ML22230A179
| ML22230A179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/25/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780525 | |
| Download: ML22230A179 (1) | |
Text
IJBJGINAL RETURN TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
BRIEFING ON REACTOR LICENSING SCHEDULES Place-WASHINGTON, D.C.
Date-MAY 25, 1978 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATlONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY Pcges 1 -
31 Telephone:
(202 ) 347-3700
(
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on May 25, 1978 in the Commission 1s offi-ces at 1717 H Street, N. \\L,. Hashington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript h_as not been revie~1ed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.*
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect fi na 1 determinati ans* or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in*
any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or arg~1ment contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.*
jeri er 7626 Whitlock 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 BEFORE:
13 14 15 16 PRESENT:
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON REACTOR LICENSING SCHEDULES Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
Thursday, 25 May 1978 1
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m.
DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner JOHN HOYLE, Assistant Secretary R. BOYD H. DENTON E. CASE L. GOSSICK M. GROSSMAN J ~- KELI::.EY K. PEDERSON J. YORE
626.0 I *. l gsh 2
2 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think we ought to go ahead.
3 My understanding is that Commissioner Kennedy wiil be here.
4 Lee, would you start?
5 MR. GOSSICK:
Roger will start.
6 MR. BOYD:
Let me start out by pointing out in 7
going through the licensing scheduling briefing for this 8
month, using the charts that came down, SECY 78-258, it 9
turns out that today, this morning, we were in the p_rocess 10 J I 12 13 of updating the status for the June projections.
We have to do this at the end of every month.
Since that happen'ed as early as today,.we are in a position to discuss and update the licensing status 14 current as of today.
15 So I can go down, we plan to go down the Mayn 16 charts and indicate even beyond that what the status is 17 with perhaps a degree more precision than would otherwise 18 be available.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We can note then on the May 20 charts, the June slippages?
21 22 23 MR~ BOYD: You are essentially getting information that you would get if you waited three weeks from now to hear precisely the same story.
That may be of some use to 24 you in scheduling future meetings.
25 (Laughter.)
7626.01.2 gsh 2
3 Starting out, as you look at the first two cases at the top of the CP list, Jamesport and Perkins, you can 3
see that both of these, in whatever nebulous state they 4
appear to be in, relate to the question of the S-3 5
reconsideration.
6 Fortunately, and I would like to divert at this 7
time -- Harold Denton has a presentation to summarize the 8
S-3 situation, not only on these plants but on all the 9
plants.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, please *
.11 MR. DENTON:
I have a fe.w quick slides.
(Slide.)
MR. DENTON:
in.to the radon issue.
Ths first slide just shows how we got It was April the.J I th.
The Commission 12 13 14 15 acted on the issue then.
16 The next sl.ide discusses the impact of that decision 17 on current CP cases.
18 (Slide.)
19 MR. DENTON:
There are 21 CP projects potentially 20 affected.
14 of these we will cover radon issues in the 21 FES if it comes out.
There are two projects being reopaned on 22 othar issues.
They are two projects with LWAs that are 23 included in our motion to consolidate and_ there are four where 24 radon is being adjudicated.
25 These are the four I want to focus on and, in fact,
626.01.3 gsh 4
2 3
these four coming up are the only four cases that we see
.where actual construction or opiration wiil be impacted.
The next slide shows*-
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:*
Twenty-two cases?
5 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
6 The next sl.ide shows the two pl ants that wi.ll be 7
delayed by considerati~n of radon.
This is Perkins and Black 8
Fox.
We have filed our testimony in both cases.
The Perkins 9
hearing was held last week.
10 We expect the impact of the issue to be ~pproximately
.1 I a 4-month d.elay after the.11th of April date.
The hearing is 12 completed.
There will be a deposition taken from one of the 13 intervenors next month.
14 We have filed our testimony with Black Fox.
The 15 approximate delays that are shown are our estimated maximum 16 delays.
17 The Commi.ssion decision on these two cases --
18 19 20 21 22 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
MR. DENTON:
The next page *- maybe I should cover those.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Perkins and Black Fox are.which of the categories on slide one?
MR. DENTON:
They are two of the four listed at the 24 bottom of the slide.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Projects. hearings reopened for
7626.01.4 gsh 5
othe.r issues?
2 MR. DENTON:
For adjudication.
This is where we 3
are adjudicating.the significance of the radon impact.
Two 4
of them are Perkins and Black Fox, where we think that the 5
delay will actually affect start of construction.
6 The other slide shows where the PDD is being 7
delayed, but no de.lay in construction be.cause they are 8
still awaiting state approvals.
9 This is Pebble Springs and Jamesport.
In all four JO these Cf?, cases our evidence is in.
