ML20039D639
| ML20039D639 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8201050298 | |
| Download: ML20039D639 (47) | |
Text
.-
f 3
,p b
}\\
1 COMMISSION MEETING
(~.
~
In the.h cf:
DISCUSSION OF CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR I
(
DATE: December 9, 1981 PAGES: 1 thru 33 g.-
Washington, D. C.
i ALDRMY[.'
N TG
(
400 V1..y M-a Ave., S.W. W=*'d"g =n, D. C. 20024 Talaphc=a: (202) 554-2345 8201050298 8112 9 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
4
'IATIONS 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s'UCKETT 1
3 DISCUSSION OF CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR 4
Nuclear Regulatory _ Commission 5
g Room 113 0-~----~ ~
~~
a j
6 1717 H Street, N.W.
t Washington,-D.C.-
2 7
Wednesday, December 9, 1981 gl 8
d The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m.,
d 9
i h
10 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman, presiding.
2 i
11 PRESEhT:
NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman CT ~ l~1-
~ : ~ : ~:' C. r r ' -
d 12 y
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner PETER BRf DFORD, Commissioner d
13 iii JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner E
14
- .ty 9
15 ALSO PRESENT:_
I 16 LEONARD BICKWIT j
SAMUEL CHILK
/ILLI1Ji J. DIRCKS m-37,
ll!
I rIAROLD DENTON b
18 GUY CUNNINGHAM g
PAUL CHECK FORREST REMICK I
19 DENNIS RATHBUN MARTIN MALSCH 20 21 22 2? '
24 ;
i' 25 [1 I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
'q 2
P3QgggglNgg i
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The meeting will please come to 3
order.
This afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission 4
g 5
will hold two ma' 'ngs concerning the proposed Clinch River n
8 6
Breeder Reactor normally known as CRBR.
K The first meeting will ccusist pf an NRC staff briefing 2,
7 K
on the history and status of NRC's a:tivities on CRBR.
The j
8 d
NRC staff will also outline what is needed, what it feels is n
9 z'
h 10 needed in terms of organizational structure, review plan, resource 2
i 11 estimates and the like, the remaining steps in CRBR licensing 3
y 12 review.
(_
f 13 Tha second meeting will focus on the Department of od 9%
for an exemption to begin site clearing 2n:Lm.
g 14 Energy's request E
2 15,
pre-construction activity for CRBR.
The Commission's Office i
g 16 of Policy Ivaluation will highlight the main features of a w
i p
17 l petition and will then present alternative approaches for deciding
=
i
=
5 18 whether or not to grant the exemption.
E 19 1 I will have additional comments in the introduction x
w 20 )
to the second meeting.
i 21 With that, I have proposed to turn over the meeting 22 to NRC staff but I believe legal counsel has a couple of I
23 comments that he feels are appropriate.
MR. BICKWIT:
I would like to speak to the ex parte 24 Our conclusion is there are no constraints operating 25l aspects.
j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
3 1
here.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss how to handle 2
this exemption request.
That would be one of the purposes.
3 It is clear there is no ex parte problem.
4 In the discussion, it is conceivable that you will get e
5 into matters that bear on the merits of the exemption request 3=
6 itself.
Our conclusion is that presents no ex parte problem
^
A, 7
but that conclusion rests on our view that there is no legal j
8 requirement for an adjudication on the merits of the exemption dd 9
request.
i O
10 The Commission may ultimately reject that view.
If z_
i 11 it does reject that view, we believe the problem can be cured a
y 12 by allowing comments on anything that has been said by the d
13 traff that bears on the merits of the request.
Ej 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
- z 2
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
May I ask counsel a few questions g
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
p 17 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What is the formal status at i
5 l
5 18 '
the moment?
Is there a proceeding?
E 19 MR. BICKWIT:
There is a suspended proceeding.
The n
i 20 fact that it is suspended does not bear on the ex parte aspects i
21 of the ma'tter.
l l
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is as though there were.
l 23f a proceeding?
24f MR. BICKWIT:
Exactly.
i l
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Were you going to mention i
l l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
L
4 i
anything about a further scheduled meeting?
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I was going to mention that when 3
we introduce the next part of the meeting.
This part will 4
be a staff briefing and I thought it was not necessary or 3
5 appropriate to discuss that.
2 6
Any other comments before we~begin?
7 (No response.)
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I will turn: the meeting-over -
2.
dd 9
to Mr. Dircks for the staff presentatlon.
10 MR. DIRCKS:
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we are.
Z i
11 going to give a status report of the ' project and an estimate d
12 of the resource needs.
E 13 We Will go back to the history of the NRC activities-- -
5 E
14 relating to the CRBR, dating back to 1975., 1976 and 1977.
We vb!
15 Will Provide you with an update of th'e re. view that has been 16 conducted thus far, where it left off at a certain point in 3
M l
l g
17 i 1977 and where we are today and what still needs to be done.
f 5
l l
5 18 We will give you a brief discussion of how we are l
2 That will cover l
I 19 l organized to deal with the licensing review.
I X
l M
l 20 the establishment of the proj ect office,;.the staff assigned l
l 21 and budgeted to the project, the amount of budgeted dollars 22 needed to support the project, both in the Office of NRR and l,
i the Research Office, and the coordinated mechanisms we set 23 l
l 24 up in regard to the research program, how much research is t
l 25,
needed as funneled through a coordinative office we have I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMmANY. INC.
I 5
established.
_j As you know, we have the project office established.
2 Str. Paul Check is the project manager and is sitting right 3
here.
That office reports directly to Harold Denton, the Directdr 4
f NRR.
e 5
3 In the letter you wrote to the Leputy Secretary of 6
I Energy, you mentioned I am supposed to keep track of it and j
7 E
report periodically to the Commission and this serves that g
a N
9 Purpose.
i 10 Harold Denton will provide the details.
Mr. Guy E
Cunningham on my left is the princip.1 attorney following 'the l
j; d
12 Progress of the licensing review.
_Z Harold?
13 5
MR. DENTON:
Thank you.
