ML20128F402
| ML20128F402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1985 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Rawlings D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-168 NUDOCS 8507080225 | |
| Download: ML20128F402 (1) | |
Text
s@ Meoq k UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w4swmorow, o. c. noses
(
v APR 0 41986 Sister Diana Rawlings, A.S.C Barry University, Box 981 11300 NE 2nd Avenue IN RESPONSE REFER Miami Shores, FL 33161 TO F01A-85-168
Dear Ms. Rawlings:
This is in response to your letter dated March 6; 1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 1) a copy of the latest Commission meeting report on the Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant, and, 2) a copy of the plans to transport the radioactive material from the plant and area.
Enclosed is a copy of the January 8,1985, open Comission meeting transcript on the Periodic Briefing on Near Term Operating Licenses (NT0Ls). Although the briefing was not solely on the Wolf Creek facility, the document does provide the most recent Comission briefing update on that facility.
No documents were identified that are subject to category 2 of your request, as noted above.
Sin . ely,
. F lton, Director ivision of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosure:
As stated 8507080225 850404
[AWLI N -168 PDR
i
~
ORIGINA .
. .,.' .. :. .- . , y .
-?..;..-4 g ,p ,:> .:r g ?${,r,$ h @ S- Q .Q.
~'
. , :l
. 4 7, , y J c . ;.. - . , q s. :,.x.* .,.% m. yf .n.~. #c9, g..._.;;-
. ;. 4. ;. m, ..
,y ur .y,.~sz.
r ..
.;: ,x_,r.w: _ .? . -
. . a.s .. . ... .. gs.
O .,
- - - . 1,
,. fi - - . . .
l- - : -:.;.
3*
- . ; . ;, pig.y'. : . -- ,-
. ' . ,yl t
% C. .
- J ' .(q %.. . .$
s .,% 'DEE b i; . "
V" " " " * '
. . .... w .t. .v . , e.
. .' , . c. . w, :. s . %.y..e. . . . %. b,,.
.* x'~T, a - .
..m : :v ~ Y c r.,:..
,.>.;,... I ' ' M - 4M
- r % . Q; v.g .pn
+
C000GS$g%'
- d. . T[ -
c
- Iq PG39 .?
a n; e.:-M! m.n
- h. . .D .:h$*;.
c..
r3
.k$gf; r h
+ : V> $.. - ,,,g.,. : J,c$.h- ,;
yj. ,t ,.
p.
. y. ,.. s. 3 -' %. . -
,. r.y;,.9. ,: ... , %,. ,.*yx,
..~,.: e,. .p; ;._
.. . <. s.
- f:x , :a , .w..m.
c.. 1 -.- . ;... , . ., , . e. , .
- .y
- u. ; ;.. . o . -
g .v.- .g-z : i:l .
ff.:x- .hch?l h.;u $ s:-i . ,. . - ay % ..h -
a:e - vgp.c..~;..x w c y ./.y. . . . . - T ..[ *..
3, c . .: . . . . n '. .% :
":-9 g y .d + g :V Q gtW..5
- i.p g + 'Y*-
T W
- -- L
. * ; Jl
..,; G;f. .R. Lf$$$Nb0S
'.s l'. .}'y <h.] l -) .~
- 't; N' l.."RE0R Miff
-n
- h E.:ra f. .khm 3.~R w v.g .w. ,..,(:.- " .
- z e ' '?t!. "'...N
, . . . - + <; .
'f .
s.* c N.; u.:" " Ade ~
. . . 3.c.<
., f- . ;
<W,_. ... .. . . d-' . ..v.,c.+Wr. .y*h
.o..
4.d .....,.. ! . W.. W.. ....-
t.: .
.., e- 9 g.1.t s, 5,0 e: q 3 .e .] ..-- g g ep -;;, g, 41*.M:r 4 _ .
LOCATION: Jwasaz~ " '
- . . i n;; c.> 3 h.t.d@d .,
M '. M } d;:i'i 47f.N . '.
-;*M$,.4g p %-?>; II W;:' h.. ET . b
- u. a -;m.;. ..*~ .:i: y ~1.
,' s t ~.f *',xx Kit 1y?.-3. ' . ::w' . q .. ,.7. 5.;n . .ep {FA,
?? '* ': ..,j ~- *- l ; ff p . ' .
.. w.cqFpe: g;'
. -, n. -
.c . ..
. DATE:,0 . .TUESDAYyJANUARY8,Q98g.;
- , .s w ;- .
4 h2g!Q'Qpg~ ..j
,sge g}
. .y.g .y. ;e.; ap g_. g y . 1. ,...e .;, . . < ep . - ,
33ng
.. .y . .y . .. . ..>.:,,.
