ML19289D388
| ML19289D388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Palo Verde, Sequoyah, North Anna, Zimmer, Bailly  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1978 |
| From: | Ross D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Boyd R, Deyoung R, Mattson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903050480 | |
| Download: ML19289D388 (20) | |
Text
gog DISTRIBUTION H. R. Denton V. A. tioore F. Rosa E. G. Case R. P. Denise Z. R. Rosztoczy M. J. G ros.ma n J. F. Stolz K. Kniel R. S. Boyd R. L Baer T. H. Novak R. J. Mattson
- 0. D. Parr G. L. Chipnun, Jr.
D. R. Muller S. A. Varga J. T. Collins V. Stello, Jr.
T. P. Speis W. F. Kreger R. C. DeYoung C. J. Heltemes, Jr.
B. J. Youngblood F. Schroeder P. F. Collins R. L. Ballard J. W. Reece R. W. Houston J. C. Stepp D. B. Vassallo W. P. Haass L. G. Hulman W. P. Gammill R. J. Bosnak D. F. Bunch D. J. Skovholt S. S. Pawlicki S. A. Treby J. P. Knight I. S. Sihweil W. J. Olmstead R. L. Tedesco V. Benaroya E. J. Reis D. F. Ross, Jr.
W. R. Butler J. R. Tourtellotte R. H. Vollmer C. F. Miller H. N. Berkow M. L. Erns t M. Srinivasan A. F. Abell R. M. Satterfield D. M. Crutchfield W. H. Regan, Jr.
F. J. Williams, Jr.
W. Pike B. H. Kirschner LICENSING ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT MANAGERS PROJECT MANAGLH ATTORNEYS I. Peltier R. Cleveland S. Sohinki A. Dromerick R. Gilbert M. Riddle R. Stright R. Watkins M. Grainey H. Silver
- 0. Lynch R. Hoefling D. Hood W. Regan B. Paton D. Lynch S. Bajwa J. Cutchin S. Miner E. Ketchen C. Thomas J. Wilson q90305 M
8 4
UNITED STATES jg' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J
.j Vf ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
8 NOV 2 0 1978 j
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Roger S. Boyd, Director Division of Project Management Richard C. DeYoung, Director Division of Site Safety & Environmental Analysis Roger J. Mattson, Director Division of Systems Safety FROM:
Denwood F. Ross, Jr., Chairman Licensing Schedules Review Committee
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF THE FOURTH LSRC MEETING The Licensing Schedules Review Committee (LSRC) held its fourth meeting on November 16, 1978.
The Committee considered the status of plant reviews for those plants announced in the agenda for the meeting, copies of which were distributed on November 9, 1978.
STATUS OF EFFORTS IN RESPONSE TO LSRC ACTIONS Status updates were provided to the Committee in response to Committee actions and recommendations resulting from its third meeting, in October 1978.
1.
Bailley a.
The Division Directors met on November 7,1978 to discuss the priority for the Bailley post-CP review efforts.
A memorandum was forwarded by D. Ross to H. Denton on November 7,1978, indicating that priorities should be assigned first to the North Anna pump house problem, second to the Bailley review effort, and tinird to Palo Verde. A note from H. Denton indicated acceptance of this prioritization but cautioned against letting Palo Verde slip and recommending that the possibility of obtaining contractual assistance be explored, b.
The applicant still owes the staff two reports on the piles.
The first of these is now scheduled for the end of November and the second about mid-December.
Multiple Addressees NOV 2 0 MS c.
Consultant contracts have been awarded.
d.
Based on a mid-December submittal of the second report (on pile repair), we anticipate completing the safety evaluation in January.
e.
No further help needed from the LSRC at this time.
2.
B0PPSAR/BSAR-205 a.
The review is now following the schedule noted during the October LSRC meeting.
b.
The PM is incorporating writeups on ACRS and staff generic items, and expects to issue the SER by the end of December.
c.
Planning is for a January Subcommittee meeting and a February meeting with the full ACRS.
LSRC Action Since this SER will be the first to include information on the staff's generic items, the Standardization Branch should coordinate closely with LWR's to assure a common format.
3.
GAISSAR a.
A revised schedule was approved on November 14th., which indicates about a six month delay before the review can get underway. Q-1s are due out in mid-April, b.