May I have the first slide, E
14 s
b 15 P ease?
l 2I 16 (SLIDE.)
a l
MR. DENTON:
As Bill said, we are going to cover how
. g j7 I
We P an to conduct this reviev, the resources we see required, b
18 l
schedules, special characteristics of the review and draw some 19 5
conclusions about these aspects of the review.
20 (SLIDE.)
21 MR. DENTON:
Just by way of background, I listed the 22 chronology of this application.
I think you are all familiar 23 24 l with it.
The two key items is we had issued the final 25 I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
a t
6 i
environnental impact statement and a site suitability report 2
in March.
We were set to begin the actual hearing phase of.
3 the LWA proceeding when it was suspended by ERDA in.1977 -
4 We kept a group working on the safety review aspects:
g 5
for awhile after that.
N COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did ERDA. withdraw its 8
6 i a
jI 7
application?
Is that how the proceeding was brought to. a-halt?
g 8
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
No.
It filed a: Motion to Suspend;..
0=
9 the proceeding.
There is a formal motion which was granted I
b 10 by the licensing board.
There was nolobj ection from any; otherf --
E_
i n
party as I recall.
d 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Filed by-ERDA?
F.=
d 13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Filed by ERDA with the licensing.
~
E 14 board and granted by the Board.
wH 3
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We did not comment on it?
E=
j 16 MR. CUNNINGHNt:
I do not believe it came to the G
d 17 Commission.
I believe the Board acted on the matter.
E E
18 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The staff did not comment?
l 2
'y 19 MR. CUNNIhGHAM:
I do not believe there was any comment.
n i
20 It was right after the Commission had made its announcement 21 that there was very little question that the application would not be pursued and the Board granted the-application quite 22 23 Promptly.
24 l MR. DENTON:
We then phased down the effort.
At the l
25,
time it was thought that the safety review was perhaps half i
B ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
7 i
complete.
An effort to at least document some 'of' th outstanding e
2 issues and work that had been done -- we did send ERDA a letter 3
referred to here as a Gammill-Caffey letter.
I -hink it was 4
about 30 pages long which attempted to document the stage of~
g 5
the safety review and some of the prominent issues at-that N
8 6
time.
~
e f7 That was the end of the staff's effort until recently",
8 beginning with the letter back to Mr.iDavis and we establishsd
~
d d
9 the program office in September.
i 10 (SLIDE.)
~~
'~
~
El ij MR. DENTON:
The slide coveri some of the unique aspects d
12 of the review.
Many of them are familiar:to you.
We have U
13 talked in the past about getting more5 design information at E
~
E 14 the CP stage.
This is one plant where that is possible.
Y!
15 The plant is largely designed and over half a billion s
16 dollars worth of hardware has actually been delivered or on 3
A y
17 !
order, sitting in warehouses around the country.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How much of that is actually g
I 19 fabricated?
A 20 MR. DENTON:
A lot, over half is actually fabricated, 21 I believe.
Looking back, the safety review is not entirely 22 recoverable at the time, people had left and conclusions were 23l not well documented.
We will have to go back into and decide 24 l if the review that was done really did adequately cover it f
1 25 j or if the changes since that time require we reopen the whole l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 8
y thing.
2 C05f5tISSIONER GILINSKY:
When you.say the RSD is nearly 3
complete, that must be that portion that pertains to this 4
Particular plant.
e 5
FIR. DENTON:
Yes.
The originally planned R6D to support M
the construction phase at least, I think that is considered 6
=
f7 over 95 percent complete.
There were over seven parties to:the-proceeding.
8
.4 9
C05f>lISSIONER AHEARNE:
In a quick look at the Gammill i
h 10 letter, I read it as saying here a e a lot.of areas where there E
I 11 are still questions.
As you mentioned, sort of a status report.
E d
12 It did not look at least from that, that it would be necessary E
h.13 to go back and see whether or not the-previous work could be E
E 14 accepted as complete because at least the letter does not give 15 the impression the review is in any way complete.
E 16 SIR. DENTON:
I think that is -ight.
At the time we 3
-rj j7 j thought the review was maybe half complete from the safety b
18 standpoint, but of the issues that had been looked at, we wanted E
I 19 to capture those and document them, and that was the purpose A
20 of that letter.
21 There were an extensive number of parties to the 22 Proceeding.
A number of contentions had been admitted when 23l the LWA proceeding was about to start.
A lot of discovery 24 f had been done.
l 25(
I think a small number of those contentions are related il i
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
4 4
9 i
to the issues presented by the exemption.
If you would like, I could cite those at a later time.
2 You had issued a Decision back in 1976~that delineated 3
4 the responsibility of the two Government agencies.
That is e
5 the same one we would be following today, assuming we A
6 reactivated the process as it was left.
f7 We will have to rely heavily on -the labs of DOE for 8
special expertise.
There is a little capability outside the-r d
d 9
DOE labs in some of these specialty areas.
We have taken some i
h 10 precautions to be sure that the labs -to which we -are going 3
5 11 to for assistance are not labs which ;have primary responsibility d
12 in the design.
E S
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Cancyou'give some' examples-E E
14 of particular areas that have to go to the labs?
Y!
15 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
5 16 (SLIDE. )
a2 MR. DENTON:
The main areas-are-those unique Clinch d
17 i 18 River characteristics, my guess is they are the ones that deal E
t 19 with core design, the core disruptive accident treatment, A
20 reactivity transients, sodium fires and unique features.
21 There is also some high temperature aspects of design 22 because this runs at about 1,000 degrees as cpposed to the 23l more conventional 600 range in light water reactors.
24 j We have through the Program Office discussed these 25 :
aspects with the lab, identified people who were not involved I
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
10 in the Clinch Riyer design for DOE but who have done quite - --
1 2
a bit of research and are experts in these areas.
We would/ -
3 Propose in 1982 to support about $2.5 million worth of technical l
assistance in these aspects.
4 1
e 5
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How will,you find people who N
N 6
are expert in these areas and have not_been involved in the i
y Clinch River design?