In one, the hearing has
.11 been held.
In two of them, the hearing has been scheduled.
12 13 14 In one ~ase, we are still waiting on a hearing date.
Any questions on the CP impacts?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In the two projects, hearings are 15 reopened for other issues, does it look as if the S-3 matter 16 will work out within the general time-frame?
17 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
We wi 11 have that covered in 18 the time available.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And two projects with the LWAs, in::
2 0 eluded a Staff motion to consoliqate.
21 MR. DENTON:
I have back-up slides if you want to 22 see the particular cases.
Maybe we can go without those.
23 24 (Slide.)
MR. DENTON:
The next slide shows the OL case impact.
25 There are 16 cases potentially affected.
In looking at them,
626.01.5 gsh 2
3 6
there are none where I expect S-3 reopening to affect the start of operation.
Some of them we will cover in the FES.
Several of 4
them are hanging up on other issues and will be able to 5
include radon and get that out of the way before the other 6
issues are sextled.
7 Some have FESs to be issued. We will cover these.
8 In the post-decision cases, there are 16 that are 9
before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
The 10 staff had moved to consolidate these 16 and adjudicate at
-11 one time.
Two of the 16 have been remanded to the board.
12 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If they go through and remand the other 14, that would pretty well shoot any consolidation, 14 wonjt it?
15 MR. DENTON.:
Yes.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
They will go out and have to play 17 the same tune be+/-ore every board in the country.
I 8 MR. GROSSMAN:
Well, any case,:,\\mere a party is interested in challenging -
19 MR. DENTON:
Every applicant seems to be opposing 20 consolidation.
Rosenthal said they are opposed.
21 MR. CASE:
Because they thought that their case might 22 be a simple case and would be compounded by the consolidation.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Each one thinks he is be.tter 24 than everybody else.
25 MR. DENTON:
The decision to consolidate or not will
626.01.6 gsh 2
7 have an impact on resources.
There are 5 witnesses that we put on in our first case.
We may consolidate down to 3
3 or 4 in future ones.
But several attorneys and project 4
manager -
I estimate that every case by itself just in 5
hearing time Ls approximately one man-month, not counting 6
preparation and post-hearing that might be required.
7 And our expert witnessBs will have to buy a scenic Greyhound 8
tour bus ticket.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It will have a beneficial effect 10 on the general *employment situation but it wLll, on the other hand,
.11 12 13 14 have some inflationary effect.
MR. DENTON:
The next slide shows the conclusions.
(Slide.)
MR. DENTON:
There are four PDDs CP delays, two of 15 which will actually have an impact on the start of the 16 construction of three or four months.
Th.e other two, th.e PDD, 17
.will be delayed, but no actual delay in start of construction, 18 no fuelload delays and no present impact on post-CP and OL 19 cases.
20 If the consolidation.works, there will be only a 21 small impact on our resources.
If they are not consolidated, 22 theY will be on the order of that I discu5sed.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Given the argument that is 24 raised,* and I can understand how each of the individual 25 applicants would see the situation that way.
But as a
626.0 I. 7 gsh 8
practical matter, an overview, what is your assessment?
2 I gather that your assessment is that the 3
consolidation would be a time-saving device in the long run 4
because resources would be a va_ilable to be brought to bear 5
more quickly, and the question resolved.
6 7
MR. DENTO,N_:
That is certainly my view.
MR. GROSSMAN.:
The premise of our motion is that 8
we would expect that the appeal board would wish sua sponte 9
to inquire into the question.
10 If, on the other hand, the appeal board were to
.11 determine that it was neither nec.essary nor desirable, it 12 would be possible to dispose of a substantial number of the 13 pending cases simply on the basis of the -- by remanding 14 them to the licensing board and allowing the staff 15 affidavits to be entered into evidence without any 16 evidentiary proceeding.
17 In that case, the burden would be not quite so heavy.
18 It turns on whether the appeal board wishes itself to 19
.inquire into the matter.
20 MR. YORE:
That do.esn-'t always work out.
In three 21 of the cases, the intervenors have asked for their expert 22 witnesses, Dr-., Paul. in: Black Fox and Jamesport, Dr. Kedford (phonetici:),
23 the other one -
I forget, but three, they want their witness.es.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
- If that were the case with 25 all of them, *they would just have to be handled sequentially.
626.0 I. 8 gsh 2
3 9
MR. YORE:
That is right.
MR. DENTON:
In my assessment of impacts, I assumed that none of the cases that are presently before the appeal 4
board would be state -
that covers the impacts of th.e 5
6 7
8 radon.
MR. BOYD:
Are you ready to go forward?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Onward.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
At the time the staff 9
presented these choices to the Commission about three or four 10 months ago, when you indicated how long this method of J 1 12 L3 proceeding would take, what assumptions.were you making about consolidating the cases?
