ML20126E388
| ML20126E388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8506170064 | |
| Download: ML20126E388 (50) | |
Text
.
ORIGINAL 9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING - PUBLIC MEETING Discussion /Possible Vote on Full Power Operating License for Wolf Creek Docket No.
ED ClE3 Location:
Washington, D.C.
Monday, June 3, 1985 Pages:
1 - 46 Date:
8506170064 850603 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters 1625 I St.,
N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
4 4
1 D l SCLA I MER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuc lear Regu l a tory Cccel ss ion he ld on 3
June 3, 1985 in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street.
9 N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain
(
12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of cptnion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authoeiro, 22 23 24 25
t 1
s 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 DISCUSSION /POSS1BLE VOTE ON FULL POWER 5
OPERATING L1 CENSE FOR WOLF CREEK 6
7 PUBLiC MEETING 8
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Room 1137 11 1717 "H"
- Street, N.W.
12 Washington, D.C.
13 2
14 Monday, June 3, 1985 15 16 The Corren i s s i on me t in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 4:05 o' clock p.m.,
NUNZIO J.
PALLADINO, Chairman of 16 the Commission, presiding.
19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 NUNZIO J.
PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 21 THOMAS M.
ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 22 JAMES K, ASSELSTlNE, Member of the Commission 23 FREDERICK M.
BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 24 LANDO W.
- ZECH, JR,,
Member of the Commission 25
6 2
l i
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
i 2
S.
CHILK i
3 C.
KAGAN l
4 W.
DIRCKS t
1 5
H.
DENTON 6
E.
CHRISTENBURY 1
i I
i 7
T.
NOVAK i
1 l
8 R.
MARTIN
]
9 P.
O'CONNOR 1
i 10 G.
KDESTER v
11 C.
MASON l
i 12 K.
BROWN k
13 i
I 14 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
15 H.
THOMPSON t
16 R.
B.
DENISE l
17 L.
MARTIN 18 i
19 20 21 I
22 23 1
l 24 j
25 l
3 1
p ROCEED 1 N GS 2
CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
The meeting will please come to 3
order.
We want to express our regret for the delay in this 4
meeting.
Earlier this afternoon the Commission had a closed 5
meeting with the Office of Investigations to discuss the 6
significance of pending Wolf Creek investigations.
7 Subsequently, there was another meeting on this subject.
I 9
have asked the Office of General Counsel to review the 9
transcript of both meetings in order to determine what if any 10 of the information received by the Commission during either 11 meeting should be released.
12 The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and decide
(
13 on whether or not a full power license shall be granted for 14 the Wolf Creek Nuclear power plant.
On March 11, 1985 the NRC 15 issued a low-power license for the Wolf Creek Nuclear plant 16 authorizing fuel load pre-criticality testing and low power 17 operation for power levels up to five percent of full power.
18 The NRC staff has prepared a presentation and 1 19 understand that other members of the staff as well as 20 representatives from Kansas Gas and Electric Company are 21 available to answer any questions that we might have.
1 22 At the conclusion of the staff presentation, i 23 intend to poll the other Commissioners on whether or not we 24 should authorize the staff to issue the Wolf Creek full power 25 license.
s O
1 Do any other Commissioners have any comments at this l
2 time?
3 (No response.)
4 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
All right.
Let me turn the 1
5 meeting over to Mr. Denton.
1 6
MR. DENTON:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have at i
7 the table today paul O'Connor who is the project manager, Tom 8
Novak who is the assistant director for this type of plant, 9
Bob Martin who is the Regional Administrator and other senior i
i 10 staff members are in the audience.
i 11 Since this plant is identical to previously licensed 12 Callaway plant, I would propose that we not spend any
/
l' 13 significant time on design features but go directly to lasues i
14 of construction and readiness for operation.
15 Let me have Tom Novak just summarize the slides that 16 deal with traditional design matters and then we will turn it l
17 over to Bob Martin.
18 MR. NOVAK Thank you, Harold.
May I have the l
19 second slide please?
20 (SLIDE.)
l 21 MR. NOVAK:
We would be prepared to answer questions i
22 on any of these subjects.
Specifically with regard to the i
28 structural steel welding issue, Region IV would be prepared to 1
24 discuss it under their inspection program.
- 0. 5 Slide three, please.
s 5
1 (SLIDE.)
2 MR. NOVAK:
You will note that Kansas Gas and 3
Electric is one of the owners of the plant and the designated 4
operator of the plant.
5 The SNUppS facility as Harold said is similar to 6
Callaway.
In fact, the architect engineer and general 7
contractor at Callaway is the same that was employed at Wolf 8
Creek.
O We are satisfied that the licensee has met all of 10 the emergency planning requirements including the Guard versus 11 NRC decision.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Tom, at some point and it la doesn't have to be right now, I would like you or Bob or both 14 of you to address license condition number ten and also the 15 licensee *s performance on the last SALP review on emergency 16 planning.
17 I would like to get a sense for what the basis for 18 license condition number ten particularly in view of the i
19 finding that you have there at the bottom of the slide and 20 also what the basis was for the current SALP rating on l
21 emergency planning and is the license condition tied into that 22 assuring corrective action on those problem areas?
23 MR. NOVAK All right We can cover that through my 24 presentation.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Fine.
__= -
i 0
1 MR. NOVAK:
May I have slide number four, please?
2 (SLIDE.)
3 MR, NOVAK With respect to the FSAR Review, we 4
utilized completely the Callaway design, in fact, in the 5
safety evaluation for Wolf Creek we simply referenced the 6
Callaway SER with regard to the power block which included 7
some seven main structures, it simplified our review of Wolf S
Creek and utilized in this case the duplicate plant concept.
g The licensee does have a commitment to complete 10 qualification of necessary equipment.
There la some specific 11 15 different components that he is committed to quality by 12 November.
I 13 These are typical of those that are being quellfled 14 under the Westinghouse Owners Group and we expect them to be 15 done in the July time frame.
16 There is no equipment that would have to be replaced 17 at this time, it is a question of qualifying existing te equipment.
1g The low level waste storage at Wolf Creek, currently 20 they do have a nine month storage capacity.
They also have 21 completed a design that would permit a five year storage and 22 it would take them about eight months to construct it and 23 again that would be something they would make a decision on in 24 the future, 25 The technical specifications for Wolf Creek, of
7 1
course, benefited from the Callaway plant, There was an 2
especially detailed on-site review by the Region.