How did they develop _their expertise l
8 8
if not under the design?
a G
d 9
MR. DENTON:
There has been a;1ot. of work in fast: -
i
~
10 reactors in general supported by the Department of Energy and-Z
_j 11 the Agency.
While Los Alamos has doncia Ict of work in-fast.
~
s d
12
?.
reactor theory and design, the actual Clinch River design, ls 13 for example, is-being done more at Argonne.
E
~
l 14 This is an issue we have been sensitive to from the b
beginning, making sure when we are looking for assistance, 2
15
?-
j 16,
we not get it from those that the peop1'e from DOE are relying on.
-s y
17 ;
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What are the environmental
- =
5 18 issues?
~
E 19.
MR. DENTON:
That is the conventional assistance we O
,a 20 get in preparing environmental impact statements from PSL.
21 We need to update that environmental impact statement issued 22 previously.
23 l (SLIDE.)
24 lI MR. DENTON:
Because of the importance and uniqueness 25,
of this review, I decided we could not really treat it like l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- _ : ::i'
~
11 i
we~ treat a light water reactor and have any assurance that 2 -
it would be ccmpleted on any planned schedule, so I have elevated.
3 it to a ProgramiOffice along the lines of the TMI Program Office 4
and to giv3 it special-management attention and to focus the 5
review on those aspects that are different than. light water Ej 6
reactors.
f7 We would propose or we have proposed that there be
~
X
~ ~-
l 8
15 individuals in this office and they would handle all those d
g 9
unique aspects of the design.
z h
10 The only people working today on Clinch' River in:NRR
~
l'
- .j ij are these 11 people now onboard.
m 6
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Pres'umably other aspects of z
5 are farmed out to the rest of youd organizatior.?
13 it E
E 14 MR. DENTONi Yes.
We anticipate there will be a total N!
15 of 25 people needed to work on it during 1982. ~The other ten 5
16 manyears will come from the more traditional engineering
- W disciplines that would not see anything unique in the design.
g 17 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What do you use for criteria
=
19 f r the various aspects of the review?
It is not like the 5
20 light water reactor where you have guides and experience and 21l so on.
22 MR. DENTON:
This was the problem faced in the original review.
The staff did work up an equivalent set of general 23 24l design criteria for liquid metal breeder reactor.
25l With the objective being to have the risks comparable f
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 12 or lower than those of a light water reactor.
One of the functions of this group now has been to 2
3 g
back and look at those assumptions and come up with the changes that are necessary.
For example, our fire protection 4
5 regulations for light water reactors are not quite those you
=
3 3
w uld want to have for this type of reactor.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There is a long way between 7
8 the general design criteria and standard review plans?-
N MR. DENTON:
Yes.
That is a function of this' office, 9
i 10 t
take the standard review plan for light water reactors and E!
11 in essence write a contract with each-technical branch that w uld describe the scope and differences in the review and d
12 E
h 13 how that branch would come to its conclusions if there are E
differences.
E 14 f15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are they-the ones who-decide f.
16 n what the criteria are?
To what extent are they supervised?
3 A
37 I realize they report to you.
h 18 MR. DENTON:
We would see the results.
That function
{
39 would reside with the Director of the Clinch River Program X5 Office.
20 That would be his job, to be sure we achieve a comparable 21 level of safety in this plant to that which we are getting in light water reviews.
22 We w uld look at the results.
23 ;
MR. DIRCKS:
Was this brought before the ACRS?
24 i
MR. DENTON:
It was the criteria used last time, 25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COM AANY. INC.
~
-__._________J
13 1
discussed extensively with the ACRS.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would you.still be using those c
2 criteria or revisiting?
3 MR. DENTON:
We will certainly have to revisit because 4
e 5
a lot of things have happened since then.
Let me ask Paul X
3 6l if he can characterize how far we have come.
We have not f7 republished that, and that has been one of the first efforts:
b i
8J f this team, to plan the review-branch by branch.
MR. CHECK:
I think you are very close to the answer.
9 i
10 The process itself of establishing acceptance criteria is a Cz!
11 Rey one and one we address ourselves to directly. -We:have l
d 12 the work that was done formerly as guidance.
In some cases E
we have to interpret new utterances of. the Commission. and modify 13 5
E 14 them appropriately, since by and large they are made with respect d
h 15 to boiling water reactors, pressurized water reactors as well.
S me accommodation must be made; some change must.
16 t.
n i
d be made.
Our work product is not entirely our own, as Harold g
j7
=!
18 has mentioned.
The other technical review organizations i:ithin i
i:
I l
E 19 NRR participate in this-process.
As happens in the light water-5 20 reviews, our judgments and analyses are presented to the ACRS,
21 reviewed by them, they comment and ultimately it is to be 22 adjudicated.
l
\\
I 23 l MR. DENTON:
Let me go to slide B-3, in which we list I
24 i the main areas in which there are substantive differences between l
25; the design.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i L-
14 l
\\c (SLIDE.)
l l
MR..DENTON:
First is the primary coolant system,.
2 starting withficw pressure, high temperature _, then the-unique problems presented by sodium as a coolant 4
, and then finally: -
as em as a
na Y.re a great-deaf 5
=
3 of attention is the positive reactivity feedback in. the core.-
Both those aspects are the key to the; differences. This has-t; 7
g, to se in aetail guidance to each bran 6h..
a Historically the criteria have always been to make 1 9
I g
the risk in this reactor no greater than.a risk in-light water-g.
E
~
E reactor.
p 11 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When you finish., will you end g
S up with a series of guides or technical positions..which would-g 13 essentially in sum be the licensing criteria for CRBR?-
g 14 I have tried to e
MR. CHECK:
I think that is true.
r 15
- s*
describe the process which in my view is very similar to what 16 g
goes on over a longer period of time' in light water reactors e
- s the development of 5
We will have to compress to some extent 2
18 E
this but we have the resources.
