ML20009C054
| ML20009C054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1981 |
| From: | Mccaffrey B LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SNRC-592, NUDOCS 8107200223 | |
| Download: ML20009C054 (2) | |
Text
-.
o e
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION am,,,,,
P.O. BOX 618, NORTH COUfeTRY ROAD
- WADING RIVER, N.Y.11792 July 8, 1981 SNRC-592
}
Mr. Robert L.
Tedesco g
gt A3sistant Director for Licensing
\\
Division of Licensing
,4%**
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9-] g b p s-)g# Washington, D.C. 2055 CT Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 / \\/ 4 gj ' ' Docket No. 50-322
Dear Mr. Tedesco:
1 Long Island Ligh ing Company is in receipt of your letter of June 29, 1981 to Mr. M. S. Pollock on the subject of Additional Information for the Safety Evaluation Report. This response is written at Mr. Pollock's direction to document the schedular information that I provided you with via phone on July 6, 1981. As you can see from the table attached, LILCO will have provided essentially all the requested information by July 20. I have also committed to you to once again place a licensing team in residence in Bethesda during the week of July 13 to facilitate closure of as many Open Items as possible. With a similar commit-ment of resources by the NRC, I believe some real progress can be made during this period. It is unfortunate to have such an extensive Request for Additional Information coming at a time when we should already have had the Supplement to the SER issued. LILCO met its commitment contained in our letter from Mr. M. S. Pollock, dated April 15, 1981, to have responses to all the SER Open Items submitted by May 30, 1981. We also had licensing representation in residence at NRC during the period of June 4 to 12. It is our observation that we are faced with a significant number of remaining unresolved issues due in large part to: 1. A continuing reassignment of NRC Staff reviewers that has, in recent months, forced LILCO to expend considerable resources to restate previous discussions for the benefit of the new people involved. 3c>ol .5 i O 0107200223 h h 2 PDR ADOCK PDR "J
e e Mr. Robert Tedesco July 8, 1981 Page Two 2. Late review of submitted mat' rial. We found Staff e reviewers were in many instances just getting to our responses on Open Items at a time when draft SER sections were to have been completed according to the NRC schedule. Thus, any additicnal questions arising out of this review were, by definition, late with respect to a July 1 scheduled SER supplement. 3. Distribution of submitted material t) individual reviewers was in many instances late and cont: ibuted to Item 2. The above three " contributions" to the current situation are offered as constructive observations with the hope that the NRC will consider them in your reevaluation of the licensing review program. I also would request that future letters, strictly related to HRR review of the Shoreham docket, be directed to my attention. Very truly yours, Ad Wk B. R. McCaff y Manager Project Engineering BRM/pd Attach nent cc: M. S. Pollock (w/ attachment) >}}