IA-87-554, Discusses Schedule for Radiological Safety Review of Application for CPs for Plant.Summary of More Important Radiological Safety Review Milestones Encl for Info & Review

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Schedule for Radiological Safety Review of Application for CPs for Plant.Summary of More Important Radiological Safety Review Milestones Encl for Info & Review
ML20235D728
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Sundesert
Issue date: 08/04/1977
From: Boyd R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Colston B
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML20235B454 List:
References
FOIA-87-554 NUDOCS 8709250324
Download: ML20235D728 (5)
v • d • e


Text

.

l ( ( I

, 4'

~

Docket Nos. 50-f/;2 -

I' and 50-583 AUG 0 41977

~ '

}., .

j San Diego Gas & Electric Company f. i ATTH
Mr. B. W. Colston .

i

~

s Vice President - Project -

i Management i' P. O. Box 2748 - -

l,I San Diego, California 92112  ;

~ -

t l

Gentlemen:

SUBdECT: SCHEDULE FOR THE RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY REVIEW OF SUNDESERT; .

NUCLEAR PLAlfr UNITS 1 & 2 -

This letter is in regard to the establishment of a schedule for the radiological safety review of your application for construction peimits

. -i il!;

for your Sundesert Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 to be located near Blythe, ~

j

. California. The schedule for the environmental review of your application a

. was previously transmitted to you by letter dated June 20, 1977. , ,.

l We have evaluated our sork' lead and, based on this evaluation, we estimate the Prospective Decision Date to be March 30, 1979. The milestone date -

of February 21, 1978 for issuance of the site suitability report is

~

consistent with the Partial Initial Decision date of September 6,1978, e

--- for HEPA and site suitability matters, which we provided in our June 2v, .

. 1977 letter. -

.s .A . -

.l A sumary of the more important radiological safety review milestones is j provided as an enclosure for your infomation and review. It should be s

' realized that the enclosed datas are target milestones which may require i

. some changes as the review process proceeds. While we will not formally i notify yeu, by letter, of minor changes to the schedule, we will confim, e

. in writing, significant changes to the schedule. -

(

During the course of the review, wa N111 infom you as early as possible of any areas of design and analysis that do not meet our requirements and the latest date on which new infor nation is recuird to avoid a schedule . .

delay. To avoid carrying outstanding items into the Safety Evaluation '

.-O

. Report, we intend to ecmplete all necessary acticas on them prior to the M

~. -

. s 4 . g

@ g #

summaua >

sa,s b ._

. ... ... ..... . -. .... n

.y.ggq 8709250324 870922 PDR FOIA nj MCCREA87-554 PDR v/ A ~}

e..

go. -

o. (~
i , e..' , .

(

~

San Diego Gas & Electric Company 2- AUG 0 41977 ,

preparation of the Safety Evaluation Report. If this cannot be done in a -

timely fashion, the schedule may need to bo slipped to pemit us to consider

^ 'the necessity of specifically handling the outstanding items in the hearing

as contested matters. In this event we would utilize the Comission's
  • discovery procedures to obtain the additional infomation we need. If this process is requiredr we would hope to cceplete it well in advance of publication of the Safety Evaluation Report, , ,

Any matters of disagreement or areas of uncertainty which might aris'e during the review of your application should be discussed promptly .

viti the project manager. If he cannot resolve them himself he will ,

. . arrange for a meeting with appropriate managscant to discuss them. .

This will avoid unnecessary schedule delays.

Many of the milestones of the radiological safety review require specific input, preparation, or participation from you, such as responses to questions, and ACP.S meetings. For this reason, wo believe that you should critically review the dates associated with these important milestones and advise us as to whether you believe the dates are realistic or should be adjusted. After you have reviewted these milestones and associated dates, l

.I suggest that a representative of your corporate organization telephone .

Nr. Emanuel A. Licitra, the Licensing Project Manager for the radiological safety review, to discuss the schedule. This discussion should be scheduled sometir::e within the next two weeks.

..,- l Sincerely,

.~ s ', .%-

~ - . . .. . . .

-aw .3< *' l

'. . Dignal sigmd # . .

hoger# Ylo Director .

- . , - Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As Stated .

' c .-

- e

~

ccw/ enclosure $ -

See next page

....c.>

..m.,

mate >

( (

San Diego Gas & Electric Conpany AUG 0 41377 cc: Gordon Pearce, Esq. Mr. Irving Goldberg, Chief Vice President - General Attorney

  • Environmental Radiation Control Uni Radiologic Health Section San Diego Gas & Electric Company California Department of Health P. O. Box 2748 73 4 P Street, Rootn 498 San Diego, Ca.lifornia 92112 Sacramento, California 95814 In~mstein., Newman, Reis & Axelrad Energy Resources Conservation Attention: Jack R. Newman and Development Commission 1025 Connecticut Avenue ATIN: Ms. Peggy Dole, Librarian Suite 12]4

-Washington, D. C. 1111 HWe Avenue 20036 Sacramento, California 95825 Ms. Emily A. Durbin 154-S Sylvester Road Mr. James Channel San Diego, California 92106

Office of the General Counsel Mr. Ike Eastvold California Energy Resources 541 Prospect Street Conservation and Development Conrnission Highgrove, California 92507 1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95825 Ray T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.