MR. DENTON:
I think it was my view that they were 14 likely to be consolidated, at least the ones that had CPs.
15 MR. GRO.SSMAN:
I don*'t believe that the p~per really 16 specifi.cally addressed that question.
I *believe that.was 17 one o.f Commissioner Kennedy.,,s concerns.:
To determine the 18 resource implications o.f the decision.
19 COMMISSIONER BOYD:
Let me repeat again that what we 20 are doing.here is taking the May charts and, in fact, updating 21 them through what we expect to be the June situation.
22 23 2-4 25 We hav.e covered Jamesport, Perkins.
The next project on the list, I think, is of some significance in the way of slip.
That is*Skagit.
We have indicated as we did last month that the
626.O l. 9 gsh 2
10 combinsd hearing is to reconvene on June 20th, which is still true, and that there is a potential seismic impact.
3 We have a survey team out, I understand today, 4
looking at the site.
5 6
MR. CASE.:
USGS.
MR. BOYD:
We suspect that ~twill be such that 7
instead of being able to predict a decision date by October, 8
it is more like.ly it should be December. B.eyond what this 9
chart shows, there should be another two-month slip as a 10 result of the seismic consideration.
JI 12 1.3 June.
MR. CASE:
We still will reconvene on the 20th;of MR. BOYD:
Yes.
Ob:viously, the hearing won.1t go 14 continuously.
I.would suspect it would have to break o.ff and 15 then corns back in to finish.
16 MR. CASE:
Anothsr wa~; we won--'t be ready.with seismic 17 on June 20th.
Is +/-hat what you're saying?
18 MR. BOYD:
Tha t-'s true.
We don*'t expect to be.
19 There will invariably be a round of questions for the utility 20 to be answering, more work to be done.
At least that is our 21 prediction.
22 23 24 MR. KELLEY:
Do you have a guess?
Not June.
WLll it be August?
MR. BOYD:
I would guess it would have to be between 25 August, September, something like that.
I
.0 I. I 0 gsh -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 J l 12 l3 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
.J I MR. KELLEY:
Fa.11.
MR. BOYD:
Yes, late summer.
MR. KELLEY:
It is seismic issues that are concerned.
MR. BOYD:
Appear to now be contro-11 ing.
MR. KELLEY: IsnJt the seismic issue tied in with the issue of the ACRS *consultant's availability'?
MR. CASE:
I donJt believe so.
MR. DENTON:
This issue is a new concern raised by an intervenor, and the impact on schedules, depending on what we find out there next week as to what new theory has been
~reposed to explain certain_things, and the staff and
~*'
survey consider whether it warrants a detailed Look, along with the (inaudible) investigators concerned~ depending on how that field trip works out.
We can have better estimates at a later time.
MR. KELLEY:
I was.. refe.rring to an issue that surfaced last winter about whether or not the ACRS itself could be called *at this hearing.
I was given to understand it is a seismic interest, but that is now off until the fall.
MR. GROSSMAN:
It is not clear.
The hearings may resume in June for a portion.
It would be stiil th~
applicant case rather than intervenor.
MR. BOYD.:
It is still a seismic i..ssue.
MR. KELLEY: I am asking a critical question.
Is the
626 *. 01 *. 11 gsh 2
3 4
5 ACRS itself critical to June or to the fall?
MR. CASE:
I donJt know.
MR. GROSSMAN:
Sometime after June.
MR. KELLEY: After June.
Thank you.
12 MR. BOYD:
The next one I would like to focus on 6
is Pilgrim 2 right below it.
There are two outstanding 7
considerations in Pilgrim.
8 The board*'s LWA decis.ion is on appeal before the 9
appeal board, and depending on how that comes out will depend 10 on.what more, if anything, the sta1f has to do in that
.1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 regard.
On th.a safety side, the major i.ssue at this point is financial qualifications.
We are expecting-.- we got some information in on financial.
We need a li,ttle bit more information considering the turn-around of what will probably be needed from the applicant.
We can guass -
a possibility, I guess, October is still a pretty good date. But there, again, we can imagine a subseq.uent hearing on the financial issues more like sometime in August or September.
But at this point, we can hold with the October date.
But we are beginning to impinge quite a bit upon whatever margin there is in projection.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD.:
We indicated some interest in 25 January in having an overall review of the financial
f626.0l.12 gsh -
-(b-1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 JO
.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 implications questions.
Is that underway?
MR. CASE:
Yes.
We are developing a kind of action which we.will come to the Commission with.
7626 WHITL:sp
- 2 2
3 4
14 MR. BOYD:
Black Fox we have mentioned on the environmental S-3 _side; The safety hearing in July is in fact now scheduled.