Region ll 3
and IV personnel collaborated in a detailed review of the Wolf 4
Creek Tech Specs and some evidence to that is the fact that in 5
the operation of the Wolf Creek plant there has been no 6
requirement for any toch spec changes.
7 They will be again requesting some improvements or G
modifications, clarifications and we expect to issue those as 9
part of the full power license.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Tom, are there any 11 differences in the tech specs between Wolf Creek and Callaway?
12 NR. O'CONNOR:
There are minor differences, of
(
13 course, in the administrative sections.
The tech specs are 14 basically identical.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right.
16 MM. NOVAKr There is one on the steam generator tube 17 plugging limit and we are going to at some point in time get 18 those together but they currently are different values.
19 COMMISSICNER ASSELSTINE:
At some point, I would 20 like to hear a little bit more about the s t eam genera tor 21 conditions that you imposed.
My question was, why wasn't 22 that resolved before Callaway but you can get that later if 23 you want.
24 MR. NOVAK Thank you.
May I have the next slide?
25 (SLIDE.)
t C
1 MR. NOVAK:
On the next slide having to do with 2
shift staffing, I would only point out that again you will 3
notice a very trained crew, 33 out of the 38 licenses are at 4
the SRO level in their management, they do carry an 5
experience level.
6 I would like to correct two numbers.
You will note 7
that the director of nuclear operations shows 17 years of hot 8
operation.
That is really incorrect.
He has six years of 9
commercial hot.
The remaining 11 has to do with construction 10 and pre-op testing.
That Individual came to Wolf Creek from 11 the Tennessee Valley Authority.
12 Similarly, there is a value of 52 years shown for
(
18 the total cumulative years of shift advisor experience.
That 14 was based on seven advisors.
They did have one person leave 15 and that value,is really 40 years but the average experience 16 of any advisor remains about the same.
17 I would note that this plant utilizes the shift 18 technical advisor and the shift supervisor as one individual.
19 They actually have 22 quallfled shift technical advisors.
20 They are very satisfied with this program and they think that i
o 21 it has been a strong morale improvement for the organization.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are those folks degreed?
23 MR. NOVAK There are four of those who do have a 24 Bachelor's degree and my understanding is the remainder are 25 anxious to continue their educational program.
-p
-. - -. ~,. - -,, - - _ - - - - -., ~ -
.----._-.--.~,_,a.-.
O 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Very good.
I think that l
2 is commendable.
I think this is the best approach by far and 3
the fact that they have degreed people and others that are i
4 seeking or want to get their degrees, I think is commendable.
5 MR. NOVAK They are very satisfied with the 6
program.
i 7
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I think it is a good program, 8
also.
The fact that they are encoura2ing their people to get 9
degrees is I think very important.
I wou t ti agree with 10 Commissioner Asselstine's comment in that regard.
11 MR. NOVAK Before I turn over the remainder of the 12 program to Mr. Martin, perhaps we ceutd discuss this license
(
13 condition ten.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I had one question on this 15 before you left this slide.
The shift advisors, I take it 16 that the shift advisors have all completed their training 17 program and that the staff has reviewed that training program 18 and satisfied itself that it is adequate both in terms of Ig understanding the plant?
20 MR. NOVAK:
I would ask the region for any 21 assistance it could offer.
22 MR. MARTIN:
Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good.
That is a good 24 answer.
25 MR. CHRISTEN 8URY:
Commissioner, with regard to
10 1
condition ten which you raised, Mr. Chairman, you can correct 2
me if I stray off here but this is a condition we have had in 3
for some three years or two or three years.
It was outgrowth 4
of a meeting with Chairman palladino and General Gulffreda.
I 5
think General Gulffreda expressed the concern that after a 6
plant got its license they may be less than vigorous in 7
assisting and participating in a continuation of FEMA's O
review.
9 What this is is, I believe, almost a comment on the 10 obvious that if during the course of FEMA's continued review, 11 we perceive any problem in compliance with our regulations, we 12 would give consideration of whether to starting the 120-day
(
13 clock.
14 This was, as I recall, a commitment that the 15 Chairman made to General Gulffreda.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
So it is a generic 17 condition that we put in all of them.
18 MR. CHRISTENBURY:
Yes.
That is correct.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It has nothing to do with 20 this particular plant.
21 MR. CHRISTENBURY:
That is correct, yes.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right.
23 MR. MARTIN:
If we could move to slido six, please?
24 (SLIDE.)
25 MR. MARTIN:
Slide six is a brief description of the
4 11 1
inspection program conducted at Wolf Creek.
There was a task 2
force mounted to conduct the inspection program at Wolf 3
Creek.
As you may recall from prior briefings that I have 4
given, this was not because of concerns over the plant.
It 5
was, in fact, an outgrowth of a diversion of resources during 6
a period of time in Wolf Creek's history to deal with other 7
plant-related problems in Region IV.
8 This was a question of getting the implementation of 9
the NRC's inspection program up-to-date.
So the task force 10 was really to address getting our program back up to date with 11 the status of the plant.
12 That was conducted and expended and has been
(.
13 satisfactorily completed.
There is some data up there in 14 terms of the total inspection effort.
As mentioned before, we 15 have done a number of special inspections.
There was the 16 special construction verification and this was a review of 17 some self-appraisal work that the licensee had conducted.
18 We also gained assistance, very heavy assistance, 19 from Region lit in general throughout the program and then 20 specifically with Region 11 to do a special technical 21 specification and procedural inspection review.
22 One point that I would point out is our efforts 23 to review the Quality First program.
f 24 The Quality First program at Wolf Creek is a f
25 voluntary program that the company entered into for the 7--,
12 it is an exit interview, hot line 1
purpose of ascertaining 2
type of program-- for the purpose of ascertaining whether or 3
not there are staff members either presently on the job or as 4
they are leaving the job who have concerns, construction 5
workers, anyone associated with the plant, that have concerns 6
that may relate to safety and safety activities.
7 This program was started roughly in the spring of 8
1984 and since its inception, there have been on the order of 9
seven inspections conducted by Region IV staff of the general 10 outgrowth of this program, its conduct, how it has been going, 11 in terms of not using specific criteria but using the general 12 criteria that onc., if the issue is safety significant and then 13
- two, if it is safety significant, is the company treating the 14 resolution of that issue in a fashion similar to what we would 15 have expected them had the NRC identified the issue rather 16 than they identify it themselves.
l 17 There are no regulatory requirements specifically 18 imposed on such a program.
So it was an overview and the 19 company has made access to the files available to us 20 throughout the conduct of the program.