. . N . 6, 4, ;n.... g #yM) w&W
, ,. - . - -,. 'J .. ... :.6 ,,. . . , ( ?,.R
. n , e % . % g . . , O s _
, ,.1 : w ~. .:*' c-- *. .,
. ' , s >"5 g'y.'kty~ _- f)Q . ~:, ~≷ *:. ., ]&
s .
Q '. *( _
-n a. . ., - ,.j. ..x.. . . .
s,,,, 7 N ~ ' . ,7, ' f.q6 p . 'p .14 '
~~
~ / * *4 O ' ' -
4O b ',4 y Y v/= w s
.v.- & '( * ._ .
- s. . <
6,W ~ .
}.f.
- 7. -. , 9 +[, 4
- ,/ +
. . , .t., .
'.7' . {' i M'gi. M
. l.
m (r.5'Q'., {;.,
. . .s -
R. ,.l. ~
.* E ,? "
'N,','.'.., t. alf.
-- , . .,.'Dw ,.i. .*v.~ ..,?, ,. *o\ . m .
cy W . ..
g-
.'s h.*. X,. * e }' ?O Q
..;' ;7 E' h, **
- c,
- Yd'T y -e .*3 .% .
SM.$ ..
, , . , p 2.'.? .h. ".4 - 2 '
- . . .Gg % ^ '.p'AQQM.*[.}'f.~4'_ . ;, '1
^'
_ .s .Y,C
3 .
DISCLAIMER This is an unoffical transcript of a meeting of the 'Jnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on January 8, 1985 in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation .
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or editsd,and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of ths formal or informal record of decision of the matters decussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
s I
i
Hansen/r&t 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGdLATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PERIODIC BRIEFING ON NTOLS 6
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
e 8 Room 1130 1717 H S'treet, N.W.
9 Washington, D.C.
f 10 Tuesday, January 8, 1985 11 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m.
12 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
13 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner i 14 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner
^
FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner 15 LANDO ZECH, Commissioner
[ 16 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
l a 17 S. CHILK D. EISENHUT 18 11 . DENTON W. DIRCKS 19 J. TAYLOR S. TRUBATCH 20 H. PLAINE M. MALSCH 21 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
22 -
A. ROSENTHAL E. Cl!RISTENBURY 23 B. COTTER D. MATTilEWS B. MARTIN T. NOVAK S4 V. NOONAN G. CUNNINGHAM 26 1
1 -_---- ___
2 1 PgOg((DIEQS 3 CHAIRMAN PALLA6INO: Good afternoon, ladies and a
gentlemen. Since this is the first meeting since the 4
Holiday Season, let me express the hope that everybody had a 6 happy Moliday Season and that everyone has a happy, healthy, 6 prosperous New Year.
7 Now, with that, let me go on to the purpose of this 8 af ternoon's meeting, which is to update the Commission on
, the status of near-term operating license plans, commonly go known as NTOLs, and to bring to the Commission's attention 11 status information about problems or potential problems that 12 could af fect plant safety reviews or licensing schedules.
13 We have present today the EDO staff as well as 14 representatives from Commission level offices. I propose 15 that we have the EDO take the lead and, as each case is 16 addressed, I will ask the Licensing and Appeal Board 17 representatives if they have any comments.
! 18 I suggest that we discuss OI and OIA items later or 19 last, so that we can close the meeting as necessary to address 30 matters involving pending investigations.
21 During today's meeting, I would also like speakers l 22 to discuss any resource problems associated with completing j 23 reviews for the NTOLs.
[
l- 34 As in the past, I would like OGC to monitor today's 26 discussion and to warn us of any communications which come l
l l
t _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __
3 1 under our ex parte rtGe, and I would also like them to review I the meeting transcript to determine whether any portion of it 3 should be served on parties to any pending proceeding.
4 (Commissioner Zech joins meeting.)
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Finally, I note that 17 plants a have been identified in the slides provided by the staff. In 7 the interest of time, I would suggest that we carefully select 8 the issues to be addressed and focus on them.
9 Are there any additional remarks by other 10 Commissioners?
11 (No response.)
12 CilAIRMAN PALLADINO: If not, then let me turn the 13 meeting over to Mr. Dircks.
14 MR. DIRCKS: As ycu pointed out, Mr. Chairman, we are 15 not going to read the slides. We are going to go through to them quickly and hit the issues on those plants which we think s
17 the Commission -- which we specially want the Commission to 18 know about. We assume you have read the other slides and we p 19 won't cover each and every one of them.
i 20 As you mentioned also, we have the staff here, both n
21 the NRR staff and the I&E staff; we have representatives 22 from FEMA here so that if we get into emergency planning 23 issues, we can call on various experts.
84 Harold, do you want to --
i 26 Cl! AIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me propose that we take each A_._______
4 1 case up as you introduce it, ask for comments from the Board 2 representatives, and th n turn to Commissioner questions or a comments.
