ML20214G942
| ML20214G942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1978 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hargett D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0224, CON-WNP-224 NUDOCS 8605230067 | |
| Download: ML20214G942 (5) | |
Text
-
JUL 111973 7
Dock No. 50-397
!1EMORAIIDUM FOR:
Dora Hargett, Chief, Procurement Section, Division of Contracts FROM:
S.
A. Varga, Chief, Light Uater Reactors Branch 4, DPM SUBJECT.
REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF DISPLM AD IN MC'SP72ERS Please request display adverti. sing of the enclosed notico in connection with the 'Jashington Publi'c Power Supoly's application for a license to operate the MPPSS Uuclear Project tio.
2.
The notice should be published in the newspapers listed in Enclosure 1.
A similar notice has been forwarded to the office of the Fodoral Register for publication.
The enclosed notice should be forwarded to the above new maneys with a request for publication on or about DOL ~2 01978 to coincide with the FEDEP3.L REGISTER publication.
Or41nt)siined by
$'.et:R A.lafia S.
A. Varqa, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch 4 Division of Proicct Managerant
Enclosures:
1.
List of newspapers 2.
Display Ad
-\\\\\\L'M Y N: f <-T
,-.q_
or,ic.,
LWR 4
...L 1 __
MS ERVICE..
S4V4rga_
S u N.N.,
2/1/77 28/77 forms MC-Sts (Rev. 943) AECM 0240 W u. S. oovERNMENT PRINTING oFPtCEI 1974 82e.tSe 8605230067 780711 PDR ADOCK 05000397 A
n
- r D%
UfJITED STA1;*3 e
j, (
1 i.oCLEAR REGULATOR, COMMISSIOri y.,,
j WASHINGTON, D. L',
20555 I[.Kb g JUL 1 ! 13/3 5: ni -- ;
', 1977
- +..*
Docket No. 50-397 l
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Dora Hargett. Chief, Procurement Section, Division of Contracts FROM:
S. A. Varga, Chief, Light Nator Reactors Branch 4, DPM
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FC R PUBLICATION OF DISPLAY AD IN NEWSPAPERS Please request display advertising of the enclosed notice in connection with the Washington Public Power Supply's application for a license to operate the IJPPSG Nuclear Project No.
2.
The notice should be published in the newspapers listed in Enclosure 1.
A similar notice has been forwarded to the Office of the Federal Rcgister for publication.
The enclosed notice
-should be forwarded to the above newspapers with a request for publication on or about Jul / 6 978 to coincide with the FEDERAL REGISTER publication.
l,\\-
S.
A.
Var a, Chief Light Wate'r Reactors Branch 4 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
1.
List of newspapers 2.
Display Ad 4
L..-
NEWS PUBLIC,iTIONS TRI-CITY IIEPALD 107 No. Cascade Kennewick, Washington 99336 WALLA NALLA UNION BULLETIN First & Poplar Streets Walla Walla, Washington 99362 YAKIMA IIERALD REPUBLIC 114 No. 4th Street Yakima, Nashington 98901 SEATTLE TIMES Fairview M.
& John Seattle, Washington 98109 TIIE OPIGONIAN 1320 S.
W.
Broadway Portland, Oregon 97201 4
e
ictICE DE dPf0RIWIEY FOR PU9LIC FARTICIPATIJa IU PPJPOSED l'RC LICMSE!G ACT[0tl For! !!PPSS UllCLEAR PtOECT t!O. 2
'The Nuclear Regulatory Cocciission is giving puolic notice tnat it is considering issuance of an operating license to tiashington Puolic Power Supply Syste>a for operation of the I;PPSS Huclear Project ilo. 2 located on the llanford Reservation in Benton County, 0;anhington.
The notice provides that within thirty days after puolication of notice in the ECOERAL REGISTER on July 26, 1978, any me::ber of the puolic whose interest may be affected by the proceeding snay file a recaest for a oublic hearing in the forra of a petition for leave to intervene witn respect to whether an operating licenaa should be issued.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed under oath or affirwition~ and taust set forth the interest of the petitioner in the proce-]ing, how that interest may be af fected by tire results of the proceeding, and tne petitioner's contentions with respect to tne propos~i licensing action. Such patitions must be filed in accorcance with the above-referencW FEDERAL REGISTER notice and aust be filed witn ene Secretary of the Comnission, U.S. iluelear Pagalatory Comnission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Docketing an i Service Section, oy August 28, 1978. A copy of the petition and/or request for hearing should ce cent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulitcry Comnission, tiashington, D. C. 20555, and to Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq., Decevoise &
Liberman, 100 Shoreham Building, 806 Pifteenth Street, W. *;., 4ashington, D. C. 20005, attorney for the applicant.