If the schedule is maintained, the PDA could be issued about c,ne year later than originally desired by the applicant.
c.
A letter is now in preparation to formally advise the applicant of the delay and the new schedule.
d.
This matter has been discussed with the applicant. The applicant is considering an appeal.
Multiple Addressees NOV 2 0 GN PROJECT REVIEWS 1.
Zimmer 1 Status The current safety review status is discussed in tt? status report on Zimmer 1, Enclosure 1.
At the time of the LSRC meeting, the LPM was attending a two-day site visit and meeting with the ACRS Subcommittee. A draft SER was issued for the use of the Subcommittee.
The formal SER will be issued by the end of the month, which will support a meeting with the full ACRS in January.
The review still may be affected by the generic Mark II containment meeting scheduled to be held in San Francisco in late November.
The Caseload Forecast Panel is reexamining the estimated fuel load date.
There are no problems with the environmental review.
There are no recommendations for LSRC action.
2.
Salem 2 Status The current safety review status and problems are discussed in the status report on Salem 2, Enclosure 2.
The LPM now has SER inputs from only 8 branches.
Inputs from other branches are scheduled during the next week or so.
It is too late for a Supolement to the SER to be issued by 1 December, which would be necessary to support the scheduled January ACRS meeting.
A special problem has developed regarding fire protection.
There still are some 50 open items in this area and DSS requires resolu-tion before plant licensing.
Completion of the staff review of fire protection will take until about mid-December, after which we could issue staff positions on requirements.
In the staff memorandum to the Commission dated November 22, 1977,, page 28, we made the following statement:
Multiple Addressees NOV 2 0 1979 "For plants currently under licensing review, the staff's fire protection reviews based on NRC guidelines will be completed before initial operating licenses are issued in 1978.
Implementation schedules will be speci-fied for any fire protection improvements that may be required."
In the staff report on "M80 Schedule VIII - Fire Protection Semi-Annual Report of Ongoing Milestones" the following was stated:
"As has been the past practice of the staff all plants will have their fire protection reviews completed prior to issuing an operat-ing license."
There are no problems with the environmental review.
LSRC Action 1.
The Committee would appreciate confirmation of the staff position on fire protection, as noted above.
2.
It is recommended that we issue staff positions regarding fire protection to the applicant about December 15, 1978, when they become available.
3.
We should notify the applicant of our intent regarding the fire protection positions.
4.
Slip the schedule for ACRS review until February, based on issuance of the SER Supplement by the end of December.
5.
The Committee noted that this is a case where the staff review apparently got out of control.
Both Salem units were reviewed earlier and an SER was issued in 1974.
However, due to a con-struction delay of Unit 2 and a consequent ACRS desire to review Unit 2 again, the staff felt that a Supplement to the SER should be issued for Unit 2.
The staff review for the Unit 2 Supplement has been virtually the same as for a new OL application rather than an updating of a previous review.
Multiple Addressees p 2 c 99 3.
Palo Verde 4 & 5 Status The cut rent safety review status and problems are discussed in the status report on Palo Verde 4 & 5, Enclosure 3.
The LPM noted that he was still having some difficulty with reviewers working on other matters, even though material now is available to prepare SER inputs.
He also noted that some reviewers and branches are still operating outside the replication policy and reviewing matters that should be exempt from additional review.
There are no problems with the environmental review.
LSRC Action The Chairman noted that there are two possible approaches to the interpretation of " dedicated" reviewers.
It could be interpreted to mean that the reviewer will arrange the workload so as to be sure to produce the SER on schedule. Alternatively, it could be interpreted to mean that the reviewer will work on the job when review material is available, so as to complete the review as soon as possible, and ahead of schedule if possible.
Discussions with Mr. Denton indicated the latter interpretation to be in accordance with his thinking.
Accordingly, the " dedicated" Palo Verde reviewers should be working on their SER inputs now with the aim of producing the inputs ahead of schedule if possible.
4.
Sequoyah I & 2
- Status, The current safety review status and problems are discussed in the status report on Sequoyah 1 & 2, Enclosure 4.
The status of the environmental review is discussed in the environmental status re-port, Enclosure 5.
A principal problem is the lack of complete and adequate responses to staff questions by the applicant.
A letter was forwarded to the applicant on November 15, 1978, warning that information is needed as soon as possible or there is a good chance we may not be able to complete the review so as to meet the projected fuel load date of April 1979.
