ML17209B194
| ML17209B194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1981 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hudiburg J FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106110149 | |
| Download: ML17209B194 (10) | |
Text
gg 2 ~
>9@
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File 50-389 RHartfield, MPA LBg3 Files OELD DEisenhut/JRoe OIE (3)
FJMiraglia VNerses bcc:
JLee TERA RTedesco PDR SHanauer LPDR RVollmer NSIC TMurley ACRS (16)
Dear Mr. Kudiburg:
RMattson HDenton 1!e presently have under review almost thirty applications for operating licenses.
For your application, as well as most others, we are committing resources to assure that staff reviews are completed on a schedule consistent with your projected plant completion date.
Preliminary schedules for facilities pr ojecting plant completion in late 1982 or in 1983 were provided to Congress on April 30, 1981 in connection with 'the "Bevill Report."
Your schedule was developed using your estimated construction completion date and a set of standard hearing assumptions.
Docket No.:
50-389 Mr. John J. Hudiburg, President Florida Power 8 Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33174 The preliminary hearing schedules assume a standard eleven-month time period from the issuance of the final Supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) to the NRC decision date.
This time period incorporates the efficiency measures projected to be in place in the near future. It is based on five months from issuance of the SSER to the start of hearing, five months from start of hearing to the initial decision by the Atomic Safety Licensing
- Board, and one month from the initial decision to the Commission's decision date.
These assumptions, and your relative priority, will be re-examined on a case-by-case basis after the Commission completes its consideration of proposed changes to the regulations.
~agro (g%
To assure proper internal resources allocation, it is important that. you provide us a realistic and up-to-date projected construction completion date.
Because of manpower limitations each review will be scheduled to fall in a "window" of time wherein our reviews must be completed.
An unexpected change of your completion date or your ability to provide needed information in accordance with this schedule will likely have an impact on the schedule for your review.
Accordingly, you should examine your schedules in the attached Table and confine or change your construction completion date within 14 days of receipt of this letter.
You should also '-.'rovide quarterly updates thereafter until issuance of<
the Safety Evaluation Report for the facility.
oz gpss/yl Jijy D
y
~r 4,
~
r 4
4i r
r " ~err r
4
~
r 4&
w r
~ '
4 i"
~ tr
. ~
~
~
4
= ~
4 44
~
r
~ 4 44
~ I 4~
t
~
For the staff to meet these schedules, all information concerning your application identified as needed must be provided by you or your contractors at" least eight weeks prior to the date scheduled for the issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report.
You should consider arranging to have members of your staff who can represent you and who can resolve any last minute open items, in residence near the NRC offices in Bethesda for a two week period starting six weeks immediately preceding the scheduled date for issuing the Safety Evaluation Report.
Your staff should contact the Licensing Pro)ect Manager for specific needs related to the review of your application.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely, cc:
See next page Q~ ~~8d b]f 5.R. Satan Narold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OFFICEP SURNAME)
OATEN
~ ~
5'/81 RDenton 5/
/81 NRC FORM 318 110l80) NRCM 0240
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
~ ~ ~
0 Vi I I-rl 1 I~i
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
I~ ~ ~
'I ~ 1 ~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~ ~
r ~ ~
~ ~ ~
- USGPO; 1980-32 1,I
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ r
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
~p,g B60y, (4
Np0
@1~
0O
~+
()N
/p +a**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 NY 2 S 3Q8)
Docket No.:
50-389 IIr. John J. Hudi burg, President Florida Power 8 Light Company
'9250 West Flagler Street IIiami, Florida 33174
Dear ter. Hudiburg:
We presently have under review almost thirty applications for operating licenses.
For your application, as well as most others, we are committing resources to assure that staff reviews are completed on a schedule consistent with your projected plant completion date.
Preliminary schedules for facilities projecting plant completion in late 1982 or in 1983 were provided to Congress on April 30, 1981 in connection with the "Bevill Report."
Your schedule was developed using your estimated construction completion date and a set
, of standard hearing assumptions.
The preliminary hearing schedules assume a standard eleven-month time period from the issuance of the final Supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) to the NRC decision date.