,_._w
F,
A petition for leave to intervene inust oe accoi caniec by a ca;pxting i
affidavit.which identifies the specific aspect or aspacts of tne proceeding
}
as to which intervention is desired and sp!cifie3 uith particularity the r
facts on which the pstitioner relies as to both his interest and his contentions with regard to each aspect on whicn intervention is racuested.
Petitions stating contentions relating only to saatters outside the j-Coranission's jurisdiction will oe denied.
All petitions vill be acted upon by the Coi.rtission or tne licensing r
board designated by the Cc:anission or by the Chairiaan of the Ato..ic Safet/
and Licensing Board Panel. Tirrely petitions will be considered to deterraine l
whether a hearing should oe noticad or anotner appropriate order issued j.
regarding the disposition of the petitions.
~
r In the event that a hearing'is held and a par::on is perinitted to j
intervene, he ceconos a party to the croceeding and has a right to participata fully in the conduct of the hearing. For example, he raay present evidence and exainine and cross-e.:araine witnesses.
A copy of the EECCRE RC3ISTER notice 15 on file for public inspection at the Richland Public Library, Swif t and itorthgate Streets, Ricnland,
- Washington 99352, between the hours of 10:00 an anJ 9:00 aa, iloaday tarougu Friday, and 10:00 am and 5:30 ca on Saturday, and the Cotnission has arrangeJ for other do' uments and correspondenc? relating to the licensing of tnis c
facility to be kept at the same location.
4 4
1 4
e
?---
- - i rr,.r w
,,m,-
,.-er-w--
--+,-,-r,--,*w--w
,---e,,,-
.-m rn-
.---,.--w----*rw-9-.---
UNITED STATES
[3
.k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON 3 / '.*.'
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20566
- i ff AUG 10 1978 s
%,.....f MEHORANUUn FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation TilRU:
Roger S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project Management Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation FR0bi:
Jchn F. Stolz, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 1, Division of Project Management, HRR
SUBJECT:
$Uri4ARY UF MEETING WITH APPLICANTS TO DISCUSS REVIEW SCHEDULE MATTERS At the request of hr. Harold Denton, Director, NRR, a meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland on August 9,1978 with the group of applicants identi-fied in Enclosure 1.
The pc:Tose of the ueeting was to discuss review schedule matters and staff resourcas.
This was the second of three such meetings.
The first ueeting, with a group of applicants consisting largely of those with operating license applications which are currently receiving the highest priority, was held on August 1,1978, and is suuidrized in D. B. Vassallo's memorandum to you dated August 4,1978. This second neeting was with another group of applicants, consisting largely of those with operating license applications which are currently receiving souewhat less priority than those of the first group. The third meeting, with yet another group of applicants consisting largely of those with construction pen.iit applications, was scheduled for August 10, 1978, tir. Denton opened the meeting with some general remarks by stating that these meetings constitute somewhat of an experiment in apprising applicants of review schedule problems and eliciting their collective views on estab-lishing the accuracy of plant construction completion and fuel loading dates for operating license applications.
Mr. Denton explained that the staff's primary interest in these dates is to establish priority of review to meet the staff's commitment of completing the operating license review by the fuel loading date (i.e., the date construction of the facility hds been Coupleted in aCCordance With the application).
Mr. Denton explained that in order to provide the staff with realistic construction coupletion dates, we have utilized the NRC's Caseload Forecast Panel.
The Forecast Panel, assisted by HRR Project Managers and Inspection and Enforcement Inspectors, has made numerous visits to plant sites to discuss schedular matters with utilities and attempt to independently drriVe at a Construction coupletion date. dr. Denton said that because in many cases there was a disparity between the Forecast Panel's projection and tilat of tue utility, he has found sone utility concern with the staff's p
w
Harold R. Uenton AUG 1 C 1978 dtternpt to establish construction completion dates. Many of the utility representatives present indicated sorne apprehension in having the staff develop these dates and publish them because there are many other consid-erations involved in a utility establishing and trying to adhere to a scheduled fuel load date. Several of the utility representatives present requested that we consider establishing a more viable means for appealing the construction completion dates developed by the Forecast Panel. Mr. Boyd noted that the important consideration was really the establishing of review schedules for the pending OL reviews. He suggested that for those cases in whicn the utility's construction completion date differed from the staff's review completion date by more than 4 months, an appeal meeting be held to resolve the difference.
