ML20030B845
| ML20030B845 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030B846 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8108240433 | |
| Download: ML20030B845 (89) | |
Text
r
.mc r:
i - i. t i, ; ' '- t, ' * - ; ' lni
! ' ' ' f I btumy Y hu._
,l it.
im Nccmu RIuc-.ATORY codecsSION
(' '
r i\\
P In the Ma & cf:
BRIEFING ON UNCONTESTED ISSUE OF DIABLO CANYON LOW-POWER OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATION PUBLIC MEETING I
(
DA*I: August 10, 1981
?AGzs: 1 thru 68 AT:
Washington, D. C.
l l-f.
' REPORT 1XG
_AIDERSON i
40 0 Virp - d a Ave., 5.W. Wash' 90:, C. C.
20024 i b' Talachc=e: (202) 554-2245 0108240433 81081b PDR 10CFR PDR PT9.7
s k
'. I DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on August 10, 1981 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N.
W.', Washi
- on, D'.'C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observaticn.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may antain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general infomational purposes.
I As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or infomal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in an'y proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument
,j p-contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
E,c. '
i..,
l
(
4%
.',n :;
~
i
- h..,
1*
e j
i.m 6
yv
1 1
UNITED SLATES OF AMERICA I
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BRIEFING ON UNC7NTESTED ISSUES OF DIABLO CANYON LOW-POWER OPER ATING LICENSE APPLICATIC'd 4
PUBLIC MEETING 5
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6
Room 1130, 1717 H Street N.W.
7 Washington, D.C.
8 Monday, August 10, 1981 9
The commission me;, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.
10 EEFCRE:
11 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the C-
_ *ssion 12 PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner 13 THOM AS ROBERTS, Commissioner 14 ALSO PRESENT:
15 L BICKWIT D. EISENHUT j
H. DENTON 18 B.
BUCKLEY 17 H.
VOLLMER E. CASE i
18 3
M'TTCC" S. HANAUER 19 T.
MURLEY 2
"ir:;;;
20 0.
2023 H. SHAPAR 21 J.
O f 'JI:
?-
T LLC l
22
- R. DeIONG l
J. FOUCH AR D, 23 H. JORDAN 24 l
25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 Y
4 e
2 1
EEQCEEEIEEE 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADIF04 Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen.
4 The Commission meets this morning for a briefing 5 on several aspects of the Diablo Canyon operating license 6 applica tion.
7 The ~ Commission normally has a briefing from the 8 staff en operating licenses at about this point in the 9 proceedings to provide an opportunity for commissioners to 10 inform themselves of the application and to discuss items 11 that may be of interest to individual commissioners.
12 In the Diablo Canyon case the operating license 13 has been contested and that means that with regard to those
/
14 issues which have beca litigated and are in an adjudication
\\
15 hearing there is an ex parte between the Commission and the
~
16 parties.
Accordingly, we will be cov.ering those issues at 17 t his mee ting.
18 Instead, the subject of our meetina-this mcrning 19 will be those matters pertinent to the Diablo Canycn 20 low-power operating license that are not at issue in the 21 hearing; th a t is, the whole uncontested area of the. license l
22 application la review.
At a later date the Commission will 23 commence its own discussions of the low-power license.
Since that is a matter in which the Commission will be
(
24 25 operati1g in its adjudicatory role, that meeting vill be t
I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
"~
s 3
1 closed, in keeping with our usual practice.
I 2
Both of these meetings are related to the 3 Commission 's responsibilities under section 2.764 of our 4 regulations to determine whether to allow a decision by the 5 Licensing Board authorizing low-power opera tion te gc into 6 effect.
7
~
As you are probably aware, a decision on the 8 adequacy of the Diablo Canyon physical security plan is o expected from an appeal board in the future.
Subsequently, to that decision, if unf avorable, will be considered by us to 11 the extent it is relevant to low-power concerns before we 12 reach a decision whether or not to stay the effectiveness of 13 a low-power operation decision.
14 Now, our General Counsel has a few additional 15 comments that he would like to make, and I will turn it over 16 to him.
17 MR. BICKWIT I thought it would be useful just to 18 list the contested issues which I would advise you to stay 19 a wa y from in this discussion.
These are matters pending 20 before the Licensing Board or the Appeal Board in either the l
21 full-or the low-power proceeding.
22 In order to brief, I will be overgeneralizing
- 23. a bo u t these issues, i
l 24 They ares the adequacy of emergency plans, 25 adequacy of low-power analysis and ECCS, the adequacy of l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 Vl3GINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 treatment of generic safety issues, local radiation levels 2 and exposures, low-level radiation, quality assurance, radon 3 relief and safety-valve testing, security adequacy and/or 4 compliance with regulations, seismic and waste disposal.
5 There are a number of issues not on this list 6 which have been offered as contentions, denied by the
~ 7 Licensing Board and are subject to appeal through the taking 8 of depositions by parties.
9 7e have two letters from the parties, one from 10 Herbert Brown, counsel to Governor Brown, and one from David 11 Fleishaker, counsel to intervenors, who request at this 12 mee. ting these matters also not be discussed.
13 Our advice is to reject that request.
It turns on
(
14 the meaning of our rules which use the words, " substantive 15 matter at issue" to ma rk those issues which may not be 16 discussed while an adjudication is pending.
The words, 17 " substantive matter at issue" are not as clear as they might 18 be in order to deal with the present situation.
l l
19 As often is the case when the Commission drafts 20 its rules, it is impossible to anticipate a.11 the sit ua tic a s.
I 21 Our reading of those'vords is that contentions 22 which have been denied and are subject to appeal are not 23 substantive matters at issue before the Commission.
We 24 don't read the rule as being restricted to admitted 25 contention.
Clearly, if a contention had been filed before ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 r
5 1 the Licensing Board and the Licensing Board had not yet i
2 acted, that would be a substantive matter a t issue.
3 However, if the Licensing Board has acted, we feel
(
\\
4 tha t the best reading of the rule is to give some weight to 5 the action of the Lice nsin g Board and to regard it as an 6 issue which is no longer a substantivbe mattet at issue by 7 virtue of the Licensing Board's decision.
8 If the reading were otherwise, there are two 9 unf ortunate consequences.
First of all, if a party to the 10 proceeding vanted to choke off discussion between the 11 Commission and its staff, a voluminous contention could be 12 filed.
It could be rejected and then Tppealed.
The 13 Commission would be paralyzed in its efforts to talk to the
(~
14 staff about a_1 matters con tained within that voluminous l
15 contention.
Secondly, it would severely cramp the review 16 process that was envisioned by 2.764 of the regulation.
17 If we were to accept that interpretation, it would l
18 not be possibl9 for the commissioners to gain any 19 information with respect to the particular issues that are 20 the subject of these letters because, first of all, there 21 would be no record with respect to those issues because the 22 contentions would have been denied and theref ore there would 23 be nothing on the record that the commissioners could look l
24 a t or that they could ask their immediate staff to brief s
25 them on.
l l
ALDERSoN REPcRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6 1
Secondly, it would not be possible to get r
2 inf ormation outside the adjudicatory process by a discussion
(
3 of this nature.
So that, in effect, the commissioners would 4 be forced to make th eir 2 '.7 6 4 immediate effectiveness 5 decision without the benefit of this particular information 6 unless it were willing to go through some rather complicated 7 and formal procedures in order to get that pa r tic ula r 8 information, and we do not believe that our ex parte rule 9 requires us to interpret our immediate effectiveness rule in 10 such a restrictive manner.
11 Under this analysis then, the Commission, if it 12 accepts it, would not be required to refrain from 13 discussion, nor to seek the comments of the parties other i
14 than the party that it will be talking to this morning on 15 these matters.
16 We would suggest, however, that if these subjects 17 do come up, exchanges might take place which could 18 conceivably influence the decision of the Commission under l
19 2.764, that the Commission in its discretion invite the 20 parties to comment on anything that may be said along these 21 lines.
We would'suggest a comment period of a week.
22 I think I should say that that comment period may 23 not even be tr3agered.
I don't know whether either the l
k 24 staff or the commissioners intend to involve themselves in 25 any such discussion, but if discussion of these issues does l
ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. ').C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7
'e would suggest the one-week comment period for 1 take place, v
i 2 the parties.
If the Commission is agreeable, we will send 3 out a letter to that effect.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fine.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINOs I gather if we do stray in 6 area that are not allowed, you will probably let us know?
7 HR. BICKWITs We vill try to discourage it.
8 There are other things that we try to discourage 9 but have not been successful.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Then I suggest we proceed to 11 the staf f to make their presentation.
12 MR. DENTON:
We vill cover the key aspects and 13 conclusions of our review, staying away from those areas as t
14 described by OGC.
15 I have with me Darrell Eisenhut, Director of the 16 Division of Licensing s Buck Buckley, Project Manager; and 17 Tolbert Young, the Resident Inspector.
Mr. Buckler vill 18 commence the presentation.
19 ER. BUCKLEY:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 20 Commissioners.
21 On the first page of'the agenda you will note the 22 first item is " Plant Description."
The second item is 23 "Non-THI mat ters. "
The third item is "THI Matters."
The 24 fourth item is "IEF Status Report."
The fifth item is 25 "S ALP," and the sixth item is " License Condition s. "
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, j
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 y-
l 8
1 Turning tc page 2, this is a general plant t
2 description of the Diablo Canyon.
It is a Westiatghouse PRW, 3 four-loop reinforced-concrete, steel-lined containment.
4 The construction permit for Unit 1 was issued on 5 April 12, 1968, and Unit 2 was issued on December 9, 1970.
6 The application f or operating license for both units was 7 docketed October 2, 1973.
8 As far as the construction status, Unit 1 is g complete and we estimate Unit 2 will be completed in the 10 second quarter of 1982.
11 The low power hearings which commenced on the 19th 12 of May were concluded on the 22nd of May, 1981.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What was the defined pressure i
14 f or centainment?
15 HR. BUCKLEY:
Forty-seven PSIG, large, dry 16 containment.
17 Turning to page 3 on mon-THI matters, Mr. Vollmer, 18 I believe, is ready to address this.
19 MR. VOLLMER:
On the non-THI matters, the fire 20 protection issue, there are no open items on fire protection.
21' The licensee has implemented the three Appendix ?
backfit items as indicated in the slide.
There is a license 22 23 condition which by October 1,
1981, this year, he will go back and give us an assessment or rechecking, as we 24 25 committed to the Commission that we do, that he does indeel ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 q
a
9 1 meet all of the criteria and technical requirements of 2 Appendix R, and staff will take a look at that.
3 We expect there will be no problems, no major 4 deficiencies.
5 One item of fire protection that is unique in this 6 pla n t is tha t they have seismically qualified water supply 7 to their fire hoses, which is somewhat unique -- the 8 stations, water supplies, tanks, pumps and so en are 9 qualified.
The normal sprinkling systems are not, however, 10 but there is seismically qualified water supply.
11 COMMISSIONER AREARNE4 Dick, how are they meeting 12 G ?
13 HR. VOLLMER:
They have an alternate shutdown i
14 system which has been reviewed by the staff, and for those 15 areas required for saf e shutdown that they have not been 16 able to protect by separation or fire protected barriers, 17 they have reviewed fire protection alternate shutdown 18 systems for each area.
19 CHAIRMAN PAllADIN0s These backfit items, you say 20 -they will be put in by October?
21 MR. VOLLMER:
The fire protection system for safe 22 shutdown is already installed, as is emergency lighting.
We 23 understand the oil collection system has been designed, and 24 this is a seismic collection system in the event an event 25 would rupture the hot oil that is circulating in the reactor l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
{
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 Y
10 1 coolant pumps, which would flash upon a line rupture.
f 2
They have a seismically qualified collection 3 system.
We understand that will be completed thi.e month.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Before fuel loading?
5 MR. YOLLMERs Right, in October.
What they have 8 been asked to do is submit a report which identifies and 7 justifies differences between the existing and proposed fire 8 protection procedures and those of Appendix R.
9 The reason we did this was that staff review was 10 performed someti.ve ago and we feel the review was adequate.
11 We are asking the licensee in this particular area 12 to take another look and compare his plan in detail tc 13 Appendix R and give us a report on that.
In that way vs i
14 will pick up any deficiencies, evaluate them ourselves.
If 15 ve feel they are substantial, we could require the licensee 16 to patch them up.
17 MR. DENTON:
Will you compara the status of this 18 plant in this area with the other recent OL's in issue?
19 MR. VOLLMER:
I think the plant is much better off 20 in the fire protection area than the recent plants.
They 21 are really in good sha pe in this area.
22 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:
You are sa ying the licensee 23 has been asked to do a comparison of the plant in detail 24 against NSR.
Will that be coming in in October?
25 MR. VOLLMER:
Right.
That is the license ALDERSoN REPoRUNG COMPANY,INC.
'f"*"" ^tSt*^5"'" I "? 2 2'J2 2S" 2us
11 1 condition on page 5, itea 6(b) which requies him to provide r
2 us with that inf ormation April 1,
1981.
3 As you recall, when we had the fire protection 4 discussions with the Commission before, and fire potection 5 rule for new plant, the staff felt and volunteered tc the 6 Commission that we would for those plants who are licensed 7 for full power beyond September of this year ask them to 8 perform this evaluation f or us, since in many cases the 9 original fire protection review was done sometime ago.
10 This is scrt of a second look, second evaluation, 11 and a more comprehensive one vis-a-vis the Appendix B for 12 those plants that are not covered by Appendix R.
13 MR. DENTONa I should have noted all of our 14 remarks and conclusions apply to five percent power license 15 and we anticipate coming back to the Commission to discuss 16 those issues which might be pertinent at later power levels 17 but won't be coveted today.
I 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sc that I don't keep asking 19 the same question, when you have commitments from the 20 licensee to install certain things and to make reviews, will 21 tha t also be f or Unit 27 22 MR. VOLLEER:
Yes.
23 HR. EISENHUT:
Yes.
Of course, some will have 24 gone by the wayside in terms of time.