4 MR. DENTON: We'll take the cases in chronological 5 order as we see them, and will discuss the ones where we 6 think there may be safety problems or schedule problems we 7 want to call to your attention.
8 It is hard to foresee the twists and turns that 9 plants take sometimes from a distance, but we will call to your 10 attention the ones where we know that there are schedule 11 problems or other problems you should be aware of.
12 One manpower note. We were not going to discuss 13 manpower case by case. I will note that it is taking somewhat 14 more manpower than we have budgeted for case our case work.
15 It seems like some of these cases either go longer or become 16 more complicated than we had planned for.
17 Let me ask Darrell Eisenhut to walk through them 18 case by case and we will provide all the parties a chance 19 to enter into the discussion.
30 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Harold, I wonder if I could 21 ask you to identify, as you go through, one thing for me.
22 We had a closed meeting on a plant not too long ago that 23 focused on an investigation matter. One of the points that 94 came out of the meeting that wasn't directly related to the f
26 investigation, I think, was this notion that in that particular
5 1 case the licensee thpoughout the period of time where they h 2 .were getting ready to glet their operating license had dropped 8 the ball a number of times, just hadn't followed through on 4 things; hadn't taken the initiative to do the things that 5 needed to be done to get ready to get their license.
6 It struck me after the meeting that we found out abou t 7 that sort of at the tail-end of the process, literally just 8 a day or two before the staff was prepared to issue the 8 low-power license.
10 It struck me that it would be useful to know about 11 those kinds of situations much earlier, and I wonder if, as 12 you go through this list of plants which stretch out over 13 the remainder of this year and into next year, if you could 14 highlight any situations like that that you see down the 15 road, or places where you just aren't convinced that the 16 licensee is putting in the right kind of effort, has the i
17 right kind of -- is paying the right kind of attention to the 18 things that need to be done to get the issues resolved and
) 18 get ready to get its license so that we know about those
- things much earlier on when perhaps we can make sure that 21 enough attention is being given to follow-through on those 22 kinds of problems so that we don't have another situation 23 like we had.
j 24 That would be helpful to me, if you could highlight 26- any situations like that.
l IL .
6 1 MR. DENTON , All right. I think we are less likely 2 to encounter a situation like that now than we were previously, 3 We did assign a senior executive to each one of these plants to 4 take a hard look, to meet with everybody involved and identify 5 what the problems were. l 6 Then we made a practice of having teams go out from 7 the regional headquarters to cover everything six months or 8 so before the plant is ready, and I try to get to each plant 9 sometime in advance also.
10 ' So, we try to have a system whereby we identify it.
" 11 I don't know what case you are referring to. OI and NRR, I 12 think, stay well coordinated and Ben Hayes puts a lot of 13 effort into keeping us abreast of what he is finding.
14 Perhaps you are referring to OIA findings which we 15 are not always privy to and wouldn't necessarily know what t
i 16 they are ' finding in these particular cases , and some of these, l
17 I think, have both OI and OIA overtones.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Well, actually it was an l 19 OI situation. But the concern I had focused more on some of I
i N the problems that we had, I think, during the staff's e .
l
! .) 21 safety and techni cal reviews.
22 MR. DENTON: It does seem -- it's always,_in my 23 experience here, you don't identify all of the problems until 24 the very last few days because at that time everybody who has b 25 ever had a problem with the plant suddenly says, "Well, I'd l
l
7 1 better make sure it .gets attention now. "
2 - -
COMMISSIONERAbSELSTINE: Yes.
f.
8 MR.'.DENTON: So, no matter how we plan, there is 4 always a late-breaking issue, it seens. I would love to be 5 in the position to have the safety review done, the 6 environmental review done, all the investigations done and the 7 license on my desk 30 to 60 days before the plant is a finished so that all we have to wait for is verification by t
9 the region that it has actually been built in accordance 10 with the application.
11 We never seem to reach that Nirvana.
12 Darrell, why don't you go through these and hit 13 the points the Commission wants?
ll l
14 MR. EISENHUT: All right. I'll go through the 15 slides here. I won' t plan on using them as normal slides 16 and I'll try to hit the high points as we go through.
17 In the front, I provided a copule of charts. One 18 is a profile of the licenses as we see them coming over the 19 next -- actually from now until 1977. We do this just from so a tracking standpoint pretty closely for the very reasons 21 that were just mentioned, we can look down the road, so to Et speak, for the next year and see if we can identify the kinds 23 of problems that come along. I 88 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Did you say '77 or '87?
25 MR. EISENHUT: If I said it, it's a mistake, 1987.
i l
I 1
La- . . . . .. _
13 1
foresee, possibly delaying this plant beyond their readiness 2 date?
3 ,MR. EISENHUT: There is no technical issue that I 4
know of that would be delaying the plant past the~ schedule 5 that they have here. As I said, we will be addressing several 6 other matters in the closed session.