Mr. Denton stated that we need information such as that developed by the Forecast Panel to establish a priority review list since we have to allocate the available staff resources to higher priority reviews. Mr. Denton pointed out that although we anticipate some increase in the size of the staff in Fiscal Year 1980, no significant change is expected in Fiscal Year 1979.
Mr. Denton went on to explain that operating plants have the highest priority, but after that the next highest priority is for operating license reviews with the objective of preventing delay of staff review beyond the scheduled fuel loading date. Copies of the staff's current priority listing for case work (Enclosure 2) were distributed to the participants. Mr. Denton stated that he recognized that this was an early attempt at listing the priorities, but had called this meeting to share with the utilities the difficulties of scheduling reviews and to ask their input or help in establishing a priority listing acceptable to applicants and the staff.
Mr. Denton and other members of the staff present explained how the staff is attempting to use the priority listing. Dr. Mattson explain ~ed that for the Division of Systems Safety, he has forecast the resources of each reviewer six months in advance, consistent with the Division of Project Management's priority. He explained how this is broken down to establish how each reviewer spends his or her time on a weekly basis over a six-month period.
After this, Mr. denton turned to the matter of resolving safety issues wnich appear to consistently recur on current operating license reviews and seem to be the pace-setting items in completing the review in time for fuel loading.
Mr. Denton explained that there are a number of these common problems which seem to be delaying operating license reviews and suggested that the applicants singly or collectively put more effort into resolving these matters. Some of the issues which were used as examples are environ-mental qualification of safety equipment, asyumetric loads and computer protection systems. Tne staff explained that around 1975, USS needed about 500 man days to review an operating license application. Since the issuance
Harold R. Denton AUG 1 E 1978 of tne Standard Review Plan, and with the increased involvement of the public, and the experience from a growing number of operating plants, USS review now requires about 1700 man days. Dr. Mattson explained, however, that for Arkansas Unit 2, his staf f review required 2400 man days, the main reason being the complexity of the core protection calculator system review.
Mr. Denton explained that the staff could just not afford to continue to put this heavy involvement in one review area. Mr. Denton suggested that applicants can help in reducing this effort by improving the timeliness of their input to the staff and assuring that it is complete and responsive.
He also suggested, as an example, that applicants could help in reducing the staff's equipment qualification audit effort by performing their own independent audit prior to submittal for staff review to further assure that the equipment has been properly qualified.
Mr. Denton and other members of the staff present pointed out that reviewing generic problems common to a number of applications, such as is being done for the Mark Il containment, helps reduce our review effort considerably.
They urged the utility representatives to consider other areas to which this approach might be applied and as further reliance on our recent reviews of similar plants or reviewing all or significant portions of similar plants concurrently.
Mr. Denton pointed out that the first group of applicants, which also con-sisted largely of those with, operating license applications, had generally agreed that scheduled fuel load dates should be retained as the primary basis for establishing priorities. Mr. Denton then suggested that *.he in-dustry participants discuss amongst themselves how they might assist in establishing review priorities or other means for improving the licensing process. Several utility representatives indicated that they had reviewed the reconmendations made by the first group of applicants, which were dis-tributed to the participants as part of the summary of the first meeting, and recommended their adoption.
There appeared to be general agreement among the utility representatives present that the group adopt these reconmendations as well. The recommendations are as follows:
1.
NRR has the responsibility to industry to review applications to meet utilities' fuel load dates and the responsibility to apply NRR resources to accomplish this.
2.
Applicants have the obligation to maintain the most realistic schedule infonnation to the NRR.
3.
HRR should give applicants the schedules for its review, report progress against those schedules and propose corrective actions.
Harold R. Denton BOG ! 0 1978 4.
Utilities request the NRR to furnish a list of specific areas where the utilities could aid the NRR in improving and shortening the licensing process.
S.