County Counsel Frank Hahn, Director 353510th Street Energy Pacilities Siting Division Suite 300 Energy Resources Conservation & Riverside, California '

Development Comission 92501 o*^'

1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95825 Steven S. Wa)), Esq.

Luce, Forward, Hamilton and Scripps )

110 West A Street San Diego, California 92101 E

c t

l

\ '

.- ENCLOSUF.E 1

_ RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY REVIEW SCHEDULE FOR SUNDESERT NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 & 2 EVENT DATE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT MILESTONES

  • PSAR Docketed Receive Applicant's Responses to 4/26/77

.Teceptance Review Requests 7/1/77 First Round Requests (Except React'r o Systems) Issued to Applicant 8/5/77 Receive Applicant's Responses to First Round Requests (Except Reactor Systems) i 9/23/77 Reactor Systems. First Round ,

Requests Issued to Applicant 11/7/77 Receive Applicant's Responses to Reactor Systems First Round Requests 12/5/77

' taff Positions (Except Reactor S

,e:u,v ,

Systems) Issued to Applicant 12/2/77 Receive Applicant's Responses to Staff Positions (Except Reactor Systems) ,

1/20/78 Reactor Systems Staff Positions issued to Applicant 2/6/78 Receive Applicant's Responses to Reactor Systems 5taff Positions ,

3/6/78 Safety Evaluation Report Issued '

6/15/78 ACRS Subcommittee Meeting 7/14/78 ACRS Full Committee Meeting 8/11/78 Receive ACRS Letter

'8/18/78 i Supplement to Safety Evaluation Report Issued 10/20/78 5

', (

, ( .

' Radiological Safety Review ,

  • ~

'7" SITE' SUITABILITY REPORT MILESTONES

. Site Suitability Requests  ;

Issued to. Applicant l- 10/21/77

~

~

Receive Applicant's Responses to.. Site Suitability Requests 12/9/77

, Issue Site Suitability Report 2/21 /78 RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY HEARING MILESTONES Start of Hearing 11/21/78' Completion of Hearing 1/19/79 Initial Decision Issued by ASLB 3/30/79 .

'+

hN 4

4 9

.d' 7

-7

~7 .

W

_ . - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._____-m_

O SH Aw, PITTMAN PoTTs & TROWB RIDG E

  1. 800 M STAEE*.N.W.

W.4 S M f N G TO N. D . C . 2 0 0 3 6

' a c t , 2 3 -e.o:

. . . . . . : .c* *~* =.. *

  • s a-c. vwo-a.

.tsvsw 6. -c6 z$t t.h-*.? -

. c . 4. .

osaaD.Awuca ore.ot * *c a..-S o t *caee-<.

';1:-!':?.!!TJ %n*f" M"o'e' - "*'"***"'""~'c

.2: i.*=.'L.'.a.t.'. ... :o;".t" 't ...o .

...,......o.u..

.,~-o..... +ca-

.......c...

u.o...

. .o.6..... .......-.-u- a'.>.--'--.--

tiiv,1t.";=:ft"" "- :Pc"%'i. !" ******~'-'

"'c,~;.D;;;**" "::,*"'. ..

  • o"::!"'

as a A. .f. so"* " ."^*o*

ago.

ww. .o.f ..; a =o .N. sn.cso.

.- victc.ia s. .av.t.O

< ni=s Diat 'a *^"a c"a *-a

tT.f . . . . . . . .
f.."".

"4,7lP u~ o. e- "-

coo ~..u

s,t-*'l..*Jr. .o .. 3 v-o-*c ."a.

. ..t o  %.. i".c?.".".'e '"'

em =.

UIE*f'l'c"." Noyember 16, 1978 s"2 ".'".. To',*."

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esquire Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Chairman Apartment B-125 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 6152 N. Verde Trail 20555 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Washington, D. C.

Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Ohio Edison Company, et al (Erie Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. STN 50-580 and 50-581

Dear Members of the Board:

My letter of October 18, 1978 advised you of the review of the CAPCO construction program schedule. Enclosed is a press release issued yesterday by the CAPCO companies concerning that review. As indicated by the press release, further studies on We anticipate proposing, the Erie units are being undertaken.

at an early date, for your consideration our suggestions as to j future proceedings in this case. l Very truly yours, ,

g Jay E. Silberg .

j Counsel for Applicants l I

cc: Service List FoI 4 -F1 MY Enclosure  !