- MR. DENTON
- We did commit when we briefed you s
before in closed session to have another look at this plant a based on the OI findings before coming back to you for full
.0 power.
I a I did want to mention, too, there is a differing
.2 professional opinion regarding the base mat issue, and we a have provided all of the views on that issue to the Board.
14 We have made every ef fort to try to reconcile the different views on that matter and were not able to.
- s CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is there any likelihood of f
delay due to Board actions or any other comments from the Board?
i 9 MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, at the moment the Appeal Board 20 is waiting to hear from OI. And I might say that at the l
__ Il moment there is a confrontation brewing between the Appeal F--- .--
1 L_..~._.. ._-.r Board and OI.
- - __ .23 The Appeal Board indicated to OI that it wished to "4 have an ex parte in camera, but written, submission by OI 1
1 '25 with respect to the status of the various investigations.
h
14 1 The Appeal Board is making that request on both the 3 Commission's recently p5omulgated policies with respect a to these matters.
4 The Appeal Board received a response from Mr. Hayes 5 to the effect that while he would appear orally before the 6 Appeal Board in an ex parte in camera session, that he would 7 disincline to provide initially a written statement with 8 respect to the OI investigations, and the Appeal Board wrote 9 back to Mr. Hayes and told him that was unsatisfactory, that 10 they wanted it in writing.
11 That letter was delivered to Mr. Hayes the latter 12 part of last week, I think it was Thursday, and that's where 13 the matter now stands. I don't know what Mr. Hayes' response 14 might be, but at this point, as far as the Appeal Board is 15 concerned, it is not prepared to render a decision on these 16 pending motions until it has a report from OI.
17 Now, of course, I stress that as matters now stand 18 in this case as well, the Appeal Board is not on the critical 19 path in the sense that there has been no stay issued. Now, 20 what the Appeal Board might or might not do after it hears, 21 in whatever form it does , from Mr. Hayes remains to be seen, 22 Further, I cannot report.
/ 23 (Commissioner Roberts leaves meeting. )
24 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Let me just supplement that, if I 25 may. Yesterday, ELD met with OI and volunteered some I
15 1
assistance in order.$o enable Mr. Hayes to prepare the 2 written response that tbe Appeal Board was looking for. So, 3 I think.we will diffuse that pending confrontation.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you. That would be 5 helpful.
6 (Commissioner Roberts rejoins meeting. )
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Alan, there is nothing 8 that would prevent the Board in that particular case from at 8 least informally discussing with Mr. Hayes any particular 10 logistical problems that he might have in providing the 11 written report, is there --
12 MR. ROSENTHAL: No.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: -- there are insurmountable 14 difficulties.
15 MR. ROSENTHAL: No, I think that's right. Now, I 16 might say that in his letter to the Board, Mr. Hayes does not 17 identify any particular logistic problems. I think it is 18 reasonable to say that the Board is not -- on this matter but 19 they felt -- the members of the Board felt -- that it would
- be much more useful to have in the first instance a written 21 submission which then could serve as a basis for* the oral 22 in camera ex parte session which Mr. Hayes indicated a 23 willingness to provide.
M COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
25 MR. ROSENTHAL: I might also add one thing in this
16 1 connection. Mr. Hayes, I gathered, was willing if the 2 Commission was willing,#to supply the Appeal Board with a a copy of the transcript of the closed session several weeks 4 ago --
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That 's right.
6 MR. ROSENTHAL: -- in which Mr. Hayes apparently 7 briefed the Commission on OI's Waterford investigation.
8 s..e Appeal Board made it clear to Mr. Hayes it is 9 not interested in receiving that transcript for a variety of 10 reasons. Indeed, it was -- the Appeal Board members 11 deliberately stayed away from that session because it does 12 not want to be in a session where there could be, among other 13 things, some comments coming from Commissioners which might 14 express or indicate Commission opinion on certain of these 15 matters --
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Right.
17 MR. ROSENTHAL: -- because that casts moral 18 suspicion in terms of the parties. The parties then do not 19 know what might have transpired at this meeting, which might I
- 20 in turn have influenced Appeal Board members.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Al, could you clear up a point i
22 that is going through my mind? I thought the Appeal Board 23 worked with on-the-record material, and now it sounds as 24 though we are looking for material that presumably was not 25 on the record. Could you explain that?
17 1 MR. ROSENTHAL: Well,'I would say this is the fact --
, a 2 just speaking for myssif. I will never as a member of an 3 Appea1 Board cast my vote for the holding of an ex parte 4 in camera session with anybody. I just think it's a bad 5 practice.
6 The Waterford Board invoking this Commission policy I
i 7 which does call for the holding of these in camera ex parte
, 8 sessions decided -- and I'm not critical of it, I mean, the 9 members of that Board have a different view on the subject 10 than do I -- decided to hold this sessior, to find out where 11 the investigation stands.