21 Very recently, approximately two weeks ago, as an 22 outgrowth of not only a 2.206 petition but other questions 23 that were raised, the issue was raised whether or not we 24 should further evaluate the Q1 program.
25 in order to do that I requested assistance from lE,
- ~ - -
18 1
Office of Inspection and Enforcement, from NRR and the Office 2
of Investigations as well as staff from Region IU under a 8
senior manager of Region IV to go up and review the flies of 4
the Q1 program in their entirety.
5 The numbers may not be exactly correct, but all 751 6
concerns that are contained in the Q1 Program in some 200 plus 7
files were reviewed by technical reviewers and additional 8
review over that to ascertain whether or not there were any 9
issues contained in there wherein the staff would be reluctant 10 to recommend the issuance of a full power license.
11 Although we had to do a little bit of supplemental 12 work on some nine files or so, basically the technical
('
18 reviewers of the staff did conclude that there were no 14 technical issues that would cause them to recommend against i
15 full power issuance, i
16 There were some issues identified by the 01 l
17 contingent that related to the adequacy of the type of 18 investigatory follow-up that the investigators or the staff 19 associated with the Q1 Program were doing and we plan to 20 pursue those particular issues with the licensee further.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do any of those have any safety l
I ilplications based on your review?
22 and health m
23 MR. MARTIN:
Based on our review, no.
Those 24 particular issues about which 01 raised some concerns about l
l 25 the way in which the investigation was conducted, we did look
10 1
at it from the technical side.
The technical review was still 2
done and the staff has still concluded that they don't see 3
anything in those issues that they would urge them to 4
recommend against full power issuance.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You mentioned nine that you 6
have to look into more.
Could you just give us a little more 7
information on that?
8 MR. MARTIN:
During the technical review of the 9
files, there were a number of times in which there may be some 10 miscellaneous questions that the staff wanted to develop 11 further with staff members of KGSE.
12 As my memory serves me, there were nine issues in t
13 which the completeness, the technical completeness, of the Q1 14 files were such that the staff themselves wanted to go out and 15 do further field inspections on their own to assure themselves 16 that there were not problems out there that would preclude 17 issuance of a full power license from their view.
I 13 They did those follow-ups.
Those follow-ups have
{
l 19 been done and there are no issues.
The. issues got settled.
20 It was just a question of the adequacy of the completeness of 21 the files in the Q1 Program itself but we satisfied ourselves 22 the issue was all right 23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I want to make sure i 24 understand.
This is a voluntary program not required by our 25 regulations.
15 1
MR. MARTIN:
That is correct.
2 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
I think that needs to be kept 8
in mind.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Jim, did you have a comment?
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
I just want to make 6
sure that i understand what the staff did.
We spent a fair 7
part of the afternoon talking about some of the weaknesses in 8
the investigatory side of the Quality First Program but for 9
all of those areas where our Office of Investigations has 10 questions about the adequacy of the investigations of wrong 11 doing, I take it the staff has looked at the technical aspects 12 of all of the matters that are involved in those questionable 13 areas still and has satisfied itself from the standpoint of 14 operation, construction and the start-up testing program that 15 there are not any significant technical issues still open.
16 Is that a fair characterization?
l 17 MR. MARTIN:
That is correct.
Yes, it is, sir.
l 18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right.
19 MR. MARTIN:
with that, if we can move on to slide 20 seven.
21 (SLIDE.)
22 MR. MARTIN:
This is merely a brief summary of the 28 categorization of the SALP ratings for this plant.
This was 24 the SALP period from August of 1983 through September of 25 1984.
10 1
I would point out that this double category is quite O
2 common at a plant in the late stages of pre-operational 3
testing which was the category at the time of the SALP rating 4
covering both construction and pre-operational activities.
5 I would point out that the category three under the 6
construction area in quality assurance primarily evolved from 7
the issue on the miscellaneous structural steel welding for 8
which a civil penalty was assessed.
9 That was a deficit program, in the view of my 10 staff, had it not been for that issue they would have been 11 rated a category two but that one singular but substantive 12 issue caused a valuation as a category three.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are you going to talk 14 about the resolution of that issue at some point?
15 MR. MARTIN:
I certainly have staff available to 16 give a brief discussion or a lengthy, however much the 17 Commission would want.
At this point, would you like an 18 answer to that?
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Since I got about a 20 two-hour dose of this a few months ago, maybe just a summary 21 of what you did to evaluate the structural steel welding 22 question and assure yourselves that things have been corrected 23 there would be useful.
24 MR. MARTIN:
Let me if I can proceed to finish this 25 one slide.
17 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Feel free to do it later.
2 MR. MARTIN:
Then perhaps I can come back and ask 3
one of my staff members and this will give them a few moments 4
to collect his thoughts for a brief presentation.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Fine.
6 MR. MARTIN:
The category three in the area of 7
emergency preparedness in terms of pre-operation and 8
operations, at the time that this SALP rating was conducted, 9
it was in September of 1984.
We were then dealing with a 10 potential projection of a very late fall or early winter, 11 November / December kind of start-up.
12 At that particular point measured against the k
13 September time frame measured against the potential of a 14 December fuel loading, the state of their procedural 15 development and staff training was the primary reason for 4
16 their being rated as a category three because they had not 17 evolved as far in their emergency preparedness as we would 18 expect the plant that close to fuel loading.
i I
19 in fact, it turns out that in fairly short order i
20 they made very substantial strides both in procedure 21 development, personnel training, all issues that were 22 identified during that period of time my emergency 23 preparedness people tell me have been resolved and, in fact, l
24 they did have a successful full exercise.
25 So i believe those issues were encapsulated and that i
l l
10 1
has been taken care of.
2 Could I have slide eight, please?
8 (SLIDE.)
4 MR. MARTIN:
All allegations that we have, that is 5
that Region IV has, in the allegation management system for 6
the agency have been looked at.
The technical issues have 7
been evaluated and if they have not been formally closed out 8
in inspection reports, they are in the process of being closed 9
out in draft inspection reports now.
10 So we have no outstanding allegations on the plant 11 in terms of those which are currently in the system.
I am not 12 addressing at this point viewing the 2.200 petition we have
,i 13 recently received as to whether or not they would be viewed as 14 containing allegations.
15 But apart from that, we have none currently in the 16 system.
17 The issue on investigation, of course, you mentioned 18 and has already been discussed by Mr. Hayes earlier.
19 perhaps at this point I would ask Mr. Novak to 20 address the current status of the 2.206 petition.