I we apply the standard assumptions that we make in calculating the However, it is scheduled for July 31st, which, if 5
schedules, we would find that rather than expecting a CP deci--".
6 sion in November, it would more than likely be December.
We 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 will probably on next month's chart show a slip, which I would consider a refinement in the schedule, as opposed to anything actually happening in the wayyofo:a.tdelay.
The next one worth discussing, I believe, is Davis Bessie.
As you know, Davis Bessie for some time has been a plant in no particular hurry to get constructed.
We are scheduling the ARCS meeting for July.
We are also, at the same time, involving the same project people, scheduling the SAG to get to the ACRS in July.
What this means, by the rules and requirements of the ACRS, is that both safety evaluations come to them on June 1st.
It doesn't look like, considering today is May 25th, that one man can get both of them in the same place at the same time by June 1st, which is only a few days from now.
One of them has to slip.
The looks like the one.I have' opted it to be is Davis Bessie and not the SAG.
However, if, in fact, Davis Bessie makes it in August, there still appears to be some margin on that case..
It is a noncontested hearing.
We would Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 expect,.. not: at :tlhis,.:ti1me,- to _ slip. the.. projection on the
sp2 15 completion date.
2 Allens Creek is the next one worth mentioning.
There 3
are no delays.
It isa reactivated review.
The ACRS has indi-4 cated to us that they do not plan on looking at Allens Creek 5
again.
They reported on this a couple of years ago.
The plant 6
review now shut down.
It ha;s:,,n<bw been reactivated.
The ACRS 7
has decided not to take a look at. it.
For chart purposes, we 8
can merely take* the ACRS off.
I think it is a piece of intel-9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ligence worth passing on.
The next one under construction permits and the last one under construction permits I.,_ think~<li' would like to discuss is Greene County.
As you recall, every month we change Greene Countr only by changing the numbers.
We say in the remark column that the NRC pa-rt of the joint hearing is expected to start on a particular day.
That isn't a so many months' delay.
And predict a decision date of approximately so and so.
The number 18 3/78 should~:be*:ch-anged to 12/78, or 8/78 excuse me -- 8/78 19 20 21 22 23 24 should be changed to 12/78, an additional four months, and the PDD is now predicted to be about July 1979.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Instead of March?
MR. BOYD:
Yes, sir.
Again, it is a slow process of the joint proceeding.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
W}Jat would the effect have Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 been if it had not been a dir~ct proceeding?
sp3 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We would have moved our stuff out, 2
but the:-Plant couldn't go anywhere because the state would be 3
plodding along at precisely the same pace.
On the other hand, 4
this. particular joint proceeding bids fair to eat up staff time 5
at somewhere from five to 10 times the normal pace. *The reason 6
is,,:-- this. is one of* the things where. the hearing is in session 7
sort of day in, day out, week in, week out, month in, month out, 8
and the whole staff has to sit there.
9
- 10 11 12 13 hearing.
process.
in.terms MR. CASE:
They do their review as part of the It is not done by the staff; it is part of the hearing CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:. It is extremely manpower-intensive, of the people that you have to take to the hearing.
14 It.is a cause for serious concern over whether to continue to 15 enter into agreement *for joint hearings with states where the 16 procedure is' so substantially different from ours.
In other 17 states it is not that different, and we don't have these prob-18 lems.
Here it is just --
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
By that, do you mean the 20 state proceedings doesn't contemplate exchange between the
.21 applicant and the state reviewers other than in the hearing 22 format?
23 24 MR. DENTON:
They do the review MR. GROSSMAN:
When the~e are exchanges outside the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 hearing room, but the hearing process is regarded as an
sp4 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
- 11 12 13 14 17 important part of the staff review.
MR. DENTON:
The applicant hasn't completed his direct case.
We have had people there alI this time to assist the state.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How many dates so far?
MR. DENTON:
65 days of actual hearing.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The applicant hasn't completed his direct case.
MR. DENTON:
That' s right.
/COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And the state necessarily then doesn't know what position it is going to take on the issues at this time, and it won't know until it has completed its review of the direct testimony.
MR. DENTON:
Yes.
So we have delayed our FES pendin 15 the development of the state position to see if we can arrive a 16 a joint view.on this, and we have provided a lot of assistance 17 to the state at the same time.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What about the manufacturing 19 license?
20 MR. BOYD:
FMP-18.
The hearing is supposed to 21 resume July 10th.
22 We do have an SER supplement in preparation.
We do 23 have to go back to the ACRS to consider a couple* of issues.
At 24 this point we are not able with any confidence to predict Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 specific numbers as targets.