12 Now, I think it'.s fair to say that nothing that 13 Mr. Hayes or members of his staff might tell that Board would 14 serve as evidence, would have any kind of influence on any 15 decision that the Appeal Board might make on the merits ,
16 obviously it couldn't. The Appeal Board, I point out, Mr.
17 Chairman, must decide these cases on the basis of evidence 18 which is presented to it in the presence of all parties.
19 So, the purpose of this session with Mr. Hayes would
.i i
20 be just to give the Appeal Board some idea as to where the 21 matter then stood insofar as Mr. Hayes is, concerned. Like 22 I say, I personally prefer not to have that kind of session 23 but"I don't think that it's improper so long as it is not
)
l 24 used as a basis for reaching any kind of substantive 25 determination.
a i
18 1 CHAIRMAN PAIJ.ADINO: Okay, thank you.
2 Was there any domment from the Licensing Board?
3 MR. COTTER: No, Mr. Chairman, the Licensing Board 4 finished its work in 19 83.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay, thank you. Are there 6 Commissioner questions?
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I just have one follow-up 8 point on the last discussion we have just been having. It 9 strikes me that this problem is going to be solved in terms 10 of the Appeal Board's request for a written submission. But 11 I suspect this kind of thing may come up in the future.
12 It strikes me that perhaps a more informal approach, 13 if OI had problems in terms of being able to provide a written 14 product, particularly on a certain time taole, that maybe a 15 more informal approach to resolving that question than the 16 exchange of correspondence that tended, I think, to ruffle 17 feathers in this case might be a better way to go about it 18 than just send letters back and forth that tend to raise the 19 aggravation level a bit.
.; 20 MR. ROSENTHAL: I agree with that.
I 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I agree also.
M COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I had.one other question for M the staff on Waterford, and it's something in OIA's report 24 on review of the operating license review process in October 25 caught my eya.
19 1 There was a- statement on page 11 of that report that 2 said, "Also, the resident inspector told us that approximately 3 one , fourth of the utility's commitments in the FSAR" -- this 4 is for Waterford - "had not been met and the project manager 5 told us that Waterford 3 is now having several problems trying 6 to get a license to operate. Further discussion with the 7 project manager revealed that Waterford was reviewed on 8 schedule despite the time lost in the intermediate milestones 8 because many creative practicss and techniques were used such 10 as issuing the SER with as many as 400 open items which were 11 rolled over into 20 broad open areas. "
12 I grant you, that was back in October of ' 84 and 13 the interview probably took place a good deal of time before 14 that. But I wonder, Harold or Darrell, if you could comment 15 on whether that was done. Whether there were or are a large 16 number of open items for this plant and whether they are 17 being treated consistently with the way open items are treated 18 in other cases.
19 MR. EISENHUT: I really can' t, but maybe Tom, maybe you 8 could comment on the general nature of it in terms of how we 21 handle the open items.
22 MR. DENTON: I would comment that before we license 23 a plant, I was down there with the project manager and the I
8 resident and we went through all the open items. So, the l i
b 25 status may be different at tLat time and we did have a large l
20 1 task force moving, trying to move some of the items.
2 But I'll let'T5m respond to that time frame.
3 MR. NOVAK: I think it's a fair question. My 4 impression is that when you go about trying to count the 5 number of open items, it's debatable as to what you would 6 consider to be an open item.
7 You could have an open item that just says, "We have 8 an open item regarding the of f-site power. "
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
10 MR. NOVAK: But if you break it down, you might 11 come up with 20 or 30 subsets.
12 I think in this case, and it continues to be the 13 case, as you get near an SER you look at all of the small 14 things yet to be closed out in the safety evaluation. One 15 count might lead to be four-hundred; another count might in 16 fact lead to be twenty.
17 The question, though, is does the SER provide 18 substance in terms of a safety evaluation; does it present 19 where we are in terms of the review? I think that's the 20 fundamental test. We'use twenty as kind of a rule of thumb.
21 I think it keeps us to the point where we will not issue a Z2 safety evaluation prematurely. But even on cases that we are ,
23 working on today, one might count the number such as fifty 24 but in reality it might be a number such as ten.
25 So, I don' t believe there were four-hundred
21 1 substantive or indiv4 dually unique open issues. I think it 2 was just the way it mig 5t have been counted.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: If the numbers themselves 4 aren't particularly relevant, is there a way that we have 5 of -- whether to set a benchmark or criteria or whatever --
6 that enables us to say that this is a number of open issues 7 that we are prepared to tolerate and still give these 8 people a license versus, these are too many and more has to 9 be done and more of those irsres have to be closed out --
10 whether it's in terms of significance or volume of work still 11 to be done or whatever -- so that we have a way of making a 12 pretty clear call on, "Yes, they are ready to get their l
l 13 license," or, "No, they may think they are ready but there 14 are still just too many items that are open or they are of 15 too great significance and we want to see more done before we 16 are-prepared to give them a license."