21 MR. NOVAK:
Thank you.
As Mr. Martin said the staff 22 has conducted the safety review and at this point in time is 23 recommending to Mr. Denton that the licensing process continue 1
24 en the basis that we have no information which would suggest 25 that based on this petition and the review we have conducted
10 1
that the licensee has failed to meet any of his FSAR 2
commitments.
2 On that basis, we would not at this time recommend 4
any delay in the licensing process.
5 MR. DENTON:
You wanted, Commissioner, to hear about 6
the structural steel welding.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
8 MR. DENTON:
And about steam generators.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
10 MR. DENTON:
We can take them in whatever order you 11 like.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
it doesn't matter t o me,
18 either way.
i 14 MR. DENISE:
Why don't we talk about welding.
15 MR. MARTIN:
I will introduce Mr. Dick Den-ise who is 16 my division director for reactor projects in Region IV who was i
17 also director of the Wolf Creek Task Force.
18 MR. DENISE:
By way of refreshment,in 1977 to 1981 19 there were about 11,000 welded structural steel joints 20 fabricated at Wolf Creek.
21 Of those, about 2,670 were safety related, safety 22 related in the sense that they were in structural members 23 which supported equipment which was safety related or 24 supported building parts which contained equipment which was 25 safety related.
20 1
In March of 1983 there were some inspections by 2
Daniel's construction of fillet welds on structural steel 3
welding.
They rejected 148 of about 241 but upon 4
re-examination accepted those welds on the basis that the 5
deviations were cosmetic.
6 in August of 1983 in examining the documentation 7
they found that some weld records were missing.
These are 8
called miscellaneous structural steel weld records or we call 9
them MSSWR's.
They found 16 and 24 percent of those missing 10 in two buildings and later on, it was found that this was 11 attributed to carelessness in record keeping.
12 We knew for sure that there were some welds not made 18 and therefore records not available.
14 in any event, in July and August the NRC Task Force 15 learned of this situation because there was an on-going 16 document reconciliation effort for building turnover on the 17 part of Kansas Gas and Electric and their contractors.
18 lt was determined by the NRC Task Force that we i
19 would not accept the determinations made earlier on that the 20 defects were cosmetic nor would we accept that the records 21 missing were strictly a problem of record retrievability.
22 At that point we asked KG&E to do some sample 4
23 inspection.
They did some sample inspection.
They found some 24 significant welds which had not been made.
They found some 25 that were at variance with AWS D 1.1 welding criteria and that I
2:
1 is the American Welding Society.
They found some missing 2
structural members.
3 So we sprang therefore to the point that we wanted 4
100 percent reinspection of these structural steel welds.
5 That was accomplished by KOSE.
It was witnessed by Region IV 6
inspectors and independently by Region I inspectors who came 7
up and performed magnetic particle testing and visual testing 8
on those welds which were examined by us.
9 We examined a very significant sample of those and 10 we reviewed the records of the KGSE reinspection program.
The 11 welds that needed to be replaced were replaced.
The welds 12 that needed to be made were made and those that needed to be 13 repaired were repaired and we reached a conclusion that this 14 issuo had been satisfactorily resolved.
15 1 need to mention that much of the inspection that 16 is greater than 50 percent of the welds were inspected after i
17 they had been painted.
This became an issue as to whether one i
18 could reasonably inspect welds when they were painted and we 19 are talking about paint anywhere from four to ten mils thick.
20 The independent inspection done for us by Region I i
l 21 using the NDE Van showed that we could, in fact, visually 22 detect any significant defects in the welds and it also showed 23 that the welds could be inspected through paint using magnetic 24 particles.
25 So based on our finding that significant defects
22 1
could be found by visual inspection through paint and the fact 2
that we could magnetically particle test and that we had, in 3
fact, inspected and magnetically particle tested a significant i
4 sample, we felt comfortable in the resolution of that.
5 l emphasize the paint inspection because the AWS 6
Code says you should inspect before they are painted.
The AWS 7
Code does not address at all corrective action or G
reinspection.
So we were into a reinspection mode that is 9
simply not covered by the Code.
10 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
With regard to visual 11 inspection, what were you able to see with the paint on?
12 MR. DENISE:
It is clear that you can see the length 13 of the weld and you can measu.e it.
You can measure the size 14 of the weld in terms of leg.
You can measure the throat 15 dimension.
You can see significant cratering.
You can see 16 significant cracks although there may be some argument about 17 what a significant crack is or not.
I 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is what I was thinking 19 about.
I have difficulty imagining I could see the cracks.
20 MR. DENISE:
We simply consider any crack that is 21 detectable to be a significant crack but we didn't see any i
l 22 through these visuals.
23 We did have a little side effort on the part of 24 Region I where we made up some samples and deliberately caused 25 cracking in them and then painted them.
We concluded that for
23 1
very, very fine cracks that you could not see those through 2
the paint based on the four samples we made up.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did you then follow-up with 4
magnetic particle testing?
5 MR. DENISE:
Yes, sir, we did and were able to show 6
we could see those through the magnetic particle testing.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Didn't you take some of 8
the paint off of some of them as well?
g MR. DENISE:
Yes, sir.
We had the paint stripped 10 from i believe it was 55 different joints in the reactor 11 building, visually inspected them and magnetic particle tested 12 them and we found no defects.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good.
Thank you.
14 MR. DENISE:
Your welcome.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
16 MR. DENTON:
The question was about steam 17 generators.
Do you want to identify again, Commissioner, 18 which issue?
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
The thing that 20 struck me was in Supplement Five to the SER particularly on 21 pages 15-6 and 15-7.
You talk about the staff's review of the 22 information on steam generator tube ruptures and you say, for 23 example, the staff is not convinced that SNUppS has determined 24 the most limiting single failure with respect to steam 25 generator over-fill The staff cannot agree that level
20' 1
control following the ruptured steam generator tube la routine 2
and straight forward.
3 Basically I guess my question was why was this a 4
question a this point Why wasn't it resolved particularly 5
prior to Callaway or as part of the standard design or are 6
there differences?
7 MR. NOVAKr There really is no difference.
I would 9
view this as a confirmatory analysis.
The experience that was 9
gained from the Glnna' event was that you should not take 10 credit f.or operator action necessarily as early as 30 minutes 11 after the event.
Certainly there would be a different stress 12 level.
4 18 The licensee argues that through his simulator runs 14 and through his understanding of the procedures that he can, 15 in fact, limit the steam generator level following a steam 16 generator tube rupture accident so as to preclude the 17 potential for overfilling of the steam generator into the IG steam lines.
