ML20071G093
| ML20071G093 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1978 |
| From: | Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071F735 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-93-375 NUDOCS 7812200268 | |
| Download: ML20071G093 (2) | |
Text
. _.-
y.
as.
v,_. -
i 1
i i
i December 12, 1978 i
,, N,Y.
f
^
hts to:
Ed Case' *.,'; -
',t k.^.'.. !..h... J~ '.... X. [5,., - I
,, ',h,'", } ',,*,
},, j,
,f,;,,
.?
j SG
.y.
. y.,.. m. t.-
, o,.,. i,
.Fo11oofog our discussioeTast week os matters islation to thei shoreham l
Su ! est with Frank. Decay. Dom and Jerry te determ< ee bow to in-i plement the vertoes determinations reached is the discussion.
t
- 1. Appendix A to the SER. relaties to Generic Task Actice Plans A & 8 is betag prepared along the following 11ees.for su h
east SDts. tecluding Shoreham. The team of Aycock/Croc h
repares the basic.docuse6t." The individual na tscussed wtth the rgetewers to assure that tho' temps j
reflect the present.situatfoe vis+vis the shoreham review.
U
~-e..*.
- 2. We are go1og back 'tkrough tho' SDt and see where we ces it with regard to meettosteg the general Desige Criteria.
~-
j
', Jerry will pet with the reviewers to see what he and they,
g,.y..
t i.,.:
cas de to this regard..We are sot' og back for rewrites..
g }$'
(
9.. '
The cose attorney weets mores what we discussed with
, s.;g.g 4~,,,.
i:g -. p:.5,,s ;;.
.J.
.,g,
- @ ' (,
j yser
' ", 3. us are chectfag'the poord g'and 12/1/78 to see which items otiftcettees free Jan.1975. whos -
. L',.
- 6ight relate to Shorehee.g 41aly, this is a test to see how shorehes F3AR was deckagg usefal it is to focus os inard Retificsticas. Whee we have i
.,..,, ',a flattoe we'.11 take e,. leek and decide what to do es
.........w..
We met tatorselly'en the se call'ed 63 opes issues as shorehen, se
.ip / pared thee rengbly es fellous. 21 opes,15 coeffrustory,8 resolved. -
.Y. a.,
1 Tech' 5 pet ites l'Lb Coedition. and the other la cambined fate
,.) ;thesben categories ese way,tsfees ende fe.the.aes or the other. Jerry is rettsteg the and us hope to',.
d.
. draft $ER to reflect *the dessedt with the applicant (opes meeting) es seen e
. esish,\\1 tem.
i t
/'Evesse,Icaenot fct whether we ces go forward with a Preltsinary
/ SEAS.or whether we est keep poundlag away at coupleting the review, rettsing and reorit og the draft 30t. It is beoesieg tecrossingly
, I ' '. y W-
[
g DW 2200R(,6 wt X
\\
/
.4 s __
unc.romm nec..m smosono
- u..........,,....m...,,..,
1 1g,
r y
p o r r
Ed Case 2-difficult for us to differentiate between policy and legal matters in the preparation of individual SERs. At this point it is almost impossible to predict when the next one will go cut, be it Shoreham, Zimmer, or Salem 2.
I am not ready to concede that we have to go back to the days of writing separate reports to the ACRS, followed i
.many months later by an SEA, but me time _to consider such a policy decision may be upon us.
~
r.
Roger 5. Boyd cc:
H. Denton D. Ross F. Schroeder D. Yassallo J. Wilson
- 7. Engelhardt J. 5ctato DISTRIBUTION:
.. ~
. Central File ~
n..
NRR Reading RSBoyd Reading RSBoyd a
t
/.
ils.
0 5
s s
l
.i i
X27595 emes
- R y im 12/.../ A.../78
-. ~ - -. -
+-
~ ~ ~ ~ - ' -
ease >
~- -~ --
~--
NRC PGAM lig (MH NRCM 0240 W us o. earsammeerr P..weine orreca. een - mesa.
_____