17 How do you make that kind of a call?
18 MR. DENTON : Tha don't issue the license until we 19 can make the judgment that it has been adequately designed 20 and constructed. All along the way, though, we issue safety l
21 evaluation reports to document status. And sometimes if 22 there is an area that is not moving with the licensee, for 23 one reason or another, we will issue an SER that has that 24 in there as an unresolved issue.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay.
22
, 1 MR. DENTON:. So, we keep issuing SERs until they are 2 all closed. We did hav5 a rule not to go to the ACRS with a 3 lot of open issues because then they didn't like to make a 4 decision unless thby could have the record.
5 So, I don't know how many supplements we issued on k 6 this plant. Tom, maybe you might have a feel for how many 7 we issued after.
l l 8 MR. NOVAK: There have been several. One other point 9 I think -- and we have discussed this at least on one 10 occasion and I think it goes back, in fact, to the Limerick 11 SER, where there were a number of open issues and the T
12 question was, was the SER a substantive piece of work.
13 In that case, we discussed the number of open issues i
! 14 with, I think it was Mr. Cotter, to get a reflection from 15 him, would this safety evaluation in it3 current form support l 16 going forward with the hearing process.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
18 MR. NOVAK: And his point was, if you have discussed 19 and completed your review in the areas of contentions, then
' ~
i j 20 certainly he could go forward with it. But if the areas that 21 are in contention are still open issues,,then we are really 22 not very far along in the process.
23 So, I think that's one consideration. I think the 24 ACRS consideration is another one.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay.
23 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
~
I think we are coming up on 2 j, pMR. EISENHUT:
3 Supplement No. 9 on the Waterford project. The last two or 4 three were associated with the large technical review team, 5 so I'm sure there is a number that were issued -- in fact, 6 eight of them, I believe, were issued prior to issuing any 7 kind of a license.
8 So, you really have always got to look at the time l 9 frame you are, before the ACRS or before hearings , or whatever.
10 I can in fact remember cases where we have issued only a l
11 partial SER addressing the issues and contentions after we 12 worked out an arrangement with the Hearing Board.
13 So, you really can't then turn around and look at t
14 it that the review process missed a lot of points and was 15 premature. You really have to look at it in a different 16 framework.
17 MR. DENTON : There are usually two reasons for open 18 issues. One is that we may not have the staff or the manpower
- 19 to put on that particular issue until later, that some higher 20 priority job is working.
21 Secondly, the utility may not be willing to close on M it because the plant still isn't completed and there is more 23 work he is doing.- And then we also carry often the issues 24 that the region has identified, things that they think need
- 25 to be in the SER. So, we put those on the punch list. So, 5
24 1 the punch list then ;ip just worked out until all parties are 2 satisfied they have been resolved.
3 So, I don't remember anything unique about Wateford.
4 The numbers do sound awfully high, but I can go back and 5 look, I guess, and talk to the people involved and see what 6 .they think.
7 Certainly, the PMN, the project manager, recommended 8 licensing before I was ready to.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Does that answer it? Any 10 others ?
11 Okay, let's see if we can' t go on. We have averaged 12 two plants in the first half hour.
13 (Laughter) 14 MR. EISENHUT: Well, perhaps a way to -- I'll just 15 try to go through them and unless there is an issue that we 16 want to elevate that is separate from the package, perhaps we 17 can - just move right through them.
18 On the Byron facility -- the next slide -- we don't 19 see any issues there to be identified. That plant is on 20 schedule coming up for licensing for full power in February, 21 unless the Commission has some questions.
22 There were some hearing issues, I recall, but those 23 are all -- I think everything is resolved.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Unless I hear comments from the M
25 Boards, I'll assume there are none. All right.
. 25 1 (Commissioner Roberts leaves meeting. )
2 MR. EISENHUT: The next project was the Palo Verde 3 facility. I'll make two comments to correct one aspect of 4 the slide, No. 6, where it refers to OI/OIA, the OIA 5 investigation, I believe, is in error and we discussed that 6 in a separate session.
7 The only_other issue I would mention is that we did l 8 draw a little concern on Palo Verde --
, 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: This says there is one on-going 10 OIA investigation.
A f 11 MR. EISENHUT: And that, I believe, is incorrect.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Oh, I see.
13 MR. EISENHUT: There are projects with an on-going
! 14 OIA investigation. This is not one of those, though.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay.
16 MR. EISENHUT: In issuing the license on December 31, 17 over the last week before that, we had grown somewhat 18 concerned because there were a large number of FSAR issues and 1
19 quite a bit of activity that had to be resolved on Palo Verde.
l 20 All that did come together to our satisfaction and we did 21 issue the license on December 31.
