ML19220D044
| ML19220D044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1979 |
| From: | Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Christenbury E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905160226 | |
| Download: ML19220D044 (3) | |
Text
.
=
April 4, 1979 Note to Edward Christenbury
SUBJECT:
LICENSING SCTIONS SCHEDULED TO OCCUR BETWEEN APRIL 1 - JUNE 1, 1979 I.
The following evidentiary hearings potentially could occur within this period:
1.
North Anna 1 and 2 - Hearing before Appeal Board on the issues of pu=phouse settlenent and turbine missiles.
Pre-filed testimony from the Staff and the Licensee is due on April 27, 1979.
There is currently no order scheduling a hearing, however, the Appeal Board has previously indicated its intention to expedicusly hear the case since it involves safety issues in an operating plant.
I anticipate a hearing being scheduled for late May.
The schedule in this proceeding may be impacted through diversion of technical staff personnel preparing testimony to work on catters relating to the five shutdown plants (this is already occurring) and/or TMI-2 incident.
2.
Three Mile Island Unit 2 - Hearing before Appeal Board on the issue of whether plant properly designed to withstand the crash of a heavy aircraft.
Appeal Boa'rd issued an Order dated April 2, 1979 postponing hearing set for April 4-5, 1979.
Order indicated Appeal Board would hold a conference call among the parties to reschedule the hearing.
There is potential for a hearing in May.
The hearing schedule vill be impacted by future events at the TMI-2 site.
II.
The following prehearing conferences are expected to occur within this period:
1.
Skagit - A prehearing conference before the Licensing Board is scheduled for April 24-26, 1979 to consider future schedules in this proceeding.
I anticipate that the Intervenors will move the admission of additional contentions as a result of TMI-2 incident.
2.
Waterford Unit 3 - A prehearing conference before the Licensing Board is scheduled for April 26-27 to consider intervention petitions. We currently are involved in negotiations regarding contentions and I anticipate that additional contentions relating to TMI-2 incident will be proposed.
3.
Comanche Peak - Staff counsel has been advised informally by the Licensing Board that it currently plans to schedule a h
119 2,/3 Q
7905160Sk h
prehearing conference for May 22, 1979 to consider inter-vention petitions.
4.
New Haven 1 and 2 - Staff counsel has been advised informally by the Licensing Board that it currently plans to schedule a prehearing conference for May 22, 1979 to consider intervention petitions. This prehearing conference would be held jointly
- with the New York State Siting Board's designated hearing board.
III. The following SERs or SER supplements are scheduled to be. issued within this period:
1.
Davis-Besse 2 and 3 - This proceeding involves an application for a construction permit.
The proceeding is uncontested.
The vendor for the steam supply system is Babcock & Wilcox.
The SER was issued and a supplement containing the ACRS letter and addressing the open items is scheduled to be published in mid-April 1979.
I expect that this supplement will be impacted by the TMI-2 incident.
2.
North Anna Unit 2 - Construction of this unit is expected to be completed by May.
A SER supplement addresses matters relating to this Unit and not Unit 1 is scheduled to be published in early May.
The supplement is currently being impacted by diversion of Staff to work on the five shutdown plants.
IV.
The following FES is scheduled to be issued within this period:
1.
San Onofre 2 and 3 - This document is scheduled to be published in mid-May.
It may be delayed because of diversion to TMI-2 matters of Staff providing input from the Accident Analysis Branch, the Effluent Treatment Systems Branch and the Radio-logical Assessment Branch.
V.
Impact of TMI-2 incident on future licensing action:
1.
This event =ust be analyzed by appropriate technical staff (e.g. Accident Analysis Branch) for other B&W reactors to determine if any physical or operational modifications are warranted.
2.
We can expect a large number of requests to reopen proceedings or to add additional contentions to existing proceedings.
While information about the incident has not yet been collected and evaluated, it appears from newspaper accounts that new i
\\\\9 2'l%
C'
_3_
n infc rmation regarding the follo41ng areas asists which would provide good cause sufficient to warrant amending contentions on these areas:
a) technical qualifications of applicant's operators b) adeqtacy of emergency planning c) whether n'l pctential accidents have been analyzed 3.
Consideration should be given to whether TMI-l should be permitted to operate at this time. Aside from the fact that it is a B&W reactor and should be evaluated for potential to have a similar accident, there is also the question of occu-pational hazard to workers in view of the clean-up operation at Unit 2.
Perhaps the licensee should be ordered to show cause why it should be allowed to operate Unit 1 in light of the circumstances at the site.
h45f
'k'bb Stuart A. Treby
} } 9 2.7 I) i
-