19 The licensee is committed to provide this analysis i
20 by the first refueling.
We don't view this as a major issue 21 because first of all his design has the capability at least to 22 provide acceptable results in the event the steam lines were 23 to be filled.
24 Second, certainly with a new plant the potential for 25 a steam generator tube rupture la much more reduced than one
25 1
of several years of operation.
2 So we view this as a confirmatory analysis just to 3
be sure that the operator behavior and the design basis for 4
this steam generator tube rupture is, in fact, bounded.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Do we require the same 6
thing for Callaway?
7 MR. NOVAK That is my understanding, we do.
8 MR. DENTON:
this is also, I think, part of the USI 9
on control system failures, not so much the weight of the 10 water in the steam line so there is still on-going discussion 11 between ourselves and the ACRS about the best way to approach 12 this problem.
18 I think this concludes our planned presentation.
14 The applicant is present.
Mr. Kent Brown, the executive vice 15 president. Mr. Glenn Koester, the vice president, and a number 16 of his staff are here if you would like to hear from them.
17 CHRIRMAN pALLADINor First let me see if the IG Commission members have any other questions for the staff and 19 then following our usual pattern, I suggest we invite the 20 applicant to join us at the table and make any statement that 21 they would like to make and respond to any questions we may 22 have.
29 Let's first see if there are further questions for 24 the staff.
25 COMMIS910NER ASSELSTINE:
I had two more for the
_ - _ _ _ _ ~ _ - -. - --
2G 1
staff.
One had to do with the low pewer license and again it 2
was the similar kind of thing about why had not this been 3
settled prior to Callaway and it may be the same kind of 4
thing.
It may be an on going item that applies to both.
i 5
On attachment one to Hugh Thompson's March 11, 1985 6
letter to the licensee or the appilcant, conditions for prior 7
to exceeding five percent of rated thermal power, under "D"
9 you have submit an evaluation demonstrating acceptable 9
operation of ECCS component cooling water or central service 10 watar in motor driven auxillary feedwater pumps at the minimum 11 electric frequency allowed by tech specs for the emergency 12 diesel generators.
k 13 I guess I was wondering why that wasn't settled l
14 before.
15 MR. NOVAK That specific item, in fact, all of 10 those as you (lli note, sir, are Region IV requirements.
I 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right, i
18 MR. NOVAK:
So those are confirmatory actions in the 19 field to demonstrate the fact that the machines and the 20 equipment can be cleared out.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSEL3TINEr All right.
The other i
22 question had to do with the May 20th memo from Denny 23 Crutchfield t o you on (Jol f Creek operating experience.
I have 24 actually two questions.
You talk about the number of events i
25 that they have had during the low power testing program and
27 j
I you say 36 non-security related events.
Were there a number O
2 of security related events as well?
3 MR. DIRCKS Yes.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I seem to recall that 5
Callaway had sort of a rash of problems with their security 6
computer.
Old you have a similar experience here or not?
7 MR. MARTIN:
This is Lawrence Martin who is the l
8 section chief who is responsible for the inspection program at 9
Wolf Creek.
10 MR.
L.
MARTIN:
Wolf Creek did not have near as many 11 LER's related to security as Callaway did and in the LER i
12 report all LER's are considered there.
We did not drop some
(
13 of them out.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right.
The other 15 question I had had to do with the note on the top of page two 16 where you talk about the event at Byron on the check valve 17 failures for the MSIV's and you note that you put out an I
18 information notice on that again as opposed to a bulletin.
l l
19 was interested in what had been done or what was being done 20 to follow up on that event by the applicant.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you mean Byron or Wolf 22 Creek?
03 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Wolf Creek.
24 MR. NOVAK We have discussed it and perhaps I can i
25 quickly tell you.
The Applicant has reviewed this.
He has i
28 l
j 1
the capability to in effect put the air compressors on the 2
emergency power supply system, something that the Byron did 3
not have that capability.
4 So in fact if the cumulators would drain which was a 5
concern over these leaking valves, he has the ability to bring 1
6 on his normal air compressor system which would then provide i
7 it.
I 8
He is continuing to look at the design of the check 4
i 9
valves and tends to replace them when an acceptable design is 4
10 available.
11 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
But the design you have now, I
'2 gather, you had the break in the non-safety grade piping, the 1
!(
13 check valves would have enough pressure differential to close, l
14 is that right, if I understand the purpose of those check 15 valves?
16 MR. NOVAK:
Yes.
The check valves are intended to 17 isolate a line so as it would not drain the accumulator f
18 charge.
What we noted from the Byron experience is that they 19 seem to hang up and p =tr m i t the accumulators to drain such that 20 you would not have the air supply that you were looking for.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is because there is not a 22 great pressure differential?
23 MR. NOVAK That is correct.
24 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
So they would function in the 25 event of a break of the non-safety grade piping to which these
29 1
are connected?
2 MR. NOVAKr Any sizeable break would result in 3
acceptable performance by the valves.
4 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Anything else. Jim?
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Fred, do you have any 7
questions?
O COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes.
I have one question 9
which I suppose n ay very wel l apply to other plants as well.
10 l am curious about one of the licensing conditions that 11 appears in attachment three of the low power license and is 12 referenced as license condition number seven in the full power
\\
13 license.
14 That license condition refers essentially to some of 15 the TMI requirements and I have to say that I am somewhat 16 surprised that for a plant that is supposed to be a standard 17 plant and closely resemble a plant of the future so-to-speak, 18 items like reactor vessel water level instrumentation and I am 19 just reading some of them now, subcooling monitors, source 20 range instrumentation quallfled to post-accident condition, 21 auxiliary feedwater pump, turbine exhaust monitor and so on, 22 why those would not have been part of the mix in achieving 23 final construction of what was supposedly a standardized plant 24 design?
Can you explain that to me, please?
1 25 MR. NOVAK:
Let me mention one point.
One of the
38 1
delays in implementation has been the procedure review.
The 2
staff is very concerned that while you may have this equipment 3
installed, have you developed the appropriate procedures so as 4
that if they were called on they could be used in the most 5
appropr i a t e n.anner.
6 So I don't think it is necessarily a failure to get 7
the equipment installed as much as to make sure that we have 8
the right guidelines and detailed procedures so as to 9
implement and use this equipment if needed.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I am sure, for example, the 11 reactor vessel level Indicators must be installed or there is 12 a major problem or a piece of work to be carried out, but it
(
13 is the procedures then for the utilization --
14 MR. NOVAK:
That is my understanding.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Is that true of every one 16 of this list of items?