I 22 MR. DENTON: You might be interested to know that i
, 23 in connection with standard plants, this is an example where a
)
l l
24 plant didn' t match the application once it was finally built M
and tested things like . flow rates were 10 to 15 percent less B
26 1 and valve closure times were dif ferent, starting times for 2 various equipment was 'di'fferent.
3 So, that's a first of a kind and so we did have to 4 go back and recheck safety analyses to be sure it was still 5 within the envelope. So, the actual performance of the plant
~
6 did not quite match what the original standard envelope was 7 and we made sure that there was still an adequate margin 8 before moving ahead in those areas.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Why is that the case, just 10 changes in equipment or differences?
11 MR. DENTON: I think a good example would be, the 12 high pressure safety injection system apparently performed 13 10 or 15 percent, pumped 10 or 15 percent less water than the 14 application had said it would.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is that characteristic of other 16 plants in this class?
17 MR. DENTON: Not really. I think most plants have 18 had closer agreement on thermal hydraulic type measurements 19 than this plant did. So, there was a flurry of activity in 20 the last month or two in that sort of area.
21 But it's the first of a new class of CE plants and I
l 22 we did satisfy ourselves that even though there were changes, 23 they are still acceptable.
24 One other unique thing about this plant. It did 25 have an incentive program within the company. I think there
27 1 was $2 million to be, distributed among 50 employees provided 2 the plant was finished on a certain date. Then, if it was 3 finished later than that, there were certain proportional 4 shares in the bonus that everyone would get.
5 So, we do have a petition from some individuals 6 concerning whether that was detrimental or not. The regional 7 administrator- and I satisfied ourselves that that did not 8 influence the safety of the plant.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: You are treating this as 10 a (inaudible) I take it.
11 MR. DENTON: That's correct.
12 MR. EISENHUT: Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And your decision, then, 14 will be available in a month or so?
15 MR. DENTON: It would certainly be available before 16 we come to the Commission for full power.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay.
18 - MR. DENTON: They have a very extended start-up 18 program because it is the first of a kind. I think it will 20 be around April before we will be before the Commission for 21 full power. .
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good. I think both you 23 and I have both been talking Maout the dangers of incentive 24 programs like that. I am very interested in that.
l 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. I presume there are no
28 1 Board comments. Any,other questions?
2 Okay, why don't we go ahead?
3 MR. EISENHUT: The next plant was Limerick. Limerick 4 is -- I'11 just mention a couple of things. One is, this is 5 one of the few plants that is showing a potential delay. The 6
plant got its license. The plant is expected to be ready to 7
go above five percent in late January.
8 The Hearing Board, addressing emergency planning, 8 has not projected to issue a decision before about May 1985.
10 So, therefore it is showing a pretty. big delay.
11 The other issue I will mention is that there have 12 been some recent developments in connection with the Point 13 Pleasant Diversion Project, which is Item 7 on the slide.
I4 That is, there have been some decisions and I believe a court ruling that the Point Pleasant Project must be completed.
16 Project completion, however, it looks -- based on I the information we have today -- will not be completed in 18 1985 or certainly not in the summer months of 1985. They do 8 need that source of water in order to have make-up to the condenser cooling -- loss something in the order of 50 cubic f
k 21 feet per second, a pretty large make-up.
22 They need that in order to be able to go up to any 23 substanti'al power level. With the delay, delaying the plant to May 1985, and then being in the middle of the summer months ,
25 they really couldn't go through a start-up program above any
?
1
+-
29 1 appreciable power level. .
2 So, that's the kind of dilemma this plant faces.
3 There_has, as I understand it -- maybe ELD or someone can 4 help me -- but there have been some recent decisions and it 5
now looks like the project is going forth.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I had a question, really, on 7 this delay. I think it says here that the hearings will 8 extent through January '85, and a Board decision is estimated 8 by May '85.
10 Maybe you could enlighten me as to why it takes so 11 long 'and then, presumably, the commission would have another 12 30 days for its effectiveness decision.
13 MR. CHRISTENBURY: Mr. Chairman, Ed Christenbury 14 with ELD.
15 As j.ndicated from our write-up, the hearing -- right 18 now we are projecting a completion sometime in late January.
17 It is not absolutely clear whether they will extend further.
I8 But aft er the hearings are completed, under our
!~
' 18 regulations findings of facts and conclusions of law are
- filed by the parties. Traditionally, that takes 55 days, 21 giving you a lot of time. The Boards can ask for that on a 22 more expedited schedule, but that's the normal approach.
