ML20198F259
| ML20198F259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1975 |
| From: | Anthony Giambusso Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Gallo J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1082 NUDOCS 8605280452 | |
| Download: ML20198F259 (2) | |
Text
..
/
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Files (2)
NPd Rdg Docket Nos.: 50-460 AUE 121975 LWa 2-3 Rdg and 50-513 AGiambusso RDeYoung LWR TCs TCox LWR BCs i
J. Gallo, Chief Hearing Counsel. Office of Executive Legal Director MANAGEMENT ACTION ON WNP-1,4 DOCl2T This memo is to request your effort in escablishing a rad safety hearing date for this docket es soon after 9/1/75 as possible, but in any case soon enough that an ASLB partial decision or order permitting additional LWA-2 work can be issued before 11/1/75. On 11/1/75, Applicant will have completed all work authorized under the -
LWA-1 and LWA-2 issuad on 8/1/75.
The radiological safety review is coreplete, except for two retiaining outstanding safety issues (not including the Appendix I evaluation) which are expected to be resolved and documented by 9/2/75. These ,
issues are the ECCS final evaluation and evaluation of an ERDA/WPPSS 4 agreement cov. ring Applicant authority to centrol exclusion area activities. Current staff schedules for Append 1x I resolution.1/
predict completion no earlier than 11/4/75, a full two months after all other rad. safety issues are closed.
It is my understanding that additional LWA-2 work beyond that already authorized vill require the ASLB to convene a hearing. If a hearing is not convened until the Appendix I evaluation is complete, we could -
not respond to the Applicant's need for additional work authorization by 11/1/75.
I recognize that a full rad. safety hearing held in September ray l-require that than hearing record be held open to achieve final disposition of the Appendix I matter. However, all of the rad. safety review except Apnendix I could be aired in September and on the basis of that examination the Board could be asked to authorize additional safety-related work as described in 10 CFR 50.10 (e)(3). .This effort can be expected to result in the desired authorization by the ti=e it is needed, by n /1/75. It also would avert the two month suspension of construction a'etivities that would obtain if we simply wait for the Appendix I matter to be concluded on the schedule now forecant before ;
i going.to hearing.
i i
l l
8605280452 750912
! PDR ADOCK 05000460 i l A PDR l
+.
e e
l The WNI^-1.4 facility is a " golden plant"2./ This action to maintain the current numenttna of the licensing process is, in ny view, reasonable and justified in this case.
l In addition to the direct benefit to the Applicant ar.d consumer public in aliminating an amidable construction suspension, there is tha
- racognized benefit of expeditiously cow leting a licensing action scon
- after the actual technical review of Applicant's submittals is crmp%ete.
, edsk A. Ginilbusso, Director Division of Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References:
- 1. Hemo. D. Mullar to A. 01aahuaso dtd 7/21/73, Atp e dix _I h rity List
- 2. Memo, R. Boyd to 7. Schroeder, Lh'R ADe, D. Muller dtd 10/15/74, _Schedu14/Vor_kiced Considerations Resul_ ting frma .
_Anncunced Delays ces: V. A. Mccre'#
R. Heinemani D. Mu11er3 R. Tedeactf H. Denton*
E. Ketchen I J. Norrist A. Schwancerb
,,,,:, , x7886)T.WR2-3 >L . 2-3:RL AD-LWR 2;EL) RL % l
,r,... TCox: 45c beer V. e
- AGiamb$tssc __
l8/'/ /75 S/$//75 .
. 3/(/75
}..a/ ./ /73. . . . ..-.v.-.
Ena A*C 3!S (Ra e. 9-15 % A1010240 fr u. e co<senm ant e.ewte et ars ect. s.74 taa.wdi
--