% g- - ~=

D

, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V

.UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before The Atomic Safety And Licensin- 3:ard

)

In the Matter of )

OH10 EDISON COMPANY, et,al. ) Docket Nos. 5~'N 50-58 0

) 3 N 50-581 (Erie Nuclear Plant, )

)

Units 1 and ' 2 )

SERVICE LIST Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esquire Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board Appeal 3 card Panel S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U._ Commission Commission Wa shing ten , D . C . 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Office of the Secretary l Apartment B-125 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 6152 N. Verde Trail Commissi:n Boca Raton, Florida 33433 20555 j Washingt:n, D. C.

l Mr. Frederick J. Shen Ms. Evelyn Stebbins Atomic Safety and Licensing ]

Board 7 05 Elmwced Road Rocky River, Ohio 44116 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Robert ~4. Tufts 352 West College Street Charles Barth, Esquire Oberlin, Chio 44074 Office of the Executive Dr. Richard E. Webb Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 2858 One E.::r. dred Eleventh Stree:

Commission Toledo, Ohio 43611 i

Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr..hamesR. Yore Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

.",t c e t : "

76 hu t.h l'.sii n Ahron, Ohio .hk308 TO: 3. Churchill r 4".:

7 T. Mcyul.s C. G. Cntter Diiector of Inforuntion Services (216)384-5810 Citing economic', environmental and regulatory uncertainties, the five e3cetric comp 8nies in the Central Area Power .C, coordination Group (CATCO) of northern Ohio.and vestern Pennsylvania today announced schedule changes in the constriction of three large electric generating units and detailed studies with respect to four other units.

ne first threc-unit delays range from 16 to 24 months. De status of the last four units vill not be cicar until studies are cotopleted, but it is presently contemplated that these units may be delayed by an average of three yettrs. Major construction activity vill be minimized pending that determination. The chnnges could relirecent as much as a $1.2 billion reduction in capital outlay for the companies over the next five years.

The ceven generatin6 units would have a total capacity of 7,604 me6 watts and are estimated to cost $8 5 bil) ion. ne units were scheduled for

- completion from 1981-1988.

The review was precipitated by construction delays, increased construction costs, ever changing regulatory requirements, high enviroranental cor. trol costs on existing units, chan61 ng conditions in the capital markets and, to an extent, by custorcer sensitivity to increasing cost reflected in their conservation efforts.

"Our customers and shareovners cannot continue to bear the excessive costs resulting from the various pressures being exerted on all of us over the next few years. We take this move with the knavledge that dcnm the rond our customers in the midwest face further uncertainties to jobs and economic grovtb nnd r:uch higher costs frcs reiluced availability of pcver supply,"

CAFC0 executive comittee chnimmn John P. 'ri1111amson said, t-

Mr. Willinmson is precident and chief c'xecutive officer of To3cdo f

f-L Edison Compitny. The other coropnnics in the power pool are Cleveland Electric j

! 11kuminatin6 Ccrap:tny, Duquesne Light company, Chis Edison Company, and i

Pennsylvania Fcver Company.

We generating units, au nuclear, are:

cvstem of Location MW Scheduled Dei ng .

Un_11

-Cleveland Elec. N. Terry, O. 1,205 1981 16 mos.

Terry 81 Ecaver Valley #2 Duquecne Light Shippingport, Pa. 833 1982 214 mos.

Cicveland Elec. N. Terry, O. 1,205 1983 22 mos.

Perry #2 Under study are these units:

Davis-Besse #2 Toledo Edison Oak liarbor, O. 906 1985 1 Eric #1 Ohio Edison Berlin Heights, O. 1,260 1986 Davis-Eense #3 Toledo Edison Onh ifarbor, O. 906 1987 Ohio Edison Berlin Heights, O. 1,260 1988 Erie #2

~

No delay is anticipated on Bnce Mansfield Unit 3 at shippincport, .  !

Pa., which is a coal-fired unit scheduled to go into operation in 1980. .

We delnys, in the short term, vill reduce capital spending requirements into the 1980's but vin probably increase future capital costs because of inflationary pressures and government regulations. All of the' companies win see reductions in generating reserve margins needed to provide reliable service to customers, and to carry out major maintenance pro 6 rams at power plants.

The econcmic, environmental and regulatory uncertainties of the next decade tre not confined to the electric industry according to CAPCO officin1s. And, even thou6b the generatin6 units involved in tbc de3nys are nucicar, the presourcs apply almost equally to fossil-fueled units as well.

The initial $12 billion reduction vin be divided among participating I

companies essentially according to their share of ownership. l

- morc -

- _-___-______._-____u___. . . _ _ _

w n_-- - _ -__ _

' ~ ' - - -

?. .

a n

+ . _..

i h

.3'- m,. '

. . +- ,

. ,Each cf the generating units-involvcCrtre'hointly c .ed as follows:

Ohio Edison and rutsidiary, Pennsylvania Pwer Compsny, bl.88 ';-creent; y .

C1cveland E1cetric Illuminating, 2 14.47 percent; Duquesne Licht,'13.7h percent, and Toledo Ediscr.,' 19,915ercent, h

_.1 -

.e p

f -

' - 1u378 - .

J, L

t' lJ' L; ,

.r-t e

j i

1 4a

- - - - _ - - _ _ .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IA-87-554,_Discusses_Schedule_for_Radiological_Safety_Review_of_Application_for_CPs_for_Plant.Summary_of_More_Important_Radiological_Safety_Review_Milestones_Encl_for_Info_%26_Review&oldid=3226666"