ML17297A487
| ML17297A487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1981 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Turley K ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106110153 | |
| Download: ML17297A487 (11) | |
Text
p Docket Nos:
50-528/529/530 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.
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 he completed.
An unexpected change of your completion date or your ability to provide needed information fn 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 date within 14 days of receipt of this'etter.
CP DISTRIBUTION:
MN p 9
$98t Docket Files 60-628/629/630 LB83 Files DEisenhut/JRoe bcc:
FMirag 1 ia TERA JKerrigan PDR JLee LPDR RTedesco NSIC Mr. K. L. Turley,-President SHanauer ACRS (16)
& Chief Executive Officer RVollmer Arizona Public Service TMurley 411 North Central Avenue
~
RMattson
Dear Mr. Turley:
OEDL OIE (3)
Me 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.
aG)
You should also
. provide quarterly updates thereafter until issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report for the facility.
8'>08>zo I +5 "e6 <<>>'-.
Ol, lcI81
~ ~ ~
A r
plP ~ r I
I)
( lf t 4
~ ~%
I J ~
4 P
~
J 4
RI 4 RRP
~
~
~
\\ I
~
~ CWI $g CII
<<-I -
4 I ~ ~
e'CC 4
~,
P ~
PR
~,
4 'C I
4
~ 7 4<<<<lC 4
P I'I I: I
~
4 J,<<4'
~ ~ ~
4
~
Il I
I
'4, f
l' 4
~ 4 Cf
, ~
l ~
=-.- '
-R
~ \\J
~ 4 EI 44
, ~
~ 4 I
R
'RI IJ
>>C
~ IJ
NY'2 S 1981 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 Manager for specific needs related to the review of your application.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely, 96ghot @pod @
8.R. Bonton Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
See next page OFFICEI SURNAME/
DATEP DL
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ I I J
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
...547iS.i.....
~ 4 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~
HR ton 5i~
01
~ I 0 ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ \\
~
I
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U,So +
~ ~
~ ~ IOI
~ ~
dh< at+R"
/,,
(th
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e
~ A ~
~ ~
NRC FORM 318 IlD/80)NRCM 8240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- USGPO. 1980-329 824
r 4
I
."l: <~
G I
4 S
s I
C gP,g AEVI Wp0
+)t*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 MN 2 9
)981 Docket Nos.:
50-528/529/530 Nr. K. L. Turley, President 8 Chief Executive OFficer Arizona Public Service 411 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Dear IIr. Turley:
Me 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 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.
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 date 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.
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 Manager 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
r eA
lair. E.
E.
Van Brunt, Jr.
Vice President - Construction Projects Arizona Public Service Company P. 0.
Box 21666
- Phoenix, Arizona 85036 CC:
Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell 8 Wilmer 3100 Valley Center
- Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Charles S. Pierson Assistant Attorney General 200 State Capitol 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 David N. Barry, Esq.,
Senior Counsel Charles R. Kocher, Esq., Assistant Counsel Southern California Edison Company P. 0.
Box 800
- Rosemead, California 91770 l1argaret Walker Deputy Director of Energy Programs Economic Planning and Development Office 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 William Priran Assistant Attorney General Bataan Memorial Building Santa fe, New Mexico 87503 Resident Inspector Palo Verde/NPS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0. Box 21324
t
~
)
l4
~
TABLE 2 CY 1983 PLANTS DIVISION OF LICENSING - 4/16/81 Plant Callaway 1/2 St. Lucie 2 Palo Verde 1/2/3
- Seabrook 1/2*
Clinton 1
Molf Creek 1
Byron 1/2 Perry 1/2 Midland 1/2
- Catawba 1/2
+*So. Texas 1/2 River Bend 1/2 Estimated Delay (Months) 0 0
0 0
0 0.
0 0
0 0
~0 Issue DES 09/81 09/81 10/81 11/81 11/81 01/82 01/82 02/82 04/82 05/82 06/82 07/82 Issue SER 10/81 10/81 11/81 01/82 01/82 04/82 04/82 05/82 07/82 08/82 09/82 10/82 ACRS MTG 11/81 11/81 12/81 02/82 02/82 05/82 05/82 06/82 08/82 09/82 10/82 11/82 ASLB ISSUE Issue Start of In)tial FES SSER Hear(ng(l)
Dec(s(on(l) 01/82 11/81 04/82 09/82 01/82 11/81 04/82 09/82 02/82 12/81 05/82 10/82 03/82
'2/82 07/82 12/82 03/82 02/82 07/82 12/82 06/82 05/82 10/82 03/83 06/82 05/82 10/82 03/83 07/82 06/82 11/82 04/83 09/82 08/82 01/83 06/83 10/82 09/82 02/83 07/83 11/82 10/82 03/83 08/83 12/82 11/82 04/83 09/83 NRC Deci si on Date(l )
10/82 10/82 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 i ssuance of SSER to NRC Decision Date
/'key q
4
'I P4
~ Pv I
~