There are a number of issues
sp5 2
3 5
6 7
8
. 9 10 11 12 13 18 before-the hearing, and so it can reactivate.
As I understand, it has been scheduled -- additional CP applications
-$undesert has pretty well ground to a halt l On the *other.hand, Greenwood, which was in a few years ago and was delayed indefinitely, is now being reactivated, and their revised application should come in the end of this year.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Where is it?
MR~ BOYD:
In Michigan.. -- Detroit Edison Company.
The operating reactors Hatch 2 is scheduled fqr May.
- Ct is almost complete.
I think it is running neck and neck.
They are coming down the line with completion, and we are-coming down the line with all of our licensing requirements It looks rather good for getting it out at the end of, this 14.. month.
15 16 17 The next one worth discussing, I think, is McGuire.
A hearing to accommodate all of the parties' inter-ests will not be held in July but has been scheduled now for 18 August 21st.
It still appears to be enough time to do the 19 20 21 proceeding in.time for the proj,ected construction completion date.
I don't know that any of the others have changed 22 with any significance.
23 I : would go from there to the PDAs.
24 The first one, BSAR 205, the B&W case, it too**is Ace-Feder,il Reporters, Inc.
25 scheduled.for May, as you can see, and we are running neck and
sp6 2
3 4
5 6
. 19 neck on that.
But we think that even with a few days left this month, we should make it before.the end of the month.
We have had the same trouble with SWESSAR/BSAR 205 have had for the last few months.
We indicate that this late information is from applicant.
It is the same problem.
We have discussed it before.
The particular technical problem involved 7 is the main steam.-~line brake accident.
We have the information 8
9 10 l 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 on large brakes.
Information on small brakes is not supposed to come in until July.
It looks like, at best, that would slip the PDA on this one from the indicated June until about August.
RESAR 414, staff impact, there are a couple of late inputs to the SER.
We haven't been able to get the work com-pleted because of the press of some other business.
We will make it to the ACRS, we think now,. not in July, which as I mentioned earlier means a June 1st SER to the ACRS, but more likely* August.
.Maki:qgc:the ACRS in August, that would put the PDA in September, not August.
I might indicate also, just last week another PDA application came in.
This is. __ we have got an ESSAR/CESSAR/
RESAR from Nabasco, and now the corresponding B&W plant came in, which becomes ES SAR, BSAR 2 05.
They are hiring three people just to_handle the nomenclature in these discussions.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I want to know what you are going to do between the GAISSAR and the GASSAR.
sp7 20 MR. BOYD:
I. pronounce one "GYSSAR" (phonetic).
2 That helps~
3 4
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
Can't we just kill GASSAR?
MR. BOYD:
We are pretty close to doing that.
As you 5 know, the gas coal reactor --
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you move it to office to 7 office and get it to the end of the corner, then it goes out 8 the window and disappears from the schedule.
9 (Laughter.)
10 MR. BOYD:
We have moved it over to just a reactor 11 review.
12 The GASSAR effort is pure General Atomic, and from l3 time to time they have specific things that they would like 14 reviewed.
In the meantime, the gas coal reactor associates, 15 16 17 18 19 20
- 21.
22 23 24 which includes General Atomic,, are putting together our meetings with them, they are very, very serious and from we expect from them a PDA application for an entire plant sometime at the end of '79.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
My impression is., we are likely to get the application from the Congress.
MR. BOYD:
We will accept it from them if they pay the filing fee.*
(Laughter.).
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I expect they will be exempt.
MR. BOYD:
They probably would be.
25
sp8 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 21 Well, I would be delighted to consider this at the June briefing.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Put them under part 21.
I have been waiting~f.or sornet.Fiiq:g.. liketthat~
(Laughter. )
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you had to stand back and --
let's see.
You are going to go ahead and tell us about the schedule accomplishments and the scheduling slips.
I notice the schedule accomplishments is a two-entry compilation.
The schedule of slips is more like eight.
Why don't you tell us about it, and then we will discuss it.
MR. BOYD:
Again, this is material as of almost a 13 month ago. now at this point.
14 I mentioned at the last briefing the Marble Hill and 15
_the WPPSS 3 and 5, and for this briefing I am projecting yet 16 this month to two May issuances, mainly the BSAR 205 and the 17 Hatch OL.
18 The scheduled slips in the back of the Commission 19 paper, we have already mentioned.
Coming from the bottom, 20 working up to BSAR 205 is history, and now making it up this 21 month, Diablo Canyon, I guess I indicated that at-:the last 22 briefing in preparation for the seismic hearing,_* Arkansas 2 is 23 still a.construction delay.