Applicants will schedule individual meetings with the Directors of UPM and USS (Roger Boyd and Roger Mattson) to review the status of their plant licensing review, problem areas and solutions to the problems.
Mr. Denton stated that he appreciated these views. Further, he stated that the participants might wish to reflect on this further and later subuit written coments. Mr. Denton indicated that we would await the views of all three groups of applicants before attempting to establish any different method for setting review priorities. He further indicated that we expect to issue a revised priority list in September and to update the list at, possibly three-month intervals.
Mr. Denton indicated that we are considering making the Blue Book available to the public, although some modifications might have to be made to it to make it more understandable. The group of utility representatives present generally agreed that this would be very helpful. Several of the utility i
representatives present requested that in addition to the Blue Book schedules, we also make available our current review priority list indicating for each plant on the list some measure of the staff effort being expended on the review.
Mr. Uenton also encouraged utility management meetings with the staff management, particularly during the latter course of a review, to resolve major outstanding review issues. Through past experience, the staff has found this to be a very effective mechanism.
Both the staff and utility representatives seemed to think that this was a productive discussion.
( N.
p
?
f1 ll
[L' ht Water Reactor o n F. Stolz, Chief Branch No. 1 Division of Project Management Enclosures; 1.
AttenJance List 2.
Staff's Current Priority listing for Case Work cc w/ enclosures:
Attendees
ENCLOSURE 1 UTILITY MEETING WITH H. DENTON ON SCHECULING KUGUST 9. 1978 NRC H. Denton R. Boyd R. Mattson R. DeYoung J. Stolz C. Thomas UTILITIES H. T. Babb South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
Ruble A. Thomas Southern Company Services Alan R. Barton Alabama Power Co.
E. H. Crews, Jr.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
H. C. Schmidt Texas Utilities L. F. Fikar Texas Utilities Nicholas S. Reynolds DeBevoise & Liberman R. G. Cockrell WPPSS J. C. Saldarin Ebasco Services Thomas J. Raney Ebasco Services Robert Prieto Gibbs & Hill Sol Bursteir.
Wisconsin Electric Del Leppke Fluor Pioneer Tom Roell Fluor Pioneer Wm. A. Williams, Jr. South Carolina Public Service Authority J. P. McGaughy Mississippi Power & Light Company Larry F. Dale Mississippi Power & Light Company Ed. A. Turner Houston Lighting & Power G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Houston Lighting & Power John Mann Arizona Public Service Co.
Paul P. DeRienzo Gibbs & Hill
LNCLOqRL.'
i LWR PRIORITY LISTING - CAS,E_ WORK Prio d Case Nest Event 1
Davis Besse 1 Operating plants still under Cook 2 cognizance of LWR.
l North Anna 1 TMI-2 Hatch-2 2
ANO-2 OL 3
Diablo Canyon 1&2 SER Supplement 4
McGuire Hearing 5
Shoreham SER 6
Zimmer SER 7
Sequoyah SER 8
Salem 2 SER 9
San Onofre 2&3 SER 10 Midland Q2 11 Allens Creek SER 12 New England 182 ACRS 13 RESAR-414 ACRS 14 Davis Besse 2&3 ACRS 15 Erie 1&2 ACRS 16 LaSalle Q2 17 Watts Bar Q2 18 Summer Q2 19
_ Fermi-2 Q1 20 SWESSAR/BSAR-205 SER 21 80PSSAR Rev.
Q1 22 Farley 2 N/S 23 Palo Verde 4&S N/S 24 GIBBSAR Q1 25 Haven N/S 26 WPPSS 2 N/S 27 Susquehanna l&2 N/S 28 Grand Gulf 1&2 N/S 29 South Texas 1&2 N/S 30 Comanche Peak N/S 31 Bellefonte N/S 32 ESSAR N/S 33 GAISSAR N/S 34 AGS Hold In addition, the following plants are in hearing with limited issues.
Required work on these cases will necessarily be of high priority but should be very limited in scope.