This time period incorporates the efficiency measures projected to be in place in the near future. It is based on five months from issuance of the SSER to the star t of hearing, five months from start of hearing to the initial decision by the Atomic Safety Licensing
- Board, and one month from the initial decision to the Commission's decision date.
These assumptions, and your relative priority', will be re-examined on a case-by-case basis after the Commission completes its consideration of proposed changes to the regulations.
To assure proper internal resources allocation, it is important that you provide us a realistic and up-to-date projected construction completion date.
Because of manpower limitations each review will be scheduled to fall in a "window" of time wherein our reviews must be completed.
An unexpected change of your completion date or your ability to provide.needed information in accordance with this schedule will likely have an impact on the schedule for your review.
Accordingly, -you should examine your schedules in the attached Table and confirm or change your construction completion da'te within 14 days of receipt of this letter.
You should also provide quarterly updates thereafter until issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report for the facility.
A
~
~
0 ge 29 )98)
C For the staff to meet these schedules, all information concerning your application identified as needed must be provided by you or your contractors at least eight weeks prior to the date scheduled for the issuance of the
. Safety Evaluation Report.
You should consider arranging to have members of your staff who can represent you and who can resolve any last minute open items, in residence near the NRC offices in Bethesda for a two week period starting six weeks immediately preceding the scheduled date for issuing the Safety Evaluation Report.
Your staff should contact the Licensing Project t<anager for specific needs related to the review of your application.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely, cc:
See next page Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation P
Dr. Robert E. Uhrig, Vice Pres'"cnt Advanced Systems and, Technology Florida Power
& Light Company P. 0.
Box 529100 miami, Florida 33152 ccs:
Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad 8 Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.
M.
Mashington, D. C.
20036 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
HcCarthy, Steel, Hectory 5 Davis 14th floor, First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Hr. tlartin H. Hodder 1131 N. E. 86th Street Niami, Flori da 33138 Resident Inspector St. Lucie Nuclear Power Station c/o U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7900 South AlA Jensen Beach, Florida 33457
t
~
4 ~
A
TABLE 2 CY 1983 PLANTS DIVISION OF LICENSING - 4/16/81 Plant Callaway 1/2 St. Luci '
Palo Verite 1/2/3
- Seabrook 1/2*
Clinton 1
Molf Creek 1
Gyron 1/?
Perry 1/2 Midland 1/2
- Catawba 1/2
- So. Texas 1/2 River Bend 1/2 Estimated Delay (Nnntg~)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.
0 0
0 0
0 Issue Issue OES SER 09/81 10/81 09/81 10/81 10/81 11/81 11/81 01/82 11/81 Ol/82 01/82 04/82 01/82 04/82 02/82 05/82 04/82 07/82 05/82 08/82 06/82 09/82 07/82 10/82 ACRS NTG 11/81 11/81 12/81 02/82 02/82 05/82 05/82 06/82 08/82 09/82 10/82 11/82 ISSUE Issue Start of FES SSER Ha'anting(l)
Ol/82 11/81 04/82 01/82 11/81 04/82 02/82 12/81 05/82 03/82 02/82 07/82 03/82 02/82 07/82 06/82 05/82 10/82 06/82 05/82 10/82 07/82 06/82 11/82 09/82 08/82 01/83 10/82 09/82 02/83 11/82 10/82 03/83 12/82 11/82 04/83 ASLB Initial Decision(l) 09/82 09/82 10/82 12/82 12/82 03/83 03/83 04/83 06/83 07/83 08/83 09/83 NRC Decision Date(l) 10/82
'io/82 11/82 01/83 01/83 04/83 04/83 05/83 07/83 08/83 09/83 10/83 Applicant Construction Completion 10/82 10/82 11/82 01/83 01/83 04/83 04/83 05/83 07/83 08/83 09/83 10/83 NOTES:
FSAR not tendered
- Schedules sub]ect to change upon resolution of NRC and applicant construction completion differences (1)
Based on a standard eleven-month assumption from issuance of SSER to NRC Decision Date
4
~
~