It now appears that even if we have all necessary information by early December, we cannot meet with the ACRS before its April meeting.
Multiple Addressees NOV 2 0 IW3 A particular problem is the seismic design basis for the plant and its effect on MEB and SEB reviews in particular.
Mr. Denise re-ported that we are getting closer to resolution of this matter, although the final decision is apt to be a management decision rather than a technical decision.
The present plant design likely will not be able to fully meet the requirements dictated by the revised seismic design basis now anticipated.
However, it will come close and the feeling is that there is ample margin in the present design to accommodate. We expect to have the final infor-nation from the applicant by mid-December such that the technical evaluation can be completed by the first of the year.
The problems with the environmental review primarily are procedural, involving a 1971 Memorandum of Understanding for lead agency re-sponsibility. This now appears to be working itself out, although there is a chance that revised DES /FES will have to be circulated for comment, with a consequent delay and a possibility of opening the opportunity for a public hearing.
LSRC Action 1.
Involved branches should give high priority to resolving the seismic issue.
MEB and SEB in particular should finish SER input updates using the present seismic design basis, realizing that additional effort may be needed later if the design basis is changed.
2.
Division Directors should note that a management decision likely will be required for final resolution of the seismic design basis issue.
3.
This project should be reviewed by the LSRC at its next meeting, by which time the issues should be clarified.
5.
Midland 1 & 2 Status The status of the safety review and problems are discussed in the November 2 memorandum from Darl Hood, Enclosure 6.
Due to missing information early in the review, a final round of Q-2s is to be issued about December 1,1978. This now appears to be in good shape. A letter extending the CP is now in process.
Multiple Addressees nov 2 o 1978 The radon issue has been remanded to the CP hearing board.
Hearings will no doubt be required.
The environmental review is on schedule with no problems.
LSRC Action None.
6.
WPPSS-2
,Susquehanna 1 & 2 Grand Gulf I & 2 Status The status cf the safety review is provided in the status report,.
These reviews are being handled largely concurrently in accordance with the procedures as discussed during the third LSRC meeting in October.
The review schedules now have been approved. However, it was announced that the Power Systems Branch has just notified the LPMs that there will be a delay of up to six months in their issuance of Q-1s.
The Committee discussed this matter at some length.
It is not clear how the branch could have agreed a month or so ago to the just approved schedules and now find that it must slip the schedules by six months.
LSRC Action The Committee desires a complete rundown at its next meeting on the impact of the PSB slip on the schedules.
7.
SWESSAR-Pl/BSAR-205 Statur The status of this review is provided in the status report, Enclo;ure 8.
The project basically appears to be in good shape, requiring only minor effort to convert the previously issued Report to the ACRS
Multiple Addressees NOV 2 0 ma into an SER such that the PDA can be issued.
LSRC Action The Committee endorses by PM's recommendation that DSS reviewing branches meet their next scheduled milestone of November 30, 1978, which should assure project completion by February 1979.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS 1.
The Coamittee discussed overall schedule problems along the lines of Enclosure 4 to the meeting agenda.
No decisions were reached.
However, the Committee feels that a survey should be made of the branch chiefs and section leaders to find out what information they feel they need in order to meet and maintain schedules.
A meeting with the Division Directors will be arranged in an attempt to have this survey completed before the next meeting.
2.
Future LSRC meetings are scheduled as follows:
9:00 A.M.
Thursday, December 21 Room P-422 9:00 A.M.
Thursday, January 25 Room P-422 9:00 A.M.
Thursday, February 22 Room P-422
\\
L ff
- f..Lt v/M
[lenwood F. Ross, Jr. Chairman Licensing Schedules Review Conmittee
Enclosures:
1.
Status Report - Zimmer 1 2.
Status Report - Salem 2 3.
Status Report - Palo Verde 4&5 4.
Status Report - Sequoyah l&2 5.
Status Report - Sequoyah 1&2 6.
Memo from O. Hood 7.
Status Report - WPPSS-2 8.
Status Report - SWESSAR-Pl/BSAR-205 cc: See next page
Zimmer Nuclear Power Station - OL Docketed 9/10/75 Current Status Target fuel load is July 1979.