Pebble Springs 182 Skagit Black Fox 182 Yellow Creek Greene County FNP
~ ~. "
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION d
M entral Files $ ' M /i'I' J. Knight
\\\\,
l
.' ' \\'
NRC PDR D. Ross LDCAL PORS of Utilities R. Tedesco NRR Readin9 Involved R. Bosnak S. Pawlicki H. Denton t
E. Case I. Sihweil R. Boyd K. Kniel l
R. DeYoung T. Novak D. Vassallo Z. Rosztoczy D. Skovholt W. Butler W. Gannill V. Benaroya J. Stolz Chief, ICSB-R. Baer V. Moore O. Parr R. Vollmer S. Varga M. Ernst W. Haass F. Rosa EP Branch Chief R. Houston L. Crocker D. Bunch D. Crutchfield J. Collins F. Williams W. Kreger R. Mattson G. Lear D. Muller B. Youngblood M. Grossman J. Stepp IE (7)
L. Hulman ACRS (16)
C. Heltemes L. Rubenstein TIC Utility Attendees (see list)
R. Denise C. Thomas S. Kari H. Berkow c
.b
.c c
6 UNITED STATES t
.t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+-f.) 'l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- d ' /
f AUG 10 1978 o
s,
- ...= fc.397 MEHORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU:
Roger S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FR0rl:
John F. Stolz, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No.1, Division of Project Management, NRR
SUBJECT:
sui 44ARY OF MEETING WITH APPLICANTS TO DISCUSS REVIEW SCHEDULE MATTERS At the request of Mr. Harold Denton, Director, NRR, a meeting was held in Bethesdd, Maryland on August 9,1978 with the group of applicants identi-fied in Enclosure 1.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss review schedule iaatters and staff resources. This was the second of three such meetings.
The first ueeting, with a group of applicants consisting largely of those with operating license applications which are currently receiving the highest priority, was held on August 1,1978, and is suruarized in D. B. Vassallo's memorandum to you dated August 4,1978. This second meeting was with anotner group of applicants, consisting largely of those with operating license applications which are currently receiving somewhat less priority than those of the first group. The third meeting, with yet dnother group of dpplicants Consisting Idrgely of those with Construction pen.iit applications, was scheduled for August 10, 1978.
Mr. Denton opened the meeting with some general remarks by stating that these meetings constitute somewhat of an experiment in apprising applicarits of review schedule problems and eliciting their collective views on estab-lishing the accurdcy of plant construction completion and fuel loading dates for operating license applications. Mr. Denton explained that the staff's primary interest in these dates is to establish priority of review to meet the staff's commitment of completing the operating license review by the fuel loading date (i.e., the date construction of the facility nds been coupleted in accordance with the application).
Mr. Denton expidined that in order to provide the staff with realistic construction completion dates, we have utilized the NRC's Caseload Forecast Pdnel.
The Forecast Panel, assisted by NRR Project Managers and Inspection dnd Enforcenent Inspectors, has made numerous visits to plant sites to discuss schedular Matters with utilities and attempt to independently drrive at a construction coupletion date. Mr. Denton said that because in many cases there was a disparity between the Forecast Panel's projection and that of the utility, he has found some utility concern with the staff's
~.
v
f A
Harold R. Denton AUG 10 1978 attempt to establish Construction completion dates. Many of the utility representatives present indicated some apprehension in having the staff 4.
develop these dates and publish theu because there are many other consid-1 erations involved in.a utility establishing and trying to adhere to a scheduled fuel load date. Several of the utility representatives present requested that we consider establishing a more viable means for appealing the construction completion dates developed by the Forecast Fanel. Mr. Boyd noted that the important consideration was really the establishing of review schedules for the pending OL reviews. He suggested that for those cases in whicr the utility's construction completion date differed from the staff's review completion date by more than 4 months, an appeal meeting be held to.
rescIve the difference.
Mr. Denton stated that we need infonaation such as that developed by the Forecast Panel to establish a priority review list since we have to allocate the available staff resources to higher priority reviews. Mr. Denton pointed 09t that although we anticipate some increase in the size of the staf f in Fiscal Year 1980, no significant change is expected in Fiscal Year 1979.
Mr. Denton went on to explain that operating plants have the highest priority, but after that the next highest priority is for operating license reviews with the objective of preventing delay of staff review beyond the scheduled fuel loading date. Copies of the staff's current priority listing for case work (Er. closure 2) were distributed to the participants. Mr. Denton stated that he recognized that this was an early attempt at listing the priorities, f
but had called this meeting to share with the utilities the difficulties of scheduling reviews and to ask their input or help in establishing a priority listing acceptable te applicants and the staff.