Jamesport and Perkins, we indicate, 24 because of the S-3 consideration Harold discussed earlier.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Davis Bessie 2-3, although I mentioned we are holding
sp9 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
. 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 22 on the present schedule, we are slipping the ACRS meeting, and it may impact in a month or two, get one more month delay in Davis Bessie.
The LWAs, Black Fox is controlled by the S-3 consid-eration, and Erie, by now we have the BA comments.
As I under-stand it, it is moving forward on the schedule., 1.At. least in our: review we are still showing a target date for the LWA decision in November.
I guess you must have looked, going through this, and not saw ERIE as one of the ones being impacted.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Jamesport decision pending, S-3
.consideration.
MR. YORE:
The decision was issued M~y 9th.
MR. BOYD:
Partial initial on Jamesport, everything
--but s~3 *.
MR. YORE:
Everything but S-3 was issued on May 9th.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
I thought you said Jamesport was --
MR. DENTON:
That is. in my list of one of the plants where we had,.,filed our proposed testimony, and it is not clear what will happen.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
MR. BOYD:
The advantage in this case is*, there is a decision extant on everything else.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But even after that, the state
23 spl0 proceedings are going on, and whether we complete the S-3 2
expeditiously on Jamesport or not -- what is the projection of 3
the state proceeding, if any?
4 MR. YORE:
We heard they were supposed to have a 5
decision from their hearing examiner by the end of this month, 6
but n9~<,.it. ~ha._$ to go to the review body.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
To the siting council, or whatever 8
their exact -- yes.
9 MR. DENTON:
We concluded it would take longer than 10 a
3 or 4 month time it might take to do S-3.
CHAIRMAN* HENDRIE:
I see.
11 12 13 (Pause.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Roger, if you had to stand back 14 and. eyeball the whole thing and say, I will average all the 15 cases, all of the licensing cases, the CP, the OLs, the LWAs, 16 and the PDAs that are working in the house. currently and,.,
17 assign an overall averages slippage, have we made net progress 18 since the last time.I. saw you?*
Would it be less than one month 19 since the last time or --
20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BOYD:
I guess it would go something like this.
If you look at all of the cases CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that means I'm going to get a complicated answer I'm going.. to have a lot of trouble understanding.
MR. BOYD:
Yes, I think.
On the other hand, when I'm
spll 2
3 24 sitting back and looking, it has to come out that way, I think if I look at all these cases together and let's say, on the average, half of them have a potential for a slip, of those, 4
half --
5 6
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
25 percent of all cases?
MR. BOYD:
-- will slip a month -- this month, for 7
some.:. reasons.c1~-: and the other half of the 25 percent will s.lip 8
one month next month.
So I am probably able to identify maybe 9
15 percent of the cases for a slip and another 15 percent the 10 11 12 13 14 next month, cases.
and the major slippages seem to be just in these COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are they the same cases?
MR. BOYD:
No.
The other half of the cases.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
A slippage one month this month l5 or four months this month for those cases?
16 MR. BOYD:
It depends on the reason.
Some of these l7 are complete beyond our control.
We can only say we expected l8 it to happen in June, and it didn't happen in June.
So we are 19 20 21 22 23 24 predicting it will happen in July.
Now, we could just as seli say we predict it will happen in August and not worry about it.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If you predicted it would Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
happen in September, you would probably be in great shape, because most of them would happen in July, and we would say, what a great job you're doing.
25
25 spl2 MR. BOYD:
Exactly.
Since I have got no basis to 2
mak~ that prediction anymore I can only really say that ii 3
4 e-2 I
didn't happen, and I am waiting for it to happen when it happen next month.
5 6
.. 7 8
9*
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
626. 03. I pv 26 At the other end of the spectrum you have things_"!here you can 2
identify 4-month periods where things slip because of real 3
considerations that you have some direct knowledge of.
4 MR. CASE:
On the average, it-"s got to be less than 5
a morith slip.
6 7
8.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On the average.
- CASE:
Y_e s.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There have been times when I 9
have wondered, in fact, whether overall, in the shop, we were, JO in fact, going behind, and I am curious to know that you_think JJ we are, in fact, making net prograss.
12
. 13 MR. BOYDa You can sBe some progress if you look at the statistics in the chart.
If you remember, on the right 14 side,.we do a lot of number juggling, where.we say this is I
15 where we are~ ~here we origihally scheduled ourselves to be.
16 I know you have heard our argument about some of the months, 17 the 14-month review schedule and the 5-month hearing, as being 18 a little too short.
19 You see some of the cases have been around a long 20 time.
You see numbers up there like 44 months, 49 months, 45 21 months, and so forth, a couple of them, a couple of the later 22 cases.
And I point to Yellow Crsek and Erie and Black Fox.
23 They are much shorter numbers.
These are some of the last I
24 cases we have been working on.