17 MR. NOVAK:
I can't speak to every one.
I think in
- C the majority of the case, that is it We could certainly have 19 the applicant when he is up here give you an update on this.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But the procedural question 21 presumably applies then to all such plants.
22 MR. DENTON:
The intent is to have all the post-TMl 23 required items in in every plan, I think when you find that 24 they are not it is due to some small detall rather than a 25 total absence of a system.
It may be that the owners group
I i
31 3
1 1
and the staff are still talking about the utilization or some i
2 aspect but I would be surprised if the systems weren't in i
3 there in bulk but I don't think I have someone here who could 4
answer the details of that.
5 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Hugh Thompson is standing.
6 MR. THOMPSON:
Hugh Thompson, Director of 7
Licensing.
All of these items were part of the NUREG-0737 l
l l
8 Supplement One issues which we implemented, the Commission r
9 Implemented, through a plant specific negotiated schedule.
So 10 often these items were put in in accordance with the timing
'l 11 that they were able to develop without a hard fast rule.
I i
12 These were the elements that were developed after the initial r
13 TMI action plan items.
14 So much of the emphasis was placed on the original 15 NUREG-0737 items as opposed to the supplemental items which 16 were together as a package which included procedures, l
17 training, control room upgrades and SpDS.
18 All those type items were together more or less in 19 an integrated package.
So often these i tems were put together i
20 i n a way which was best for the operating personnel to 21 Integrate them into their own system once they were in place.
I 22 1 don't know the specifics on this particular plant but 23 philosophically, we wanted for instance on the water level 24 control, we wanted to make sure that the operators understood 25 it, we understood, before they actually had the operator start i
i
,_.m.__,,
_-_.__,.___,.___.._,-.,_,_~-.-___.__,_____,,,m-,__._._.-_,.m_
__,._.-_,-.___,_,-w.--_-~_,,__,.-
32 1
using the water level control since that wasn't a typical type 2
instrumentation that had been previously available.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
This is a similar condition 4
to one though that which presumably has been placed on 5
Callaway or is that not the case?
6 MR. THOMASON:
Every plant that we have licensed.
7 This is no different than any that we have licensed for some 8
time.
9 COMMISSIONER SERNTHAL:
Thank you.
That is all i 10 have.
11 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Thank you.
Any further 12 questions?
k 13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I have one quick question 14 of the staff.
I thought of one other.
Based upon our 15 previous discussions, Bob, you had indicated that you and our 16 Office of Investigations were going to follew-up further en 17 some of these questions about the effectiveness of the Quality 18 First program at least in looking into allegations of wrong 19 doing.
20 Does the staff propose anything in the way of 21 insuring that that review gets done, for example, the license 22 condition?
23 MR. DENTON:
We had discussed it.
I thought 24 depending on what actions the Commission takes today, then 1 25 will have llob and Ben Hayes decide whether a license condition
30 1
is necessary.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Fine.
3 MR. DENTON:
I would add also if they thought it was 4
required.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Fine.
Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
7 COMMISSIONER ZECH?
They didn't show us their last 8
silde. Mr. Chairman.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think it would be important 10 to read that in.
11 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I presume they still stand by 12 that conclusion.
(
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Would you read it into the 14 record, Harold, please?
15 (SLIDE.)
16 MR. DENTON:
We conclude that this licensee does 17 satisfy all the requirements for issuance of a full power 18 license.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I just want to make a 20 very short comment.
I couldn't help but noticing again our 21 need at some point in the future to address this general 22 question of quality assurance over the long term and we are 23 not talking about today or next week or probably even the next 24 year or two but the NRC deciding its own policies in the area 25 of quality assurance because despite the impression that one
34 l
I has that the NRC is crawling all over these plants, it turns 2
out that for most of them during construction, throughout 3
construction, and again for this plant if my calculation is 4
right, we averaged about one person per year throughout 5
construction doing QA work.
4 6
That hardly represents an intrusive presence, 1 I
7 would say, on the part of the NRC at least with respect to 2
8 quality assurance.
9 in fairness, your own documents I think show that it 10 was in 1994 that we put in 10,000 man-hours but prior to 1977 i
i 11 there were a total of six inspections and 135 hours0.00156 days <br />0.0375 hours <br />2.232143e-4 weeks <br />5.13675e-5 months <br />.
So 1 12 don't know what this means for the future but it suggests to 13 me that we have a lot of work to do as a policy matter in 14 quality assurance down the road.
15 Fortunately, this plant appears to be one that i
16 managed to get through the process in reasonably good i
17 condition.
I 2
18 CHAIRMAN PALLAOlNO:
I agree with you that we should i
19 address the question but i don't think though that we should 20 Imply that we are the Inspector.
We want to make sure that i
21 there is an adequate quality assurance program and that it is l
22 being maintained and I agree with you that the amount of time 23 we put on that may not be enough but i don't want to leave the 24 impression that we do all the inspections.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
No, we are not but the
e i
C5 l
j 1
problem is and particularly now that it is gone and finished, I
t 2
l can site the case of Midland where it turned out nobody was 3
the quality assurance inspector and that may be small comfort 4
to the public in a case like that with a massive investment.
l 5
Somebody has to take responsibility and we didn't.
i l
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
Any other comments 7
or questions?
L 8
(No response.)
r i
9 CHAIRMAN PALLAOlNO:
Thank you, gentlemen.
We will I
I 10 invite the representatives from Kansas Gas and Electric to i
11 join us at the table.
i.
12 MR. KDESTER:
lit *. Chairman and members of the
(
13 Commission, I am Glenn Koester, vice president / nuclear, and I 14 am not sure which is the appropriate way to go but i felt that 15 I would speak first and then allow my boss to speak second, i
10 (Laughter.)
17 MR. KDESTERt Over the last couple of months, anyway 18 since March tith, I have spent approximately 75 percent of my I
O 19 time at the Wolf Creek site.
In fact, on March 12th I moved i
L 20 into a house a mile and a half from the reactor
- building and 21 it takes me five minutes to get to work and i spend a good i
1 i
22 deal of time at the Wolf Creek site as many of my staff 23 members back here will tell you today I am there most of the 24 time.
i 25 I have noticed one thing and Commissioner Bernthal, 1
l 1
33 1
1 you mentioned inspectors.
During this time we have had two 2
and a half resident inspectors at all times on our site since 3
March tith.