Safety evaluation report in preparation by LPM scheduled for issuance on Novenber 30, 1978 for a January 1978 full ACRS meeting. A subcommittee meeting for the Zimmer plant is scheduled for November 16-17, 1978 at the site.
A draft SER was sent to ACRS for use at the subcommittee meeting.
The ACRS subcommittee on Mark 11 containments delayed their scheduled meeting a month to November 28-30, 1978.
Zimmer is a contested case.
If the hearings can start in February 1979, our licensing process will likely meet the target fuel load date.
Fuel Load Forecast Panel is re-reviewing Zimmer fuel load date and should revise its July 1979 forecast to reflect lack of progress in plant construction since the last review.
Current and Potential Problems Delayed inputs from Reactor Systems (1 month) and rework of Mechanical Engineering and I&C inputs delayed LPM progress in meeting the previous October 31, 1978 SER issue date.
There will be 17 outstanding items in the SER of which about 5 relate to containment pool dynamics.
The most significant matters involve:
1.
staf f's position on relying only on safety grade equipment in analysis of abnormal transients.
2.
ability of applicant to meet staff's load cambination criteria for absolute sums of OBE and relief valve loads.
Recommendations None.
SALEM 2_(0-)
Current Status Have issued 113 questions and positions to applicant Responses to 100 questions have been received Scheduled ACRS meeting is January 1979 Only received two SER Supplement inputs as of November 3, 1978 (Core Performance & ETSB)
Meeting concerning Power System Cranch review was held at PSE&G offices on October 24 & 25, 1978 Current & Potential Problems Applicant still has not responded to all questions Applicant has indicated that responses to ten questions (in CSB area) will not be available until mid November.
Applicant's fuel load date is 2/4/79; forecast panel estimates 3 to 6 months later In order to meet January.1979 ACP.S meeting, Supplement must be issued December 1,' 1978.
This appears to be highly improbable at this moment and we therefore believe the licensing review process will impact the Salem Unit 2 fuel date.
Recommended Actions Hold management level meeting with applicant to discuss review schedule and selected staff positions as soon as the applicant's responses are reviewed by the staff.
Reviewers submit SER Supplements with open items by November 9 (it is recognized that this may not be possible in certain review areas).
This recommendation was made to management in a Flash Note dated November 6, 1978.
n ure 3 PALO VERDE 4_& 5 (CP)
Current Status Technical meeting to be held with applicant 11/14/78 Three (out of 30) reviewers have stated that their review is complete and no SER writeup is required.
As of 11/7/78, no substantial SER inputs have been received, No single branch has completed their revie Appendix A to CESSAR FSAR was received.
It addresses Category 2 & 3 issues.
An amendment to this document is expected on December 1 which will address certain Category 4 issues.
Current & Potential Problems Most of the " dedicated" reviewers are working on other projects & tasks.
One -is in China, one is in Hong Kong, and one is in the hospital.
No reviewer has indicated that he/she has a problem with the scheduled SER input date, yet most could write their SER now.
Recommended Actions No LSRC action is recommended.
4
PALO VERDE 4 & 5 (CP)
Current Status Technical meeting to be held with applicant 11/14/78 Three (out of 30) reviewers have stated that their review is complete and no SER writeup is required. As of 11/7/78, no substantial SER inputs have been received.
No single branch has completed their review.
Appendix A to CESSAR FSAR was received.
It addresses Category 2 & 3 issues.
An amendment to this document is expected on December I which will address certain Category 4 issues.
Current & Potential Problems Most of the " dedicated" reviewers are working on other projects & tasks.
One-is in China, one is in Hong Kong, and one is in the hospital.
No reviewer has indicated that he/she has a problem with the scheduled SER input date, yet most could write their SER now.
Recommended Actions No LSRC action is recommended.
t
i i
sequoyah ticcicar Plant - UL bucke te, J.uiua q wia l
Current Status Peview had been essent ially complet d :uid a draf t SER prepared in January 1976.
Excessive open items and const ruct ion delay.s precluded issuant e of SER at that time.
SI:R 'pdates were requested within the pat t year and m.iny were provide i.
Ilowever, some schedules for SIR update had not been met due to ipplicant delays in response to questions on open items, and internal priority problems.
An earlier meeting with applicant r.'sulted in a tentative schedule for responses and an indicated earliest fuel load date of 4/30/7S.