The intent of this 25 would be to take the same set of requirements and lay them ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 t-
12 1 on this.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 t'
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 7
l i
l 3-ske #2 1 f MR. VOLLMER:
Do you want me to go forward?
1 fois srs
{
IC Publig In Appendix G and H exemptions these are fairly standard 1:3 ring tug 10 3
for Westinghouse plants.
If you want details on what the exemp-4 tions are we will provide that.
e 5
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I would like to suggest for the bene-An 8
6 fit of the two new Commissioners it might be well to go through 7
the exemptions for G, E and J but I am willing to do them in any 8
8 order.
N rJ
=i 9
MR. DENTON:
Let me comment that when we resumed licensing Y
h 10 we found in a couple of areas where we needed to grant exemptions E
E 11 to every plant and where staff recommen'_d exemptions be granted
<3 ri 12 because they did not affect safety because of compensatory 3
d 13 measures that had been taken in the plant design or other causes,
(
5 l
E 14 we had :Ln motion plans to amend the regulations in many of these
- st!
15 areas for some time.
I understand that late summer some of these Y.
16 amended regulations will be coming to the Commission.
B
- ri 6
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which summer?
33 E
18 MR. DENTON:
I understand this summer.
=
19 MR. RUBENSTEIN:
They stcrted to get into Appendix J 8n 20 revision this summer and they expec't to put it out for public 21 comment in March through the Federal Register.
They finally 22 have gotten back on it this summer.
As Harold said, it is a t
23 relatively routine waiver and basically Appendix J aJc.
'Tes 5
i that the air locks opened during periods when containment integrity l
24 i
25, is not required by the plant test inspection, shall be tested at i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l$
is-2 1
the end of such periods and at not less than p sub a, the actual 2
pressure which is about 47 PSI.
I 3
If one pumps up the air lock to 47 PSI, waits for it to 4
degrade in an eight hour test and the applicant has proposed and e
5 we have accepted that they use essentially the sealed leakage 2
3 6
tests which takes a few minutes and runs at about 10 PSI and R
E 7
this is quite all right as long as they have not done any main-7.j 8
tenance on the seals or the doors during that period.
As you d
9 correctly pointed out, this is a relatively routine exemption and Y
h 10 it has come up on almost all the plants we have brought in.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, and the issue han come up in 3
y 12 almost all the plants.
5 13 1 MR. VOLLMER:
Barry Elliott of the Materials Engineering
(
14 Branch will summarize the G and H exemptions.
5 2
15 MR. ELLIOTT:
First, a brief background'on Appendiccs 5
y 16 G and H.
Those are the material requirements for the reactor m
{
17 vessel and all reactor and pressure boundary materials.
What 18 we do is look at the -- Agendi(ms G and H are the requirements
=H
{
19 for reactor vessel and reactor pressure vessel and surrounding n
f 20 material so that we can keep abreast of the embrittlement during 21 the life of the plant.
For Appendix.G there are two exemptions l
22 necessary.
These t re rather routine.
These are the ones that
. all plants built abs at this period would requ> re because the 23 24 codes in et'fect at that time did not require -- well, Appendices 25, G and H were not in existence then and these are additional i
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
15 is-3 I
requirements over and above the code.
2 What we do is look at the code requirements and the t
3 actual material properties of the materials that are in the vessel 4
and in the : reactor core and pressure boundary and then we see that g
5 the croperties and characteristic of the materials as identified 8
3 6
by the applicants would meet the Appendices G and H and they do.
R 7
That is the basis for our exemptions.
I can go over each para-N j
8 graph if you want.
d
[
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
They meet the intent of G and H?
?
10 MR. ELLIOTT:
Yes.
E j
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
They don't exactly comply with the 3
g 12 requirements.
=
13 MR. ELLIOTT:
That is exactly right.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
ue 2
15 MR. VOLLMER:
The next item is one of the breakwater E
f 16 Previously last winter a storm took apart one section, a sub-m d
17 stantial part of one section of the breakwater which is on the E
~
{
18 outside of the plant and'in front between the sea and the intake P[
19 structure.
There are two possible problems.
If wave action gets n
20 too fierce at the location of the water intake structure, one 21 is physical camage to the structure itself and, secondly, in 22 the event of a large tsunami there could be a flooding of the 23 ; salt water pumps which would effect the ultimate heat sink.
24 This particular thing would not be critical for five 25l percent power but certainly it could affect the lov teri coclability i
j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
g..,
16
.is-4 1
of the plant.
The licensee is conducting a couple of studies 2
at assessing whether or not the breakwater is indeed needed and f
3 whatever type of protection might be required if the breakwater 4
is not needed.
e 5
Myron Fliegel of the Hydraulic Engineering Section could Ae j
6 brief the Commission on that particular issue.
R 7
MR. FLIEGEL:
Our initial evaluation of the flood pro-n l
8 tection for the intake structure was based upon the physical d
9 presence and the wave reducing capability of the breakwater system.
z h
10 That breakwater was damaged by storm wave attack in January.
E j
11 It is now in a degraded condition.
It does afford substantial B
g 12 protection to the intake structure but we cannot now say how 13 great that protection is.
The applicant is performing physical
(
mg 14 model tests to try to duplicate the damage and is also performing
{
15 other tests to try to determine, number one, if the breakwater
=
g 16 is needed and if it is needed to assure us that it will indeed m
d 17 afford the protection that we thought it did at the time the 5
18 safety evaluation form was wriuten.
C
{
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Eces the applicant take any steps n
20 to repair the damage?
21 MR. FLIEGEL:
They want to understand what causes the 22 damage and before they undertake that repair, by a. repair that 23 will be acceptable to nuclear regulatory staff.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Your description means that they 15{ were looking at what would be done.to repair it or are they l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
w.
~
c- -
17 ic-5 I
concentrating first on understanding how it was damaged so that 2
any repairs will not be similarly susceptible to the same type of f
3 damage?
4 MR. FLIEGEL:
Yes, that is correct.
They want to know e
5 before they repair it that it will not be susceptible to the same
~
N 8
6 type of damage.
a 3
3 7
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is the study on the need for this 8
8 breakwater reLaist to low power or to full power?
n d
d 9
MR. FLIEGEL:
Full power.
I E
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Have you already determined it is i
5 11 ' not needed for low power?
S d
12 MR. FLIEGEL:
That is correct.
z E
I d
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So that we don't have to await this k
E E
14 study for low. power?
dk 2
15 MR. DENTON:
That is correct.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It is to protect the ultimate heat y
16 t
l 17 sink.
'For low power it is not a source of concern.
w l
=
5 18 Maybe my question is inappropriate but I will ask it E
I 19 anyhow.
Was the storm more severe than the design basis storm A
20 or was it less severe?
21 MR. DENTON:
I hope it was less severe.
22 MR. FLIEGEL:
The breakwater is designed to protect the 23 plant under maximum runup conditions.
A less severe storm can I
24 put more stress on the breakwater without applying the same amount 25 l of danger to the intake structure.
It was a storm that pr'oduced i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10 is-6 1. more stress in the breakwater, yet produced less runup.on the 2
intake structure.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is part of your study to deter-4 mine how to fix it?
e 5
MR. MN:
Yes.
Aa 3
6 MR. DENE21:
This is one of the few breakwaters in the e
R 7
country that uses DOLAS?
A 3
8 MR. FLIEGEL:
It uses tri-bar water.
n d
ci 9
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is this use of DOLAS the twisted H?
io 10 MR. DENTON:
We of course had the assistance of the 3
5 11 Corps of Engineers in reviewing the breakwater in the first d
12 instance and they are assisting us in the review of the repair E=
=
13 and the analysis of what changes are needed.
5 l
14 MR. FLIEGEL:
This is the breakwater configuration as C
15 built.
This is the damaged configuration.
There are essentially f
16 three vertical cylinders connected by the three. pieces, three w
d 17 legs sitting in a triangle, two sizes, one 21 tons and the other 5
5 18 36 tons.
So they are rather massive.
5
{
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Just to push my question a little M
20 bit further, the original description led me to believe that they 21 were primarily analyzing whether they needed the breakwater.
22 MR. FLIEGEL:
What the applicant would like is to show 23 that the breakwater is not needed for safety.
The original 24 analysis since the breakwater was in place took credit for that.
25 In that way the staff evaluated it.
If they can show that the l
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
w-
19 ic-7 intake can indeed survive the worst storm conditions at the break 1
2 water.
r 3
(Commissioner Bradford enters the meeting room at 4
10:30.)
s 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When do they expect to be completed E]
6 with that analysis?
R R
7 hm. FLIEGEL:
I can't answer that.
Al 8
MR. BUCKLEY:
I believe the applicant is going to submit do 9
an analysis in November.
i O
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The current schedule for the E
h 11 full power license completion?
E y
12 tm. DENTON:
It depends on the outcome of the hearing 3
13 but we anticipate to resolve this issue before we have to make
(
14 the full power decision.
Full power decision is six months away.
2 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess my questi'on really is d
j 16
-- you say resolve it.
If the resolution is that they don't need M
i 17 lto repair it, then obviously the time scale for the resolution w
M 18 can coincide very closely to the completion of the hearing.
If
=H[
19 the resolution is that it has to be fixed it describes a' fairly n
20 massive structure.
21 MR. DENTON:
That is right.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you know how long it will take 23. to fix it?
i 24 MR. BUCKLEY:
I think it is the appl _ cant's estimate 25 l that it would be the fall of next year.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
7._
a ldh 0 I MR. DENTON:
I think the winter forms would preclude any 2
repai:- during the coming season.
It would have to be in the r
3 spring, summer or fall of rext year.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That would impact on the operating I
g 5
license.
8 3
6 e
MR. DENTON:
It could.
e7 7
MR. VOLLMER:
The final item is one of masonry walls.
e.
i 8
5 Diablo Canyon is in excellent shape on this particul r issue since d
[".
their masonry walls have been evaluated to the staff's criteria 9
e h
10 for masonry walls which is fairly restrictive.
They do meet our
=!
II criteria so thati that item has been closed out.
E d
12 E
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Your criteria?
=
.2 13
(
}
MR. VOLLMER:
Our criteria, for example, are fair'.y E
14 detailed.
Our criteria do not take any credit for strength of the g
C_
15 c
mortar, tension.
=
16 We take all the load by reinforcing bars and things like m
d" 17 ' that.
Se our criteria is normally more restrictive than the con-
=
0 ventional design of masonry walls where some credit is given u
i-8 for the mortar strength and things like that.
But they do meet n
20 our criteria.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In some recent plants, I think it 22 was Salem as I recall, there was concern about block walls and 23 l
! masonry walls.
i MR. VOLLMER:
That is right.
25 I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You are saying you have evaluated ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
r
31
.s-9 1
this plant and that type of concern, the presence of the block 2
walls in areas where you would have concern they are either not t
3 there or they are reinfo'rcing rod them?
4 MR. VOLLMER:
That is right.
There were two problems in s
5 Salem.
One is the lack of design capability in a lot of walls 9
6 that were found to be of' safety..related nature because they had R
R.
7 something of a safety impact near them.
Secondly, as in the M
3 8
Trojan problem, when they actually looked they looked and found N
d d
9 the walls were not built in accordance with design.
Now in most i
10 of the ant ael wells we took the two step process in the interim E_
E 11 as we did in Salem.
We required the licensee to make sure that
<3 d
12 his walls were upgraded in accordance with his seismic design
=
t d
13 criteria but not necessarily would it meet the staff's interim
\\
E l
14 criteria for masonry walls because we were pretty restrictive 2
15 and also to check and see that the walls were indeed built and 5
g 16 emplaced in accordance with their own design.
e d
17 In the case of Diablo all these requirements including 5
5 18 the staff's criteria appeared to be met so that we would have no 5
[
19 further problem at all with masonry walls in this plant.
M 20 There are not a great many of them.
There are only 13 21 of them and they appear to be well designed and manufactured.
22 MR. BUCKLEY:
All the modifications have been completed.
j 23,
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Where are these criteria?
I I
24 l MR. VOLLMER:
We have put together a program plan to I.
25 ; address masonry walls for all plants operatiny and under licent.ing.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l y_
22 10-10 1
The criteria themselves have to finalize at the staff level and i
2 we would like to proceed by making them a branch technical posi-f 3
tion or something of that nature.
They have been fairly recently 4
generated.
g 5
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So that they don' t fit into any E
3 6
of the recognizable categories.
R 7
MR. DENTON:
They fit into a branch technical position E
j 8
but since it is a new issue we are learning how to apply it, we d
9 have not adopted -- it has been more ad hoc.
2 Cg 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The question is though you have E
h 11 been saying it meets our criteria?
3 Y
12 MR. DENTON:
It meets the staff's criteria. We have to 5
j 13 provide a copy of what it is that we use.
It is not an issue
(
m m
5 14 which has made its way into a standard review plan in great 15 detail yet, since it just arose I think this spring.
m j
16 CHAIRMAN PAT W INO:
Is it likely by the time they are M
d 17 issued they could be different?
18 MR. DENTON:
I don't think the issue rises to that magni-F G
19 tude.
Maybe you would like to f. ave the branch chief describe g
n 20 it in more detail. This is Ed Jordan from I & I.
21 MR. JORDAM:
There was a bulletin put out on this issue, 22 Bulletin 80-11.
The direction is to the licensees were given 23 there.
They were advised to conduct the review; and there were 24 requirements in the bulletin for the performance of the reviews.
25 : The bulletin was not descriptive in identifying the criterion.
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I i
1'
23
~is - 11 1,That is what the staff has now developed in order to accept 2
the licensees' response to the bulletin.
I 3
MR. DENTON:
When it came to masonry walls we were not 4
able to go to a haadbook such as the ASME handbook and put out a ako #h 5
criterion.
ends @
.c folg 6
R w
E 8
n d
9 10
?
j 11 a
y 12 s
k s
13 E
14 a
2 15 E
j 16 us 6
17 5
18
=
N 19 5
20 21 l
22 23,
i 24 l
~
l 25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L
24 1
The staff has been teveleping a-conservative 2 position fo r c a.sonry wallr, since the issue arcse.
k's have 3 not adopted or tried to elevate it tc a staff reviev plant 4 stutus as yet.
