ML20214G758
| ML20214G758 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1973 |
| From: | Oleary J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Muntzing L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0100, CON-WNP-100 NUDOCS 8605220481 | |
| Download: ML20214G758 (3) | |
Text
_ -. -.
o 0
)-
pC, Wet h I <.
~3
..__m.
NOV 1 1973 sa-377 L. Fa==ing Muntning. Director of Regulatian EANFORD DEIAY SITETION h articles that you questiamed all appeared in the Tri-City Berald and related to delays or potential delays for the Emaford Ms. 2 EWR and the proposed Emmford No.1 FWR. h articias seemed te vunde=1y attribute delays in both nuclear projects to sometruction delays, to new AEC regulations and safety requirements, te lacreased time required for envir - tal impact studies, to steadily incrossing quality assurance requirements, and to AEC regulatisme prekihiting esmetrue-tion prior to the issuance of a constructima permit.
We have====i==A the overall ABC review =ahad=1m for each of these tuo projects and provide first, the following eemments relating to each of the aforementioned reported camees of delays, and - d, our understanding of construction progress for Emaford No. 2.
I.
Reported uma - = for Delays i
i 1.
Construction delays, as idanHfied in the articles, are l
beyond the centrol of the ABC and utilities should imelade such.fnetors into their everall constructies schedule and should be prepared for such oceurrenees.
I 2.
Although AEC regulations and safety requirements are cem-l stantly being refined and reevaluated, such changes have not resulted in significant delays for either of the Ranford projects.
l Banford No. 2 % was desbeted with the ABC en l
a.
Agost 19,1973 A sometrtutism permit was ta==d on Maruk 19, 1973, five snake Boemr then WWWe requested ta - date. Omrias the revies of
~
Emmford No. 2 the AEC regalatione'gelattag te pre-
~
CP sita esastruction activities did beoema more restrictive. Eeuever, la amase is prevent a.daley in the essetracties and eventually the operatima of Emaford Es. 2, a constructima asempties was issued to UFFSS em June 28, 1972. Mis====yee== perFitted WPPSS to essentielly begia esastructiam en aba facility at that time.
8605220481 731101 PDR ADDCK 05000397 A
o NOV 1 1973 Muitsing,
b.
Emeford No.1 (Mft) une tendered with the ABC em Jaly 16, 1973. The Et use femand esseptehle se
/
Aegoat 7,1973, het the FRAR uns feed W1=
en Asenet 30, 1973. 1he app 18 m*4= use n==d=dtted for a h seesytases reviser ta aarty h 1973.
Our seesad seesytmee review has been sempleted; the app 1<masA= bas been fened essertele and ses desbeted em Osteher 18, 1973. Se getda to the pe=y==*8= ef FEAR's wee first ydliehed by the ABC la Weenery 1972.
As eush, the appliesst had sufft-4-* edemose==**=
ef the requirements for FSAR in order to prepare an acceptable document.
3.
The increased time required for envireemental 1speet st=dina hee not resulted from any new ABC regeizessents. A gnide to the properattaa of envireemental reports woe first published in August 1972 and revised la Merek 1973. As seek, no new enviremmental requirements have been impened on the appliesat which woeld result la a significant delay to the everall projects.
4.
Steadily tacreasing geslity asseresse geguirements have been cited as reason for delay to the overall projects.
a.
For Esaford No. 2 there eers me anjer eheeses in geslity assurenes requiremente prior to a W that delayed the i - of the CF.
As seek, geslity asserenes regaire-meets have met delayed constructies of this famility.
b.
Although ear imp 1====emetam of gaelity assurance requirements has bessee more restristive in the poet for meathe, this aheaped appreaek hee met resalted in a significant delay for the propeeed Esaford Ee.1 feeility.
5.
The referenced ABC Now" r=y=1mata== prohibitieg esmetrustian prior to the isoneses of a CF unge elee etted as reemen for eslay of the Benford projoets.
a.
Esafard No. 2 suo gives relaaf faam our %ent regulations (pe611shed in March 1972) in the Sama.ef a enestmsetian esseptism imound la June 1972. As sunk, this res=1=**=
did met delay the overall project. At the time of issusase of a CF, ~ealy ahmet 20 passent of the week motherised by the esemptism had been sempleted.
~~
~'
1 e
NOV 2 1973 L. Fa==ing Musteing b.
The Eenford Ee. 1 applicaties see fened assertable and docketed sa Getsber it.1973. Sines the %ew" 1=**--
referred to were p4 14 M in Mareb 1972, the eypliesst aould have at least taham thae fester tato effect to a eastein estant. En addities, the appia-e eseld steere seples the pesentlity et en essepties if the profeet le essairiammely h-h*=d==h=d-i II. Asteel esmetr= *4== Sehedelse the applicant hee recently stated (impet to W S Ye11sw Book to be ydlished la inte Geesber) that his==had=1= ese es11e for sempleties of esmetrasties by April 1, 1977. This is identiesi to the estimated date for esmpletiam of emnetreeties inief =11y r.;;: :f by the appliesat.
For the ri,:- ' Eenford Ee. 1 facility, eines the applicaties hee resently been doeksted and me deem 41md seheemle has yet been
_ -- M,
r.
diesession of AEC related causes of =mbad=1= elippage are seemingless.
i%tl L John F. O'Imery Director of 14 - ing ect L. Y. Geesick
(
l DISTRIBUTION
[
Docket Files L Reading RP Reading BWR File J. F. O' Leary A. Giambusso J. Hendrie R. S. Boyd E. Case V. A. Moore R. DeYoung D. Muller W. Mcdonald D. Eisenhut D. Elliott b'b.M T. Cox E. Hughes flfs/
- BWR
!L L:AD
! L: D I-L O F FIC E *
's
.p.
o-4 7
D liut J; V J[.--
J re R.
ng R. S.
oyd se 7 21 suasauE.
I 10/30/73 10hh73
.l10/b"/73
.[. 10/Je/73 10%/73 10/ /73 n,y,
Forer AEC-115 (Rev. 0-53) AECM 0240