ML20127B647
Text
_
~
g>#
%,1
.b UNITED STATES
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g WASWNGTON, D. C. 20555 e
(
/
May 14, 1984 Docket No. 50-382 NEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing FROM:
Dennis M. Crutchfield Waterford Team Leader
SUBJECT:
WATERFORO STATUS Intensified Staff efforts for Waterford Unit 3 have been continuing since late March in a number of areas. These areas include FSAR wrapup, routine inspection closecut, the basemat motion before the ASLAB and the allegation investigation. As a result of these ongoing actions, it appears that two of these efforts, the ASLAB findings on the basemat motion and allegation investigation will not be completed before the applicants currently announced fuel load date of May 30, 1984
.The NRR issues currently under review are provided in Enclosure 1.
The only iten that could delay the announced fuel load date is the basenat motion.
All of the other items are being addressed in an SSER that should be issued by May 25, 1984 On April 27, 1984 SGEB provided an evaluation of the basemat design. On May 10, 1984 the SGEB staff met with the team reassessing the basemat construction adequ3cy. Based on that meeting, the SGEB staff gained a better understanding of the construction deficiencies and their affect on the adequacy of the basemat. The consultant reviewing construction issues did not find any items that could result in the basemat not performing its intended safety function. Based on this meeting, the SGEB staff required some additional time to factor this information into their evaluation.
In discussions with Jim Knight, it is expected that the SGEB evaluation will be revised by about May 18, 1984 After management and legal review, the staff could respond to the motion before the ASLAB by about May 25, 1984. The Appeal Board would have less than a week to address the motion before the applicant's announced fuel load date. Based on Mr. Cotter's comments at the April 24, 1984 Commission briefing, that is not enough time for them to carry out their duties.
On May 14, 1984 an additional 25 staff and consultants begin routine inspections in modules 2512, 2513 and 2514 as well as wrapup of open items from previous inspections. They are expected to be onsite for an estimated one to two week period to complete this effort. This is not expected to affect fuel load date.
[o tA-(Y-M 4 lMP f
p ~W c
7 Darrell G. Eisenhut May 14, 1984 l
Also on May 14, 1984 the Waterford team reconvenes onsite.
It is currently i
expected that all onsite activities will be completed by May 25, 1984 The teams have been instructed to writeup the issues as they complete their reviews and to prepare formal transmittals to the applicant as soon as significant issues that could affect fuel loading are uncovered. To date, I have received no items for transmittal to the applicant.
Following the teams report, management and legal reviews will have to be done before an l
SSER can be issued.
I currently estimate that management and legal reviews j
can begin by June 4, 1984 and the SSER can be issued by June 8, 1984, It does not appear that any FSAR is' sues or routine inspections could delay i
i fuel load. The Appeal Board's decision on the basemat and completion of the onsite team efforts will likely extend beyond the applicant's current announced fuel load date of May 30, 1984 Any interest by the ACRS or i
Commission in being briefed on ongoing staff actions could also impact the fuel load date.
AE9 h, ennis M. Crut i
Waterford Team Leade
Enclosure:
As stated l
cc:
H. Denton R. DeYoung i
J. Collins, IV J. Gagliardo, IV B. Hayes, O!
i i
i D
4 s
9 I
e