I can assure you of that because I am running 4
Into them constantly.
5 They have been intimately involved and the reason it 6
is two and a half is one of the gentlemen now went full time 7
and he was only spending half of his time before and they have 8
worked very closely with us and in my opinion they have given 9
the NRC very good coverage during our start-up program.
10 i thought they had always given us good coverage 11 because Mr. Denise has been on site it seems like now for the 12 last couple of years.
He was there a majority of the time 13 primarily in 1994, of course, during the Task Force.
14 The STA lesue.
We are very, very pleased with our 15 STA lesue.
Just two weeks ago I had my first annual review 16 with my shift supervisors which is required on their i
i 17 administrative duties in the control room and during that l
18 discussion one of my shift supervisors that does not have a i
a j
19 degree said, "Where is the rest of our college program that 20 you have talked about?" because we put them through the 64 l
21 hours2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br /> of the STA courses.
22 We have just now recently, Kansas State University 23 by approval of the Kansas Board of Magents has instituted a 24 new program at Kansas State where they can get a Bachelor of 25 Science in engineering with. nuclear option.
37 4
1 These gentlemen that do not have degrees have about 2
six more courses to take in order to fulfill all of the 3
technical requirements for their Bachelor of Science degree.
4 Then the only thing remaining would be the electives in the 5
humanities courses which many of them have some of that but 6
most of those courses, we feel, could probably be finished at 7
Emporla State University which is just 40 miles from the site.
8 We encourage and will continue to encourage our 9
folks in the control room to get Bachelor of Science degrees 10 because that way they will be much more capable of moving in 11 and out of the control room and not ending up as an old man on 12 the shift which I know has been some concern over the years at 19 other plants.
la We would hope that we could get these gentlemen to 15 continue their education.
I will do everything within my 16 power and so will Mr. Mason who is sitting on my right and my 17 plant manager.
We are all encouraging and they seem to be 10 very encited about the program.
I think they should be 19 because it is a real opportunity for them.
20 They have done quite well in the 64 hours7.407407e-4 days <br />0.0178 hours <br />1.058201e-4 weeks <br />2.4352e-5 months <br /> and we 21 look for them to do well 6n the next six courses of about 22 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> to complete all the technical requirements.
We have 29 discussed this with Mr. Hugh Thompson and we hope to give him 24 a schedule within the next 90 days when we will have all of 25 this done.
S8 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me just interrupt
)
2 briefly and Commissioner Asselstine has already complimented 3
you on the program and I want to join in that because it 4
sounds like you are following a very enlightened and still not 5
terribly common policy I think in your particular utility.
6 One of the things that one finds in a number of the
?
European operations, for example, is this ability to collect 8
the education and expertise that one might need to move on 9
through the. ranks as time goes on and perhaps eventually pass 10 into a management position.
11 Obviously, it helps your people to have the 12 education and background to do that and you are to be
(
13 applauded, I think, for that kind of enlightened effort that 14 you are carrying out.
15 MR. KDESTER:
We proposed this in front of the full 16 committee of the ACRS back in April or May of 1982 and we have 17 been vigorously approaching that and we are very pleased that 18 we are allowed to go this route becau.se we think it is the 19 correct route to go.
20 That is exactly right, Commissioner.
We would hope 21 every person that we hire in a supervisory position would 22 someday be able to move up into upper management.
That is our 23 goal.
That is where we would like to find out people.
24 The other item i might want to talk about just for a 25 minute is the standardization concept.
We feel that we have
39 1
benefited considerably from Callaway being six months ahead of 2
us.
S I think it was very evident particularly in our 4
start-up testing since we got our low power license and we 5
credit a lot of that to having that experience base that 6
Callaway gave us.
7 We are constantly working with those folks.
We are 8
still doing things jointly and we hope to continue this effort 9
on into the future.
There is, of course, some different 10 operating philosophies in the company and that is 11 understandable.
We all can't think alike although that power 12 block is alike and we intend to keep it alike as long as we 13 possibly can.
14 We do at KGSE and I do myself since Wolf Creek is my 15 only responsibility understand and accept the importance of 16 receiving this license if you gentlemen approve that for us.
17 We do expect to achieve excellency and we are committed to 18 that.
We are not perfect yet.
We are not there yet but we 19 are getting smarter every day.
20 We do and we commit ourselves to excellency in 21 operating the Wolf Creek Generating Station.
22 I would like to ask Mr. Brown now if he has anything 28 to follow up on and then Mr. Mason who is my director of 24 nuclear operations could answer any other questions you 25 gentlemen may want to ask.
~
40 1
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Glenn.
I would like also to 2
Just build upon Glenn's last comment with regard to our S
commitment to excellence.
The STA program has been 4
addressed.
We feel that that is an innovative solution to a 5
problem and an issue within the industry and we are committed 6
to continuing to develop those kinds of solutions to the 7
problems that are being dealt with by the industry.
8 The Quality First program has also been discussed.
9 That also, we think, is a very important part of our 10 commitment to meeting both our obligation to the public and 11 our obligation to society in general 12 We recognize that there have been some comments
\\
18 developed with regard to the program and its effectiveness in 14 some areas and we will work very closely with the NRC to 15 resolve those and assure that the Quality First program will 16 continue to be an integral part of our operation of the plant 17 following achieving full power operation.
18 We are committed to that program and we will 19 continue it.
We think that it is a very important part of 20 what we are doing at Wolf Creek to assure excellence in the 21 operation of the plant.
22 1 have nothing further to add at this point in time 28 except to indicate to you that we are committed to doing the 24 very best job possible to meet those commitments and 25 obligations which are implied and directly stated in the
e e
41 1
license for full power operation of the plant.
2 MR. KDESTER:
Just one other quick thing, I might 3
add that you did notice on one of the earlier slides that the 4
staff showed you that there are three owners of Wolf Creek.
5 We are the operating owner.
We do have representatives here 6
today from Kansas City power and Light as well as the Kansas 7
Electric power Cooperative.
8 We also have in the room my counte'rpart at Callaway, 9
Mr. Don Schnet, and his plant manager.
I attended theirs and 10 he is attending ours.
11
( L'a u g h t e r. )
12 MR. KDESTER:
I don't know if Mr. Mason has anything
[
13 he would like to say or not.
Mr. Mason is on the site one 14 hundred percent of the time so I think he could answer any 15 questions you folks might have.
16 MR. MASON:
I really have nothing to add.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
Any particular 18 questions or comments?