They are not too far -- at 25 least Yellow Creek and Erie.
7626.03.2 pv 2
27 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Black Fox is working its way up.
MR. BOYD:
Yes.
Which is why I toss it into my 3
remarks, because there have been a discrete number of 4
slippages, many on behalf of the utility wanting to wait for 5
certain times until such an~ such happened with the state 6
hearings.
And so, the review ground to a halt.
7 hearings.
THe point is it looks like the la.tter cases are, at 8
9 10 It 12 13 this point in the prediction process, doing much be"tter, compared to the ones that have *been stopped hither and yon for a number of diverse reasons.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIEJ It is *quite clear if you are an applicant and you want to build a power plant, you do be,tter to gather up your resources and delay your filing a little bit 14 to be.sure you have a better case; then, you better come in 15 here and prosecute it hammer and tongs, becauss if you dither 16 around, we will change the rules as you go along, enough to 17 sort of keep it in-house indefinitely, or if we donJt the 18 state will, or the banks will get you, you know.
That is a 19 very clear lesson.
You would be a lot better a.ff to 1 delay 20 filing for 6 months, gBt to the design a little further on, 21 and then com*e in and run it through the staff as fast as the 22 staff can digest i~.
23 MR. BOYD:
That is exactly the speech we have given 24 to a number of OL licensees.
They don-"t want to pay 25 attention.
They want to get it in, get it under the tent
626.03.3 pv 2
28 while it is still safe; CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And then fiddle _with it, fiddle, 3
fiddle, fiddle.
4 MR. BOYD:
We have 5 or 6 OL applications tendered, 5
pending right now.
As you know, we have a guideline that says 6
we wiil do a tendered review in 30 days.
If there were only 7
one, we could probably do it in 30 days.
4, 5, 6 of them, we 8
can't.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Are we stLll on a 30-day IO a.cceptanc e review?
MR. CASE:
Nominal.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What are the recommendations 13 that we are going to implement out of HaroldJs study?
14 15 MR. DENTON:
To expand it.
MR. BOYD:
That would have taken longer.
It would 16 have been a different kind of acceptanc~ reviaw.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
True.
I thought we said,
- 11Good, 18 letJs go with it."
19 MR. DENTON:
It was thought to be more applicable 20 to CPs.
Most of the recommendations went toward CPs, to put a 21 revised guide on the street, to specify what was needed and 22 make sure that was in and the~ do the review.
23 MR. CASE:
The other steps first, the revised 24 guide, et cetera.
First, revised standard review plan, then 25 revised guide, and then implement.
626.03.4 pv 2
3 29 WasnJt that the way it went, Harold?
MR. DENTON:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we waited for the format to 4
get revised --- 1 et-"s see -
5 MR. CASE:
That was scheduled for the last of this 6
year.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
When I. left here, you know, to 8
the hoots of the mob and bricks pursuing me down the road in 9
-"74, revision 2 of the standard format -- and even that had JO been around a long time
.11 12 IJ MR. DENTON.:
That was one of the study group rBcommendations, was revise standard format and --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It never rea.lly got fully 14 implemented. b~fore it is being revised again.
15 MR. DENTON:
There was a 2-part upgrading of the 16 standard review plan.
We show it in the short and~the long 17 form.
The short form is completed.
The standard format has 18 been revised and is now coming *around for concurrence and 19 should be out in a very few days, which will incorporate the 20 short revisions of the standard review.plan.
21 Ed is talking about the longer-term revisions.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
When do we go over to a more 23 a little guttier acceptance review across the board?
24 25 MR. CASE:
It was after both?
MR. DENTON:
Yes.
And when we get an incoming
6.03.5 pv end#3 30 2
application that has had a chance *- that we have had a chance to work on, with all of this preliminary material.
If we tall 3
a utility.we are going to do an acceptance review based on 4
adequacy of technical information, as opposed to merely 5
completeness, he will say, "Based on what?"
And we wLll say, 6
"Based on guidance that we haven*'t quite yet got out on the 7
street yet. 11 That would be a pretty tough acceptance review.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Dick?
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Mr. Gossick-'s memo to me in 10 response to his questions about implementing the task force, J 1 he says he would be happy to discuss/it further if I.wish, and 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I assure your do.
I Just received it.
I havenJt had time to digest it.
I would like to address that sometime next week.
adjourned.)
MR. GOSSICK:
Fine.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
I thank you all.