19 DENTON-In some areas there is no comparable 20 guidance.
This plant was designed on the basis that a core meltdown should be assumed to occur and the containment retain that without significant leakage for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
It is a very 23 r
3l unique feature of this plant, not only do we try to make the probability of a core disruptive accident very low, we went 25 i
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
15 beyond that and said never mind, we assume core melt event j
cannot be precluded and therefore the containment must be shown 2
to retain its integrity for a considerable period after that.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When do you expect to finish -
4 this process of developing all this criteria?
g 5
n MR. DENTON:
It depends on the resources we put on it.
6
[7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Given the -resources, what -is -
8 your current estimate?
~
n N
MR. CHECK:
It is ongoing.
It would be hard to state.
9 I
10 that at such and such a date, we will have all the -criteria.
11 We develop criteria as we move through the issues.
MR. DENTON:
I will ask the statf t.o think about a d
12 E
date.
I do not have a date in mind.' :We have turned on-the -
h 13 E
staff that would be assisting the Program Office. ~ There are -
E 14 4!
15 25 manyears of effort needed.
The only people working are those presently reporting to Paul.
The other branches'which 16 a
M must be eventually involved in the review have not yet been g-j7 brought into the review and we will need their cooperation.
18 t
3 i-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There are 11 so far?
j9 t
=
l M
i 10l MR. DENTON:
Yes.
MR. CHECK:
The staff itself has considerable capability.
21 We have gone through the review of a number of fast reactors 22 l i
23 '
and most recently at FFTF.
We have a basic understanding of the design and what is acceptable resides.
It is not always 24,
formally documented as it is in water reactors.
There is 25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
16 an understanding.
y COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Have people on this group worked 2
n those other proj ects, such as FFTF?
3<
MR. CHECK:
Some have.
4 MR. DENTON:
There is about 45 manyears of experience e
5 3j in fast reactors in the group reporting to Paul.
1 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Do you have a list of that.
7 E
8l group and where they were before?
n 9
MR. DENTON:
Yes, I do.
9 i
10 (SLIDE. )
E!
11 MR. DENTON:
Of the staff of 11'that are.there today, three are support personnel, a secretary, a licensing assistant d
12 z!
and a program coordinator.
They came mainly from NRR.
Two 13
=m E
14 pe P e, two of the technical reviewers came from offices other l
j than NRR.
One came from the Appeal Board staff and the other 15 E
came from the AEOD.
These are individuals who had expressed
[.
16 3
- d interest in working on fas t reactors.
37 Three of the project managers came from NRR casework.
g 18 One of the individuals had been in charge of the CP review
{
j9 5
team during the summer that had reviewed Pilgrim and other 20 i
cps.
One was from an OL review that was phasing down and one f
21 was the original environmental proj ect manager.
g The three people from technical review came from DSI 23 !
24 j and had been involved in casework reviews.
l l
I have asked Paul to attempt to fill the remaining l
25 ;
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
L
17 four vacancies from the outside.
j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Basically six of those are 2
PeoP e who might otherwise be working on either other licensing l
3 r
ther safety issues within NRR?
4 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
If they had stayed in their present e
5 M
. j r les, they would have been working on casework or OL reviews.
6 e
[
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That includes Paul?
7 E
MR. DENTON:
Paul counts as overhead;since_he was.
c:
8 Mj a supervisor at the time.
He would have split his tima between 9
E casework and other activities.
g 10 uz COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
To what. extent is there j
jj supe rvision?
I realize 'this goes through. the-ACRS.
I am-talking
,4 12
?
about the development of the criteria; g
13
=a AsIundersyandit, Paul's group is developing the E
14 N
rules for what is acceptable and also;is going to review the f15
[.
16 extent t which the rules are not acceptable.
Are we looking principally to the ACRS-to look over 37 x
b 18 that process?
Historically, the r.les would be developed MR. DENTON:
{
39 j u
A I
by Paul's group.
We have had a number of unique reactor designs 20 that we have icoked at such as Fort Saint Vrain and so forth.
L 21 In each case that we give the group responsibility for 22 deve10P ng the basic review plan on, it is concurred in then i
23 ;
24 l by the other technical disciplines that do not profess to know the integrated view of that type of reactor, they know their 25.
i l
i 9
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
18 own aspects and we do rely on the ACRS for oversight in that area.
MR. CHECK:
In a way, Commission Gilinsky, you are 3i asking a question that is very interesting, how the regulatory 4
Process comes up with requirements or acceptance criteria.
e 5
Aj It is one that would make a very interesting slide.
e l
People are attributing to me an authority that sourids I
bigger than it really is.
I do not mean to shirk it.
It is 8
9 important what I do.
In a sense I coordinate as well.
9 i
E There are ideas coming from many sources, the industry 10 ez g
jj itself, code committees.
We have representatives on standards- _
committees.
5 MR. DENTON:
Let's take high temperature-materials.
13 5=
That is an unique aspect presented here.
This is an area that g
g s!
15 we have a lot of mechanical engineers. in and we would expect w
the criteria for designing systems of 1,000 degrees would largely g
3 be set within the Division of Engineering but they would have g
u t
reflect the temperature range and usage factors and so forth 18
=
~
that would come from Paul's group.
39 8"
We have not tried to set up checks and balances so 20 to speak, of having one group write a requirement and another 21 group implementing them in the special cases.
It seems to g
l have worked adequately in the past just to have the same group
. 23 ;
working with the person who designed the unique plan.
g MR. DIRCKS:
It is similar to the way we are doing 3
i I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
19 1
the waste management review.
We take the basic criteria and 2
then develop the review criteria.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
By the waste management plan, 3
do you mean Part 16?
4 MR. DIRCKS:
We have to make a distinction between g
5 c.
5 regulations, rules and review criteria.
Given the regulations.
6 and rules, the review criteria basically generated within the 7
8 Office of Waste Management.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We spent.quite a bit of time 9
i 10 on the rules.
o z_
MR. DIRCKS:
Yes, but I do not think there is any i
n
<w d
12 change here.
You have the basic reactor rules and the design z
criteria.
What this discussion is revolving around is criteria 13 if by which the technical staff can arrive at conclusions as a E
14 f15 result of that review.