'lVA letter of August 7,1978 fonnali:ed thei r response schedule.
Verbal inlonnation from 'lYA then in'licated an addit ional one month slip in their responses, in m;uiy cases to 10/1/78.
A schedule change prepared and approved based on thece sIipped dates, request was calling for an SI R by 1/1/78 and a f ebru
.3 CRS meeting.
Current an ! Potential Problems - Pcssible inpact on H.D 1.
Corplete and adequate responses to nany items have not yct been r ceived from lVA. Current schedules (verbel) indicate responses mostly in November, with some in December.
Some responses to new questions in September have not yet been scheduled.
S1 R inputs from ASB, IGC, CSB, RSB, EPB, QAB, and GSB are a f fected.
2.
Pr eparation of SER update input s in M1 B and AAB are being delayed at least in part by higher priority efforts.
Recommendations 1.
Ll'M prepare letter to 'lYA for Boyd signature neiterat ing previous admonitions regarding tinely responses, in forning them of additional resultant delays in our review schedule possibly irpacting the present fuel load date, and cautioning them of further delays unless responses are received.
Let ter is in draft 11/6/78.
2.
Sequoyah be assigned higher priority in MEB and AAB (and other branches where necessary) to conplete SER inputs, or alteniative means found to prepare SER's.
Pecause of possibility of impact on fuel load date, all branches 3.
who have not yet prepared SER inputs for any reason connit to earliest possible SER's when above constraints (responses and/or priorities) are removed.
BLUE BOOK MEETING
SUMMARY
QY0YAH PROJECT RICHARD WATKINS EPM CURRENT STATUS The cps for Unit I and Unit 2 have recently been extended to August 1,1979 and April 1, 1980, respectively.
Fuel loading is planned shortly thereafter.
Techn specs are now under preparation by the Applicant with planned submittal to NRC by November 30, 1978.
TVA published the FES-CP Stage in February 1974 under the lead agency concept.
NRC (formerly AEC) commented on the FES.
Plant is presently about 80% complete Environmental hearings were held in late 1974 with ASLB initial decision in December 1974.
Hearing has combined CP/0L overtones.
CURRENT AND POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AND SOURCES OF DELAYS TVA, upon the staff's insistence has recently submitted for review an update of environnental impacts of changes which have occurred at the Sequoyah plant since the hearings in 1974. This document is now under review by NRC staff.
This is in agreement with several NRC/TVA meetings on this subject. After review, the staff plans to meet with TVA to assess the significance of environmental impacts, and to resolve the jurisdiction and procedural problems associated with future action.
Procedural problems have arisen between TVA and the NRC staff regarding a 1971 Memorandua of Understanding for lead agency responsibility in preparation of EIS, respective responsibilities under NEPA, and staff authority in the licensing process.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS The staff will meet with the TVA staff in early December to discuss the TVA environmental impact assessment document as prepared by TVA.
Tech specs, when subnitted, will be reviewed by the NRC staff. The staff is
~
presently reviewing a draft of the NPDES permit in cooperation with EPA.
Meetings with EPA on tech specs are planned.
+
N.)
[
[o
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
)f (g
f WASHINGTON. O C. 20555 g
%. ',',, /
NOV 2 B78 MEMORMDUM FOR:
Steven A. Varga, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No.
4, DPM FROM:
Darl Hood, Project Maaager, Light Water Reactors Branch No.
4, DPM
SUBJECT:
OVERDUE Q-2s ON MIDLAND AND GENERAL REVIEW STATUS The Midland review schedule called for issuance of Q-2s during August 1978.
As shown in Enclosure 1, less than half of the branches met this schedule, and about one-half issued Q-2s to the LPM between mid-September to mid-October, 1978.
Five branches (MTEB, Met. Sect; AAB; G/SB; HYD; QAB other than Con. of Op.) have not provided Q-2s to date, and no schedule for doing so has been provided.
All Q-2s received to date have been issued to the applicants as " supplemental Q-1s," or Q-lhs because much information was missing on the docket.
The revised schedule calls for issuance of Q-2s on November 1, 1978.
Since the review schedule is already compressed to accomodate this additional round of questions, it will be necessary to slip the SER issuance (and hence start of hearing and OL issuance) to the extent that the branches who have not yet provided 0-2s fall to meet this November 1, 1978 issue date for Q-2s.
