ML20197C932
| ML20197C932 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000591 |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1978 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Odonnell E EBASCO SERVICES, INC. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811210250 | |
| Download: ML20197C932 (3) | |
Text
_
h PDE 4
UNITED STATES g
R!UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5 e
. g
\\...../
NOV 8 1978 Mr. E. P. O'Donnell Chief Engineer, Nuclear Licensing Ebasco Services, Inc.
Two Rector Street New York, New York 10006 l
Dear Mr. O'Donnell:
This is in response to your letter dated September 25, 1978.
Your l
letter expressed concern that your ESSAR project would suffer further schedule delays because of higher priority projects and requested a meeting to discuss approaches which EBASCO believed might expedite the staff's review. As a result of your request, we met in my office on October 27, 1978, and discussed the current staff resource problems, the status of the ESSAR review, and various methods and approaches which might expedite the' completion of the staff's review.
As mentioned in our meeting, we recently completed an evaluation of the status of the review schedule for your ESSAR application which confirmed that the review efforts of the various technical branches were substantially out of phase. As you are aware, the approved schedule for the review of the ESSAR application anticipated manpower availability difficulties and, accordingly, forecasted as much as a four month time interval between first round questions from the various branches. We considered this differential to be a practical upper limit. We have found that a greater time spread in the review results in some branches having to repeat a large portion of the review.
Our evaluation indicates that the staff review effort is now badly fragmented and out of phase. Four branches have had to delay their review efforts until April 1979 and three additional branches have had to delay their review approximately four months. Thus, it is obvious that the original schedule cannot be met and that, if the review is i
continued, the schedule is likely to become even more fragmented. We believe it is not cost-effective to continue the review under the 3
existing circumstances, f
ii 7811210 60 i
l Mr. E. P. O'Donnell !
We have looked into the possibility of increasing the priority for the ESSAR review.
In consideration of fairness to other applicants and since the ESSAR design has not yet been referenced in an application, we would find it difficult to justify a higher priority at this time.
As we discussed at our meeting, however, the priority of ESSAR will move upward as higher priority work is completed. Newer applications for construction permit or operating licenses will not automatically be placed ahead of }ower priority work.
We have also considered your offer of increased contact between your l
representatives and the staff. While we concluded that this method should be used to expedite the ESSAR review, certain branches simply i
do not have sufficient resources to undertake the review at this time.
I
{
You asked at our meeting whether NRC has been investigating the possibility of borrowing review people from other agencies.
I have i
1 investiga+ed this possibility and will continue to do so. However, we have r.ot as yet.found any additional people available within our constraints.
I also mentioned that it might be possible for EBASCO to have a technical audit performed on the ESSAR application for
,t compliance with NRC regulation and requirements. The staff would then only have to review your auditor's report, thus saving staff review I
time. Since this is a unique approach, you might wish to consider l'
it further to determine if it offers a potential from your perspective for reducing the ESSAR schedule.
l Accordingly, we are currently developing a new schedule predicated upon a realistic estimation as to when necessary resources from all technical branches will be available to assure that the review is accomplished in a coordinated, efficient manner. We anticipate a restart date of April 1,1979, for all areas of review.
I wish to assure you that the factors mentioned in your letter to me have been fully considered in establishing the priority ranking for the ESSAR project, and in developing the revised schedule for com-pletion of that review. The revised schedule is now undergoing management review, and details regarding major milestone events of that schedule will soon be forwarded to you, r
ilr. E. P. O'Donnell li t < i, p
.,r..,
c.
0
'; < o I hope that you find this responsive to the concerns expressed in your letter and in the naeting uith ne.
As we discussed in the Octcher. :;eting, it ray be desirable to again review this situation af ter tha revised r,chedule has been issued.
If +here are any questions regarding any of the above, please contact ne.
Sincerely,
/
y-
/2
)A f7h.;. r w/,/:.
O, :,22.~.
list old R. Denton, Director Of fice of f!vclear Reactor Regulation
- Y