ML20196A038

Forwards Written Ltr in Connection with Joint Status Rept Which Is Being Transmitted to Licensing Board by Counsel for Applicant.Nrc Provided Info to Board & Parties Concerning Progress in Reviewing Pfs Application

ML20196A038
Person / Time
Site:	07200022
Issue date:	11/24/1998
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Bollwerk G, Kline J, Lam P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#498-19744 ISFSI, NUDOCS 9811270030
Download: ML20196A038 (2)

Text

_

k  %, UNITED STATES 8

,, ,d NUCLEAR RE11ULATCRY COMMISSION DOCKETED WASHINGTON, D.C. SDe8640lH ,

• • g..v ..+

November 24,1998 l i

'96 NOV 25 P1 :31 Orm i Sn .n G. Paul Bollwerk, lil, Chairman Dr. Peter S. Lam RUtU' . .D Administrative Judge Administrative Judge ADJUD3 i, .'~ rJAFF Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Kline Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of Private Fuel Storage L.L.C.

(Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation)

Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI

Dear Administrative Judges:

This letter is written in connection with the parties' joint status report which is being transmitted to the Licensing Board today by Counsel for the Applicant. The NRC Staff wishes to provide the following information to the Licensing Board and parties concerning its progress in reviewing the PFS :p plication, and a potential impact on the hearing schedule.

The current schedule was adopted, in large part, based on a schedule proposed in the parties' joint status report of May 27,1998. In proposing that schedule, the parties stated that it was subject to the " caveat that the Staff is able to take a position on the contention sufficiently in advance of the proposed March 1,1999 cut-off date so that the parties can conduct meaningful discovery by that date.' /d. at 2. It is this schedule that the Licensing Board largely adopted in its " Memorandum and Order (General Schedule for Proceeding and Associated Guidance),"

dated June 29,1998.~ ln adopting that schedule, the Licensing Board observed that "if the Stars safety and environmental review schedule changes, the [ current] litigation schedule may change accordingly." Id. at 4.

At the time this schedule was proposed and adopted, the StaFs review schedule included a single round of Requests for Additional Information (RAls), which were issued on April 1,1998 (before any ruling on contentions had been issued). The Staff indicated that it would need to see the Applicant's responses to its first-round RAls before it could predict a firm schedule, that no decision had been made as to whether a second round of RAls would be required, and that the proposed schedute was based on a "best-case scenario." Transcript of Prehearing Conference of May 19,1998, at 847,849.

9811270030 991124 PDR ADOCK 07200022 C PDR

t

. Administrative Judges Partial responses to the RAls were submitted by the Applicant on May 19, June 15, June 18, and September 15,1998; an additiona! partial response (conceming geotechnicalissues)is due to be submitted on December 15,1998, although the Applicant has informed the Staff that its submission may be delayed fer several months.

! At this time, based on its review of the application and PFS' responses to its RAls, the Staff has determineo that a second round of RAls is required. The Staff expects to issue these RAls on or before December 11,1998. The second-round RAls include some questions that relate to

~ issues raised in the Intervenors' Group 1 and ll contentions; and the Staff's statement of a final position on those contentions is likely to require prior receipt and review of the Applicant's responses to the RAls. In addition, the Applicant's expected delay in submitting its final responses to the first-round RAls is likely to impact the Staff 's ability to state a position on related Group ll contentions under the current schedule.

Accordingly, although the Staff expects to state a position on some Group 1 and ll contentions by the dates established under the current schedule, its positions on many other Group I and ll contentions will likely need to be deferred until the Staff has received and reviewed the Apnlicant's responses to its RAls. Upon issuing the second-round RAls, the Staff will seek a re%onse schedule from the Applicant, and will then advise the Board and parties as to (a) which cor,.entions will be addressed in the Staff's position on Group I contentions, to be filed on i December 31,1998, and (b) any schedular modifications the Staff will need to request, in order to complete its review prior to taking a position on other contentions. The Staff will promptly advise the Board and parties of developments concoming these rnatters.

Sincerely, NJ $

Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff l cc: Service List i

l

!