ML19338B910
| ML19338B910 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1980 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-80-085, SECY-80-85, NUDOCS 8003250003 | |
| Download: ML19338B910 (3) | |
Text
.
.4O C
?,-
gc% [. - t For:
The Comissioners From:
Harold R. Denton, Director
/O W
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Thru:
xecutive Director for Operations
Subject:
THI-1 RESTART STATUS.AND SCHEDULE
Purpose:
To inform the Comission of status and schedule of response to their Order.
Discussion:
In response to the August 9,1979 Comission Order and Notice of Hearing (Order), on Septent>er 12, 1979, the licensee sub-mitted its initial " Report in Response to NRC Staff Recocinended Requirements for Restart of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1" (Restart Report) and has since submitted 11 amendments to that document, the last of which was received on February 1, 1980. The staff has reviewed this material through Amendment 8, and on on January 11, 1980 issued its " Status Report on the Evaluation of Licensee's Cogliance with the NRC Order dated August 9,1979" (Evaluation). Primarily because the licensee's suomittals are incoglete, and to a lesser extent because the staff has not cogleted its review in certain areas, the Evaluation contains a significant number of open items. To resolve these, at least one supplement to the Evaluation will be issued. Presently, a supplement is estimated for about April i
15, 1980, based on expected submittal dates for additional infor-mation by the licensee.
Since issuance of the Order, proposed contentions were filed by various intervenors, the ASLB held one special prehearing confer-ences, contentions and intervenors were admitted to the proceed-ings, and discovery began (50 days later than the schedule contemplated in the Order).
Intervenor interrogatories to the staff have been many and detailed, and our responses have been delayed in some instances because of decisions we have been forced to make regarding allocation of resources to higher priority efforts.
Based on the current status of our review and licensee schedules for submitting additional information, and on advice from ELD i
regarding steps in the hearing process, the following schedule now appears more appropriate than,that appended to the Order.
Contact:
80032 50003
The Commissioners,
This schedule is based on immediate assignment of sufficient personnel to provide the..;-assrry prehearing technical support and input for discovery and summary disposition, and on mainten-ance of current licensee schedules.
For the staff, the effort required for prehearing technical support is estimated to be five professional people for approximately a five-week period, in addition to the total equivalent of nine people presently involved in the review.
Evaluation supplement issued April 15, l' 7
30 days Discovery on Evaluation May 15, 0
completed 30 days Motions for Summary Disposition filed June 16, 1980 20 days Responses to Summary Disposition July 7, 1980 Motions due Final Prehearing Conference July 7, 1980 10 days Prehearing Conference Order July 17, 1980 20 days Written testimony filed August 6, 1980 15 days Hearing starts August 21, 1980 60 days Hearing completed October 20, 1980 20 days Licensee's proposed findings November 10, 1980 l
10 days l
Intervenors' proposed findings November 20, 1980 10 days Staff's proposed findings November 30, 1980 10 days Licensee reply findings December 10, 1980 45-60 days Initial Decision certified to January 25 --
Commission February 10, 1981 Additional discussian of the schedule outlined above follows:
1.
As noted above, steps up through the publication of the special prehearing conference order (beginning of discovery) took 50 days longer than contemplated, because of the number of inter-venors and complexity of the issues.
The Connissioners 2.
Although not identified specifically in the Order schedule, the staff safety evaluation would have had to be issued in essentially coglete form by Novencer 1,1979 to conform with that schedule. This would have required a complete submittal by the licensee by September 1,1979, at the latest. As noted above, the licensee's submittal is not sufficiently coglete as of today.
3.
Time spans in the above schedule differ from the Urw schedule in that the latter did not identify time for motions for sunnary disposition (30 days) or for response to such motions (20 days), and allows five days between the prehearing conference and the prehearing conference ordar.
Coordination:
ELD believes that although the above schedule reflects current planning and normal time spans for steps in the proceedings, it may' prove to be optimistic. ELD has been requested to discuss the schedule with the parties at a pre-hearing conference on February 13, 1980.
k Original Signed by O{36 H. R. Duton O
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
^
l 3
Y p., -f i
l TMI TF l
JD/TMISdpport,r, ELD NRR l
h
' Qp
" " ' C " >b 'HSi',ver/jn ' G Mollmerl' * '
' ECa'se^ t HD'en' o'n'
/
suR~auEF.
.2/..ll./80..!.
2/.t./80;.
.. 2/.'./80 2/.' /80.; 2/.
/80 2f f -/80 -
oarE ).
"*k.
- f.
I.
NRC FOAM 318 (9 76) NRCM C240 D U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1919 289 369 e