.

The Honorable Sid Morrison Pace 2 i

Fe~oruary 13, 1981 the NRC has scheduled the WNP-2 Safety EvaluItion Re: ort for ccmpletion by March 1982. This allows only four months for Advisory Ccamittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) hearings, a possible Atomic Safegeard Licensing Board hearing, comcletion of staff review, and Commission f ssuance of the Oper.

ating License before our projected feel-load date of Jcly 1982 (see Attach-ment I). Historically, this is not enctgn time to allow for required hearings or potential delays in the review schedule. Although a public hearing is not currently scheduled for WNP-2, I believe it is prudent for the NRC to plan their safety review to. allow contingency for public in-volvement.

I am proposing a rascheduled date of November 19El for ccm.

pletion of the WNP-2 Safety Evaluation Reper: (SER). If the current NRC process is not altered, there is a cistinct possibility that NRC licens-ing review could become the pacing facter in c mpistien of WNP-2.

The energy needs in the Northwest cannot tolerate acy unnecessary delays in comcleting this plant.

As snown on Attachment II, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has provided a five-year crojection of the Pacific Northwest energy needs.

Ncte that even with the additional power supplied by the WNP-2 plant, a substantial energy deficit is projected which must be absorbed by importing foreign oil or by curtailing electrical service.

Keep in mind that tais table was develoced with the assumption that WNP-2 will achieve the sened-uied fuel-load date and become operational January 1983.

I respectfully recuest that you contact Representative Sevill (and othar members of the Subccmmittee as appropriate) and see that discussion is scheculed during the testimony of February 19:h regarcing the NRC licensing metheds.

Our NRC review date for WNP-2 is mest directly affected by their process. Ycur assistance in resolution of the issues that I have identified will be sincerely appreciated.

Please note that I have also provided the above information and mace a similar recuest of Concressman Tem Foley.

If any questions arise concerning this material, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours, 0&

m t

n R. L. Ferguson Managing Director Attachment I: WNP-2 Licensing Schedules Attachment II: Northwes Power Loads & Resources (BPA)

e q'

1 k

l CC 2<

C

-t 9A

.= u VGA o

} --

• w=

a'::?I

~

.rf: 1, re

- hi:4 2

I:} ?

-O 2%

.il

- i, j$

. - y6.

w (4:!-

• 6*

C (isi 1

te3 8

h..c.:

'i; 9 *%6 9;.:.f i

Y.+: 't N..N i

m:

m t3:;

cl:

C i@

I**e a

i N

2 [.:<

=a

<<gy e-sz a.

s 2a w cs-

8

-.-. m-n t,n O.. T.

T,:iiI]

v h

{. :

.=* ?

O 15

E-

• Li

.r i~g Q

1 Ns E <N k"

, E

' 'Vih Oy-W = 2 Vird:'

O ypi>

Wj;-,

"' =

or p

5gw Gm M

E

'.f g*

a

=

w d

a l

• • • ( C

=.. :' 3

-m s.u.

A = F7 9

4 W Of T.C

• y: W

>=

JI!!

-J

-d

- -f Y. )

~W #* Z '

d:i w

U U 91::.

?

r

<g9

'N C

w, c_..::::gy,

$1 3::.G Z-

=

i -

3:.,

M.=

.s y

, = t.%

=,

a

,m e

a '.=...L.fj2 - <

K--

2 y

.t. :.

@ Y" '?') $

{ i'i'

.!.!5 2

-r g *:r.j

,.aJ.

,4, a

• 3

p i

• W 3

7 2 ::i,,,

<w

.::.1

.g w,f -

F-o E

s 1

C,.,'-=

C :..n

} K.::. h'

-~.?..

J.ll'

.d..C!g

,2

~:

k

. ?.:o.

D':s. -

U c:i.f. m g

a t

?

i N

, a:-

[; -

((h

$-. h I

d, _.d, l.pg et'" -

2

. 3 es<3 2

0e 9

[:-.:.

w=,

i b'4 '

w ra

• t:.

s-.