5 COM.YISSIONER AREARNE:
Do you or do you not have 6 some set of criteria that yca use?
7 MR. JORD AN :
I *: sure that we do.
I would have 8 to defer to the branch to aaswer that.
9 COMMISSIONE3 AHEAFNE:
Dc you have come set of 10 vritten criteria ?
11 MR. VOLLMER:
Yes, we do have a sat of 12 w ritten-down c rite ria, and we requested ccmcents frcm 13 industries.
14 As Marold said, there is no ready reference fst 15 design of these walls, but they a re ba sically c'citeria which 16 we are reviewing.
17 YR. EENTON:
We tried to adopt criteria applying 18 the same levels of conservatism that were provided by'the 39 code for conventional structures.
20 CHPIBMAN PALLADINC:
Are they described in 21 Bulletin 80-11?
MR. DENTON:
Not the criteria, but the requests 22 23 for analysis are.
We propose to skip the next issue en advise of CGC 24 25 and go to the IEI matter.
ALDt:RSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25 1
CHA!EMAN PALLADINC:
The rearon being that they r
2 a re rela ted te seismicity?
3 MR. E!CKWIT:
That is right; they are related to 4 the contention that is still hafore the Appeals Ecard.
5 MB. EUCKIEY:- The control roem review -- that 6 re-lly should say control and displace -- are functionally 7 grouped and integra ted.
The demarca tion lines sepa ra te the 8 functionally related centrols end alare displacement have 9 excellent v'isibili ty and are readable frem behind the 10 control room and behind the main control console.
11 It is a two-unit centrcl room with large cperating 12 space and relatively low noise level.
Dr. Fanauer is here 13 if you would like more details on the control rocc.
14 CH7IEMAN PALLADINC:
Do I get the impression this 15 is one large centrol room for hoth units?
16 MR. PUCKLEY:
Yec.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADIhC:
There is a larce operating 18 space between them?
19 ER. BUCKLEY:
Yac.
MR. DENTON :
I don't think we would rate this the 20 21 best control room we have seen since TMI, but it is up in 22 the top percentage and the changes that our raview team identified have been made in the control roo-to improve its 23 human factor considerations.
24 CHAIBMAN PALLADINO:
One of the things I noticed 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 W
20 1 in TMI II is that some of the alarms were quire r e.T o ve d fron i
2 the point a t vnich you ceuld take corractive action.
Ice:
3 tha t exist in these control rooms?
4 Let me ask eteve to descrita hcw we review centrcl 5 rooms in general.
6 MR. HANAUEE:
This control rcom was reviewed 7 sometime ago b y a team censisting of come of cur people and 8 our consultants at that time, the Ersex Corporation.
'l a 9 were still developing our review metheds; but icoking back 10 o n i t, we are quite satisfiad with the review.
If you had it no had a burned-out lighttulb, I would have shown you some 12 slides that were taken of the control rocr befcre it was 13 fixed in accordance with our require-ents.
i 14 What we do is take a team anf. we first Icok a t the 15 control room over all -- illucination, noise, ability to gat 16 a rcund, general arrangemen t.
We then split up intc teams 17 a nd review, pwnel by panel, system by system, and most 18 importantly, functicn by function, tc see how things are
~
jg grouped toge the r.
20 Now, we are issuing this month a set of guidelines 21 for a more extensive control rcom curvey for all cpera ting 22 plants that is estimated to take a year or more.
23 The survey we made a t Diablo and the cther 24 operating license plan ts is not this detailed one-year 25 raview which has to be carried out by the licensee but, ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
27 1 rather, a more p:celiminary review to clean ur the werst V
2 items in the centrol recm s n d.
cive us sona satisfaction that 3 these new plants don't have scoe of the serious errcrs that 4 ware in the Three Mile Island Unit II control roor.
5 As a result, then we cane out with a review which 6 you will find in one of the SCF supplements which._ lists a 7 number of things tha t the applicant ir required tc do, and s he has dcne this.
9 Cne way in wh'ich we validate the need for these 10 changen is to walk thrcuch with videotape sore cperating 11 procedures tC respond to transCients End emergAnCles and see 12 how much running around they have to do and whether things 13 are easily findable and wh ther things that they actually
(
14 use relate to each other.
15 In a more extensive review, this will be done 16 wh9te simulators are a vailable in real time, as well as in 17 resl space, so to speak.
We have donc this at Ciablo with 18 sone salected procedures and f^und tha t in general the 19 control room rates medium-high, as Mr. Denton described.
20 C0dM45S.J.,Es r.aEAENFs Is the Unit II centrol roca 21 completed ?
22 ER. HANAUER:
Nearly so.
There were a few holes 23 in it the last time I asked.
CO MM ISSION EE AREAENE:
If there is a lot of 24 on in one while the other one is 25 construction work going ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i 2E 1 going into operation, that can leai te a level of noise and I
2 confusion?
MR. HANA.UER:
I will hava to dafer to the 4 inspector a t Iiabic.
The:e arc varicus schemes which are 5 used when one control room goes into operation.
They 6 usually build some kind of temporary wall.
7 Wha t did they do at Diablo?
8 MR. YOUNG:
Unit II is essentially completed. in 9 the control room.
Unit II control room will te a part of to Unit I security area once Unit I is licensed.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEAFNE:
When you say completed, at 12 the stage there will net to much in the way of construction 13 and confusion S
(
14 MR. YOUNG:
Very little in tha way et 15 construction.
There vill be some wire pulling and 16 calibration of instrumentation.
17 CCH?.ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Dces the wire pulline 18 require access to the Unit I System?
19 MR. YOUNG:
Not the Unit I system but Unit I space 20 so f ar as the Unit II control room will be part of Unit I 21 control room.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Can I ask you, are the 22 23 ala rms, at least the audible alarrs -- can you discern 24 whether it is from Unit I or Unit II?
MR. HANAUER:
Yas, sir.
They are separated with 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
29 1 the exception cf those like dieselr which are re.'eced to t
2 borh which a re separated frc: the ethsrs.
3 Cna of the things we found st Diablo by contrast 4 to scme cther plants was cuite a gcod arrangenent cf the 5 ala rms with the boards on which the centrols were located.
6 We required, and the a pplicant his installed, a set cf 7 prioritized alarms which are distinguished by colcr for the 8 ;r.es tha t are the most essantial for easy recocnition.
9 CHAIFMAN PALLADlaO:
If ycu were in the middle of to the room, you could tell whether the Tudible alarm --
11 presumably there is one -- whether it came froz Unit I cr 12 Un i t II?
13 3R. FANAUERt I can't anever to the audible.
(
14 Ma ybe someone else can.
But, of ccurse, Unit II is not in 15 opera tio n.
16 ER. YOUNC:
There ir a separate alarm for Unit I 17 and Unit II.
If you a re in the room you can discern which 18 cor.es from' Unit I or Unit II.
19 CH;IEMAN PALLADINO:
By "serara te" ycu mean 20 different noise?
l 21 MR. YOUNO:
Essentially the same tone but it comes l
22 from a different direction.
23 CHAIEMAN PALLADINC:
You can 't tell unless ycu 24 hspren te know the directien?
25 ER. BUCKLEY:
Except the main console ir close to ALDERSoP' REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
30 1 Unit I, as that is where mest cf the operators will be 2 sitting.
Unit II has anothar main console 20 or 30 feet I-3 a wa y.
4 MR. FANAUEF:
The.cor is large enough :o that the 5 spacial separation works.
6 CHAI? MAN PAllADIFC:
I don 't know if this is 7 appropraite at this time, but do you have an emeroency 8 response center, or do you have instrumenta tion tha t will be 9 able to let ycu follow the course of an accident?
10 MR. BICKWIT:
I believe tls is a matter that is
~
11 before the Board and therefere out of order.
12 COMMISSICNEB AHEARFE:
Steve, let me follow a 13 little more on the Chairman 's question.
Are you familiar
(
14 with anyone every running n test with a simulater, where you 16 have an adjacent control room like that, and you are getting 16 alarms on both sides, to be able to discrimin' ate?
17 MR. HANAUER:
The only test would be in real i
18 control rooms, since the simulators are single rather than 19 double.
I have not been in this centrcl room, but I have 20 been in cthers where they get different tones and so on.
This control room is big enough thar under 21 22 ordinaay circumstances thare would not be a lot of troub30.
23 When a let is going on, you can't use the enunciatcss much 24 anyway.
That 1.
wb j we a re putting in the safety parameter 25 display system.
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
39 1
I must say that we either didn ' t loc'< c r i t is too f
2 long age and ! can't tall you about Diable.
We have no 3 f ormal tests, in answer te your questien, but we tavo a fair 4 amount of experience in control rocas where it is both easy 5 and difficult; that is to ray, in some it is easy and in 6 some it is not,-to dif f erentia te.
s 7
We have told scee people to get better 8 dif ferentia tien on the tones.
9 COMMISSIONEB AHEARNE:
What is your judoment with 10 respect to that latter problem with respect to Diablo?
11 MR. HANAUER:
I can't tell you.
It is too long 12 ago and I don 't have it with me.
13 MR. YOUNG:
I have spent a lot of time in the 14 con trol room at Diablo doing het functional testing and 15 preoperational testing, and I can assure you that is not a 16 problem at Diablo Canyon.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is Number II going to hot 17 18 functional testing?
I MR. YOUNGS Number II has not gene tc hot func 19 20 testin:7, but they were doing testing where alarms were 21 coming in on the other side of the centrol room and they do 22 not distract the operator frem his functions and wha t is happening on his side.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
One of the favorite questions 24 25 you used to ask had to do with fire in the control rcom.
If l
l l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
32 1 there is fire in the control room, do you have a problem?
2 ME. HASAUEE:
That has been refuted at creat 3 langth, but it has been by "r.
Vollmer's group.
4 MF. EENTCN:
That is what he touched cn,about the 5 alternate shutdown system.
Ycu must be able te shut icwn 6 the p1}nt safely frcm outside the control room in the event 7 of an occurrence such as fire.
8 CH AIE5 A.\\ PALLAD'NO:
If you had a fire, ycu would 9 have both plants to cope with if they were both orerating?
10 MR. DENTON They de both have alternate systems.
11 The review today is focusing on Unit !.
I think when we get 12 arc and to reviewing the seccnd unit there are scme aspects 13 about interconnections and so f orth that have to be locked
[
14 a t.
15 3R. VOLLMER:
They are looked at separately and a 16 singis fire, the review would address the pos'sibility of the 17 fire, which cculd affect safe shutdown in ene or two of the 18 uni ts.
19 In the case of both units, the alternata shutdown 20 systems are such th a t fires will be either in the centrol 21 r oo m, relay rcom or whatever, would not be able to effect 22 saf e shutdown in either unit.
It would be an alternate path 23 for that shutcown.
CHAIEEAN PALLADINC:
During the process cf still 24 25 working on control room for Unit II, it m3:ht conceivably At.DERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
33 1 have a fire, it mich t te roldering, you are dcing scmething, 2 and you are protected so that you could bring " nit I te a 3 safe shutdown?
4 MP. TENTON:
I believe that is ccrrect.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
People would have te leave
-6 tha rcom and oc to another station?
7 MR. VOLLMER:
There is a recuirement that the 8 plant be able to be shut dcun remotely f rem the control rocm 9 also.
That would probably be more likely in the svent of 10 perhaps a radiation problem or toxic chemical, rather than 11 fire, because normally control of fire mate rials is 12 reasonably high in operating a control room.
13 Ue dcn't assume a lc.rge control room fire although
(
14 th e y are capable of shutting dcun with one.
15 CHAIBMAN PALLADI30:
Co they have gasmasks or 16 apprograite protective equipment against smoking, se that 17 they could get out of the rcom safely?
18 MR. DENTON:
Radiation and toxic chemicals and the 19 ability to isolate the contro' room, and portable breathing 20 apparatus, these are standard parts of the review.
21 MB. YCUNG:
Yes, they have that.
The centrol room 22 would automatically give isolation to radiation levels or 23 toxic fuels and it can take fresh air from the outside at 24 either the north end or the south end cf the turbine 25 building, and pressurire the control room.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
34 1
In the event the control room has to be evacuated, f
2 they have air racP.s in the control room; they will evacuate 3 to the hot shutdown panel which is separate and independent 4 f rcm the control rocm.
They can monitor the primary 5 parameters f rcm the air and shut the plant down frcm outside 6 the control room.
7 ER. HANAUEP:
Th4 next topic is staffine cf the 8 pla nt.
9 (Slide.)
The next Yugraph nbows the requirements 10 and the pre sen t and future situations.
The twc left-hand 11 column are the required shift staffing for fcur-shit:
12 o per a tio n.
f: odes 1,
2, 3 a nd u a re the cperating medes.
13 Modes 5 and 6 are shutdown and fuel loading.
(
14 As you see, the requirements are different.
What 15 I have done is multiplied the requirement times fcur, 16 because their present plan is to staff with f' cur shifts.
17 First of all, the shift staffing is set forth in 18 tha technical specifications, the required minimum.
19 Secondly, they are permitted to oc on three-shift operation 20 which we have some experience with in operating plants and 21 which Salem had to do because of a shortage of licensed 22 people.
We hava a study going in Salem to see hcw they 23 24 came through and how the people feel, and whatever we can 25 ler.rn f rom o perating experience.
This study is still ALDERSoN REPoR*;NG COMPANY. INO, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 n
35 1 underway ; however, our impression is thm.t they survived soma 2 months of 12-hcur shifts without snythine really disastrcus 3 happeninc, so thst going en three shifts instea.d cf four 4 would be one way of coping with any unusual circumstance 5 lik e people resigning or too msny pecple ce tting sick.
'~
6 If you start frce the bettom, you will see that 7 they have plenty of shift technical advisers.
They need 8 f our.
They have five who have gone not only through shift 9 technique advisory training but also have completed senior 10 operator training and they expect sometime in the f uture 11 whon they have the time te actually qualify them as licensed 12 senict operators.