[
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I remember from years ago 3
mi there was a great controversy over how energetic an accident 37 b
18,
one needs to take in account, so many megawatt seconds.
i MR. DENTON:
One reason we have gone to the laboratories l
{
j9 5
20l f r that, we hope to achieve a concensus.of experts advising us and we would hope we could resolve there were differences 21 with DOE.
If not, it is likely to be one of the subjects that 22 l
l has to be resolved in a more formal way.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think the basic question 24
\\
Commissioner Gilinsky was getting at and one I was interested 25 l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
20 i
in, to what extent is there management oversight beyond the 2
Project Office?
Is there any?
MR. DENTON:
Quite a bit in that you still have to 3
4 rely on the traditional line organizations for a large part 5
of the input.
=
3 MR. DIRCKS:
Tnere is a day to day rep'orting 8
6 7
requirement between you and Ed and Paul's office.
We have E
8 this coordinative research group looking at requests for new a..
a e
information, requirements that they want to feed into the program d
9 ij jo support effort or into the research effort.
E 5
11 There is quite a bit of workigoing on in that area.
d d
12 (SLIDE.)
5 h
13 MR. DENTON:
Slide five shows the review plan and E
E
- 4 schedule we were working on prior to cons _ideration of any w
~15 exemption.
We were basing our resource allocation on the issuance E
16 of two proj ects, one would be an LWA and one would be a CP.
3 M
What we assume we had to do at that time was update the final
(
17 b
18 environmental statements, issue those.and resume the.LWA hearing.
E 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why do they need to be updated?
xn 20 MP.. DENTON:
They are five years out of date.
We i
21l do not know what has been learned about those aspects since l
22 l then.
It is mainly new information to see what has changed.
23 Complete the safety review, issue the SER, get ACRS 24 comments and begin the hearing on the CP.
25 '
These schedules assume an 11 month duration for both E
l t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
21 activities.
I will come back to schedules and show how an 1
exemption might affect these schcdules.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You must have made some assumptions 3
in picking these dates, 1983 could just as well be 1984 or 4
1985.
Was there some assumption?
=
5 3
N MR. CHECK:
Those dates come -cut of an analysis of 3
6 f7 the work that must be done.
In a very abbreviated form, I -
have shown something you have probably seen in'a longer-form,.
E 8
a d
P cked out some of the important intermediate dates.
i d
9 I
ie There is work to be done, drafts to be prepared and 10 ezl so forth.
~
$n MR. DENTON:
If you take the first one, update of d
12 E
the final environmental impact statement,.we assume we have E
13 5
I to issue a supplement for comment, get comments and reissue 3
ja a
15 it.
Looking at the time required for us to get the. information
- =
from DOE to issue a supplement, get comments and reissue it, s-16 w
it would take us to September of next year and similarly we 37 b
18 have a schedule for the site suitabil'ity report and issuing
=
E 19 it in September would allow the hearing process to begin.
We A
20 have put in one year for that process to run.
21 (SLIDE. )
MR. DENTON:
This shows the division of resources 22 f r 1982 within NRR.
I have already alluded to that.
The 23,
24 l bulk of the unique review would be done in the Clinch River Office and the other groups would 'have to make their 25 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
a
22 traditional inputs in areas like human factors and engineering.
3 (SLIDE.)
2
>fR. DENTON:
I have covered this slide.
~
3 (SLIDE. )
4 SIR. DENTON:
Bill did mention the unique effort to 5
=
6 have the research requirements for NRC-flow through a joint 8
6 7
team of NRR and research personnel and' to have the requirements -
actually be the result of review of this plan.- They have already-
^
8 N
had several meetings to try to identify the major issues, see -
9 z'
10 what needs to be done between any issuance of a CP and~any E
j need for an OL, with the idea that we would want to get DOE jj t
do as much of the remaining research as possible.
-~
d 12 E
h 13
. (SLIDE.)
E MR. DENTON:
This slide shows the impact presented-E 14
?
f15 by any exemption on schedules.
If an exemption-were granted:
[.
16 exactly as requested and they completed the work as rapidly 3
- d g
37 as they indicate, they would get COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is there time to do any research?l 18 19 l MR. DENTON:
I do not think there is any great amount s
f research needed for a decision at the CP stage.
There is 20 still research needed between that time and any OL.
21 That would be the focus of the rese' arch program be tween 22 23 l CP and OL as opposed to prior to CP.
This slide shows'that a CP decision would not be expected 24 t
result on the schedule we are on until some time after the 25 a
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
~ '-
3 23 r
9/83 date.
We have been informed that DOE does-anticipate-2 if the exemption is granted that they will request an LWA-2.
3 An LWA-2 is one that we have traditionally granted after we 4
have reviewed the safety aspects of whatever action they would e
5 propose to take under an LNA-2 and adjudicated those.
3 6
This would affect our schedule.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What can you do with an LWA-21=_
8 MR. DENTON:
It depends on what.an applicant requests.-.
d d
9 Traditionally it has been pouring of. concrete and structural -
i h
10 aspects of the facility.
sa-E 5
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Can yod upgrade and then go LWA-27 E
d 12 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Generally not__
N 13 MR. DENTON:
It has been sometimes as minor as a mat
~
l 14 in the basement, other times it has been, substantial in the b!
15 construction of building the structure.
S It impacts us because any LWA-2 would require we complete g
16 w
y 17 j our safety review sufficiently to have firm positions on.those 5
E 18 aspects.
=
b 19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How~would that chart look 3
20 different if instead of the exemption we were talking about 21 an LWA-1?
22 MR. DENTON:
The LWA-1, we had assumed originally could be decided about 9/83 and the traditional process, that 23 24 l LWA provides enough work to awcit a CP decision.
That 18 months 25,
normally occurs after the LNA is granted.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
24 i
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why would there be no difference between the decision on the LWA-2 and on the'LWA-17 This 2
3 slide seems to say you can do the LWA-2 in 9/83.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think he is saying that is e
5 when it would be needed.
3a 8
6 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
Rg 7
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The upper -line says they would K
j 8
finish the work that LWA-1 would allow them.
d d
9 MR. DENTON:
Our planning at.the moment was to have i
h 10 Produced an LWA by 9/83.