I would probably be preaching if i 19 repeated some of the comments I have made when I visited these 20 plants but I would urge you to proceed with due caution and 21 not try to rush your power ascension as well as your test 22 program because this is the time to find out your bugs before 23 they bring about serious problems.
24 I would encourage you to have your people look 25 carefully for root causes of anything that looks out of the
42 1
ordinary or that deserves investigation after occurrence.
2 Otherwise, I have no other questions.
Do any of my other 3
colleagues have questions?
4 MR. KOESTER:
I might add that we accept that 5
suggestion very dearly.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I know when i visited the plant 7
1 gave you that message and you said that you heard it at 8
Callaway, also.
9 MR. KOESTER:
I was very pleased when we went during 10 criticality and in the afternoon prior they said that it would 11 be around six o' clock and so I ran over to the house and had a 12 bite to eat and came back at s i.x and they said that it was
(
18 going to be about ten and then it was about twelve.
So I 14 started kind of looking in the control room, you know.
15 The fellows did come up to points.
They did stop.
16 We didn't rush them.
Mr. Mason, myself, we stood back.
We 17 allowed them to take their time and Mr. Mason has a very fine 18 philosophy, the one that I hope that all of us have, that it 19 is better to do it right the first time than to do it over two 20 or three other times.
21 We have found that to be the case on everything we 22 do.
If we take our time and do it right the first time, we 23 seem to not have any problems.
We thank you for those 24 comments and yes, I heard them from you at Wolf Creek and i 25 heard them from you at Callaway.
43 1
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I would like to join the 2
Chairman in those comments, too, and I know you have taken 3
them to heart very well but.1 do think especially at this time 4
it is very important to exercise caution and care and take 5
your time and do it right the first time.
Those are very 6
important things to remember.
I would just like to join the 7
Chairman in that suggestion.
8 When i visited your plant I,
too, saw that attitude 9
and I commend you for it and ask you to keep it up because 10 this is a time when it is very necessary to do so.
11 MR. BROWN:
We w i l l do that.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other questions or
/
k' 13 comments?
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I don't have any questions 15 but maybe just a couple of comments.
It has been a while 16 since I have been to your plant but like some of my 17 colleagues, I was impressed with what i saw when I did visit 18 the plant I think it is a forward looking design.
I think 19 some of the things that you have done in the human factors 20 area in terms of your personnel that we have already talked 21 about are forward looking and forward thinking kinds of 22 approaches.
23 Your use'of simulators early on, I think, was also a 24 big benefit.
25 I was pleased also when i visited the plant to hear
e,
.~
44 1
about the Quality First program.
It was just getting going i 2
think at the time that I was there and I was very impressed 3
with the concept and with your willingness to take the 4
initiative on that.
5 I have to say that some of the things that we heard 6
earlier today about the questions that we now have at least 7
in the area of wrong doing concern me a bit and disappoint me 8
a little but I accept your commitment to work with us and to 9
get those concerns laid to rest.
10 I think the staff has given us an adequate technical 11 basis to go ahead and they have assured us that they have 12 looked at each of those areas that are covered by the s
13 questionable reviews and satisfied themselves that there is a 14 basis for concluding that the operational aspects and the 15 safety aspects of the plant are taken care of.
16 But I do think that we need to resolve those i
17 outstanding issues and I appreciate your commitment to work l
l l
18 with us to do that.
I think that those kinds of programs are i
l 19 very important and I think that they have to be done right.
20 In fact, I still have the signs that you gave me in my office I
21 about the Quality First program and the commitment to doing l
22 things right the first time.
23 1 hope you will work on that program and work with 24 us to make sure that it truly is an effective program and that 25 it satisfies everyone's concerns about examining any concerns
45 1
that your employees past or present have about the adequacy of 2
the plant.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other comments or 4
questions?
5 (No response.)
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me then ask the Commission 7
if anyone wishes a recess to reflect on anything that was 8
heard this afternoon?
9 (Chorus of no's.)
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
Let me pose the 11 question before us.
Do the Commissioners agree to authorize 12 the staff to grant the license to Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant to 13 proceed up to 100 percent power?
All those in favor, indicate 14 by saying aye.
15 (Chorus of unanimous ayes.)
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Opposed?
17 (No response.)
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It sounded like a unanimous 19 vote.
20 MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Anything more to come before us 22 this afternoon?
23 (No response.)
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
We have done what 25 we came to do and we thank you all and we will stand
. ~..
46 1
adjourned.
2 (Whereupon, the Commission meeting was adjourned at 3
5:05 o' clock p.m.,
to reconvene at the CalI of the Chair.)
4 5
i 6
l l
7 8
i 9
l I
10 11 12 i
13 14 t
15 16 L
17-18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
..,.. - -. - - -. - - - _ -, -. ~....,. -.. _,
s' 1
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
3 4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6
before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7
matter of' COMMISSION MEETING - Public Meeting' Discussion /Possible Vote on Full Power 8
Operating License for Wolf Creek 9
Name of Proceeding:
10 11 Docket No.
12 Place:
Washington, D.C.
13 cate:
Monday, June 3, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
18 l
(Signature) g c
ig (Typed Name of ReporVer) Marilynn Nations 20 l
21 22 23 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
l 24 l
25
i G
ff ii i f ih (
h thih [h [hhh(h[h(h[hghghphphphthphphphphph pl
(
12/82 TRANSMITIAL TO:
Document Cbntrol ' Desk,' 016 Phillips 5
[
ADVANCED CDPY TO: /
/
The Public Document Ibczn b[7 /Id DATE:
/
~
cc: OPS File C&R (Natalie)
Attached are copies of a Comnission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting doctanent(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placment in the Public Ibcument PocIn. No other distribution is requested or required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual documents wherever known.
[
Meeting
Title:
b/W 7J d e7u I
/he; o uLL
$Wr AaL J +1 - k]LL/ $Le 1 l2, w
Meeting Date:
/3 /[/ '
Open Closed 3
DCS Copies I
(1 of each checked) 2 It s
Description:
Copies 3
Advanced Original May Duplicate j
To PDR Document be Dup
- Copy
- El 1.
TRANSCRIPT 1
1 j'
When checked, DCS should send a copy of this transcript to the
=
LPDR for:
3 3
2.
.3 l;
h I:
3.
lg l3 1
l i
4.
g b
- Verify if in DCS, and
[
(PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.)
Change to "PDR Available."
p l
70TMMMdTd N @dWMdWMdWMMMdWdWMMMMMdM E MdWAWd M @ E MMMMWMdWd