13 4
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A60ER0oN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
I 36
'ako #4 s fois sra.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You said multiply by four?
A FRANCE l
RC 2
MR. HANAUER:
Yes, sir, there is one required per shift t
ub Mrot.
ug 10 3
times four shifts.
Moving up, reactor operators require one or 4
two per shift depending on the mode.
They have as you see plenty o
5 P.
N 6
of people licensed to'im reactor operators today,13 versus a e
R 7
maximum requirement of eight.
N 8
8 n
e CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Does that mean they have all c
9 passed their license exams?
b 10 E_
s 11 MR. HANAUER:
Yes, sir.
They have signed ticket having
{
12 as fulfilled all the requirements:
examination, medical,
=
'3 trainir.g-the whole thing.
(-
=
E 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And they passed the NRC exam?
E 15 w
8 MR. HANAUER:
Yes, sir.
We gave czams in February and 16 g
w g
17 March which I will show you in a moment.
The top line is for E
5 18 senior reactor operators.
This includes the shift supervisor
=
19 l
who must have such a license and the second senior operator who 20 is required in one of our Three Mile Island requirements.
For 21 the operating mode there have to be two such people.
That is to For the shutdown and 23, say, a shif t superviros and a senior.
24 fuel loading modes one is sufficient.
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
S i' 10 2 1
The next slide shows the present situation.
I am going 2
to come back to this one.
Starting again at the bottom, we have f
3 a somewhat disappointing but satisfactory experience with the "RO,"
4 reactor operating, candidates and got a satisfactory number of e
5 them.
An j
6 For the senior candidates almost half failed the exam-R
{
7 ination.
This produced not only a substantial disappointment, f
8' a requirement from us that they shape up their training program, dn 9
but also a shortage of licensed SRO's to go on shift.
This 10 shortage is not obvious from this Vugraph because 13 of these E
5 11 people passed their exams, but the next Vugraph shows the problem.
<m d
12 Here is a list of the 13 people who passed the SRO exam-5 h
13 ination and their job titles. The first four are people who are
(
E y
14 serving as senior operators on shift.
As you see, there are only E
15 four of them whereas any kind of operating requires eight.
The 5
16 applicant has proposed to use the four people in the next list who g
w
{
17 are properly qualified, have passed their examination, and have h
18 senior operator licenses as additional shift senior operators.
=
C 19 We think this is all right for a short period of time R
20 but ama. unwilling to have the operations supervisor, the quality i
21 control engineer and those other people diverted to long term 22 shif t operation. They have those important jobs to do which are 23, really not shift operating jobs and we feel they cannot do both 24 of them.
25,
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I gather the licensee does not i.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~
l 33
- _3 1, propose to replace them in those other positions?
l 2
MR. HANAUER:
No, sir.
He has proposed various schemes.
r 3
For example, he proposes that the operations supervisor duties, 4
some of them be undertaken by the plant superintendent and some g
5 of them to be continued by the operations supervisor who he pro-9 6
poses to keep on the day shift but in the control room.
We take R
g 7
a reserved view of this.
However, there are examinations M
E 8l scheduled out there for the 24th of August in which six additional n
d d
9 SRO candidates and a number of other RO candidates will take or Y
E 10 retake the examinations, If they get even a half-way respectable E=
i 2
11 1 passing average, this will al'eviate the problem and so some time 1
3 I
d 12 in Septemtsr this would provide a substantially larger pool of 5
13 people.
(
s y
14 If they have a shortfall, they will be in some difficulty 1 2
15 However, the thing to do in our opinion is to set forth clearly s
y 16 in the tech specs what is required and to watch it closely.
The w
f 17 applicant proposes to use these extra people as licensed shift E
18 people only during actual fuel loading which only takes a week or
=b E
19 two and we find this satisfactory.
However, if by the time the 5
20 applicant is ready to go above zero power we are going to have to 21 take another look at it and see how many people pass the exami-22 nation, see in more detail than we have seen se far what he pro-23, poses to do for these necessary management functions if these 24 people go on shift.
25 l We will require that these management functions be I
ALDERSON REPORTING CO,MPANY, INC.
+-
10-4 1
adequately covered before we allow these people to be devoted to 2
shift operations.
t 3
If you will bring back the two slides that I asked you 4
to hang onto, we will see how this goes forward in time.
e 5i The right-hand column show the situation today.
I have R
l e
i j
6' shown for seniors four or eight people, depending on whether 3
s 7
those management people go on shift or not.
If an adequate num-
.f8 ber of people pass the examination, I assuma for 50 percent a
c 9
just to get started, plus some internal rearrangements the appli-ic h
10 cant has proposed for two cf those four management people, then 3j 11 he will have an adequate number.
There is an additional class a
y 12 expected to be ready by the end of the year which will, if a -
E 13 respectable number pass, completely alleviate the problem.
[
14 MR. DENTGN:
This issue is coming down to the wire b
E 15 and I think our views on it will ultimately hedge'on how many g
16 pass here in this uncoming test.
We have conventionally accepted u
6 17 one or two people from other jobs being temporarily assigned 5
I 5
18 SRO duties but not four as they have proposed.
E 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
These are all Unit I people?
8n 20 MR. HANAUER:
Yes, sir.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would imagine there is some l
22 time paced, four months, six months behind a similar group for 23, Unit II?
24 MR. EANAUER:
There is although the groups later on will 25 l be up for licenses on both units.
i l
ALDERSON REPO,RTING COMPANY, INC.
+-
46 ic-s 1
If you are ready for the next subject, I have been asked 2
to cammnt briefly on the subject of emergency operating procedures.
t 3
This plant was one of the first in which we did this review.
4 What we do is do a detailed audit of a small number of operating e
5 Procedures. This involves a substantial reanalysis which has N
6 been carried out over the past two years by the owners group, R
E 7
actually carried out by the vendors in which event sequences were s
j 8' evaluated realistically rather than using the licensing models d
=
9 which are unrealistic and in which the sequence of events was i
Oy 10 taken beyond the licensing single failure criterion to include E
5 11 multiple failures and operator errors to see how the plant would
<3 d
12 behave under these conditions.
There are fat reports
- from the four E=
13 vendors including the Diablo Canyon vendor, Westinghouse, showing E
14 the behavior of the plants under these conditions.
These 0=
{
15 analyses have been used to reviza the technical procedure guide-
=
j 16 lines.
You know, if the pressure gets too high, turn on the a
p 17 j pressurizer spray system kind of guidelines, which are not plant a=
5 18 specific but which are system-specific for each plant.
P{
19 We then took these guidelines that I have listed under M
20 Number 1, the five that we did on Diablo Canyon, and we reviewed 21 them, first at the desk to make sure that the procedures were 22 consistent with the guidelines and with the design of the Diablo 23 ; Canyon plant since the guidelines are not plant speci#ic.
We then 24 took these crocedures to the simulator with a crew, a operations 25 j crew, from the Pacific Gas and Electric and we went thrmigh on the I
i I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L.
G4
-6 1, simulator in real time a series of events which exercised these l
2 procedures.
The next Vugraph -- save this one, we will come back r
3 to it -- shows the series of events which were actually run through 4
on the Zion simulator to exercise the Diablo Canyon procedures.
g 5
Since the Diablo Canyon simulator is still under con-E 3
6 struction the Zion plant, another four loop Westinghouse plant 8
7 of mort or less the same vintage, was in effect used successfully
~.
j 8 ' to si:aulate these various events.
As you can see, for example, d
d 9
under emergency core cooling and again under inadequate cora ic h
10 cooling we carrie? them far behind the licensing basis to include Ej 11 further failures.
B y
12 If I could have thc next preceding vugraph please.
Having E
y 13 done the simalator exercise we then required these people to revise m
14 their procedures to correct the various different places, incor-2 15 rect instructions, and other errors and places needing improve-E y
16 ment that we found.
At the end of each of these stages actually w
d 17 there is a step in which the applicant takes his procedures back a=
18 home and shapes the2n up in accordance with what has been found.
=H l
19 We then went to the plant where we had available the actual con-20 trol room, the actual communications facilities and the actual 21 X control room stations which are of course not available on the i
22 simulator, and the revised procedure, revised it in accordance 23, with what we found in the simulator, and we walked it through.
i
)
24 You know, at '_he simulator you get real time and in the 25 plant you get, so to speak, real space situation and we walked s
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I is-7 d2 1
it through to make sure that it was satisf actory, which it was.
1 2
We then, after making whatever other changes appeared useful after t;
3: looking through the control root, we then required the applicant i
4 to revise all his operating and emergency operating procedures in g
5 accordance with the lessons we learned on these five we had audi-E j
6 ted in this detail.
That has now been accomplished and this item R
7 is now satisfactorily completed, s!
8.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Steve, the amount of change that I
o' 0;
9 you ended up requiring based on your audit is small or large?
2 E
10 MR. EANAUER:
Medium.
They turned out to be both.
- Well, 3:
)
11 they are not trivial and they are not wholesale.
They are in a
y 12 between.
We required technical chadges because the guidelines Ej 13 are sufficiently general that when you work them through at the
(
=
m -
E 14 Diablo plant you find out that, no, that sequence does not work 4
y 15 very well and what we should do is revise the guidance to make it
=
y 16 easier to do or to raake it clearer or something like this.
A 6
17 j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would you conclude then that the w
5 18 initial development by the vendor was satisfactory so that these
=
H h
19, moderate changes were ones that you would expect to find by E
20 going through the actual process of the simulator plus the walk-l through or were they l' rger than you would have found?
21 a
22 MR. HANAUER:
I can speak to the Diablo.
In general the l
l 23 vendor guidelines are satisfactory but they always do need some 24 shaping up.
Now just as with control rooms there is a much 25 l -longer range procedure improvement program. To go to i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l i
k
l db 40.8 I
sympton-based procedures for dealing with some classes of events 2
that are not easily diagnosed, and what we did with Diablo and r
3 other operating lincenses does not go that far.
That is still 4
under development.
g 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would you expect in order to make E
j 6
your last point as the applicant revises all his procedurg would R
- E 7
you expect that to require the' applicant to go to the Zion s
j 8
control room as a first step for each of those procedures?
O" 9
~.
MR. HANAUER:
No, sir, we don't think that is necessary zo 10 although he might want to do some validation there the next time II he has a training crew up there.
I don't know whether he actually y
12 did or not.
E" 13
(
g CEAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is the time simulator close enough m
I4 l
l to the Diablo Canyon so that you can rely on it for testing your k
g 15 procedures?
=
g 16 MR. EANAUER:
Yes, we rely on it for testing procedures M
17 b
but it is sufficiently different.
We could not do a control room
=
IO review there, for example.
It in sufficiently different that one I
E I9 8
has to come home and make sure it fits Zion.
The plant behaves n
20 in a very similar way but there are enough differences that you 2;
have to recheck.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
You feel uncomfortable that you 23 ' would not be misled by the simulator?
24 MR. EANAUER:
The chance is not zero but we are 25
! reasonably comfortable.
The control room review in which we also ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
s-
4, is-9 I
walked thrcugh procedures in the Diablo Canyon control room helps 2
give us that comfort.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As part of that operator examina-4I tion in the absence of a Diablo simulator what do you do for the g
5 simulator portion?
E 3
6 MR. HANAUER:
These people did not get simulator exams R
R 7
for that reason.
We are still developing ou'r scheme, if indeed M]
8 such a scheme is developed successfully, to examine people from d
C 9
Plant X on simulator Y and without a scheme and some validation io 10 we didn't do it.
What we used instead and what we have used for E
h 11 some years is detdled control room oral examinations and walk-3 y
12 throughs.
E 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I gather that the simularity with
['
14 Zion just is not anywhere near enough?
2 15 MR. HANAUER:
It may turn out to be but we have not done w=
g 16 the analysis, so we didn't take 'the chance.
W d
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is the simulator part of the 5
18 exam essential for these people to be qualified?
=b{
19 MR. HANAUER:
No, sir, it is not essential. We are on the 5
20 learning curve and the improvement curve on simulator exams.
We 21 now give them when there is a specific simulator available, 22 starting this fall, we have a program to begin giving them where 23, a simulator is less directly applicable and we are just now 24 developing how to do that.
25l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So, the fact that they have not i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
j n-
ic-10 43 1
been examined on a simulator would not have an impact on their 2
qualifications for low power?
I 3
MR. HANAUER:
No, sir.
I think simulator exams are just t
4 great but not to the point of saying that people are not quali-g 5
fied unless they have one.
I don't know how many negatives it N
6 is.
I hope that is the right number.
a 7
MR. DENTON:
We hope in the future and the number of Nj 8
simulators being purchased by utilities is almost up to 30 or d
9 so, that this will be an integral part of the exam.
In the his-i Cg 10 torical pattern it was written and oral and walk-through was the Ej 11 basis of decision about operator competency.
3 i
j 12 CNAIRMAN PALLADINO:
At the moment when you don't E
(
13 have a simulator it is still unacceptable?
h 14 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
b E
is COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Once a simulator is built that 5
y 16 will be an integral part?
M d
17 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
It is a very useful tool.
One problem E
5 18 of forcing it early, by forcing exams on simulators that are not
=H" 19 exact you have to make sure that the operator unlearns parts g
n 20 that are different.
21 MR. YOUNG:
That was the case with PG&E.
All their l
22 operators were trained at Zion.
The first thing they have to 23, do when they get back to Diablo is unlearn that Zion part which l
24 is different.
I 25 l MR. HANAUER:
If we do X candidates on simulators, why l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
is-ll d6 we will have to do it at the timo just described, namaly when j
I i they have learned, for instance, the Zion simulator and before 2
i they go back home and unlearn it.
That would be the time to give 3
that part of the examination if we do it that way.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The fact that they have to do the 5
n "J
simulator learning gives me a little bit of cause for concern l
8
' because you never know for sure whether you truly unlearn what.
2 7
yu ught to unlearn or you have unlearned the right thing.
8 3
MR. HANAUER:
That is a cause for concern.
We feel 9
.z 10 that the importance of simulator training gives the tradeoff E!