I just wanted to illustrate that E
i 11 if what we really have to do is an LWA-2, it is gcing to take d
12 more work because you have to complete certain safety related E
E 13 reviews that you do not have to complete for an LWA-1.
-a:
E 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Looking at the arrow, would it a
b!
15 be better if it said LWA-2 needed?
5 16 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
3 M
17 (SLIDE.)
g' E
E 18 MR. DENTON:
This shows the status of the application E
I 19 in summary fashion today.
We need fro'm DOE an update of the i
A 20 environmental report.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In which areas do you feel 22 l you need an update?
l 23 j MR. DENTON:
Much of the data in their environmental 24i report to us came from their own programmatic EIS.
I 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Which went back further still?
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
25 i
MR. DENTON:
Yes.
They plan to update their programmatic EIS which will identify the impacts of the plant as they now 2
see it with the fuel cycle the way they see it and with the 3
4 waste disposal issues the way they see it.
They have to update their own programmatic EIS and then they will put
=
5 that in an H
8 6
environmental report update to us.
}i We have also requested some updated information that 7
E 8
we know is available or has occurred regarding the. local site, d
alternative sites and fuel cycles and safeguards.
=
9 i
10 We need their environmental report before we can issue
?.
E ij a supplement to ours.
d 12 E
I understand they plan to issue their programmatic -
ed 13 statement in the near future for conment.
mm E
14 We need to determine what we need for the safety review.
ab!
15 They have continued to file amendments.to the safety-analysis E
J 16 report to reflect design changes.
We have not looked at those G
17,
over the years but they keep sending them in and we have added I
5 18 them to the ducket with no review.
-s 19 It appears they have not necessarily covered.all the
,8 20,
changing NRC requirements in their amendments.
They may have i
21 covered the changes they made but there have been a lot of changes in our requirements that we will have to carefully 22 I
I look at to see if they have kept up to date with those, and 23 24 l if not, they will need to updace the safety analysis report i
I 25 '
to reflect our views on new issues.
3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
26 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Doesn't that require going j
back first to the step you were talking ab'out earlier, a lot 2
f those changing requirements will have to be reviewed by 3
Paul's people or the other branches in your office to see in 4
what way they should be applied to this kind of a reactor plant 5
e M$6 because they obviously were not really written with that in f
7 mind.
8 MR. DENTON:
In two areas, equipment quelifications a
N and fire protection, there are marginallp different ' approaches 9
I h
10 for this plant.
They will probably have to be done from scratch-z!
11 in terms of developing criteria comparable to the light water i
criteria.
d 12 Z_
d 13 (SLIDE. )
E MR. DENTON:
I wanted to indicate that we did have 3
34 d
15 adequate resources budgeted for 1982.
That is the 25 people total and the $2.5 million to kick off this type of review 16 a
A g
17 and to make the point that if the exemption request is granted a
18 and the LWA-2 is likely and that would require we accelerate
~
b 19 the safety review, it would probably require ACRS views on l
the amount of work to be done under an AWL-2, a hearing on 20 the AWL-2 and then turn around and do bcth of these' activities 21 22,
over again for the CP.
I I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When would the resource demand 23 24 hit you for that?
I MR. DENTON:
We do not really know the scope of the 25 5
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
O t e
g7 LWA-2 so it would depend on how much act.ivity he wanted to y
2 l tr7 to get done under the LWA-2.
We have not had an opportunity t
meet and discuss it with him except we have been done their 3
P an does envision an LWA-2 and we would have to wait and see l
4 how much activity he wanted to go for.
e 5
- 5 5
Let me turn to one last issue.
I mentioned there 6
were some exemptions that appeared to be related.to the 50.12 7
l request and that is back-up number seven.
~
8 aj (SLIDE.)
9 z
MR. DENTON:
I did not intend to discuss the merits 10 cz!
11 f this but the question had been raised whether any issues in the original proceeding that related to the 50.12 request c5 12 E
and we have identified these.
There may be others.
=
13
=
This is just to illustrate the type of contentions E
14 d
]h 15 that were present at the proceeding and disclosed.
This would ccmplete my part of the presentation.
16 3
zi CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Could you say more about these g
37 contentions?
I did not have a chance to read them.
18
=
MR. DENTON:
The question had been raised by someone
{
j9 A
as to whether there were any contentions-in the original 20 Proceeding that related in any way to the 50.12 request.- We 21 have gone back and looked at those and tried to identify some 22 that seemed to relate.
23l 24l MR. BICKWIT:
If you wanted to say more about them, i
that would be possible under our analysis.
I do not understand 25 il 1
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
e t
28 1
at this point that the Commier
'n needs to know more about 2
them.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADT)'
I did not have a chance to rea'd 4
them.
e 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I gather at the present time 3"
you also do not know whether the first and third contention 3
6 J'
R 7
would still be raised if this proceeding'were to continue?
~
s]
8 I gather the second one has been withdrawn, is that correct?
f
d d
9 MR. DENTON:
That is right; I believe that party has i
10 withdrawn.
The other contentions have been looked at by the F-I 11 Board.
u<
d 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You do not know whether the
?.
~
s 13 state or city would intend to pursue them~ were the proceeding G
E 14 to start up again?
$=
9 15 MR. DENTON:
That is correct.
=
U,:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is someone going to tell us 16 about y
17 50.12, the nature of the exemption?
f18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Obviously there has been a P
E 19 large amount,_
l A
information suddenly on this, so it will take 20 a little time to even begin to absorb it.
21 In-reading through the Gammill letter, I did get the 22 sense there were a number of questions at that time, three 23 l years ago, in which the staff was saying there are some analyses 24 i of types of sequences which we are not sure whether some of 25,
the design approaches are correct.
l t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
29 Is it that kind of work that you characterized as 3
not needed to be done for the CP but would have to be done 2
3 for the operating license, when you said there was some research 4
that did not have to be completed for the CP?
l
=
5 MR. DENTON:
Let me ask Themis Speis who was involved,
3n d
6 in writing that letter to see if he cauld speak-tc that.