Other licensing areas of the Midland review also are slipping, of immediate concern because they are oriented but are not to construction completion.
They are of collective concern, however, because of their large quantity.
Since Midland has a 11 month schedule for hearings, these items will only be in preliminary stages or not yet started when the SER is a
issued.
It is becoming obvious that there will be a h.D
%q significant amount of ongoing review items when the SER is fb issued.
The fire protection review originally called for 9
issuance of Q-1s in June 1978, but is now slipped to early 1979 because of higher priority to be given other plants.
%(b security Q-1s have been issued and responses are The plant awaiting lifting of travel restrictions for the associated b
site tour and response meeting.
The SQRT team visit is not yet scheduled.
The ISCSB review is to be completed during
NOV 2
$78 Steven A. Varga.
the scheduled hearing period.
Then, o f course, there will bc the unsual on-going items like a very large number of generic matters, tech spec reviews, operating and startup procedures, environmental testing results, ISI, etc.
AMD Darl Hood, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management cc:
R. Mattson J. Knight S.
Pawlicki D.
Ross R. Houston D. Skovholt J.
Stepp L. Hulman V. Benaroya W. llaass D. Vassallo J.
English
- 0. Lynch R. Clark D. Hood P
NOV 2 1978 ENCLOSURE I.
Branches Providing "Q-2s" for August 30 letter to Applicant ASB GTE MEB DPM MTEB (Mt. Int. Br. Only)
QA (Cond. of Op. Only)
CPB - Fuels OLB Met CPB - Phy.
RAB II.
Branches Providing "Q-2s" for Oct. 13, 1978 letter to Applicant Date issued to LPM EPB 9/13/78 RAB 9/18/78 PSB 9/19/78 9/28/78 RSB 9/28/78 AB ISCSB (Q-1s) 10/2/78 10/5/78 CSB 10/6/78 MEB 10/10/78 SEB III.
Branches Which Have Not Yet Provided "Q-2s" MTEB (Met. Br.)
AAB G-SB Hydro.
QAB (Sections other than Cond. of Op.)
WPPSS-2 Susquehanna Gra id Gulf-Status - The level D schedules for these recent OL submittals are at the Office Director level for approval.
Problem - In some review areas, it was decided that it would be more efficient to review these BWRs in the same time frame.
This has resulted in delaying the original WPPSS-2 and Susquehanna schedules to coincide with Grand Gulf.
In the case of Susquehana, the applicant claims that this will delay the revi2w process beyond his expected fuel load date.
He has requested a management meeting.
SWESSAR-Pl/BSAR-205 STATUS
Background:
S&W Tendering Date:
December 12, 1975 Report to ACRS Issued:
December 1977 ACRS Subcommittee:
December 1977 ACRS Full Committee:
January 1978 PDA's have been issued for the basic SWESSAR-P1 design in combination with other NSSS designs:
PDA-4, May 5, 1976, RESAR-41 PDA-6, August 18, 1976, CESSAR-80 PDA-8, March 31, 1977, RESAR-35 No applicant has referenced a SWESSAR-Pl/NSSS combination to date. The basic SWESSAR B0P design has been used in several custom reviews including Greene County, Jamesport, and Millstone 3.
Status:
Staff effort has been held up since January 1978 pending completion of higher priority work.
Stone
& Webster has submitted Amendments 35 through 39 since issuance of the Report to ACRS.
T. Cox assigned as LPM as of November 1,1978.
Remaining effort is revision of the Report to the ACRS and reissue as a Safety Analysis Report, with an accompanying Preliminary Design Approval.
This work will include:
o Review by the staff of the amendments to SWESSAR, resolution of approximately seven outstanding issues and appropriate rewriting of portions of the Report to ACRS. This work is centered in Reactor Systems, Auxiliary Systems, Containment Systems, and Power Systems Branches.
o DPM management of overall effort, assembling, and editing SER, preparing PDA.
This will include a special effort in preparing a new generic issues section for the SER.
This project is Number 20 on the DPM priority list dated October 11, 1978.
Current Blue Book shows estimated dates for completion by DSS of late November 1978.
s SWESSAR-Pl/BSAR-205 Status Recommendation:
Direct that DSS reviewing branches meet next scheduled milestone by November 30, 1978, which should assure project completion by end of February 1979.