~

• 6 s--

=:-< -

22

.,e

,3 w a

':$ s

= -. :

g a

9 m a ng e

i.

i==

ii;:

m o est

.o-4q::

s

.sa n

n v a

- - =<

=.a w j yi s

,y

=

5 se t.:.I. !

3-.

.;; y' e-

=ji

-- 3i: I

• 3 l

7, 2 ll",.

,',. : 3 f.4 h

==-

- s _

...a

=

a c

(

1 w<

t

}l a.

m, A -

' u.

+.n v.

2:

= <

t.

t s...

-l

?;;

l ni ;

A m

i, g

y: g w

i C

u-J qli s%

o y

=d, (g;

wy -

s

.a UJ 3:

u v

V3

e. p.3 u=

7 5;!

= n..

0 -1 a-0:d

=:

l

< w g. w, e :!. 4 o

,m._

=.r e

>-c.: -

m a

si,. G e j.i:4 c:

e 9:

e.

<ir--

s i

- F::1 m..

= r. : e

. = f.p.. =,.

--.,,.r. :. j w:%,*,

-.O.

!.LJ 3

..:.ii w

a-

- ~

a

.a.

m-93 _.

<<r tq --

'r e

, !.zx Ia-E; w g

-2 e-l ih

-9 3, 1.25 w=

, f:

=.s.

ea 3.j.:_

S.,. 3

_4 < w-t.

__i wt y

- we b.

i

,.i_.c o_s,--r

.e y<

D <E5 Ir.j k.=-

$ai

.N~c,-. '

h.m U2h$F

}

=

gia I

l Z

u:

n-

.s; a

z ; a w

u

~-.: q.

-a,,

m sii b, e e

. = _

4 F 44 v"" 9 w

= = <

0.,

': b a' = =

. ~ '

c.

c%r _ ~

c '.

C

-~l

=v g

e, t _,

w ei ~ 1 r1 4-Or-t2 c=.

~

g[:;

5:1 I

s

~Q 2.;

N..

L.:. 3 C

%~.,

=.,,p e

[

%.5.

.i e.

r~

i Nhi Nll h[

D

h. T:.i~

-z.

x c,,i 9]

INl 2m C

C I

7; t.i:,

l E

il WG c-f.e

• -. a w

m.

s -m es,,

[_ 4 i

c s.' g OE..

p' we ga (,

J.

p s'

='

Ll

]

g O

ts h

e r

3 :.

f;.

4-I.I t

c l

i l

I.

p i

I il0RlHilEST Poller LOADS & RESOURCES 00fillEVILLE Poller ADHillISTRATION*

1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Total Electrical Loads In Megawatts 18,736 19,294 20,057 20,715 21,363 (Average Energy)

Electrical Power Deficit in Megawatts (2,314)

(2,558)

(3,327)

(3,623)

(3,422)

(Low Water Assumption)

I Electrical Power Deficit in Megawatts (1,564)

(1,808)

(2,577)

(2,873)

(2,672)

(Average llater Assumption)

Oil Requirements To Offset Deficits 22.911 26.4 11 37.7 M 42.0 M 39.1 M (Low Water Assumption)**

i

• Assumes llNP-2 Commercial Operation, January 1983 (July 1982 fuel Load)

• • Millions of Darrels at 600 Kwll/ bbl

/

Attachment II 4

e

..... -... a..w..w a TH:S LETTER SAilsr**3 COMMITMENT NC.

4 3 ;i e (387)

(382)

WIS LETTER (OCEr, aces NCm EsTAEU::H A NEW COWAITMENT,

3.Ma:i:ck (901A)

WPrS CORREsPCNoENCE NO.

2' C21I U.'l:

:s:n 1000 (INF0Fy.ATION & LETTER CCNTENT C00RDINATED/ REVIEWED WITH -

. :,c-e.sen 420)

J.R. LEWIS, BPA, AND T.E. HUNT )

'i :.5,,n:l es

'F/1rd

9. VI!? ~;En

-i ef.:.4.3 February 10, 1S81 i

/

The Honorable Tem Foley H:Use of Re resentatives k

H:use Office Building h

V Wasnington D.C.