I-a a
3 7
think a lot of those questions do have to be answered for the-M j
8 CP.
That was not intended to be a'research delineation type.
d letter but whether to obtain the information we needed for d
9 z
~
h 10 a CP.
E I
11 The question is in the Gammill-Caffey letter, which d
12 you played a role in, were the issues presented there to E
S 13 identify research that was needed;after the CP may be issued E
~
E 14 or prior to the issuance of the CP and studies and analyses?
U 15 MR. SPEIS:
I think it was a combination of both.
E 16 I w uld say probably 50-50.
The focus of the Gammill-Caffey S
A g
17 l 1etter was on designs that had to be done to meet the staff's l
18 criteria.
Maybe I should withdraw the 50-50 and say it was
=
(
g9 mostly in the CP category.
A 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The w -k that would have to l
be done to answer those kinds of ques tions is work you feel 21 22 would have to be done prior to a CP?
23 MR. SPEIS:
A substantial part of it.
I think most 24j of that work probably has been done because since that time i
25 they have submitted a large number of amendments which were il r
i I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
.s 30 never reviewed.
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Your hope.would be a lot-of 2
those questions would be resolved once you have turned -to and 3
reviewed information?
4 MR. SPEIS:
I assume you have to go through the review
=
5 Z
6 Process to confirm that.
e COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Those are-questions you-would j
7 E
8 believe would have to be resolved before issuing a-CP?
a N
MR. SPEIS:
Yes, sir.
9 i
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any questions?
i!
11 (No response.).
<s CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Coming in new to - this business,
d 12 3
13 I have the problem of trying to figure,out-what of the past 1
I record is worth reading.
Could you make a list of_ appropriate, E
14 s!
15 records that might be worth looking at?
w 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am coming new to.this from aM the NRC side.
p 17 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought you were going to E
18 l
E 19 ask something else which prompts me to pursue it.
You said g'
i 20 the previous review is not well documented.
MR. DENTON:
Not retrievable.
We have estimates that 21 maybe the review was 50 percent complete, the safety review, 22 :
i at the time.
I just wanted to inject a note of caution that 23 24l when we folded up the review, the Gammill letter is one of the major sources that we turned to to list outstanding 25 ;
h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
31 problems.
It is harder to find areas which were completely solved and which would still be considered completely solved 2
3 today.
I think we are going to have to do a substantial amount 4
s 5
of that over again, just because cf the change in passage of-n time, new reviewers, change in reqtirements.
d 6
e 1
f7 MR. DIRCKS:
The staff is somewhat dispersed.
E MR. DENTON:
It is probably something less than 50-8 n
d
=
9' percent that will be recoverable.
i MR. CHECK:
There is nothing mysterious about the 10 Cz fact that orders coming down to stop doing a certain amount 5
11 4m of work and there is a backlog of other work to be done.
People 6
12 were pretty quickly put on other work:
There was not.much f=
13 E
I.4 thought there would be Son of CRBR review.
15 They have gone off on other things that.were. assumed to be higher priorities than the work they had been instructed 16 a
l M
from the President to suspend.
17 5
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What is the status of the ACRS 18 _
E E
19,
review?
5 MR. DENTON:
Once again, let me ask Themis.
20,
I 21 i MR. SPEIS:
The status of the ACRS review?
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes, how far they have gone on 22 23 this project.
24 f MR. SPEIS:
The ACRS was very heavily involved for about two years in the review of Clinch River.
They had 25l f
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
< s.
32 j
formed a number of subcommittees on key issues like high 2
temperature materials, containment design, CPA energetics, 3
et cetera.
4
.\\E.
DENTON:
Do you remember whether we received any g
5 interim letters?
9 8
6 MR. SPEIS:
Yes, we had received a number of interL1 f7 letters.
I think when the process was terminated, there were.
~
E 8
two or three issues the ACRS wanted to pursue in a more rigorous n
ad 9
fashion before they were able to provide us with their advice.
i 10 The process war very extensive during that two year E
ij period.
<3 6
12 MR. DENTON:
I will add those to the list.
E
_b CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think that would be very helpful.-
13 E
E 14 Any other questions?
U-15 (No response.)
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
As in the past,-I have misjudged 16 3
M.
p 17 how much time it was going to take for the first meeting and how much time it would take for the second meeting.
18 m
E 19 We had allowed until 3:30 p.m.
for this meeting.
I 5.
will have to ask counsel whether it will be appropr'. ate or 20 21 inappropriate to say we are adjourned for a 15 minute recess, 22 to begin the next meeting.at 3:15 p.m.
1 MR. BICKNIT:
It would not be out of order.
I think 23 24 j it is understood in the notice that sort of thing can happen.
i i
25)
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I do not want to get in the 2
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
.s 33 position of having an airplane scheduled for 3:30 and have y
it leave at 3:15.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No one has ever mistaken us 3
f r an airplane!
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let's adjourn and reconvene at
=
5 Xu 8
6 3:15 p.m.
(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.)
7 Kl 8
6d 9
C 10 iE j
11 m
(
12 b
13 iii i
E 14 ifx 2
15 5
f 16 l
- e 6
17 ;
il1 l
- o 18 -
19 l l
5l M
20,
21 22 23,
24 l 25 ;
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
o.
?,.,
NUCE.AR 'REGULATORT CO.WSSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
/*'
l :,-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C05BIISSION i
in the ::2atter of: CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR i
~
Date of Proceeding: Wednesday, December 9,1981 l
l Docket t!u=ber:
l l
Place of Proceeding: NRC I
were held as herein appears, and that this.is the original transcript therect for the file of the Cocmission.
1
).
.t.-
I Mari1vnn M. Nations I
~
i Official Reporter (Typed)
L A.