Mr. Denton and other members of the staff present explained how the staff is attempting to use the priority listing. Dr. Mattson explained that for the 01. vision of Systems Safety, he has forecast the resources of each reviewer six months in advance, consistent with the Division of Project Management's priority. He explained how this is broken down to establish how each reviewer spends his or her time on a weekly basis over a six-month period.
Af ter this, Mr. denton turned to the matter of resolving safety issues wnich appear to consistently recur on current operating license reviews and seem to be the pace-betting items in completing the review in time for fuel loading.
Mr. Denton explained that there are a number of these common problems which seem to be delaying operating license reviews and suggested that the applicants singly or collectively put more effort into resolving these uatters. Some of the issues which were used as examples are environ-mental qualification of safety equipment, asyumetric loads and computer protection systems. Tne staff explained that around 1975, USS needed about 500 man days to review an operating license application. Since the issuance e
.,-.----n-
,,,r y,--.r,,
Harold R. Denton AUG 1 E 1978 of the Standard Review Plan, and with the increased involvement of the public, dnd the experience from a growing number of operating plants, USS review now requires about 1700 man days. Dr. Mattson explained, however, that for Arkansas Unit 2, his staff review required 2400 man days, the main reason being the complexity of the core protection calculator system review, Mr. Denton explained that the staf f could just not afford to continue to put this heavy involvement in one review area. Mr. Denton suggested that applicants can help in reducing this effort by improving the timeliness of their input to the staff and assuring that it is complete and responsive.
He also suggested, as an example, that applicants could help in reducing the staff's equipment qualification audit effort by performing their own independent audit prior to submittal for staff review to further assure that the equipment has been properly qualified.
Mr. Denton and other members of the staff present pointed out that reviewing generic problems common to a number of applications, such as is being done for the Mark 11 containment, helps reduce our review effort considerably.
They urged the utility representatives to consider other areas to which this approach might be applied and as further reliance on our recent reviews of similar plants or reviewing all or significant portions of similar plants concurrently.
Mr. Denton pointed out that the first group of applicants, which also con-sisted largely of those with operating license applications, had generally dyreed that scheduled fuel load dates should be retained as the primary basis for establishing priorities. Mr. Denton then suggested that the in-dustry participants discuss amongst themselves how they might assist in establishing review priorities or other means for improving the licensing process. Several utility representatives indicated that they had reviewed the recomendations made by the first group of applicants, which were dis-tributed to the participants as part of the summary of the first meeting, and recomended their adoption. There appeared to be general agreement among the utility representatives present that the group adopt these recommendations as well. The recommendations are as follows:
1.
[4RR has the responsibility to industry to review applications to meet utilities' fuel load dates and the responsibility to apply NRR resources to accomplish this.
2.
Applicants have the obligation to maintain the most realistic schedule information to the NRR.
3.
NRR should give applicants the schedules for its review, report progress against those schedules and propose corrective actions.
Harold R. Denton AUG ! G 1978 4.
dtilities request the NRR to furnish a list of specific areas wheie the utilities could aid the NRR in improving and shortening the licensing process.
S.
Applicants will schedule individual meetings with the Directors of OPM and DSS (Roger Boyd and Roger Mattson) to review the status of their plant licensing review, problem areas and solutions to the problems.
Mr. Uenton stated that he appreciated these views. Further, he stated that the participants might wish to reflect on this further and later subait written comments. Mr. Uenton indicated that we would await the views of all three groups of applicants before attempting to establish any different method for setting review priorities. He further indicated that we expect to issue a revised priority list in September and to update the list at, possibly three-month intervals.
Mr. Denton indicated that we are considering making the Blue Book available to the public, although some modifications might have to be made to it to make it more understandable. The group of utility representatives present generally agreed that this would be very helpful. Several of the utility representatives present requested that in addition to the Blue Book schedules, we also make available our current review priority list indicating for each plant on the list some measure of the staff effort being expended on the review.
Mr. Uenton also encouraged utility management meetings with the staff management, particularly during the latter course of a review, to resolve major outstanding review issues. Through past experience, the staff has found this to be a very effective mechanism.
Both the staff and utility representatives seemed to think that this was a productive discussion.
f' 7($$ /Q <L/
(>
/,
e
[L o n F. Stolz, Chief ht Water Reactor Branch No. 1 Division of Project Management Enclosures; 1.
Attendance List 2.