11 which favors simulator training even though that has to be
<3 unlearned.
d 12 3
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did you examine them on what ought 13 I
o m
to be unlearned to determine whether or not they have unlearned E
14 5
that?
15 G=
MR. HANAUER:
I certainly hope not.
That is the problem T
16 3Y lwe are now coping with.
g j7 w
b 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any more questions on that?
=
5 MR. YOUNG:
PGLE has ordered a simulator.
I don't know j9 8n what kind of lead time they have on that but they will eventually 20 have their own simulator which is plant specific.
gj MR. BUCKLEY:
Mr. Chairman, we have one more item to 22 discuss on this page.
That is auxiliary feed water reliability.
23 Paul Check is here to discuss it.
24 MR. DENTON:
This has been part of our review for PWR 25 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 47 is-12 l
1 I since TMI but we have not described for the Commission the scope 2
of the review and it is getting more and more formal.
I thought t
3 this would be a good opportunity to describe it.
4 MR. CHECK:
This is a good opportunity to recall for the e
5 Commission the way in which we are reevaluating auxiliary feed water E
j 6
systems.
That is what I am going to be talking about.
I have I
Il R
7 two slides.
The next slide actually shows the system.
Much of sj 8
what I am going to say today is applicable to all PWRs but a
d 9
especially to Westinghouse PWRs because there is a great simi-Y 5
10 larity among the Westinghouse auxiliary feed water system.
It E
{
11 is a four loop Westinghouse plant.
That is why there are four 5
y 12 steam generators on the right.
They are fed by combinations of E
I j
13 l pumps in the middle of the page, turbine driven pumps with a
(
=
14 capacity of in the neighborhood of 900 gpm.
2 15 Below it are two motor driven pumps, about 450 gpm each.
=
g 16 All the valves and pipes between the steam generators are there to e
i 17 provide sufficient redundancy and flow paths so that any steam E
C l
g 18 generator can be served by an auxiliary feed water pump.
The i
P
[
19 auxiliary feed water system is provided to cool the primary n
20 system in the event of a loss of main feed water.
This arrange-21 ment enables one to do it for quite some time.
If we move further i
22 to the left, we come to the water sourcer employed.
23 l The principal water source is the top far left, conden-l i
24 sate storage tank.
It has a capacity to cool the plant, to 25 ; bring the plant down from operating condition to the onset of i
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l g.-
db ic-13 1
RHR plus a reserve margin, a total capacity of about 170,000 2
gallons.
In the event that that were lost or unavailable for some I:
3 reason, there are backup sources which provided an almost inexhaus-4 tible supply of water, four and a half million gallons I believe.
g 5
I am sure nest of you already understand the auxiliary N.
6 feed water system.
It is not very complicated.
As I said, what n
8 7
you are seeing is typical of a Westinghouse plant.
It is a good M
j 8
design.
This is a fine system.
O c
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Where is the backup?
You said Y
E 10 there was an auxiliary feed water system.
3 h
11 MR. CHECK:
The back water sources?
3 y
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The auxiliary feed water system.
E d
13 MR. BUCKLEY:
We are talking about backup water supply
<(
E 14 to the pumps.
E 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The backup to the feed water pumps?
W=
y 16 MR. CHECK:
Shown on this page, Mr. Chairman, are the m
6 17 auxiliary feed water pumps.
The main feed water system is only Y
5 18 shown in those areas just to the right of the center of the page.
=H[
19 So what we see here is the auxiliary feed water system.
M 20 MR. DENTON:
What we are interested in is the reliability 21 of the auxiliary feed water system, assuming loss of the main 22 feed water system.
The focus has been on the reliability of the 23 system and the possibility for ac-dc couplings in here, what wculd 24 happen in the event of main feed water and loss of on-site power.
25 '
MR. CHECK:
Can we return to the earlier slide?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
v.
in-14' d3 1
Everyone knows that Diablo Canyon has been around for a bit.
2 This auxiliary feed water system was reviewed against criteria 3
which although not in today's form, are much, much the same 4
as today's requirements.
We were in the early 70's just putting g
5 together a standard and review plan.
We had in our minds and 8
6 written down as well guidance for reviewers in these matters.
R 7
So, the original design, which ms not very different from today's sj 8
design, was reviewed against those things and approved with no d
d 9
particular problem.
10 We have been seeing a lot of them in those days.
Several E
h 11 people have mentioned that there is a similarity among the Westing-S y
12 house plants.
=
(' f 13 Now after TMI, not only operating plants but all plants
=
mg 14 to be operated were screened against a new listing of requirements.
h!
is The requirements came form a number of sources, staff studies of 5
y 16 the TMI event, we had a Bulletins and Orders Task Force as you W
d 17 are aware of, a Lessons Learned Task Force.
These too are a u
5 18 predominant source of new requirements or guidance of review of
=H E
19 auxiliary feed water systems.
Taken together, their recommenda-R 20 tions run in the neighborhood of 10 or 15.
The first bulletin 21 under the post-TMI evaluation was a recommendation by a B&O 22 Task Force that the utility perform a straightforward system 23, reliability analysis to point out any weakness in the design.
24 They did that and they accomplished a fairly good one. We think it 25l is a fine one.
They not only used the failure rate data that the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 50 8-15 I
staff had used in its B&O evaluation but they used some plant 2
specific information as well.
f 3
There are always points to argue in reliability analyses 4
and we confined ourselves to one and I will talk about it under g
5
" Outcome."
There has been one important hardware modification
,l 9
l 6
to this design as a result of reliability analysis.
It is dif-R 7
ficult to credit the reliability analysis alone because the B&O M
j 8
and Lessons Learned recommendations also uncovered the same d:i 9
weakness.
i O
10 Another thing that the applicants and we needed to do i5 l
h 11 was to recheck the design against today's version of the standard 3
g 12 review plan.
Not much has changed in the standard review pian from
=
{
h 13 its inception in the early 70's until today regarding the auxiliary l
14 feed water system.
We are emphasizing a bit more the separation I
t:
E 15 of motive power, ac-dc split, but other than that'it is largely 5
g 16 the same.
The applicant, and we will recheck his design basis us ti 17 flow rates.
N 18 It turns out on all Westinghouse plants that the capaci-E 19 ties of these ahxiliary feed water pumps are abundant.
Whereas M
20 originally it was expected you would need one turbine-driven 21 pump or two motor driven, a single motor driven pump can be expec-22 ted to serve the needs of the plant under loss of feed water 23, event.
24 So, down to " Outcome."
A number of procedural revisions 25 l or tech-spec revision ar a result, being careful that flow i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i re
is-16 5;
I exist at all times, improving the reliability of flow paths, that 2
kind of thing, checking to see that valves are open and lines are f-3 clear and modification of tech-specs regarding how long a train 4
could be out of service.
g 5
Diablo Canyon hds adopted the recommendation of the 0
6 staff of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, one train 7at of service.
All of these mat-R 7
ters were included in the reliability analysis, by the way.
The j
8 dominant contributor to unreliability from the study and, as I d
d 9
sahl, would also have been picked up as we ticked through our Y
E 10 punch list of B&O and Lessons Learned requirements, if you will 3
h 11 refer to your figure, ses a single valve which might inadvertently a
y 12 be closed in the suction, the pump suction just downstream of E
('
13 the condensate storage tank.
It is a single point vulnerability.
=
14 As some discussion with us regarding wham reliability 5
2 15 analysis might be the more reliable, the applicant decided, 5
g 16 wisely, that the thing to do was to defeat that valve and it is a w
6 17 butterfly valve, he has kocked it 90 degrees so that all of the 5
18 stream sees is just a plane, the edge of a plane effectively, 5
{
19 and tha't has been pinned and the pins welded in place so that 20 there is a definite mechanical constrain that cannot be easily l
l 21 broken.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So in effect it is locked open?
23' MR. CHECK:.
Yes. It is there, we understand, for 24 reasons of maintenance that might be done very infrequently, at 25 l decade or so intervals.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
52
,c-17 1
MR. DENTON:
We might have found it, as Paul said, 2
anyway but I thought it was an example where we are moving into r
,s ends 3
problemistic assessment, supplementing our standard review plan.
srs fois 9/t' e#5 4
g 5
Nj 6
a 8
7 s
8 8
n 0
9 i
C 10 a
a d
12 i5=
(
E 14 S
l i::
C 15 w
~
=
g 16 as f
17 m
=
5 18
=
19-an 20 l
21 22 23,
i 24 25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
53 1
MB. CHECK:
"his plant, this auxiliary feedwater r
2 system, ranks highly.
3 A s I said, i t has an unreliability of between 10
\\
4 to the minus 4,
ten-to the minus 5 per demand.
5 Having said all of this, f or icw-power creration 6 we have calculated tha t in fact the auxiliary feedwater 7 system is not even re g'lir e d.
If one simply awaits the time 8 th= t it will be necessary to boil th e steam generators dry, 9 ve cculd probably exchange heat with the contain' ment 10 atmosphere or ambiancs j, ;t through the norma' system losses.
11 CHAIEMAN PALLADI"0:
What calls the auxiliary 12 system into play, what sert of sional?
13 MR. CHECK:
a variety of sionals, low 1= vel in
/
14 steam generators, loss of flow in the feedvater system.
15 CHAIPMAN PALLADINO:
Do you consider the systems 16 reliable?
MR. CHECK:
Yes..
17 CHAIFMAN PALLADINO:
They are included in the 18 19 reliability study?
MR. CHECK:
Yes.
Many of the signals ccme fem the 20 21 "S" fast system which is a protection grade system which is 22 thoroughly reviewed.
MR. EUCKLEY:
Any more questions, Hr. Chairman?
23 The next item is ICF Status Report.
Mr. Young 24 25 will present that.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 wr
Su 1
ER. YOUNO:
Fegien 5 has made a determination thet I-2 th= oreoperational testine and construction is substantially 3 comple te in accordance with the ccnstruction perrit and 4 other recula tc ry requirements.
We see no rearon why a 5 low-power license should not be issued-6 COMEISSIONER A Hi' A R N E :
Dc you have any cpen items 7 on any of the Commission requirements which must be 8 com ple ted bef ore low-scue.- testing?
g ME. YOUNG:
We have only about seven items on the 10 p un ch list.
Ce think these items are miner in nature and 11 should not be addressed as a probable license.
12 CCd?.ISSIGNER AEFARNE:
'lo uld you briefly list 13 these ?
('
14 YR. YOUNG:
We have two itees -- preoperational 15 t ar t, spent-fuel cool tranrfer system.
The test has been 16 completed but it has not been signed off by the onsite 17 review committae.
So, we have that on our punch list.
18 Another test is the radiation monitorine system, 19 which har not been completely calibrated, but tha test is in
[
20 p rog ress.
It is not completed yet.
l 21 The final approval of the initial core loading 22 procedure has not been signed off yet.
The procedure has 23 been written and reviewed by us, but it is not completely 24 signed off yet.
l COMMISSIONER AHEAENE:
That would have to be 25 ALDERSoN REPoRDNG COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
55 1 something that would have to be completed prior to --
2 MR. YOUNG:
Very definitaly, sir.
It is goinc to 3 he completed.
It is a process that has not been ecmpleted 4 y et.
It is one of these thincs we highlight en our 5 Outstanding Items list that we are gcing to lock at before 6 th=y put fuel in the core.
7 Again, we don't think that it is significant 8 because we knew it has to be done.
9 One of the thingt we'look at is to make sure tha t 10 is dcne before f uel is transferred.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is absolutely m=ndatory?
12 MR. YOUNG:
Absclutely.
These items I at talking 13 about would hr.ve to be completed before fuel loading -- all 14 o f the tiems I am addressing, seven cf them, and we would 15 make sure that that is done.
16 The calibration of the saturation media, which is 17 in place and which has not been calibrated yet; one of the 18 TMI-related items, tab item 2(f)(1), which is accident
. 19 monitorino instrumenta tion, has yet tc be completed.
20 Those are the items we have on the list.
21 COMMISSICNER ER AC FOR E :
That one is also required l
22 prior to fuel loading?
MR. YOUNG:
Yes, sir.
23 CHAI? MAN DALI.ADINO:
Just to make sure we are 24 25 clear, we are talking only on fuel loadf.nc low power for ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
56 1 Unit I, is that correct?
f 2
MR. YOUNG:
That is correct.
3 COM*ISSICNEE HEArFCED:
You said they did not rise 4 to the level of being license conditions, in ycur view?
5 MR. YOUN G:
I bac your pardon?
6 COMPISSIONEP ERACFOPD4 Eid I understand they did 7 not rise to the level of being license conditions?
8
- R.
YCUNG:
That is right.
~ie do not reccmmand 9 that these conditions'be put in the license.
They are on 10 our punch list and we will varify that they are completed 11 before transf = r of fuel tc the cere.
12 MR. PENTCN:
It is because IFE an ticipa tes they 13 will te fully resolved by the time the license is issued.
14 COM"ISSIONER ERADF0FDs Cnca the license is 15 iss ue d, I am net sure what the basis is fcr Pcidinc up fuel 16 loads er other items.
17 MB. DENTON :
Let me try to clarif y that.
I try to 18 keep licences as clean as possible and get everything 19 rasolved befora ve issue a license.
We won't issue a 20 license without a sign-off from ICr that everything is 21 s a f e.
If on the last day ICE has trouble achieving 22 compliance and there is a 'need to issua the license on that 23 date, we will put it in as a license condition and make it 24 v ery clear.
25 ICE prefers for these classes of item's to clean ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 e-
57 1 them up bef e ra the license is issued.
2 MR. YOU5G:
'Je hed a management ccetinc with I
1 3 PGCE.
The kncy well what those items are; they know when we 4 expect them to be completed.
We have no opposition that 5 they will be completed by the time specified.
6 MR. JORDAN.
I just winted to reiterate we feel 7 these items in significance ware not great, that the 8 licensee had made suitable commitments to complete them, and 9 he has dcne substantially the work.
It is now a matter of 10 reviewing and passing thru;h this review comeittee that his 11 actions are satisf actory tc him.
So we have an adequa te 12 handle, we believe, for a license issuance on that basis.
13 MR. EISEL' HUT:
I believe'on the 2(f)(1) item, we
(
14 have been making a practice that all the test action items 15 f rom Three Mile Island, if it is an cutstanding item, does 16 g et put in these conditions, so additienal accident
~
17 monitcring instrumentation is in the draft license that wa 18 set down on page 6 and the 737 date is January 1,
1982, it 19 has to be completed.
20
e would put it in just is we have in the past as 21 on any other license as a license condition.
22 Perhaps we can (o on to the last twe items in the l
23 agenda.
I
- 'e were goini to mention th+ systematic assessment 24 25 of licensee performance, commonly referred to as the Scuth ALDERSON REPORDNG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024(202) 554 2345
58 1 program.
I b=lieve we wera due to be briefing you in the L
2 next couple of weeks on th= overall r sult of our first 3 study.
4 This pisnt in the evalut:1on came out as an 5 ave rage-rated pla nt.
There is really nothing sionificant 6 thst broucht this powerplant cut as anything that stcod out 7 either in an above-Everage or below-average group.
It is a 8 plant that, of couse, is not operatine, so it is e const'ructionally oriented.
10 The plant did have a managenent reorganizatien 11 ov+r the last year or sc.
That reorganization was reviewed 12 by both ICE and IC?, and fcund acceptable.
There has been 13 n o real event stand cut that makes it cnything but an
{,
14 avarage plant.
Wa looked at it basically from July, 1979, 15 through December, 1980, formally, as part of the "cuth 16 p ro g r.a m.
17 CHAIPMAN PALLADINO:
Do you get the feeling that 13 this pla nt that is has good housekeeping?
On some of the l
19 plants we don ' t get that feeling.
20
.MR. YCUNG:
Yes, we have a 7,ood housekeeping 21 program.
They have spent significant tine in 'he 22 housekeeping area.
They have been prepared to lead fusi in 23 Unit 1 for siv or eight months now.
The reactor cavity has 24 been cleaned up.
It is a really tight standard.
We have 25 been using coverals and boots and the whole bit fcr ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
59 1 protection in that clean area.
2 N9. IISFNHUT:
The last iter we were ceing te I
3 mention is terred, " License Conditions."
4 Here we cent down last week on Friday a draft 5 license for the Commission 's considera tion.
It basically 6 follcws the same approach we have en the other licenses.
We.
7 put it in the same time consideration.
It is meant to 8 reflect the same philosophy of all of the other licenses wa 9 have sent down.
10 MR. DENTON:
In conclusion, we find tha t based on 11 our review the plant cceplies with the Ccmmission 's 12 requirements f or low-power oepration, with one possible 13 cavea t, that caveat being in the staffinc area that we
(
14 described, which is one we will follow cicely and see hcw 15 that develops.
16 In any event, even that onc is cleaY in terms of 17 wha t the numbers of people who have to be licensed are and I
18 it hangs on the two or three people who are needed to l
19 supplement the SPD.
MR. EISENHUT :
I believe those staffino 20 21 requirements as a table we will put in the tech I
l 22 specifications and make thcm a formal process that we can follow as we go forth.
23 CHAIEMAN PALLADINC Does that conclude your 24 l
25 presentation?
l l
[
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~
60 1
MP. EENTON:
Yes.
I 2
COMMISSIONEE BEAOF0?D:
You said the same basic 3 licenses as tha others.
Are there any arear of difference?
4 I have not had a chance to look at it.
5 MR. FISENHUT:
Not that I know of.
It is meant to 6 be the same.
Occasionally there crops up a glitch.
We 7 don 't know of any requirements tha t a re dif feren t.
8 MR. DENTON:
Wa triad. to pattern it to the extent 9 that it would fit righ t a f ter the la st license that was.
10 issued.
MP. EISENHUT:
There is one I should point out.
11 12 There are several items where we put on these issues that 13 a re still not completely resclved.
We put footnotes ca, for 14 example -- I think there are three of them -- which are 15 ratters that are still pending in prcceedings.
16 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Cn page 4 of your license, 17 I don't recall seeing this issue of the generater meisture 18 carryover studies, et cetera.
19 3R. BUCKLEY:
PGCE's request was to get permission 20 to uso three curies of sodium for moisture carryover tests, 21 and I did not personally find this unusual because six years 22 ago on a PWR they requested the use of two or three curies 23 of sodium for moisture carryover.
It is not new to me.
It 24 is old.
I have dealt with thrs in the past on other plants.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is essentially being 25 ALDERSON REPORTING C0MPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
69 1 used as a tracer?
i 2
MR. BUCrlEY:
Y-s, sir.
Apparently they can tell 3 by thn quantity of sodium that they inject inte the steam 4 generator; they have X pa rts per million and then they can 5 measure.
That will corres;ond to some quantity of X parts
'ill tessure the number of counts 6 per billion.
Then they 7 per second and they will maasure the counts per second on 8 the steac thar is carried ever.
They can detarrine that wa y 9 wha t the carryover is.
10 CCH::ISSIChER AHEAE!!E:
It is run on the seccndary 11 si'.e cf it?
12 P. R. BUCKlEY:
Yer.
13 COMNISSIONEE AHEARNE:
On p ge 6 there are two k
14 issues, one on the release and safety valve tast 15 requirements.
Fesding soma of the Soc.rd notifications on 16 scheduling of the test, at this stage I am a'little 17 uncertain about (a) are you keeping track of tha t and (b) 18 w h a t is the litest schedule and (c) what is the new date 19 going to be?
I notice you say you are goino to propose a change 20 21 in the date.
NR. DENTCN.
I think we will be meeting with the 22 Commission in a week or ten days on that generically.
23 ME. PICKWITs Thtt is still contested.
24 25 At.DERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 40c VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C.20024 (202) 554 2345 y-
62 1
CCM"ISSICNER A H E.A R T E :
Feactor viter level 2 inctrumentation -- is reactor water level sufficient?
3 ER. BICKWIT:
- 4e believe that is okay.
It has 4 been summarily dismissed.
It is the acuivalent of a denied 5 contention.
6 CCM.S.ISSICNER AHEARNF On page 6 you ha ve, "FGCF 7 shall provide instrumentation by Janua ry 1ct, 1982, provided 8 in-orpora tion into Unit I is independent of wk.at the status 9 of Unit I's opera ting at that point.?
10 MR. DENTONs I understand tha t is actually 11 installed.
They intend to have it operable in all the 12 procedures and fully reviewed by that date.
13
?. R. YOUNG:
It is installed and in place.
It has 14 n o t been calibra ted.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You cay it is installed new?
16 MR. YOUNC:
It is installed now.
17 COMMISSICNEP AHrAFNr:
That is the Westinghouse 18 system' MR. YOUNG:
'4estinghoue standa rd design.
19 MR. RUBENSTEIN:
This is a 'Jestinghouse. house
[
20 21 pressure drop design.
It is installed.
It is tacged and l
22 valved off pending completien cf staff review and approval.
23 The original requirement was to describe the system to use 24 by 1/1/61 and documented and the requirement is 25 postimplementa tion review.
ALDERSoN REFORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
63 9
1 We wculd expect that they would have it crerable 2 a nd ready to ge by 1-1-92, and I presume the staff would 3 have reviewed it and approved the 9estinchccue generically 4 by tha t time.
5 COMMISSIONEP AHEAFNE:
Is the staff review on such 6a pace that you expect that tc happen?
7 MR. CENTON:
Yen, sir.
8 COMMISSICNER AHEACNE:
Uill this te the first one 9 that ycu will have signed off on?
10 MP. DENTON:
We are doing the Westitchouse 11 generically, but we are bringing a number along at the same 12 tim e.
13 CHAISMAN PALLADINO:
As part of your review, will k
14 you have access to test data en the functionability of such 15 a device ?
16 MF. RUBENSTEIN:
That is part of th'e review.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADING:
You will have test data?
18 MR. RUBENSTEIN:
We are'doing significant work i
19 ourselves on semiscale f acility tc prove this cut.
20 Westinchouse has the program, a generic program, both to 21 s ho w prototypes work and they also incorporate underlyinq 22 analysis for some of the small break sequences which then 23 become part of the guidelines, as D5. Hanauer has said, 24 ultimately into the operating procedures.
l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Will you be able to ha ve 25 ALDERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA A'/E., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6u 1 confidence in the device in view c: tre fact that these are i
2 pressure drop devices and they relare to static head?
Do 3 you have to know wha t the ficw is?
It is influenced by flev.
4 M R. DE!iTON :
I think it wcrks when the pump is off 5 and our present posture hss been f or sometime that it pumps 6 off for ce,rtain types of breaks.
7 C: AIRMAN PA7.LADINO:
Will the analyses cive you 8 some degree of confidence that it can give you sone reliable 9 indication under appr'opriate operating conditions?
10 MR. EUBENSTEIN:
Yes.
"e a re taking steps tc 11 assure ourseives of our own independent testinc on semiscale 12 that this is true.
Ihis does not completely duplicate the 13 S ystem, but it does give us confidence.
14 COM'dISSIGNER AHE ABNE:
Lid they propose any 15 alternative or was this the only system that has been 16 proposed?
17 MR. PUBENSTEIN:
FGCE negotiated with Westinghouse 18 and jcined the Westinghcuse cwner's group, other vendors of 19 other systems.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEA9NE:
Did you approve this choice?
i 21 MR. BUBENSTEIN: We a re in the generic review i
22 process now.
COMMISSIONE3 AHEARNE:
It is already installed?
23 MR. EUBENSTEIN:
Yes.
we reviewed it and approved 24 i
25 the description of the system which was due in 1-1-81.
l I
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-23 5
ES 1 There are tests which Tetinghouse is doinc which deal i
2 directly with the question on proving of it in a hardware 3 way.
4 CC!MISSIONEP AHEAENF:
In some way you have 5 indicated at least a c.ertain level of confidence in it, 6 because clearly the company believes that this system is 7 going to work, because if you were to conclude a month from 8 now that this is not it?
9 MR. DENTCNs I -hink that is a reasonabla 10 inf e rence, that if we had grCblems we would have voiced it 11 bef o re ve got this f ar along, -but the staff does rot want to 12 say they have finally signed off on all the perameters.
13 CHAIPMAN PAllADIN04 If for some reason you were 14 to decide af ter the entire review it was not adequate, do 15 you have options?
16 MP. DENTON:
It would not affect my views on five 17 percent power operation, we would have to reassess what it 18 m e + n t for full power.
t tg CHAIRMAN PALLADINC:
Th'ere are a number of other 20 options?
I 21 MR. DENTON:
There are a few other systems, a 22 number of individual --
23 CHAIEMAN 2ALLADINO:
Installed, is what I meant.
l 24 ER. DENTON:
Not easily, and it would have te 25 require refuel outage and special shutdown for installation, i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 w..
66 1
COM.*ISSIONIE AHEAFNE:
The last question.
I am i
- not really clear en the relationship
_o Stanislaus.
3 MR. DENTON:
On entitrust netters?
These are 4 antitrust conditions.
The sta tus of tha t a pplica tien, there 5 is no such app _lication before us, but there has been a 6 continuing effort to reselve some of the antitrust matters 7 in case the Commission were ever to go forward.
8 Unirss there is semeene in the audience from the 9 Anti' trust Group, I would not answer that one.
10 ER. VOLLMEPs Th.re is no Stanislaus application 11 in a sense.
12 "R.
T0ALSTON Argil Tealsten from Antitrust.
I 13, w ill try to explain the relationship.
Actually, Diablo 14 Canyon was a license that the application came in before the 15 antitrust amendments were added in 19'0, so Diablo Canyon 16 was not itself subject to an antitrust review.
17 Then along came etanislaus and it was subject to 18 an antitrust review.
While the Attorney General was 19 reviewing it, FGCE made commitments to the Jurtice 20 Department tha t if the Stanislaus license were not issued by 1
j 21 a certain date, which was 1978, that these conditions would 22 carry over into the Diablo Canyon license.
23 Basically, they were Stanislaus commitments l
24 between FGCE and the Attorney General.
PGCE had agreed that 25 if that license were no t issued, these would carry over ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
J q
67 1 into this license.
That is how they rome to be in this 2 license.
3 CCMMISSIGNER AHEABNE:
Is there a S ta nisla us 4 process?
~
MB. DENTON:
There is no review of a reactor 5
6 a pplication before the Ccamissionr but there was initiated s
7 sometime ago an antitrust preceeding, because it was 8 envisioned that would be the difficult part of the review.
9 I think that proceeding is still active.
10 3R. SHAPAP:
There 2re arcutents goinc on about 11 discovery and whether discovery will take place.
Staff is 12 tryirg to take itself out of the case.
13 COMMISSIONE3 A H E A R 'E :
Se it is something like a 14 form cf appendix?
15 NR. DENTON:
I think that is righ t.
16 C05hISSIGNER EBAUFCFDs
'4 hen you said that the -
17 particular contention had been dismissed and, therefore, 18 there was no ex parte problem, does that mean I can discuss 19 that subject with PGEE and intervenors as well as with the 20 s t r:f f ? -
21 7.R. DENTON:
It dces.
22 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD :
Could I let the l
23 intervenors tell me why we should act to allow the l
l 24 contention back on appeal?
MR. BICKWIT4 Yes.
You missed the introductcry 25 t
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
,400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
68 6
1 portion of this, in which we advised that denied contentions i
2 are not substan ti ve ma tte rs.
3 COMMTSSIONER BRAPF00D:
I knew that was your 4 position.
I just woncered whether it meant that I could sit 5 down with the intervenors withcut an appeal pending 6 contending amcng other things that these contentions have 7 been wrongfully excluded and let them explain to ma why they 8 think it is wrcngfully excluded.
9
!!E. BICK'4IT:
It does mean that.
10 COMMISSIONEP ERADF0ED:
Cut rf the presecce of 11 PGE E?
PGEE uould have no right to be party to the 12 conve rsa tion ?
13 MR. EICK*JIT Tha t is righ t.
14 CHAISMAN P AL L ADI:i O :
Any other questions?
15 Thank you for your presentation
~
je Unless there is something more to core befcre us 17 a t thir time, we stand adjourned.
18 (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m.,
the hriefing was 19 concluded. )
to 21 22 23 24 2b ALDERSON ret 0RTING COMPANY,INC, 8
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC.'ttISSIrN r
This is to certify that the attached preceedings 'cefere the in the satter ef: BRIEFING ON UNCONTESTED USSUES OF DIABLO CANYON LOW -POWER OPERATING LICEUSE AFPLICATION Date of Prcceeding:
August 10, 1981 Docket !!umb er :
Place of Proceeding: Washington, D. C.
were held as herein a;;ehrs, and that this is the criginal transcript thereof for the file of the Cc==ission.
A. J. Lafrance Official ?.eporter (Typed)
- .. a.
~.w.. a.....
Official ?.eporter (Signature)
(
((({l (((( lll((((((IL (l((h((
((('l((((!('(
((
M e
QDL Q-TRANSMITTAL TO:
M Document Control Desk, I
p 016 Phillips NSI (
- J NTr 5 P
d ADVANCED COPY TO:
[7 The Public Document Room DATE:
August 11, 1981 oj E
Attached are the PDR copies of a Commission meeting transcript /s/ and related meeting document /s/.
They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession P
List and placement in the Public Document Room.
No F
other distribution is requested or required.
Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual b
documents wherever possible.
.g-J P
h 1.
Transcript of:
Briefing on Uncontested Issue of d
Diablo Canyon Low-Power Operating License Application, d
August 10, 1981.
(1 copy) a.
Vugraphs:
Diablo Canyon Commission Briefing.
(1 copy) s b.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket No. 50-275, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Facility Operating License, License No. DPR-76.
(1 copy) f_
brown Office of the Secretary
, g','f,Ne, a v' 3
~~
~
~
/h. d.bf b
h I.'Ju 1.71981 B
h 8 **WJEl^".b)
'Q.3 je g
'N ey,y 1 m
fb-4 w.wmmamannunanmummonwnnem.
t
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-275 DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR PLANT, H"'T 1 I
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE License No. OPR-76 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) having found that:
A.
The application for licenses filed by the Pacific Gas & Ele:tric Company complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I, and all required notifi-cations to other agencies or bodies have been duly made; B.
Construction of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 (the fec111ty),
has been substantially completed in conformity with Provisional Const.uction Permit No. CPPR-39 and the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Commission; C.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Commission; D.
There is re;sonable assurance: (1) that the activities authorized by this operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the regulat'ons of the Commission set fortn in 10 CFR Chapter I; E.
The Pacific Gas & Electric Company is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities authorized by this operating license in accordance with the Commiss'on's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; F.
The Pacific Gas & Electric Company has satisfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 140, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agree.'ents", of tne Commission's egulations; G.
The issuance of this license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the :*ealth and safety of the public;
. H.
Af ter weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of tne facility against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, the issuance of Facility Operating License No. DPR-76, subject to the conditions for protection of the environment set fortn herein, is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D*, of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied; and I.
The receipt, possession, and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material as authorized by this license will be in accordance with the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70.
2.
Pursuant to approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Coe ission at a meeting on
, Facility Operating License No. DPR-76 is hereby issued to the Pacific Gas & Electric Company to read as follows:
A.
This license applies to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, a pressurized water nuclear reactor and associated equipment (the facility), owned by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
The facility is located in San Luis Obispo County, California, and is described in PG&E's Final Safety Analysi: Report as supplemented and amended, and the Final Environmental Statement as supplemented and amended.
B.
Subject to the conditions and requirements incorporated herein, the Commission hereby licenses the Pacific Gas & Electric Company:
(1) Pursuant to Section 104(b) of the Act and 10 CFR Part 50,
" Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities", to possess, use, and operate the facility at the designated location in San Luis Obispo County, California, in accoraance with the procedures and limitations set forth in this license; (2) Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Par'. 70, to receive, possess, and use at any time special nucleEr material as reactor fuel, in accordance with the limitations for storage and amounts required for reactor operation, as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and amended; (3) Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive, possess, and use at any time any byproduct, source and special nuclear material as sealed neutron sources for reactor startup, sealed sources for reactor instrumentation and radiation monitoring equipment calibration, and as fission detectors in amounts as required;
- See 10 CFR $ 51.56
. (4) Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive, t
possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive aoparatus or components; and (5) Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 2, 40, and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special iluclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility.
C.
This license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the conditions specified in the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I and is subject te all applicable provisions of the Act and to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Comission now or hereafter in effect; and is subject to the additional condition:: specified or incorporated below:
(1) Maximum Power Level The Pacific Gas & Electric Company is authorized to operate the facility at reactor core power levels not in excess of 5 percent (166.9 megawatts tnermal).
(2) Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A and the Environmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B attached hereto are hereby incorporated in this license. The Pacific Gas & Electric Company shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
(3)
Initial Test Program The Pacific Gas & Electric Company shall conduct the post-fuel-loading initial test program (set ; orth in Section 14 of Pacific Gas &
Electric Company's Final Safety Analysis Report, as amended), without making any major modifications of this program unless modifications have been identified and have received prior NRC approval. Major inodifications are defined as:
Elimination of any test identified in Section 14 of PG&E's a.
Final Safety Analysis Report as amended as being essential; b.
Modification of test objectives, methods, or acceptance criteria for any test identified in Section 14 of PG&E's Final Safety Analysis Report as amended as being essential; l
l L.
. c.
Performanc: of any test at a power level different from that described in the program; and f
d.
Failure to complete any tests included in the described program (planned or scheduled for power levels up to the authorized power level).
(4) PG&E is authorized to perform steam generator moisture carryover studies and turbine performar.ce tests at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. These studies involve the use of an aqueous tracer solution of three (3) curies of sodium-24. PG&E's personnel shall be in charge of conducting tnese studies and be knowledgeable in the procedures. PG&E shall impose personnel exposure limits, posting, and survey requirements in conformance with those in 10 CFR Part 20 to minimize personnel exposure and contamination during the studies. Radiological controls shall be establisned in the areas of the chemical feed, feedwater, steam, condensate and sampling systems wnere the presence of the radioactive tracer is expected to warrant sucn controls. PG&E shall take special precautions to minimize radiation exposure and contamination during both the handling of the radioactive tracer prior to injection of the tracer. PG&E shall insure that all regulatory requirements for liquid discharge are met during disposal of all sampling effluents and when reestablishing continuous blowdown from the steam generators af ter completion of the studies.
(5) Environmental Qualification (Section 7.8 SER Supplement No. 9) a.
No later than June 30, 1982,* PG&E shall be in compliance with the provisions of NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment," for safety-related equipment exposed to a harsh environme.:.
b.
Complete and auditable records must be available and maintained at a central location which describe the environmental qualifica-tion method used for all safety-related electrical equipment in sufficient detail to document the degree of compliance with the 00R Guideliaes or NUREG-0588.
Such records should be updated and maintained current as equipment is replaced, further tested, or otherwise further qualified to document complete compliance by June 30, 1982.*
c.
Within 90 days of receipt of tne equipment qualification safety evaluation, the licensee shall either (i) provide missing documentation identified in Sections 3 and 4 of the equipment qualification safety evaluation which will demonstrate compliance of the applicable equipment with NUREG-0588, or (ii) commit to corrective actions which will result in documentation of compliance of applicable equipment with NUREG-0588 no later than June 30, 1982.*
Subject to any further action the Commission may take in response to " Petition for Extension of Deadline for Conpliance with CLI-80-21".
. (6) Fire Protection System (Section 9.5) 7 PG&E shall maintain in effect and fully implement all provisions a.
of the approved fire protection plan and the NRC staff's Fire Protection Review in Supplements 8, 9 and 13 te the Diablo Canyon Safety Evaluation Report, By October 1,1981, PG8E shall submit a report that identifies and o.
justifies differences between existing or proposed fire protection features and these features specified in Sections III.G, III.J.
III A, as appropriate and III.0 of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50.
(7) Compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.97 Within thirty days of issuance of this license, PG&E shall submit a proposal, including an implementation senedule, for compliance with R.G. 1.97.
(8) NUREG-0737 Conditions Each of the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the NRC by the times indicated below. Eacn of the following conditions references the appropriate item in SER Supplements
'No.10 and/or No.12 a.
Shif t Tecnnical Advisor (Section I. A.1.1)
PG&E shall provide a fully-trained on-shift technical advisor to the Shif t Foreman.
b.
Independent Safety Engineering Group (Section I.B.l.2)
PG&E shall have an Onsite Safety Review Group.
c.
Procedures for Verifying Correct Performance of Operating Activities (Section I.G.o)
Procedures shall be availaDie to verify the adequacy of the operating activities.
d.
Training During Low-Power Testing (Section I.G.1)
PG&E shall conduct a sufficient number of repetitive tests on the reactor such that each licensed operator ano supervisor would participate in at least one of the low power tests (tests 1-6) and observe two others prior to full power operation.
e.
Reactor Coolant System Vents (Section II.B.1)
By July 1,1982, PGdE snall install reactor coolant system and reactor vessel head highpoint vents that are remotely operable from tne control room.
-6 f.
Post Accident Sampling (Section II.B.3)
By January 1,1982, PG&E shall complete corrective actions f
needed to provide the capabilit) to promptly obtain and perform radioisotopic and chemical analyses of reactor coolant and containment atmosphere samples under degraded core conditions without excessive exposure.
g.
Relief and Safety Valve Test Requirements (Section 11.0.1)
PG&E shall conform to the results of the EPRI test program.
Documentation for qualifying the reactor coolant system relief and safety valves under expected operating conditions for design basis transient accidents is to be completed by (*). Documentation on piping and supports is requirea by (*).
Block valves are to be qualified by (*).
h.
Containment Isolation Dependability (Section II.E.4.2)
PG&E shall limit the 12-inch vacuum / overpressure relief valve opening to less than or equal to 50 degrees.
1.
Additional Accident Monitoring Instrumentation (Section II.F.1)
By January 1,1982, PG&E shall install continuous indication in the control room of the following parameters:
(1) Containment radiation monitors.
(2) Noble gas effluent from each potential release point.
j.
Instruments for Inadequate Core Cooling (Section II.F.2)
(1) PG&E shall provide a reactor vessel water level instrumentation system by January 1,1982 (2) PG&E snall resolve the issue on plant computer isolation devices by January 1,1982. PG&E shall upgrade the incore thermocouple system by January 1,1982 except for the incore thermocouple in-containment connectors and junction boxes. PGSE shall replace the incore thermocouple in-containment connectors and junction boxes during the first extended outage following component availability.
- The staff plans to present a proposed change in program completion dates to the Commission as a generic NUREG-0737 action item.
w_
. k.
Voiding in Reactor Coolant System (Section II.K.2.17) i PG&E is participating in the Westinghouse Owner's group effort on this item and shall conform to the results of this effort.
The analysis will be submitted by January 1,1982.
1.
Sequential Auxiliary Feedwater Flow Analysis (Section II.K.2.19)
PG8E is participating in the Westinghouse Owner's group effort on this item and shall conform to the results of this effort.
The analysis will be submitted by July 1,1982.
m.
Calculations for Small-Break LOCAs (Section II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31)
PG&E is participating in the Westinghouse Owner's group effort for this item and shall conform to the results of this effort. The analysis for model justification shall be submitted by January 1,1982.
n.
Upgrade Emergency Support Facilitias (Section III.A.l.2)
(1) PG&E shall have in operation the upgraded emergency support facilities by October 1,1982 consistent with the guidance of NUREG-0696.
(2) PG&E shall maintain interim emergency support facilities (Technical Support Center, Operations Support Center and the Emergency Operations Facility) until the final facilities are complete.
o.
Long-Term Emergency Preparedness (Section III. A.2)
Functional description of upgraded capabilities shall be provided by January 1,1982.
Installation of hardware and sof tware shall be completed by July 1,1982. Full operational capability is required by October 1,1982.
D.
Exemptions from certain requirements of Appendices G H and J to 10 CFR Part 50 are described in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's Safety Evaluation Report, Supplements No. 9 through 14.
These exemptions are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, these exemptions are hereby granted.
The facility will operate, to the extent authorized herein, in conformity j
with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Commission.
r E.
Physical Security Issues The issue of the compliance of the Physical Security Plan with the regulations is presently pending before the Appeal Boerd.
This section will reflect any condition (s) made necessary as a result of the Appeal Board's findings. The decision on the Low Power License must await the Appeal Boards determination on the security issues.
F.
Antitrust Conditions This license is subject to the following antitrust conditions:
(1) Definitions
" Applicant" means Pacific Gas and Electric Company, any successor a.
corporation, or any assignee of this license.
b.
" Service Area" means that area within the exterior geographic boundaries of the several areas electrically served at retail, now or in the future, by Applicant, and tnose areas in Northern and Central California adjacent thereto.
" Neighboring Entity" means a financially responsible private or c.
public entity or lawful association thereof owning, contractually controlling or operating, or in good faith proposing to own, to contractually control or to operate facilities for the genert-tion, or transmisison at 60 kilovolts or above, of electric power
. which meets each of the following criteria:
(1) its existing or proposed facilities are or will be technically feasible of r
direct interconnection with those of Applicant; (2) all or part of its existing or proposed facilities are or will be located witnin the Service Area; (3) its primary purpose for owning, contractually controlling, or operating generation facilities is to sell in the Service Area the power generated; and (4) it is, or upon commencement of operations will be, a public utility regulated unoer applicable state law or the Federal Power Act, or exempted from regulation by virtue of the fact that it is a federal, state, municipal or other public entity.
d.
" Neighboring Distribution System" means a financially responsible private or public entity which engages, or in good faith proposes to engage, in the distribution of electric power at retail and which meets each of the criteria numbered (1), (2) and (4) in subparagraph "C"
above.
e.
" Costs" means all capital expenditures, administrative, general, operation and maintenance expenses, taxes, depreciation and costs of capital including a fair and reasonable return on Applicant's investment, which are properly allocable to the particular service or trans-action as determined by the regulatory authority having jurisdiction over the particular service or transaction.
f.
" Good Utility Practice" means those practices, methods and equipment, including levels of reserves and provisions for contingencies, as modified from time to time, that are commonly used in the Service Area to operate, reliably and safely, electric power facilities to serve a utility's own customers dependably and economically, with due regard for the conservation of natural resources and the protection of the environment of the Service Area, provided such practices, methods and equipment are not unreasonably restrictive.
g.
" Firm Power" means that power which is intended to be available to the customer at all times and for which, in order to achieve that degree of availability, adequately installed and spinning reserves and sufficient transmission to move such power and reserves to the load center are provided.
(2)
Interconnection Interconnection agreements negotiated pursuant to these license conditions shall be subject to the following paragraphs "a" through "g":
4 y __
a.
Applicant shall not unreasonably refuse to interconnect and f
operate normally in parallel with any Neighboring Entity, or to interconnect with any Neighboring Distribution System.
Such interconnections shall be consistent with Good Utility Practice.
b.
Interconnection shall be at one point unless otherwise agreed by the parties to an interconnection agreement.
Interconnection shall not be limited to lower voltages when higher voltages are preferable from the standpoint of Good Utility Practice and are available from Applic:nt.
Applicant may include in any interconnection agreement provisions that a Neighboring Entity or Neighboring Distribution System maintain the power factor associated with its load at a comparable level to that maintained by Applicant in the same geographic area and use comparable control methods to achieve this objective.
c.
Interconnection agreements shall not provide for more extensive facilities or control equipment at the point of interconnection than are required by Good Utility Practice unless the parties mutually agree that particular circumstances warrant special facilities or equipment.
d.
The Costs of additional facilities required to provide service at the point of interconnection shall be allocated on the basis of the projected economic benefits for each party from the interconnection after considgration of the various transactions for which the interconnection facilities are to be used, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
e.
An interconnection agreement shall not impose limitations upon the use or resale of capacity and energy sold or exchanged under the agreement except as may be required by Good Utility Practice, f.
An interconnection agreement shall not prohibit any party from entering into other interconnection agreements, but may provide tnat (1) Applicant receive adequate notice of any additional interconnection arrangement with others, (2) the parties jointly consider and agree upon additional contractual provisions, measures, or equipment, which may be required by Good Utility Practice as a result of the new arrangement, and (3) Applicant may tarminate the inter-connection agreement if the reliability of its system or service to its customers would be adversely affected by such additional interconnection arrangement.
gg.
g.
Applicant may include provisions in an interconnection I
agreement reauiring a Neighboring Entity or Neighboring Distribution System to develop with Applicant a coordinated program for underfrequency load shedding and tie separation.
Under such programs the parties shall equitably share the interruption or curtailment of customer load.
(3) Reserve Coordination Interconnection agreements negotiated pursuant to these l' cense conditions shall be subject to the following paragraphs "a" through "e" regarding reserve coordination:
Applicant and any Neighboring Entity with which it inter-a.
connects shall jointly establish and separately maintain the minimum reserves to be installed or otherwise provided under an interconnection agreement. Unless otherwise mutually agreed upon, reserves shall be expressed as a percentage of estimcted firm peak load and the minumum reserve percentage shall be at least equal to Applicant's planned reserve percentage without the interconnection.
A Neighboring Entity shall not be required to provide reserves for that portion of its load which it meets through purchases of Firm Pcwer. While different reserve percentages may be specified in various interconnection agreements, no party to an iveterconnection agreement shall be required to provide a greater reserve percentage than Applicant's planned reserve percentage, except that if the total reserves Applicant must provide to maintain system reliability equal to that existing without a given interconnection arrangement are increased by reason of the new arrangement, then tha other party or parties may be required to install or provide additional reserves in the full amount of such increase.
b.
Applicant and Neighboring Entities with which it inter-connects shall jointly establish and separately maintain the minimum spinning reserves to be provided under an interconnection agreement. Unless otherwise mutually agreed upon, spinning reserves shall be expressed as a percentage of peak load and the minumum spinning ~ reserve percentage shall be at least equal to Applicant's spinning u.-
. reserve percentage without the interconnection. A Neighboring Entity shall not be required to provide spinning reserves r
for that portion of its load which it meets through purchases of Firm Power. While different spinning reserve percentages may be specified in various interconnection agreements, no party to an interconnection agreement shall be required to provice a greater spinning reserve percentage than that which Applicant provides, except that if the total spinning reserves Applicant must provide to maintain system reliability equal to that existing without a given interconnection arrangement are increased by reaaor, of the new arrangement, then the other party or parties nay be required to provide additional spinning reser'ies in the full amount of such increase.
c.
Applicant shall affer to sell, on reasonable terms and conditions, including a specified period, capacity to a Neighboring Entity for use as reser, s if such capacity is r.either needed for Applicant's own system nor contractually committed to others and if the Neighboring Entity will offer to sell, on reasonable terms and conditions, its own such capacity to the Applicant.
a.
Applicant may include in any interconnection agreement provisions requiring a Neighboring Entity to conpensate Applicant for any reserves Applicant makes available as the result of tne failure of such Neighboring Entity to maintain all or any part of the reserves it has agreed' to provide in said interconnection agreement.
e.
Applicant shall offer to coordinate maintenance schedules with Neighboring Entities interconnected with Applicant and to exchange or sell maintenance capacity and energy when such capacity and energy are available and it is reasonable to do so in accordance with Good Utility Practice.
(4)
Emergency Power Applicant shall sell emergency power to any interconnected Neignboring Enti ty which maintains the level of minimum reserve agreed upon with Applicant, agrees to use due l
ailigence to correct the emergency and agrees to sell l
g energency power to Applicant. Applicant shall engage in I
such transactions if and when capacity and energy for such transactions tre available from its own generating resources, or may be obtained by Applicant from other sources, but only to the extent that it can do so without imparing service to Applicant's retail or wholesale power customers or impairing its ability to discharge prior commitments.
(5) Otner Power Excnanges Should Applicant have on file, or hereafter file, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, agreements or rate schedules providing for the sale and purchase of short-term capacity and energy, limited-term capacity and energy, long-term capacity and energy or economy energy, Applicant shall, on a fair and equitable basis, enter into like or similar agreements with any Neighboring Entity, when such forms of capacity and energy are available, recognizing that past experience, different economic conditions and Good Utility Practice may justify different rates, terms and conditions. Applicant shall respond promptly to inquiries of Neighboring Entities concerning the availability of such forms of capacity and energy from its system.
(6) Wholesale Power Sales Upon request, Applicant shall offer to sell, firm, full or partial requirements power for a specified period to an interconnected Neighboring Entity or Neighboring Distri-bution System under a contract with reasonable terms and conditions including provisions which permit Applicant to recover its costs. Such wholesale power sales must be consistent with Good Utility Practice. Applicant shall not be required to sell Firm Power at wholesale if it does not have available sufficient generation or transmission l
to supply the requested service or if the sale would impair service to its retail customers or its ability to discharge prior commitments.
1 l
L_
.-e (7) Transmission Services r
a.
Applicant shall transmit power pursuant to interconnection agreements, with provisions which are appropriate to the requested transaction and which are consistent with these license conditions. Except as listed below, such service shall be provided (1) between two or among more than two Neighboring Entities or sections of a Neighboring Entity's system which are geographically separated, with which, now or in the future, Applicant is interconnected, (2) between a Neighboring Entity with which, now or in the future, it is interconnected and one or more Neighboring Distribution Systems with whicn, now or in the future, it is interconnected and (3) between any Neighboring Entity or Neighbo. ing Distribution System (s) and the Applicant's point of direct interconnection with any other electric system engaging in bulk power supply outside the area then electrically served at retail by Applicant. Applicant shall not be required by this Section to transmit power (1) from a hydroelectric facility the ownership of which has beer, involuntarily transferred from Applicant or (2) from a Neighboring Entity for sale to any electric system located outside the exterior geographic boundaries of the several areas then ele.crically served at retail by Applicant if any other Neighboring Entity, Neighboring Distri)ution System, or Applicant wishes to purchase such power as an equivalent price for use within set areas. Any Neighboring Entity or Neighboring Distribution System (s) requesting transmission service shall give reasonable advance notice to Applicant of its schedule'and requirements. Applicant shall not be required by this Section to provide transmission service if the proposed transaction would be inconsistent with Good Utility Practice or if the necessary transmission facilities are committed at the time of the request to be fully-loaded during the period of which service is requested, or have been previously reserved by Applicant for emergency purposes, loop flow, or other uses consistent with Good Utility Practice; provided, that with respect to the Pacific Northwest-Southwest Intertie, Applicant shall not be required by this Section to provide the requested transmissf on service if it would impair Applicant's own use of this facility consistent with Bonneville Project Act, (50 Stat. 731, l
August 20,1937), Pacific Northwest Power Marketing Act (78 Stat. 756, August 31, 1964) and the Public Works Appropriations Act, 1965 (78 Stat. 682, August 30,1964).
9-b.
Applicant shall include in its planning vid constructiori programs such increases in its transmission capacity or I
such additional transn.ission fe ;ilities as may be requirta for the transactions referred to in paragraph (a) of this Section, provided any Neighboring Entity or Neighboring Distribution System gives Applicant sufficient advance notice as may be necessary to accommodate its requirements from a regulatory and technical standpoint and provided further that the entity requesting transmission services compensates Applicant for the Costs incurred as a result of the request. Where tramsmission capacity will be increased or additional transmission facilities will Le installed to provide or maintain the requested service to a Neignboring Entity or Neighboring Distribution System, Applicant may require, in addition to a rate for use of other facilities, that payment of Costs associated with the increased capacity or additional facilities shall be made by the parties in accordance with and in advance of their respective use of the new capacity or facilities.
c.
Nothing herein shall require Applicant (1) to construct additional transmission facilities if the construction of such facilities is inconsistent with Good Utility Practice or if such facilities could be constructed without duplicating any portion of Applicant's transmission system, (2) to provide transmission service to a retail customer of (3) to construct tramsmission outside the area then electrically served at retail by Applicant.
d.
Rate schedules and agreements for transmission services provided under this Section shall be filed by Applicant with the regulatory agency having jurisdiction over such rates and agreements.
(8) Access to Nuclear Generation l
a.
If a Neighboring Entity or Neighboring Distribution System makes a timely request to Applicant for an owner-ship participation in the Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit No.1 or any future nuclear generating unit for which Applicant applies for a construction permit during the 20-year period insnediately following the date of the construction permit for Stanislaus Unit 1, Applicant shall offer the requesting party an opportunity to parti-cipate in such units, up to an amount reasonable in light l
E
. of tne relative loads of the participants. With respect to Stanislaus Unit No.1 or any future nuclear generating unit, a request for participation shall be deemed timely if received within 90 days after the mailing by Applicant to Neighboring Entities and Neignboring Distribution Systems of an announcement of its intent to construct the unit and a request for an expression of interest in participa-tion. Participation shall be on a basis which compensates Applicant for a reasonable share of all its Costs, incurred and to be incurred, in planning, selecting a site for, constructing and operating the facility.
b.
Any Neighbcring Entity or any Neighboring Distribution System making a timely request for participation in a nuclear unit must enter into a legally binding and enforce-able agreement to assume financial responsibility for its share of the costs associated with participation in the unit and associated transmission facilities. Unless otherwise agreed by Applicant, a Neighboring Entity or Neignboring Distribution System desiring participation must have signed such an agreement within one year after Applicant has provided to that Neighboring Entity or Neighboring Distribution System pertinent financial and technical data bearing on the feasibility of the project wnich are then available to Applicant. Applicant shall provide additional pertinent data as they become available during the year. The requesting party shall pay to Applicant forthwith the additional expenses incurred by Applicant in making such financial and technical data available.
In any p:rticipation agreement subject to this Section, Applicant may require provisions requiring payment by eacn participant of its sharc of all costs incurred up to the date of the agreement, requiring each participant thereafter to pay its pro rata share of funds as they are expended for the planning and construction of units and related facilities, and requiring each participant to make such financial arrangements as may be necessary to ensure the ability of tne participant to continue to make such payments.
(9)
Implementation All rates, cnarges, terms and practices are and shall a.
be subject to the acceptance and approval of any regula-tory agencies or courts having jurisdiction over them.
l
~.-
. t b.
Nothing contained herein shall enlarge any rights of a Neighboring Entity or Neighboring Distribution System ta provide services to retail customers of Applicant beyond the rights they have under state of federal law.
c.
Nothing in these license conditions shall be construed as a waiver by Applicant of its rights to contest the application of any commitment herein to a particular factual situation.
d.
These license conditions do not preclude Applicant from applying tc any appropriate forum to seek such changes in tnese conditions as may at the time be 6ppropriate in accordance with the then-existing law and Good Utility Practice.
e.
These license conditions do not require Applicant to become a common carrier.
G.
This license is subject to the following additional condition for the orotection of the environment:
Before engaging in additional construction or operational activities which may result in an environmental impact that was not evaluated by the Commission, Pacific Gas & Electric Company will prepare and record an environmental evaluation of such activity. When the evaluation indicates that such activity may result in a significant adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated, or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement prepared by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company and the Final Environmental Statement prepared by the Commission in May 1973 and its addenda, the Pacific Gas & Electric Company shall provide a written evaluation of such activities and obtair prior approval from the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
H.
PG&E shall report any violations of the requirements contained in Sections 2.C(3) througn 2.C.(8), 2.E, 2.F, and 2.G of this license within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> by telephone and confirmed by telegra.n, mailgram, or facsimile transmission to the Director of the Regional Office, or his designee, no later tnan the first working day following the violation with a written followup report within 14 days.
t_ __- __
. 1.
PG&E shall immediately notify the Commission of any accident at this t
facility which could result in an unplanned release of quantities of fission products in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission.
J.
PG&E snall have and maintain financial protection of such type and in such amounts as the Commission shall require in accordance with Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to cover public liability claims.
K.
This license is effective as of the dale of issuance and shall expire one year from date of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
1.
Apper. dices A and B Tecnnical Specifications Date of Issuance:
y-,
.