Official Reporter (Signature) l l
,h 4
y s,
w-
4
~ '
,e REVISED - DECEMBER 9, 1981 CRBR BRIEFING OUTLINE i
o BACKGROUND o
ORGANIZATION o
REVIEW PLAN & SCHEDULE o
RESOURCE ESTIMATES & FISCAL DATA 0
SPECIAL CHARACTER OF THIS CASE o
STATE OF REVIEW o
CONCLUSION 1
E
~
9 s
BACKGROUND APPLICATION DOCKETED APR. 75 FES ISSUED FEB 77 SSR ISSUED MAR. 77 ASLB PROCEEDINGS SUSPENDED APR. 77 GAMMILL -- CAFFEY LETTER NOV. 78 DAVIS - PALLADINO LETTER
- AUG. '8:1
~
'CRBRP0 ESTABLISHED SEPT. 81 l
e l
i L
b PROJECT LICENSING PROFILE o
DESIGN AND R&D NEARLY COMPLETE o
$500 MILLION IN HARDWARE o
FES & SSR ISSUED o
PREVIOUS SAFETY REVIEW, NOT ENTIRELY' RECOVERABLE o
HEARING STATUS 7 PARTIES 18 CONT $NTIONS EXTENSIVE DISCOVERY o 76 COMMISSION DECISION ON NEPA RESPONSIBILITY o
HEAVY RELIANCE ON DOE LABS l
i A
'4
DIRECTOR, NRR l
2
/
/
i CRBRPG DIRECTOR PROGRAM COORDINATOR j
_ LICENSING SECTION TECHNICAL REVIEW SECTION LEADER LEADER 2 PMs 3-6 TECH PrVIEWERS LIC ASST PRESENT STRENGTH:
11 AUTHORIZED:
15 b
,-w--e w
,--re v
9 BEYIEW PLAN & SCHED11LE 3 PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS (DOCUMENTS):
FES*, SSR*, SER ISSUE DATES:
9/82 6/82.
3/83 k
LICENSING ACTION (DATE):
LWA (9/83)
CP(6/8f0
- SUPPLEMENTS j
l 4
+
NRR FY 82 RESOURCES CRB8PO 13 OTHER NRR DSI 4
DE 7
DHFS 1
TOTAL NRR 25 l
l
3
)
FY'32'NRR PROGRAM SUPPORT BY DOE IABORATORIES PR ERINCIPAL TASKS
($gRAMSUPPORTfH00 SANDS 1 LAB REACTOR CORE DESIGN LOS ALAMOS 1,125 CONTAINMENT CORE DISRUPTIVE ACCIDENTS REACTIVITY TRANSIENTS BNL 750 HEAT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTS FROM S0DIUM LEAKS UNDER-COOLING ACCIDENTS PRA REVIEW INEL 600 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL IIIGH-TEMPERATURE MECl!. DESIGN
.S0DIUM SYSTEMS S0DIUM FIRE ~ PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES PNL 25 TOTAL 2,500
r NRC RESEARCH PLAN o
JOINT EFFORT OF NRR AND RES TO ESTABLISH NEEDS FOR CRBR LICENSING o
WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES
- MEETINGS WITH DOE
- REVIEW STATUS OF MAJOR ISSUES
- IDENTIFY SPECIFIC INFO NEEDED FOR LICENSING
- PARTICIPATION BY BNL, LANL, SNL
~
o ISSUES DOMINATED BY CDA o
COMPLETE INITIAL PLAN BY END OF YEAR o
APPLICANT PARTICIPATION EXPECTED w
-,~
v
I i.
.lMPACLDElXEMET.I.0fL_WERE_LLAllIll0RIZEIL_0NilfENSIXtREVIEW i-IF l
EXEMPTION WORK l
GRANTED COMPl.ETED CP l
(3/82)
(9/83)
DECISION i
(18 MONTilS) j o. _-
o j
1
- (
- t i
[
-1 l
l' l
1
-l l
j 1/82 1/83
.1/8'I 1/85 y
=
LWA-2 GRANIED
[
(9/83) t 6
. ~ _ -
4 t
STATUS OF APPLICATION i
o UPDATE OF CRBR ER LMFBR PROGRAM EIS ANSWERS TO RECENT GUESTIONS o
PSAR REFLECTS CURRENT DESIGN o
AMEND PSAR TO SHOW SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION 0F NEW NRC REQUIREMENTS REGULATIONS REG, GUIDES
[
TMI.
USIs i
1 l
i 1
l u
[.-
CONCLUSION o
ADEQUATE RESOURCES BUDGETED.THRU FY 82 o
IF50.12 GRANTED,LWA-2REQUESTLIKELY 3
o IF LWA-2 NECESSARY, ACCELERATE SAFETY REVIEW 0F. ISSUES RELATED TO PROPOSED WORK TWO-TIERED ACRS & SAF$TY HEARING 1
+
g <
O e
a k
0 w
9
- + - - - -
y w-
<?m. ",
a e
n y _
q g,
k((k11(
(
1
(
-( f i i ((((ik(((
( (0<0<0<0cM<0cMcMcf10c?<0;(10 PD b
m w,3 m
TRANSMITTAL TO:
Document Control Des ',
'N
.,y[. I.t(/(l,,lM Q
016 Phillips i
~
~
'l p
j O 'C s..e _ ' ' '
t O The Public Docume(t Room $,) /b/A 7[ h ADVANCED COPY TO:
/ 1-) / /
h /
DATE:
~
m i
,.;V,
' Attached are l copies of a Commission meeting l
transcript /s/ and related meeting document /s/. ~ Thsp~
~
6 are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession b
List and placement in the Public Document Room.
No 2P other distribution is requested or required.
Existing 8
DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual
.b documents wherever known.
- p MEETING TITLE
k E
f w
j j
Open V C
MEE"'ING DATE:
[1 / h / If Closed DCS COPIES:
I i
Copies (1 of each Checked)
Im DESCRIPTION:
Advanced May ef To PDR:
Original be Duplicate 1.
- Docu:nent Dup
- Copf*e -b W
I
\\/ M I
2.
y s
e 4.
.m 5.
- P
- Verify if in DCS, and 6",
change to "PDR (PDR is advanced one of each document, two available."
of each sECY paper.)
e 5.
,_;r_
- ak
-,e
_