ML18065A803

Summary of 960507 Meeting W/Licenses Re Technical Issues That Affect Assessment of Plant Net Present Value

ML18065A803
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	06/28/1996
From:	Gamberoni M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9607020226
Download: ML18065A803 (2)

Text

MEMORANDUM TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

... /'

-~*

i, Ut-.ilTE~, STATES.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001*

J

~.i..

~

.

• n'

-June' 28*,~ 199.6;,.. :" *

.._.. I FILE

'.,,'i

~:

Ma rs ha Garn be ron i,.Project Man ager

• v1 *..J, JJ: "'--"

• Project Directorate III-1 1

\\

MEETING WITH DEAN AND ASSOCIATES INC. REGARDING TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT AFFECT ASSESSMENT OF PALISADES NET PRESENT VALUE After careful discussions with the Solicitor, DRPW Deputy Division Director, Public Affairs, and the point of contact for Management Directive 3.5, "Public Attendance at Certain Meetings Involving NRC Staff," regarding a request for a meeting, I agreed to meet with John Achenbach of Dean Associates.

In a telephone call on May 6, 1996, he told me he was working on an independent assessment of the Palisades plant without concurrence from the licensee;*

however, he was under contract to the licensee.

The assessment will address the net present value of the Palisades plant and will be used during testimony in a *tax case.

(A consortium made up of Covert Township, Covert schools and other public bodies is appealing the Tax Tribunal ruling regarding a lower plant valuation.)

The meeting was held in NRC headquarters on May 7~6-,.--...

and lasted about 0.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.

Mark Reinhart was also in attendance:-=--fhe meeting concentrated on the issues of recapture*of construction time, annealing and fluence reviews, license renewal, and Appendix R.

In the area of recapture, I told Mr. Achenbach that I was,*not aw~re of the licensee's plans to submit an application to recapture the c~nstruction period.

When asked if this type of* review ~ould be a "guaranteed* approval," I stated that no review is guaranteed; however, this type of review has been approved for other plants and I was not aware of any plants that had been*

denied recapture.

I al so stated* that I thought at least one pl ant had a hearing on.this issue.

When asked what priority su~~ a revi~w would rec~ive.

if submitted, I stated that the more urg~nt matters.for review on this plant would be those associated with 10 CFR 50:61.

I stated th~t ~~ documented in an April 1995 safety evaluation, the pla'nt will,re'ach its 10 *cm 50.61 screening criteria at the end of 1999*.'.:. Three years*;prior to e.xceeding the pressurized thermal shock screen.ing criteria the<:'lic'ensee sha l'L submit a plant-specific analysis to detetfujnevif bperation beyond the~sc~eening criteria is acceptable. Submission o'f.i_nformation on anneali,ng:wo~_ld obviate the need for a plant-specific analysis. *:l informeq Mr;.'Ache,nbach that

• Consumers began submitting its Thermal f\\nnea)'ing.Re*port",in'*october 1995 and submitted a revised fluence analysis/on April '4, J996. '., l'..'prqvided the scheduler status of each of -those reviews,arid told.hin(that the information I was giving him was available in. a*.May Ji, *1996, meet-i.ng'* summ'ary,_and that a large amount of docketed correspondence'.regarqing Palisades.re~ctor,v~ssel issues was available in the Pub}iC:' Document Rocim;. (Mr. Achenbach stated that he had also discussed Palisades.re*acto,r,vessel.i~sue~ with.Ed Hackett ** ',

(NRR/EMCB).)

( '

.-;~

I c

.19607020226 960628 PDR' ' ADOCK 05000255

~. _____. _.. _. __, __ f'DfL __

~

~

~

~

1'_

~ r ** **

r- *

,/

2 June~ 2g, 1996 *

.. -Mr-... Achenba~h :a 0sk."ecr:a few -generar-q"l1~sfioris regarding l fcense renewal but told me he had discuss*ed this*,issue in niore detail with.Steve Hoffman (NRR/POLR).

. In response t.o h~s *question "Where: does Palisades stand with respect to Appendix R," l.n~plied that-this is-an.on-going inspecti.on.*activity and*

similar to the reactor vessel issues, r could.provide no informatfon on the

-*outcome of the rev-ie*w si_nce such :information would be speculative_ and pre-qeci s ional.

,* 1 Docket No.

• 50""'.255 **

.,DISTRIBUTION:

• c' **" *

-~--. -. -Doe~et-F-He*--

PU_BU ~

• .* r i

PD3~J-.R/F B.'Schaaf(RGS)

J..

• Roe r.

. \\'

\\

-~

.. 0 L'

'wt.

.._ *, ~,;;.:.*

f

'l~ '.;

• .* *-,;~ ~.

,. L *' '*

~-

~

~

. )*_

~'.-.