20515

Dear Congressman Foley:

V t

Re:ressn:ative Sevill (D-Ala.), Chairman pf the Sub g'se en Energy an::

s J

..'a:er Development (Heuse Appropriations Cbr itted, has scheduled a nearing f:r February 19, 1981, to receive testim :bb.1e NRC on its FY 1982 a;:r::riations request.

\\

".t is my cojective to ' T fc-discussion during he

' hat certain vital issues are brcught forth rings. These issues are major factors in is~uring that c'r Northw so needs are met with efficiency and ur-

'cr r s\\ su port \\. ' et, nsible d y reviews consistent wi With

• u cerfident tha' the NRC will respond to e

y.

ur needs

al

.3 2

-,e(

ue'.\\ gal With the NRC's current licensing procedures and the

le,y/.,; cisheir review of our WNF-2 reacJor, which is nearinc com-2:5. e -

= ca :he Hanford Reservation in Richland, UA.

I beliave tE.e NRC

.:uQeallecate their manpcwer resources from iow priority ite's (such as l

ne i:::r: to prcmulgate new regulations en rea: tor siting) to licensine l

if' r::, with tcp priority devoted to near-term Operating Licenses..The ar e from the standpoint of economics, societal benefits, and the i:'e ar.d ccmpeten administraticn of the Atomic Er argy Act.

Further, it is estimation, after careful review and research, tha: ::ecause of these

.e

ti tys incurred by the NRC, we are faced with the waste of hundreds of i

-i' " i:n:

cf deilars on a national scale.

I:ar:s thculd be directed to expedite the hearing process or be heidThe NRC staff a a:::t. :acie for their failure to do sc.

is second issue deals more directly with the eminent energy shortage in t9e N:rth rest.

Specifically, I an concerned abcut NRC's schedule for

=:istion of their Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for WN;-2 which I be-

s /e is an exam le of the NRC's lack of procer prioriti:ation.

Currently, l

l ""C h C. h :nev t ren sicNATURE Ch QL Fercuson

)

l 1e%

1 e

}

M"

'.' A ;. C 8 i

}

l g

j

! N. L:

[

l em i

g I

I l

wm

_.d

,--n

j

.he Moncrable Tom.olcy 3

Face 2 Feiruary 13. 1981 the NRC has scheduled the WNP-2 Safety Evaluation Report for completion by March 1932.

This allows only four months for Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACES) hearings, a possible Atomic Safeguard Licensing Board heiring, completion of staff review, and Commission issuance of the Oper-ating Licunse before our projectec fuel-load date of July 1982 (see Attacn-ment I). Historically, this is not enough time to allow for required hearings cr potential delays in the revisw schedule. Although a public besring is not curren.tly scheduled for WNP-2, I celieve it is prudent for the NRC to clan their safety review to allow contingency for public in-voi v amer.:.

I am propcsing a rescheduled date of November 1981 for ccm-pletion of the WNP-2 !afety Evaluation Report (SER).

If the current NRC precass is net altered, there is a distinct possibility that NRC licens-ing review could become the pacing factor in completion of WNP-2.

The.

energy needs in the Northwest cannot tolerate any unnecessary delays in cemcleting this piant.

As shown on Attachment I!, the Sonneville Pows-Administration (BPA) has provided a five-year projection of the Pacific Northwest energy needs.

Note that even with the additional power susplied by the WNP-2 plant, a subs.antial energy deficit is prcjected which must be absorbed by importing foreign oil cr by curtailing electrical service. Keep in mind that this table wc: develoced with the assu otion that WNF-2 will achieve the sched-uied fuei-load date and become operational January 1083.

I res ectfully request that you contact Representative Bevill (and other members of the Subccmmittee as appr:priate) and see that discussion is scr.edules during the testimccy ef February 19th regarding the NRC ideensing C.Ethods. Our NRC review dats fcr WNP-2 is mest directly affected by their creces:. Ycur assistance in resolution of the issues that I have identified will be sincerely appreciated. P!6ase note that I have also provided the 7.bove informaticn and ade a similar recuest of Congress an Sid Morrison.