(Whereupon, at 3:04 p.m., the meeting was
31 DISCLAIMER This is-an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission he1d on May 25, 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. l*I.,. 1,!ashington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This trar.script*
has not been revie\\*1ed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for genera-1 infonnationa1 purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect fi na 1 de.terminati ans or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or arg!lment contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
BACKGROUND ON RADON ISSUE NECNP PETITION GESMO PROPOSED NEW TABLE S-3 PUBLICATION OF INTERIM S-3 TABLE DR, W. JORDAN MEMO SECY 79 I
COMMISSION RULE NOVEMBERJ 1975 SEPTEMBERJ 1976 MARCHJ 1977 SEPTEMBER, 1977 FEBRUARY, 1978 APRIL, 1978 r -.... *.
/
. l j
CP CASES 21.CP PROJECTS AFFECTED
- 14 WILL DISCUSS RADON ISSUE IN PENDING FES'S
' 2 PROJECTS HEARINGS REOPENED FOR OTHER ISSUES
' 2*PROjECT$ WtTH LWA's*tNCLUDED IN STAFF MOTION TO
'CONSOLIDATE CASES PENDING ASLAB -
- 4 IN ADJUDICATION A*:****... ***,****.****.. -*.. -
W
-~
': '::I.
PLAN!
PERKINS BLACK FOX START OF CONSTRUCTION DELAYS HEARING DATE
. MAY 16 - 17, 1978 JUNE 5 - s; 1978 APPROXIMATE DELAY 4 MONTHS 3 - 4 MONTHS
PLANT PEBBLE SPRINGS JAMESPORT DELAY IN PDD BUT NO DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION HEARING DATE MAY 3i; JUNE 1 ~ 2; 1978 NOT SCHEDULED DELAY IN PDD AT* MOST 3 MONTHS UNKNOWN
- ,.,I
- ' '.. '\\i. : *:* **.
I I
I
. OL.CASES 16 OL PROJECTS AFFECTED
- 5 WITH FES'S ISSUED AND NO HEARING PENDING 7 PROJECTS WILL DISCUSS RADON ISSUE IN FES
- 2 PROJECTS HEARINGS TO BE REOPENED ON OTHER MATTERS
- 2 TO BE LITIGATED IN HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR THIS FALL
- 16 POST CP AND OL PROJECTS AFFECTED
' 16 BEFORE ASLAB.STAFF HAS MOVED TO CONSOLIDATE
- 2 OF THE 16 (THREE MILE ISLAND 2 AND HARTSVILLE)
HAVE BEEN REMANDED TO ASLB
CONCLUSIONS 1,
- FOUR CP PDD DELAYS
- 2 PROJECTS WITH ~4 MONTH CONSTRUCTION DELAYS EACH
- 2 PROJECTS WITH STATE PROCEEDINGS CONTROLLING
- 2.
NO ANTICIPATED DELAYS IN FUEL LOAD DATES FOR OL PROJECTS
- 3.
NO PRESENT IMPACT ON POST CP AND OL 'CASES 4*,*
POTENTIAL IMPACT ON RESOURCES AT PRESENT~ SMALL
' IF ASL~B CASES NOT CONSOLIDATED - SIGNIFICANT
SHARON HARRIS CHEROKEE ST. LUCIE 2
\\
WOLF CREEK I
PEACH BOTTOM.2 & 3 TYRONE MARBLE HILL POST CP AND OL CASES REMANDED TO ASLB THREE MILE ISLAND 2 HARTSVILLE HOPE CREEK STERLING PHIPPS BEND SEABROOK NORTH ANNA WPPSS 4 WPPSS 3 & 5
i
- /
I
- .. J
~
- .. \\
.. :i
.. j '
,1
' j
~
i
- j
. ~-,
~
NO HEARING PENtllNS SALEM FARLEY 2 SEQUOYAH ARKANSAS 2 HATCH 2 REOPEN *oN OTHER MATTERS MCGUIRE DIABLO CANYON dL CASES
- ' i
- !\\
.. _~*... *_ '.. '*
,.,:*. _... ::,, i <.:
DISCUSS IN FES FERMI 2 WATTS BAR SUMMER
- SAN ONOFRE WPPSS 2 LA SALLE MIDLAND LITIGATE THIS FALL SHOREHAM ZIMMER
i I
, l i
I I
i i
DISCUSS *1N.FE$
DOUGLAS POINT GREENWOOD FULTON ALLENS CREEK ATLANTIC MONTAGUE HAVEN BLUE HILLS NORTH COAST GREENE COUNTY NEW ENGLAND ERIE SUNDESERT PALO VERDE LJ & 5 CP CASES
.:*,1*'
...,_. :.. ' '~
REOPEN ON OTHER MATTERS SKAGIT PILGRIM 2 INCLUDED IN MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE DAVIS BESSE 2 & 3 YBJJM CREEK IN ADJUDICATION PERKINS BLACK FOX PEBBLE SPRINGS JAMESPORT