Staff's Current Priority listing for Case Work cc w/ enclosures:
Attendees
ENCLOSURE 1 UTILITY MEETING WITH H. DENTON ON SCHEDULING AUGUST 9, 1978 NRC H. Denton R. Boyd R. Mattson R. DeYoung J. Stolz C. Thomas UTILITIES
^
H. T. Babb South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
Ruble A. Thomas Southern Company Services Alan R. Barton Alabama Power Co.
E. H. Crews, Jr.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
H. C. Schmidt Texas Utilities L. F. Fikar Texas Utilities Nicholas S. Reynolds DeBevoise & Liberman R. G. Cockrell
'WPPSS J. C. Saldarin Ebasco Services Thomas J. Raney Ebasco Services Robert Prieto Gibbs & Hill Sol Burstein Wisconsin Electric Del Leppke Fluor Pioneer Tom Roell Fluor Pioneer Wm. A. Williams, Jr. South Carolina Public Service Authority J. P. McGaughy Mississippi Power & Light Company Larry F. Dale Mississippi Power & Light Company Ed. A. Turner Houston Lighting & Power G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Houston Lighting & Power John Mann Arizona Public Service Co.
Paul P. DeRienzo Gibbs & Hill e
51-g 59593 Sy.g spsft 59 - % I N/-$
V'2f s9z SG5&-
Sq4yl 5Y 3&2 Sf-3/C, Sf.%S
~g h' f 'j,Rt,y 3M st-338 st SL3 S$p.at st' 54-3
.g
~IN thCLo',p i
h-N Y'3f 9
~
}
5 SM Sf" M gy 35$
b flb) 3L Sy -[f)
-A5 C 3 5/4 LWR PRIORITY LIS ING - CASEWORK 5js 23
-OS
.v)-3tl Priority Case Nest Eypeit g
i Davis Besse 1 Operatinti plants still under gg Cook 2 cognizance of LWR.
l North Anna 1 TMI-2 Hatch-2 2
ANO-2 OL 3
Diablo Canyon 1&2 SER Supplement 4
McGuire Hearing S
Shoreham SER 6
Zimmer SER 7
Sequoyah SER 8
Salem 2 SER 9
San Onofre 2&3 SER 10 Midland Q2 11 Allens Creek SER 12 New England 1&2 7 ACRS 13 RESAR-414 ACRS 14 Davis Besse 2&3 ACRS 15 Erie l&2 ACRS 16 LaSalle Q2 17 Watts Bar Q2 18 Sunner Q2 19 Fenni-2 Q1 20 SWESSAR/BSAR-205 SER 21 B0PSSAR Rev.
Q1 22 Farley 2 N/S 23 Palo Verde 4&5 N/S 24 GIBBSAR Q1 25 Haven N/S 26 WPPSS 2 N/S 27 Susquehanna 1&2 N/S 28 Grand Gulf 1&2 N/S 29 South Texas 1&2 N/S 30 Comanche Peak N/S 31 Bellefonte N/S 32 ESSAR N/S 33 GAISSAR N/S 34 AGS Hold In addition, the following plants are in hearing with limited issues.
Required work on these cases will necessarily be of high priority but should be very limited in scope.
Pebble Springs 1&2 Skagit Black Fox 1&2 Yellow Creek Greene County FNP
- =
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION
Central Files j'c - 79 7 J. Knight
/
l NRC POR D. Ross LDCAL PDRs of Utilities R. Tedesco KRR Readin9 Involved R. Bosnak H. Denton S. Pawlicki l
E. Case I. Sibweil l
R. Boyd K. Kniel l
R. DeYoung T. Novak D. Vassallo Z. Rosztoczy D. Skovholt W. Butler I'
W. Gammill V. Benaroya J. Stolz Chief, ICSB' l
R. Baer V. Moore
- 0. Parr R. Vollmer
- 5. Varga M. Ernst W. Haass F. Rosa R. Houston EP Branch Chief L. Crocker D. Bunch D. Crutchfield J. Collins a
F. Williams W. Kreger R. Mattson G. Lear D. Muller B. Youngblood M. Grossman J. Stepp IE (7)
L. Hulman l
ACRS (16)
C. Heltemes L. Rubenstein TIC R. Denise Utility Attendees (see list)
C. Thomas S. Kari H. Berkow 1
s 1
4 0
- ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _