ML20100H251

Requests Commission Reaction to Ofc of General Counsel Paper Discussing Possible Approaches to Expediting Remaining Hearings on Low Power.Comments Requested by 840409.ASLB Draft Order & Working Paper Encl

ML20100H251
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/04/1984
From:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Asselstine, Gilinsky, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20100G169	List: ML20100G165 ML20100G211 ML20100G369 ML20100G392 ML20100G524 ML20100G815 ML20100G826 ML20100G831 ML20100G833 ML20100G853 ML20100G885 ML20100G917 ML20100G933 ML20100G956 ML20100G967 ML20100G994 ML20100H025 ML20100H050 ML20100H096 ML20100H127 ML20100H138 ML20100H200 ML20100H251 ML20105D427
References
FOIA-84-250 NUDOCS 8412070468
Download: ML20100H251 (34)

Text

/gp * %'c UNITED sT ATEs

' i % g.^ [,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4

-w e

w Asm cT:u. o. c. 2esss W Qu.- /

3 April 4, 1984 CHAIAMAN I

KEMORANDUM FOR:

Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal-FROM:

Nunzio J. Palladino

SUBJECT:

SHORE. HAM

~

As you know, in my March 20, 1984 memorandum on licens'ing delays I asked 0GC to prepare a paper for the Commission discussing possible ap.proaches to expeditin5 the remain.ing Shoreham hearings on low power.

I asked OGCoto work with other offices within NRC as necessary in preparing thi.s.

paper.

The OGC paper (Lim'ited Distribution) was provided to the

' Commission on April 2, 1984.

I would like to get. Commission reactions to this paper as soon as possible, but'not'later than April 9,1984.

SECY please track.

During my status and scheduling meeting with OGC, OPE, the ASLBP Chairman and staff on March'16,'1984, some preliminary ideas regarding expediting the Shoreham hearing were discussed.

• These ideas were later. articulated in a working paper (enclosed) that was discussed with Judge Cotter by my Legal Assistant.

Judge Cotter provided his comments in the form of a draft order (enclosed).

I asked that this draf t order be given to OGC for possible consideration in the above-referenced OGC paper.

It was given to OGC on March 27, 1984, Fur'ther action on this or any other draft order will depend on the nature of Commissioner comments on OGC's April 2, 1984 r.e me r a n d u m.

Enclosures:

1.

Working Paper 2.

ASLBP Draft Order cc:

SECY OGC OPE e412070460 040523 PDR FOIA

^$(gp DELAIR04-250 PDR s

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

IKE EDO HAS RECENTLY PROVIDED' THE COMMISSION AN ASSESSMENT F07. SHOREHAM THAT PROJECTS A NINE-MONTH LICENSING DEL AY DUE TO, 1 AM TOLD, THE SHOREHAM LICENSING BOARD S REQUIREMENT TO LIT 1 GATE THE DIESEL-GENERATOR CUESTION BEFORE ALLOWING OPERATION AT LOW POWER.

THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE THIS MATTER LITIGATED ON AN EXPEDITED BASI'S WITH A TARGET DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOARD'S DECISION ON THIS MATTER BY' MAY 9, 1984.

WOULD YOU PLEASE LOOK INTO WHAT STEPS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET SUCH A DATE AND

~ INFORM THE COMMISSION ON THESE STEPS AS SOON AS'POSSIBLE, BUT NOT LATER THAN' MARCH 30, 1984.

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, YOU COULD ASSUME THE FOLLOWING STEPS.:

' A TWO WEEK STAFF REVIEW OF THE PROPOSdl BY LILC.0; A ONE WEEK DISCOVERY' PERIOD; A TWO WEEK PERIOD FOR FILING TESTIMONY AND HOLDING A HEARING; A TWO WEEK PERIOD TO ISSUE THE BO'ARD'S DECISI'ON FlNAL COMISSION GUI' DANCE ON THE EXPEDITED HEARING ON THIS MATTER WOULD BE BASED ON YOUR SUBMITTAL AND FOLLOW'UP

~~

DISCUSSIONS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE L'ET ME KNOW.

e

+

6 e

e 9

o Op'R r

? . arch 20,1984, LILCO filed viith :he Licensiryt Board a "Suffemer.tal Motion for Low Power Operating License".

LILCO has recuested the Board either to refer the motion ininediately to the

~

,.Co ni:sion for dec s on or to decide the motion on an expedited basis ii tnd to certify its d$ cision to the ConTnission pursuant to 10.C.F.R.

i 2.730(f) (1983).

As discussed below, the Commission has rev,iewed LILCO's motion and has concluded that referral at this time would be inappropriate.

We agree, however, that a decision on certain issues c

raised by the Applicant should be expedited to the extent possible

~

consistent with the development of. a sound record. ln the exercise of the Corr,.ission's inherent authority over the conduct of our adjudicatory

. proceedings, we hereby grant that portion of LILCO's motion:that 3

e.-

+

requests an expedited proceeding.

To that end, we direct, th,e Chief

' Administrative Judge o.f ' he Atomic Safety'and Licensing Board Panei, in t

consideration of the existing schedule and caseload of the Panel's

' members, to appoint'a'n Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to hear and decide 'LILCO's supplemental motion in accordance with the procedures and schedule outlined'below.

1.

LILCO's H:dion LiLCO asserts that the Shoreham plant is essentially complete and,

y its motien, seeks authority to conduct four phases of low power a::iv' ties, nantly:

f e

~

_p.

Phase I:

fuel load and precriticality tes+ og; Phase II:

cold criticality testing; Phase III:

hiatup and low power testing to rated

. pressure / temperature conditions' (approximately 1% rated. power); and

~

Phase IV:,lowyo'wertesting(1-5%ratedpower).

~

Despite pending litigatio5 concerning the emergency' diesel generators','

reliability,1.11.C0 asserts.in 'its motion:

(1) the generators are not needed to protect the.public health.and safety for Phases I and.II; (2) the generators have been tested and are' adequate to pro'tect the

~

,public health and sa ety during Phases III and IV, even though f

litigation of their reliability has not been complet

aich) ample alternate sources,of AC power are'.available sufficient to assure no,

~

undue T sk to the pub 1'ic health.and safety-from low power operation of i

the plant during Phases III and IV. -

II.

Background -

Of some 122 safety contentions originally filed in this proceeding all but three have been resolved (The se tiement of a fourth issue has been presented totthe. Board for approval).

The three remaining e

D b

.s.

r.Er.tiens co1cern the reliability of emergency die'sei generators at the facility.

i ILCO's motion' supplemented a June 3, '1983 motion for a low power

'Nicense.

After the motion was filed, however, additional problems

' developed with the emer'gency diesel generators, and the hearing.on their reliab'ility scheduled to comence August 29, 1983 was deferied'pending j

completion of LILCO's assessment and the NRC Staff safety evaluation.

10 a partial initial decision. issued September 21, 1983, the Licensing Board decided a number of safety issues in favor of operation up to 5%

of rated power but~ decline (to authorize fuel joad and low podef

. operation until the then pend'ing' diesel oenerator contention was

~$

The Staff SER is presently scheduled for'issuanc'e#in'duite,-

/Y resolve'd.

~

1984, litigation of the three diesel. gene' ator contention's is s,ch[duled'

-I r

(

to comence' in July 1984;.and'a'n initial decision is projected for-issuance in December 1984.

(

Suffolk County filed four amended contentions on the generators, and on' February 22,19Bh, the Board admitted three of t' hem in a ruling or. the record.

Tr. 21,612 g sec.

Although the Board could not find',

on the state of the record at that time, that the generators could reliably perform their needed function even as to low power, the Board noted that LlLCO was not precluded from reposing other methods by which the standares of 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c) could be met short of litigat ng the -

ccr. entiens, er seeking a waiver under Section 2.758, or any other.

-?.

precedure.

Tr. 21,636, 21,630-633.

Apparently in response to that

~

ruling L'1LCO. filed its March 20, 1984 supplemental motion.

i As noted, Applicant has requested that its supplemental motion be refhrred.directly to.t,he Comission for decision.

The Comission is

' fully appri. sed 'of the contents of that motion; and is of the. opinion that 4

J certai,'n issues presented require a factual evaluation that can be cccomp'lished more promptly and efficiently by a licensing' board than by.'

the Comission directly.

Accordingly, referral to the Comission at this time would be -inappropriate.

However, the present schedule for

~

litigation of contentions related to the TDI diese1~ generators does

' present the potential for delay inimical to the public interest given the apparent physical completion of the Shoreham f acility within.-the f-4 deaning of~ 10 C. fir. 5 50.57(a) (1983) and the enormous financini investment involved'.

'if the' alternatives proposed by Applicant.in its motion are sufficient.to permit low-power operation and testing With assurance that the public, health' and sitfety are adequately protected, that matter oug'ht,to be detemined' as expeditiously as possible.

The Co=r.ission has inherent supervisory authoritp' over the conduct of its adjudicatory proceedings, including specific authority'under its rules to establish rgasonable adjudication time tables.

See The U.-S.

Enercy Research and Development AdminisIration, Proiect Manacement Cercoration. Tennessee Valley Authority (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Flant), CL1-76'13, 4 NRC 67 (1976), and 10 C.F.R. ! 2.711 (1953).

111.

Issues to be Heard

~

Accordingly,. absent settlement, we direct that the following issues be.adiudicated on an expedited basis:

1; Whettter the'. ork described in Phases I and II of LILCO's motion can be performed.without the need for the pre'sently '

installed onsite emergency diesel' generators; 2.

Whether the alternate sources of AC power available~to Shoreham are adequate to protect the public health and safety by performing the function that the presently installed o'n, site

/,

~*

emergency diesel generators.would have perfonne'd during_.a'ny or-

- 4

~ ~ ~

~.

all of Phase's I, II, III,-or IV; 3.

What requirements for testing or other demonstration of the availability and effectiveness of the Shoreham alternate power -

sources should be required as a precondition to the issuande of an[ license permitting operation at up to '5% of rated power.

Whether, in consideration of tie Board's findings on the above 4

issues and assuming all other regulatory recuirements have beeri' satisfied, LILCO should be granted a low power license to i

_S.

L pericra the work described in any or all of Phases 1, II, III,

?

or.IV.

she licensing boar'd constituted pursuant to this order is authorized to onform the statemen.t' of the above issues to the evidence relevant to LILCO's motion and th'is' order.

The licensing. board shall not consider the op,'drability and reliability of the TDI, diesel generators currently onsite.

.These matters are. presently the subject of'an extensive Staff,

review and will be fully adjudicated-when the results of the.5taff's L

review are available.

4 IV.

Proceeding Schedule

.y-2, 7

=

The Licensing. Board. constituted pursuant to this order is dire ted h.

to certify its Initial' Decision on these questions to the Comission 60 calendar days after the. Staff f.i.les its SER on the technical. aspects of the LILCO motion.

To that end, the following expedited.s.chedule is recomended to the Board and the parties:

~

Day -7 Commission Order Day 1 Staff and parties file response to substantive aspects of LILCO's motion Day 1 Staff files SER on technical aspects of LILCO Supplemental Motion for Low Power Operating License and serves the SER on the parties Day 2 Discovery co=nences

\\

I Day 1.E Discovery is completeA',

Diy 25 Testimony is filed Day 30 -

Hearing commences Day 40 Hearing conciudes Board issues decis. ion Day 60 ihe Licensing Board constituted pursuant to this. order is" authorize' to adopt, take ofdicial notice, or otherwise incorporate any-d

-~

The pprtion of the existing record 'in this proceeding as it sees fit.

Board shall closely monitor and assist in the discov'ery process,, limit the number of pages in any. filing if necessary; alter, revise'or modify any of the intermediate dates or sequences set out above, and otherwise L

f acilitate the expedited completion of the proceeding in the 'ful.Y

//

~~

sxercise of its authority.. See, e.o., Statement of Polic'y on C,onduct of ;

Licensing Proceedings,'13 HRC 452 (CLI-81-8,1981).

Steos

~-

1.

3/26:

Commission issues brief notice to parties suspending parties response time to LILCO's motion' 2.

2/26:

Commission orders Staff 'o prepare SER by April 7 2.

2/30:

Commission issues expedited hearing order i

1 ca. 6/7:

Board decision

.s

.s_

Scme Considera-ions Excellent Staff SER is critical to success 6f,this expedited 1.

proceeding: Total systems. analysis required or Boards and Comission will look bad c

Staff should be formally notified to begin work immediately a.-

Staff SER issuanc.e dn day 1 assumes they have already b.

connenced to prepare it, and this order won't issue until March 30 2.

Sixty day schedule is brutally tight.

Definitely not recommended n

b'ut possibly, achievable

.c-Very importantto.give Licensing Board flexibility to reformulate 3.

is. sues within overall guidance should evidence shift the nature or emphasis of the issue.

i.

Boards cc :.itted to hearings or partial or initial decision writing 4.

in April and May include Catawba, Comanche Peak, Shearori Harris, Limerick, Midland, Shoreham, and Wolf Creek k

?'

.c.

f e

-- Seed

avoid Ccrs.ission cetate on 5 arc' rembership (cf.

Indicn Point)

5., Phase I and IT issue may be resolved bh agreement of parties which

~

would make possible PID authorizing that work THIS DRAFTlHG SERVICE FURNISHED "AS IS":

NO k'ARRANTIES EXPRESS OR IMPLIED 6

9 e

e q

S.

92 es me e

.e _ ;-

e y e 4

e b

e a

D

?

e e

g 9

4 e9 k

. /.,

SHOREHAM CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION:

THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ESTIMATES A CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE OF MARCH 1984.

THE NRC STAFF ESTIMATES A CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE OF MAY 1984 BASED 0.N THE NEED TO COMPLETE THE TESTING OF THE EMERGENCY DI$SEL GENERATORS, OVERALL S'TATUS:

CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE EXCEPT FOR TESTING OF EMERGENCY DIESELS, PROJECT IS HEAVILY CONTESTED WITH ISSUES OF EMERGENCY DIESELS AND EMERGENCY PLANNING YET TO BE LITIGATED, EXTENDED DELAYS IN PLANT COMPLETION HAVE PLACED UTILITY IN EXTREME FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES.

y MAJOR ISSUES:

SEVERAL ISSUES REMAIN THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN READINESS FOR LICENSING AND FULL POWER OPERATION, ONE OF THE TWO SHOREHAM HEARING BOARDS, DEALING WITH ALL HEARING ISSUES EXCEPT OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING, HAS DENIED A MOTION BY THE UTILITY FOR A LOW POWER LICENSE UNTIL THE DIESEL GENERATOR CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY LITIGATED OR AN ALTERNATE BASIS FOR LOW POWER OPERATION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

WE EXPECT THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST RELIEF FROM THIS l

30ARD ACTION, l

f,..,

,. ~

-2 ADEQUACY OF THE INSTALLED DELAVAL EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS IS UNDER EVALUATION AND MUST BE RESOLVED.

HEARINGS ON THIS ISSUE ARE EXPECTED TO START IN-JULY 1984 WITH AN INITIAL 30ARD DECISION POSSIBLE IN DECEMBER 1984.

NO STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANS HAVE f

3EEN APPROV$D.

A UTILITY OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLAN IS UNDER REVIEW BY FEMA.

THIS UTILITY PLAN IS BEING LITIGATED BEFORE THE OTHER HEARING BOARD.

AN INITIAL DECISION ON EMERGENCY PLANNING IS PROJECTED FOR NCVEMBER 1984. THE STATE AND SUFFOLX COUNTY HAVE FILED SUIT IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT TO HAVE THE UTILITY EMERGENCY PLAN DECLARED ILLEGAL, NO SHOREHAM LICENSED OPERATORS HAVE HOT LICENSED OPERATING EXPERIENCE. THE NEED EXISTS FOR MORE OPERATING EXPERIENCE ON THE SHOREHAM PLANT STAFF.

ASSUMINGTHATTHEPROBLEMSWITH0FFSITEEMERGENCYPLANSCANBE ESCL'/ED, IT IS LIKELY THAT THIS PLANT WILL BE DELAYED SEVERAL

. MONTHS 3ECAUSE OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR PROBLEMS.

l

h @ C_.

OE bD TOPICS FOR CHAIRMAN'S MEETING WITH GENERAL GIUFFRIDA

~

I, CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT (CATEGORY A, B, OR C FOR NRC)

-- SPECIFIC FEMA REACTION TO CHAIRMAN'S LETTER OF JANUARY 23, 198f4

-- DISCUSSION OF OTHER AGENCY RESPONSES TO DATE II, NRC - FEMA INTERACTION ON OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING

-- HOW ARE OUR INTERACTIONS WORKING?

-- WHAT ARE THE GOOD POINTS?

-- WHAT PROBLEMS HAVE ARISEN?

(E.G. WITH RESPECT T0 HANDLING OF DEFICIENCIES, RESOURCES TO SUPPORT NRC SCHEDULES) x v

er For:

The Commission From:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

LICENSING DELAYS

Purpose:

To inform the Commission on potentially significant issues for upcoming OL licensing cases.and to respond to the Chairman's memorandum of March 20 on licensing delays.

Background:

The Chairman, in his March 20, 1984 memorandum on licensing delays, requested the staff to respond to the specific issues raised in his memorandum and to provide a paper outlining the steps for dealing with potential delays.

3 Discussion:

In this paper, we address two aspects of licensing schedules.

First, we address the specific issues raised in the Chairman's March 20, 1984 memorandum.

Second, the potentially significant issues at these plants and other OLs approaching completion are discussed.

A.

Specific issues raised in the March 20 memorandum.

(1) Shoreham - A new ASLB has been formed to con-sider the applicant's motion for low power operation pending final resolution of the diesel generator and emergency planning issues. A decision on this motion is planned for May/ June 1984.

This Board is in addition to two other Boards for the Shoreham hearing: one for the generic diesel question and one for emergency preparedness.

4 (2) Limerick - By letter, dated April 11, 1984, the applicant has advised the staff that " progress is j

such that the filing of a motion for a low power license for fuel loading and for pre-operational testing up to five percent of rated power is necessary."

They plan to file such a motion late in April 1984.

Contact:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, NRR 49-27221

.The Commission,

,~

(3) Waterford and Comanche Peak - A summary status report for each plant, prepared by the assigned senior executive, is enclosed.

The Chairman asked "how what we are doing relates to the Board." The staff effort is aimed at providing appropriate NRC

{

management control for all pending issues that could i

affect license issuance.

Some of these matters are, of course, directly related to the issues being considered by the Boards for which the filing of staff positions is necessary.

The scheduling of staff action for such issues will be closely coordin-ated with the hearing schedules so as to minimize potential delays. All information determined to be material and relevant from those reviews will be pro-vided promptly to those Boards.

The Chairman also wanted "to ensure that we are taking action with the licensee to correct, either by consultation or enforcement, as appropriate, any problems having merit that come to our attention."

The establishment of the special NRC management team for these facilities will facilitate the early identification of problems that might require licensee attention.

Such potential problems will be promptly pursued with licensees through direct interaction with licensee management to resolve licensing issues and through the enforcement process as appropriate.

(4) Diablo Canyon - This matter was discussed at the Commission meeting on this subject on April 13, 1984 and the Commission issued an Order on that date.

(5) Byron - No issue for EDO consideration at this time is raised in the Chairman's memorandum.

(6) Midland - Commission meeting on this subject :s scheduled in the near future.

The staff will be prepared to discuss options for subsequent agency action at that meeting. A recent press release by Consumers Power Company announced a revised schedule for commercial operation of Unit 2 from February 1985 to December 1986.

(This corresponds to a delay in fuel load from the company's previous estimate of October 1984 to July 1986.

Note also that bnit 2 is the first of the two-unit facility scheduled for operation.)

O

The Commission.

(7) Palo Verde and Grand Gulf - The Chairman requested that.the staff keep the Commission informed of actions planned or needed, and that the staff review of the diesel generators be completed on an expedited basis. A summary report on known and potential significant issues for a number of upcoming facilities accompanies this paper. Matters needing specific Commission action will be brought promptly to their attention.

Regarding diesel generators, the Palo Verde facility does not use the TDI diesels.

For Grand Gulf, the staff review of diesel generator requirements for full power operation is closely geared to the Owners Group program schedule and is being expedited through he establishment of a special review team in NRR.

B..

Steps for dealing with potential delays.

The specific steps for dealing with potential licensing delays will vary from plant to plant.

In general, the most important step is the early identification of the issues that could potentially cause delay.

In light of recent developments in several cases that required the establishment of special review teams to pro-vide for an integrated approach to the completion of NRC regulatory activities, I have asked the staff to develop management plans for each license issuance anticipated during the next 12-18 months.

These plans will include determination of known and potential issues requiring staff resolution at each plant.

Such planning will provide added assurance that potential significant issues are identified and that staff resources to resolve them are made available in time to avoid unnecessary delays.

The staff's preliminary assessment of known, or potentially significant, issues for the plants identified in the Chairman's March 20, 1984 memorandum and several other up-coming OLs is attached for use at the Commission meeting scheduled for April 24, 1984.

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

cc: OPE i

SECY OGC l

I

l The Commission '

1 (7) Palo Verde and Grand Gulf - The Chairman requested that the staff keep the Commission informed of actions planned or rieeded, and that the staff review of the diesel generators be completed on an expedited basis. A summary report on known and potential significant issues for a number of upcoming facilities accompanies this paper. Matters needing specific Commission action will be brought promptly to their attention.

Regarding diesel generators, the Palo Verde facility does not use the TDI diesels.

For Grand Gulf, the staff review of diesel generaator requirements for full power operation is closely geared to the Owners Group program schedule and is being expedited through the establishment of a special review team in NRR.

B.

Steps for dealing with potential delays.

The specific steps for dealing with potentiai licensing delays will vary from plant to plant.

In general, the most important step is the early identification of the issues that could potentially cause delay.

In light of recent developments in several cases that required the establishment of special review teams to pro-vide for an integrated approach to the completion of NRC regulatory activities, I have asked the staff to develop management plans for each license issuance anticipated during the next 12-18 months.

These plans will include determination of known and potential issues requiring staff resolution at each plant.

Such planning will provide added assurance that potential significant issues are identified and that staff resources to resolve them are made available in time to avoid unnecessary delays.

The staff's preliminary assessment of known, or potentially significant, issues for the plants identified in the Chairman's March 20, 1984 memorandum and several other up-coming OLs is attached for use at the Commission meeting scheduled for April 24, 1984.

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

i cc: OPE SECY OGC DL DL ONRR ED0 GMeyer:mes DGEisenhut HRDenton WJDircks 4/ /84 4/ /84 4/ /84 4/ /84 1

DISTRIBUTION Central Files WJDircks HRDenton ECase DGEisenhut RAPurple GMeyer DL/RF

1 Document Name:

SHOREHAM SLIDE Requestor's ID:

'OPR6-Author's Name:

l G. Meyer

' Document Comments:

Destination Name:

LEAD 0P Notes:

Distribution Name:

NRCADMP_ JEAN _0148 Addressee:

Chris I

i

SHOREHAM SIGNIFICAN1 ISSUES 1.

FSAR REVIEW -

o TDI DIESEL RELIABILITY - REPAIRS ARE STILL IN PROGRESS.

CONCURRENT WITH EFFORTS TO REPAIR AND REQUALIFY TDI ENGINES, THE APPLICANT IS CONSTRUCTING A NEW EDG BUILDING TO HOUSE THREE NEW EDGs.

0WNERS GROUP STUDY IS BEHIND SCHEDULE.

RELIABILITY OF THE TDI DIESELS IS AN ADMITTED HEARING CONTENTION.

LILC0 HAS ASKED ASLB TO AUTHORIZE LOW-POWER LICENSE RELYING ON ENHANCED OFF-SITE POWER SUPPLIES.

THE STAFF QUESTIONS LILCO'S RELIANCE ON COUNTY POLIC TO o

ACT AS OFF-SITE RESPONSE FORCE AS REQUIRED BY NRC SECURITY REGULATIONS.

SHOREHAMgPggNG STAFF HAS NO HOT BWR EXPERIENCE. LILC0 o

HAS HIRED, ADVISORS.

CHANGES IN LILCO'S MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION ARE UNDER REVIEW. Nw VP-#& **

b, ACCEPTABILITY OF REACTOR BUILDING FOR FLOODING CAUSED BY

' o g)_.

PIPE BREAKS IS BEING QUESTIONED BY STAFF.

NEW EVAL-pb UATION BASED ON PRA IS BEING PERFORMED.

GYP -

9

(

_RE(n0N 1 BELIEVEW MSIV LEAKAGE SHOULD BE COLLECTED OR x

o DIVERTED TO CONTAINMENT SUMP TO MINIMIZE CONTAMINATION.

ps@}

j#

x 2.

HEARINGS - THREE SEPARATE HEARING BOARDS-(ASLBs) ARE PRESIDING.

o ORIGINAL BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TDI DIESEL LITIGATION.

FAVORABLE DECISION ON ALL OTHER ISSUES EXCEPT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WAS ISSUED IN DECEMBER 1983. A SCHEDULE FOR TDI HEARING WILL NOT BE SET UNTIL COMPLETION OF APPLICANT'S DIESEL DESIGN REVIEW QUALITY REVERIFICATION PROGRAM.

o EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ISSUES HAVE BEEN MOVED TO A SEPARATE BOARD. A DECISION IS EXPICTED BY FALL 1984 o

THIRD BOARD WAS RECENTLY ESTABLISHED TO CONSIDER LILCO'S MOTION FOR LOW-POWER LICENSE.

LILCO SUBMITTED MOTION TO PERMIT LOW POWER BASED ON RELIABILITY / AVAILABILITY OF ENHANCED OFFSITE POWER.

STAFF IS REVIEWING M

N" RELATING TO 0FFSITE POWER.

3.

OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING - SUFFOLK COUNTY HAS REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING.

GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK SUPPORTS SUFFOLK COUNTY POSITION. APPLICANT HAS ESTABLISHED ITS OWN LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATION, LEGALITY OF WHICH IS QUESTIONED BY COUNTY AND STATE AND IS g

SUBJECT OF SUIT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.

FEMA REVIEW OF EMERGENCY PLAN FOUND 32 INADEQUACIES, SOME RELATING TO QUESTIONS OF LEGAL AUTHORITY.

. Document Name:

-MIDLAND 2 SLIDE Requestor's ID:

OPR6 Author's Name:

Gary Meyer Document Comments:

Destination Name:

LEAD 0P Notes:

Distribution Name:

NRCADNP_ JEAN _0149 i

Addressee:

Chris f

N N'

+

e-v e

-r-,--

MIDLAND UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE - ON 4/10/84, THE APPLICANT ANNOUNCED MAJOR SLIPPAGE IN THE SCHEDULE FOR UNIT 2 TO 12/86 FOR COMMERCIAL OPERATION.

THIS WOULD EQUATE TO APPROXIMATELY 7/86 FOR A FUEL LOAD DATE.

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN APPLICANT AND MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION AND OTHER ELECTED STATE OFFICIALS ARE STILL NEEDED TO DETERMINE PLANT COMPLETION PLANS.

2.

QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION - MAJOR QUESTIONS EXIST CONCERNING THE OVERALL QUALITY OF 2PNSTRUCTION.

THREE SEPARATE THIRD PARTY REVIEWS ARE UNDERWAY AND A FOURTH IS IN PLANNING. THESE INCLUDE:

IDVP -

EVALUATES THREE SYSTEMS.

DESIGN VERIFICATION TO BE COMPLETED BY TERA IN 7/84.

PHYSICAL VERFICATION DELAYED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS MORE COMPLETE.

CCP -

INSPECTION BY APPLICANT OF 100% OF ALL ACCESSIBLE SAFETY SYSTEMS.

STONE & WEBSTER IS CONDUCTING INDE-PENDENT OVERVIEW.

ALL STOP WORK ORDERS IN EFFECT WERE LIFTED IN FEBRUARY 1984. ACTIVITIES OF THE CCP ARE BEING INITIATED BY APPLICANT AS ALLOWED BY APPROVED PLAN.

S0ILS REWORK OVERVIEW - STONE & WEBSTER PERFORMING OVERVIEW OF REWORK DUE TO SOILS COMPACTION PROBLEMS, INCLUDING UNDERPINNING.

MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW -

IN RESPONSE TO NRC ORDER, AN INDE-PENDENT MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL WILL BE COMPLETED.

PLAN IS UNDER NRC REVIEW.

i 4

.F 3.

HEARINGS -

TWO SEPARATE HEARINGS IN PROGRESS.

THESE ARE:

SOILS HEARINGS ON MODIFICATION ORDER - ISSUES OF S0IL COMPACTION PROBLEMS AND QA/QC.

BOARD'S DECISION IS EXPECTED BY 8/84.

THERE ARE TWO PENDING MOTIONS TO REOPEN THE RECORD.- ONE ON STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING AND ONE ON ISSUE OF WHETHER CPC LIED CONCERNING SCHEDULE.

OPERATING LICENSE HEARING -

21 CONTENTIONS WERE ADMITTED AND 17 0F THESE ARE STILL TO BE LITIGATED.

NO SCHEDULE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.

[

4.

REMEDIAL SOILS ACTIVITIES - INADEQUATELY COMPACTED SOIL BENEATH SEVERAL MAJOR STRUCTURES WAS DISCOVERED IN 1978.

DIESEL GEN'ERATOR BUILDING (DGB) WAS SURCHARGED WITH SAND TO CONSOLIDATE UNDERLYING SOILS. UNDERPINNING OF SOUTHERN PORTION OF AUXILIARY BUILDING IS UNDERWAY, AS ARE PREPARA-TION FOR UNDERPINNING OF THE NORTHERN PORTION OF SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE.

THE MAGNITUDE AND COMPLEXITY OF THIS PROCESS IS UNPRECEDENTED IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.

5.

ALLEGATIONS - MAJOR INSPECTION EFFORTS HAVE BEEN EXPENDED ON 182 ALLEGATIONS IN 1983/1984. - OF THESE, 106 HAVE BEEN CLOSED. THE 76 OPEN ALLEGATIONS COME-FROM 17 ALLEGERS AND C0VER A WIDE SPECTRUM OF ISSUES.

P 6.

DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING - STAFF IS REVIEWING SIGNIFICANCE I

0F FURTHER STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENTS AND CRACKING OF THE BUILDING OCCURRING DURING DGB SURCHARGE (TDI DIESELS ARE USED).

1 i

- Document N:me:

~

PALO VERDE 1 SLIDE Requestor.'s ID:

OPR6

. Author's Name':

Gary Meyer Document Comments: 1 Destination Name:

LEAD 0P Notes:

Distribution Name:

NRCADMP_ JEAN _0150 Addressee:

Chris

" ~ -

-n

(

PALO VERDE UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.

SCHEDULE SLIPPAGE - SCHEDULE FOR FUEL LOAD WAS RECENTLY REVISED FROM MAY 1984 TO FIRST QUARTER 1985.

APPLICANT'S STATED CHANGE WAS RESULT OF (1) PROBLEMS WITH LPSI PUMPS, (2) EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS FOUND DURING HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING, (3) NEED FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO NRC SPECIAL TEAM INSPECTION, AND (4) 3-MONTH SUSPENSION OF START-UP TESTING BY APPLICANT TO CONDUCT AUDIT.

2.

LPSI PUMP - PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED DURING TESTING IN LATE 1983; MODIFICATIONSITO PUMP INTERNALS DID NOT COMPLETELY SOLVE PROBLEM.

LARGER MOTOR HAS BEEN INSTALLED AND SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN PUMP PERFORMANCE RESULTED WHICH MAY HAVE SOLVED PROBLEMS. APPLICANT IS CONTINUING TO EVALUATE.

STAFF REVIEW 0F PROBLEM PENDING RECEIPT OF APPLICANT'S REPORT TENTA-TIVELY SCHEDULED FOR LATE APRIL.

3.

HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING - DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT IN CESSAR SYSTEM 80 SCOPE OCCURRED DURING HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING, INCLUDING (1) BROKEN THERM 0 WELLS, (2) LOOSE AND BROKEN PARTS TO REACTOR COOLANT PUMPS, (3) LOOSE THERMAL SLEEVES, AND (4) CRACKED SHROUDS 0N THE CEA UPPER SUPPORT STRUCTURE. ANALYSES AND REPAIRS ARE UNDERWAY. A FINAL REPORT TO THE NRC IS DUE IN AUGUST 1984.

STAFF IS MONITORING PROGRESS AND WILL REVIEW /

EVALUATE FINAL REPORT.

+

4.

REGION V SPECIAL TEAM INSPECTION - A SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAL INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED 11/1/83.

FOCUS WAS CON-STRUCTION, HOWEVER, A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS FOUND INDICATED DEFICIENCIES MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM ACTIVITIES PERFORMED AFTER TURNOVER TO OPERATIONS AND STARTUP.

CIVIL PENALTY WAS PROPOSED FOR VIOLATION - QA PROGRAM DID NOT MAINTAIN ADEQUATE CONTROL OVER ACTIVITIES.

APPLICANT'S PRDMPT AND EXTENSIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION INCLUDED INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT, SUSPENSION OF STARTUP WORK, MANAGEMENT REORGANIZATION, AND PROMPT AND EXTENSIVE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF SENIOR CORPORATE MANAGEMENT.

~

5.

HEARING - LICENSING BOARD AND APPEAL BOARD DECISIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED, HOWEVER, INTERVENORS HAVE INDICATED INTENT TO FILE CONTENTIONS AND REQUEST A REOPENING OF THE RECORD AS A RESULT OF VARIOUS ALLEGED PROBLEMS, INCLUDING CHARGES OF CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES BY FOUR FORMER PALO VERDE WORKERS AND EQUIPMENT DAMAGE DURING HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING.

6.

ALLEGATIONS - THERE ARE SEVERAL OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS AT THIS TIME, THE STAFF ANTICIPATES A LARGE NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS IN THE FUTURE FROM GAP.

t i

e 99 b

4:-

Document Name:

BYRON SLIDE Requestor's ID:

OPR6--

Author's.Name:

Gary Meyer Document Comments:

Destination Name:

LEAD 0P Notes:

Distribution Name:

NRCADNP_ JEAN _0151 Addressee:

Chris e

en

-'-~

BYRON UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.

DENIAL OF APPLICATION - ON 1/13/84 THE ASLB DENIED OPERATING LICENSE ON BASIS OF INADEQUACIES IN QA. APPLICANT HAS APPEALED. STAFF'S BRIEF ON APPEAL TAKES THE POSITION THAT APPEAL BOARD SHOULD VACATE ADVERSE RESULT OF ASLB AND REOPEN RECORD TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE ON BYRON REINSPECTION PROGRAM.

INTERVENORS HAVE APPEALED OTHER ASPECTS OF ASLB INITIAL DECISION.

2.

READINESS FOR FUEL LOAD - APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT PLANT WILL BE FULLY READY TO LOAD FUEL BY 7/1/84.

IF THE ASLB'S DECISION IS VACATED ON APPEAL, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EXTENSIVE HEARINGS ON QA ISSUES MAY STILL BE REQUIRED AND MIGHT NOT BE COMPLETE BY 7/1/84.

3.

FSAR REVIEW - THERE REMAINS A FEW MAJOR ISSUES YET TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDING: (1) DEVIATIONS FROM APPENDIX R REQUIRE-MENTS IN APPROXIMATELY 20 AREAS; (2) EQ PROGRAM FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND MUST BE REVISED; AND (3) ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS OR ANALYSES FOR CATEGORY I MASONR) WALLS MAY BE REQUIRED.

4.

OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING - ASLB HAS RETAINED JURISDICTION OVER EMERGENCY PLANNING MATTERS AND INTERVENDORS WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK FURTHER HEARINGS IF DISSATISFIED WITH APPLICANT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS COMMITMENTS TO RESOLVE EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS APPRAISAL IN DECEMBER 1983 IDENTIFIED 14 AREAS WHERE APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES WERE NOT COMPLETE.

APPLICANT GIVEN AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR RESPONSES.

'I f

l l

2

r 5.

INSPECTION - ROUTINE NRC INSPECTIONS ARE ON SCHEDULE FOR A JULY 1, 1984 FUEL LOAD DATE, HOWEVER, A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER j

OF VIOLATIONS, OPEN ITEMS, AND UNRESOLVED ITEMS EXIST, MANY OF WHICH ARE AWAITING APPLICANT RESPONSE / ACTION.

IDI COMPLETED 6/83. MOST SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS WERE RELATED TO DEFICIENCIES IN PIPE BREAK AND CRACK ANALYSES.

APPLICANT'S RESPONSES HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED.

APPLICANT STOP WORK ORDER IS IN EFFECT PENDING COM-PLETION OF 10D% REINSPECTION OF HVAC SYSTEMS FOR AS-BUILT VS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.

i 6.

ALLEGATIONS - ALLEGATIONS ARE UNDER REVIEW IN THE GENERAL

^

AREAS OF IMPROPER CERTIFICATION OF QC INSPECTOR, POSTDATING RECORDS, INTIMIDATION OF INSPECTORS, FAILURE TO MEET ASME CODE, OMISSION OF REINFORCEMENT STEEL, INSTALLED HANGER /

SUPPORTS NOT PER DESIGN DOCUMENTS, FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS AND FAILURE TO CONDUCT REQUIRED INSPECTIONS.

INCINERATOR - UNIQUE PROPOSAL FOR HANDLING OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE UNDER REVIEW BY THE STAFF.

A f

A

- Document Name:

. LIMERICK 1 SLIDE Requestor's ID:

~ OPR6

)

Author's Name:

Gary Meyer Document Comments:

- Destination Name:

~ LEAD 0P 1

Notes:

01stribution Name:

NRCADMP_ JEAN _0152 e

Addressee:

- Chris

/

i n

4 i

w I

h V

4.

J i

i o

e e g

LIMEKICK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.

FSAR REVIEW - THERE REMAINS A NUMBER OF MAJOR ISSUES YET TC BE RESOLVED, INCLUDING REVIEW 0F ONSITE AND OFFSITE EMER-GENCY PLANS, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT, AND CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW.

DUE TO THE NUMBER OF ITEMS STILL OPEN, A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT WILL BE REQUIRED TO RESOLVE THESE ON A SCHEDULE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S PLANS FOR LOW-POWER TESTING.

2.

HEARING SCHEDULE - HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE OVER NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS FOR (1) ONSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING, (2) 0FFSITE EMER-GENCY PLANNING, AND (3) ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF SEVERE ACCIDENT RISKS.

THE ASLB DECISION CONCERNING THESE ISSUES IS EXPECTED IN JANUARY 1985.

THE APPLICANT'S OFFICIAL FUEL LOAD DATE IS AUGUST 1, 1984.

3.

PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT - IN CONSIDERATION OF HIGH POPULATION DENSITY, APPLICANT HAS PERFORMED A PRA.

STAFF'S EVALUATION OF PRA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REPORTED IN DES AND FES.

STAFF HAS CONCLUDED THAT RISKS OF RADIATION EXPOSURE ASSOCIATED WITH ACCIDENTAL RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVITY IS VERY LOW FOR LIMERICK.

CONSIDERATION OF PRA RESULTS IN HEARING WILL BE UNIQUE.

4.

NRC INSPECTIONS - THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ROUTINE INSPECTION WORK YET TO BE DONE.

MANY ROUTINE INSPECTIONS CANNOT BE PERFORMED YET BECAUSE OF THE TESTING SCHEDULE OR STATE OF READINESS OF PLANT. +nuuRESS DOES NOT APPEAR T0 d [

BE CONSISTENT WITH AN AUGUST 1, 1984 FUEL LOAD DATE.

(

5.

IDVP - APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO PERFORM AN INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM AND IS IN THE PROCESS OF SELECTING A CONTRACTOR AND DEVELOPING THE PROPOSED SCOPE.

THE PROGRAM PLAN INCLUDING THE SCOPE OF THE REVIEW IS EXPECTED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE STAFF IN MAY.

4

6.

ACRS - LETTER OF 10/18/83 CONCURRED WITH ISSUANCE OF LICENSE FOR FUEL LOAD AND OPERATION UP TO 5% POWER.~

COMMITTEE WISHES TO REVIEW FURTHER (1) EMERGENCY PLANNING, (2) PRA, (3) POTENTIAL COOLING TOWER FAILURE EFFECTS, (4) PLANT SECURITY, AND (5) SEISMIC MARGINS.

/

7.

POINT PLEASANT DIVERSION PROJECT - THE AP ICANT INTENDS TO USE WATER FROM THE DELAWARE RIVER FOR KEUP FOR CONDENSER COOLINGEVAPORATIVELOSSWHENTHESCHI.KILLRIVERISNOT AVAILABLE DUE TO FLOW AND TEMPERATURE RESTRICTIONS.

CON-STRUCTION ON THE DIVERSION PROJECT HAS BEEN DELAYED BY COURT IMPOSED WORK STOPPAGES.

EVEN IF THESE WORK STOPPAGES WERE LIFTED, IT IS LIKELY THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT BE COMPLETED UNTIL EARLY 1985.

8.

LOW-POWER AUTHORIZATION - IN A LETTER DATED 4/11/84, APPLICANT STATED THAT THEY INTEND TO FILE, IN LATE APRIL OR MAY, A MOTION FOR AUTHORIZATION OF FUEL LOADING AND LOW-POWER TESTING.

, - -