ML20094K003
Text
.
y
~
January 12, 1982 NOTE TO:
Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing FROM:
Ronald W. Hernan, Project Manager Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
Status of Midlaad SER Input from Review Branches In preparation for issuance of a draf t SER for the Midland Plant in mid-late j
- January, I have completed a section By section review of which sections of the draf t have Been received by DL as of this date.
Although a number of l
branches had informed us Sefore the fact that draft SER input would be late or would not be submitted at all, a num5er of sections have not been received for various reasons that we would have expected to receive by December 6, 1981.
In order to know where we presently stand and in order to proceed with assembly, editing, correcting and reproducing the draf t SER for management review, I have compiled a listing of which sections I do not presently have, why we have not received th:m and approximately when.we will receive them (if at all).
I have attached this listing for your information and possible action (such as in the case of the SEB input).
Also in support of publishing a draft Midland SER, I have started inputting sections of the draf t to CRESS for transcription to diskettes and word processing.
Some problems which will impact stenographic manpower in and outside of our branch have resulted from the fact that many branches did not type their input at all or did not type it in a form that can directly be d
processed by CRESS without retyping. Use of an OCR typewriter elecent on.
Xerox-type paper is required by CRESS with no white-out corrections or cutting and pasting on the original copy. These problems will make it virtually impossible from a time standpoint to have all sections processed by CRESS and still issue the draft SER in January. One other problem which has hindered assembly of the draft SER is the fact that many SER sections had been submitted to DL in 1979 and have to be located and checked for current applicability.
I am striving to have the first cut at the draft ready for your initial review by January 15.
9.
m onald W. Hernan, Project Manager Licensing Branch #4 cc: D. Hood Affected reviewers g40B[522840718 hE04 6
x MIDLAh*D SER STATUS Expected 4
.,'*Epdection('s)sBranch/ Reviewer.
Reason-Comp. Date
- :r _ _
m-(?.1.1-2.2.3 SAB/Campe Pe r Regan's note on 12/22, tie 1/25/82 review has been delayed by late
.E FSAR revision and by Campe's involve-F ment in FNP and North Anna Proceedings I called him on 1/5 to try to better his proposed 1/25 date. He said he may be able to get the draft SER input to I
by 1/20 or 1/22.
l
- 2.4.1-2.4.14' HGEB/Gonzales This reviewLhas been impacted by 2/5/82 soils hearings.
He.is working on
.the draft SER and will provide sect.
2.4.10.(Flood Protection.& dikes) by 1/15 and the other sections in late p.
Jan to early Feb.
. 2.5.2 GSB/Kimball Knight'said in his 12/10 memo that 1/22/82 this section would not be included because the subject (Seismology) had been= covered adequately in hearing
~ testimony. The reviewer agreed on l/5/82 to. provide awhandwritten copy of his " final SER input"< and suEsequently statedihe-would.
~
instead provide the~ final' typed input ^ the week of 1/18.
2.5.4,2.5.5 HGEB/Kane Both of these area are severely in-Unknown pacted by the instant soils hearings.
It is not certain if input can even be submitted in time for the final SER.
3.3.1,3.3.2, SEB/Rinaldi No draft SER input has been received Unknown 3.4.2,3.5.3, due to the reviewer's involvement in 3.7.1,3.7.2, the instsnt soils hearings. Input for
~
3.7.3,3.7.4, the final SER will be submitted a s.
3.8.1,3.8.2, the reviewer has time available t'o work 3.8.3,3.8.4, on it between and after hearings. Several 3.8.3 section will probably not be complete in time to include in the final SER.
a 3.5.1.3,4.5.1, MTEB/ Smith No specific reason given for the lateness 1/13/82 4.5.2,5.2.3, of this input other than the fact that 5.4.2.1, the reviewer was not aware of the due date.
5.4.2.2,6.1.1 The reviewer had indicated previously st 10. 3 ^. 6, 10. 2. 3 one of the monthly meetings that he would be able to meet the 12 / 6' d a t e.
3.10,3.11 EQB/Le/ Lee The-reviewers heitated to provide SER' 1/13/82 input at this time because of the large number of unresolved problem areas..EQB i.
has agreed to provide draft input but stated that it would not be substantial because of the open it em s.
6.2.7 PEEB/ Halapatz The reviewer has withheld his SER inpot pending receipt of required information from Consumers Pownr 4-
+-e..
em
- e- _ en... w
.e.
mer....
es
7.
/a' al.
7
]
/4.2 '
CPB/ Powers Per 8. Berlinger meno dated 10/29/81, None
+
input te this.section (fuel design) 9 will not be' forthcoming at the draft _SER 4j stage due to CPB workload'and because the i
applicant has been made aware of the out-standing issues in meetings. A meeting has lieen held since then but no drafe.
SER input is expected from CPB in this area 4.4 '
. CPS /Holonich' -
Draft input late due to workload. Input-1/12/82 is 'in typing and will be forwarded to DL by 1/12
'6.6, 5.2.4 MTEB/ Hum No draft'SER input Planned.' Will try to get-None a draft writeup from contractor in near futura (Final by 4/6) 1 7.1 - 7.7-ICSB/Li As previously identified to us in our Nome 0
monthly meetings, ICSB does not intend to (final by.
supply a draft SER input but is proceeding 4/6/82):
with open item identification and resolution meetings with the applicant 8.1 - 8.3.2 PSB/CHopra As earlier identified by the reviewer, the 1/31/82 input for these sections. (.actually, update of previous input) could not be completed until late January.due to other priorities.
PSX still plans to meet their schedule and I will include either a corrected copy of the old_ input or their updated input' depending on the timing of their update.
13.1.1, 13.1.2, OIE-RIII/Peschel I&E does not intend to issue draf t SER None f_
, 13.2.2, input as such 9and ~as they had previously (Final by 13.4, 13.5.1 stated). They conducted a site visit and 4/6)-
^
ten TMI items) management audit in OctoSer 1981 M th m nd LQE participation) and issued a list of open items to CPCo at that time. They will provide final SER input by 4/6/82.
I 13.2.1 OLB/Deliso Do not intendfto: supply draft SER i~nput.due None.
to higher priorities and art 9ndard liranch (yinal By practice with regard to SER s 4/6/82) 3*
U EPLB/Mathis No draft SER input will be issued due to None timing of review & change.of reviewers.
(Final'by i
A prelim meeting was held on 7/31/81,'a site 4/6/82) visit on.10/5. Q-1"a have been sent' & responded to P
.14. 2 PTRB/Mackay Review being performed by PNL. Expect to 1/15/82 have questions and draft SER by 1/15/82 i
17.2-QAS/Conway In process of reviewing new CPCo Operations 1/31/82-program. Will try to have input to DL in time lI for draft SER
- -n
!?
!l.
.i.
i-
- =.
~
__y.
_ _ -. - _ _. _ _ - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _.. _.. _ _, _ _ _.-