If any cuestions arise cer.carning this material, please do not hesitate to contact ae.

Very truly ycurs, 0 h Y.w-u.;: n -

u&Zr

/ s7 R. L. Fer,guson Managing Director Attach ent I: WNP-2 f.ic.ensing Schedules Attacncent II: Ncrthusst Power Lc3dt S Retources (EPA)

N e

_L_

- m aph museo.

we m e y m---

WNP 2 LICEru.4G SCllEDUI.ES l..ri l 1 : is i..

I:::1.i

.I

.I-A I) fl D

.i l-M A

M

.I

.I A

S o

N 1)

.1 1:

M

.WPI'L"JE IN il llNol.11L A U l

l l

lSSt!E St.1 ASIil

'"^C"5 ISSi1E AC.IIS Stil'Pl.i.MLNI. IlLGif1 INillAL i llEl.

l MEEllNGS gg g ggiggn ASL 11 llE AltlNGS DECISION I OAD ACllS a.

1 e

5./

\\ll

..w.k_:-[

t ASi ll llL Allitit sS y

m..

..u.LAHifJtiS,,,..,p'1iins h w 4-

'.Ia.chJ C '..

J

...y s..m... : 3 w, A.,. g...

n, i.,f 4

.ae4. i i. a..c i.we a n.14 a:.T Undd adda

)

1 CUBBENDJBC SCUEDill li (UASED ON NO IIEARING)

CO. MPI E ll:

ISSUE ISblJE ACilS (

SLR SLR llEARif1GS StlP. COMMISSIOfuASLB s I-7 DECISION i

flollfJD 2 OllESilOff HEVIEW. SEH PHLP.

\\/

.e...m. manyu s - n.r.,u.3... L, y.n e q. syw,,.=

m, y,

.s,.m g#;.9 W &4.GG u.u.uh6 uaaua r.a.w.e.h GM2M. ;uAn1Ws'.1.1.Ga.25m.

,s POIENilAL DELAY BASED ON lilSTOlllCAL NitC l'EllFOllMANCE IF PUBLIC llEAHING llEQUlllED ISSt:E ISSilE A(.llS SEli ASt.U llESU. TING SEH LETIEll SilPI'L EMENT DECISION FilEL l OAD

~'K:26.La ug % sdLM Q Wi n,dliiLM & Lig&Qi2Wg\\.[.

ASLB h

i IEAlllNG m.,,

a wa

.S

~mr.

...a.s.

. mmm m.an m mim m,.~,

.as mm w m..,..,aa,.+,. w -

.w.

nemw m.e...

,u m m.enn*,

s22ll2 h%W? M 21%T=W =:=o fBnPOSED NBC SCUEQLILE.UEV.lSION I

1 COMPLETE ISStlANCE COMI't E X E ISSilE PARilAL SER'S ISSUE ACilS Stil fl1EL NUN N.Y LOAD i Oil l'Il0t it{,

(l.IIG)

' WiJP-2 Sell !!! EARING SilP.

k

,..- - -. -,. -,..- -.m.,;g,,.7,l,lE Al,tl,N.G6..

g.

. s s..

4 s,.

l l

l Al.lacliipetit I

}

• fl0RTilllEST P0llER LOADS & RE50tlRCES 00llllEVILLE POWER ADl11tilSTRA110fl*

s 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Total Electrical Loads in Megawatts 18,736 19,294 20,057 20,715 21,363 (Average Ener9y)

Electrical Power Deficit in !!egawatts (2,314)~

(2,558)

(3,327)

(3,623)

(3,422)

(Low Hater Assumption)

Electrical Power Deficit in llegawatts (1,564)

(1,808).

(2,577)

(2,873)

(2,672)

( Average lla ter Assumption)

Oil Requirements To Of fset Deficits 22.9 11 26.4 11 37.7 M 42.0 M 39.1 M (Low Water Assumption)**

i

• Assumes liflP.-2 Connercial Operation, January 1983 (July 1982 Fuel Load) i

• • llillions of Darrels at 600 Kwll/bb1 i

l l

Attachment II

.