1 23 And then traditionally, two months have been
" allotted after that for the Licensing Board to issue a 25 decision. Here they would do it in less than the two-month i
i l
30 1 period. .,
2 CHAIRMANPALLA$INO: Well, I guess I was thinking 8 30 days for the first step, 60 days -- this says four months.
4 I was counting at most three months.
5 MR. CHRISTENBURY: Well, in the normal course, two 6 months for findings and two months for a decision. But here 7 in terms of alerting the Commission to potential problems, 8 here there are a number of circumstances where the emergency 9 plans for the different counties and municipalities have not 10 been approved, adopted, by the counties yet.
11 FEMA, I understand, has not completed their review 12 until such time as the counties have adopted theirs. So, 13 the testimony that FEMA is going to be operating will be 14 somewhat dependent on that.
15 So, there are a number of potentials for delay in 16 this case further than we have here.
17 MR. EISENHUT: In fact, I believe the FEMA evaluation 18 was not even due to be submitted until March 1st.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Then, how could --
20 MR. TAYLOR: We are hoping by March 1st, and I have - -
21 Dave, would you like to add to that?
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me ask a question with f
23 regard to that. Then how could we have the hearings over in 24 January?
25 MR. CHRISTENBURY: The testimony that we have now 1
31 1 that we have been provided by FEMA is based on their initial 8 review of the plant and the emergency planning exercise that 3
was,c_onducted in which they found five what they call 4 " category deficiencies" or "significant deficiencies." That 5 is FEMA's testimony at this time.
6 Now, the applicant can, as he is doing, put on other 7 testimony to indicate changes in circumstances. The applicant 8 may or may not call other witnesses from the counties and 8 municipalities to show that those deficiencies have been 10 corrected.
11 But the testimony that is being offered by FEMA at 12 this time is based on their earlier review of the plans?and 13 the deficiencies noted in the exercise. When those are 14 corrected would be when FEMA would file later testimony 15 based on a subsequent review of the plans.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Excuse me, Jim.
17 MR. TAYLOR: Dave Matthews, would you like to add 18 to that in terms of review of the plans, just from the 18 emergency preparedness data?
" MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. This is Dave Matthews.
21 The one factor that could provide additional delay 22 is that even iE the FEMA testimony based on their review of 23 the prior plans and the efforts to review the current plans
- is sufficient to provide the basis for predicting finding 25 on emergency preparedness , we still would need to await FEMA ,
l
32 1 headquarter's finding, that an acceptable state of planning 2 exists, and that would probably have to await the State of 3 Pennsylvania confirming that indeed those plans represent the 4 plans which would be used for a response.
5 So, there is a potential delay in FEMA completing 6 this process, and it may extend beyond that time in which 7 the Hearing Board deliberations would be going on. That is 8 still something that would need to be done before the staff 9 could support a full power license.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So, this sounds as though they 11 may have difficulty making fall. Who is coordinating and 12 making sure that attention is being given to the state doing 13 its job, FEMA doing its job, we doing our job so that it 14 doesn't continue to get more delayed?
15 MR. TAYLOR: We are trying to use our contacts with 16 all parties concerned to keep it moving as fast as we can.
17 Dave, do you want to add to that?
18 MR. MATTHEWS: No, not other than to mention that we 19 have plans under way to have a joint meeting of the utility, i
- the State of Pennsylvania, FEMA region, NRC region and our-l' '
21 selves. That will probably take place tomorrow morning.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do we look to I&E for --
23 Yes, sir. We will keep on it.
MR. TAYLOR:
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay.
25 MR. TAYLOR: I think the problem vill be, ultimately 5
33 1 it will be summer up ,there and that's going to add to the situation as Darrell indicated, unless all of this is wrapped 2
3 up. ,,
Is that right, Darrell?
4 MR. EISENHUT: I think that's correct.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Just a matter of curiosity, 6 you peaked my interest even though it's not our bailiwick.
7 On the Point Pleasant Diversion you said the court decision 8 had cleared that out. What happened?
9 MR. CHRISTENBURY: The only knowledge I have at 10 this time, there was a Court of Common Plea decision which 11 found that there was indeed a binding contract between PECO 12 and the municipality who was building or going to build the 13 Point Pleasant Diversion.
14 So, the decision said that -- in fact, it ordered 15 a specific performance, that is that the contract should 16 go ahead and the diversion should be completed. Now, of 17 course, in any legal proceeding there are appeals and that 18 may or may not be af fected by appeal.
19 Right n ow , the Court of Common Plea decision directs 20 the parties to the contract to proceed on with the building 21 of the Point Pleasant Diversion.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I had one other question on 23 the same subject. Darrell, on the bottom of your write-up 24 on Item No. 7 you say, "It may result in a possible substitute 2 source of supplemental cooling water being considered. "
i
I.
34 1 Was that prior to at least these court decisions 2 and are they still cont 5mplating possible substitute source 3 of supplemental cooling water other than the use of the Point 4 Pleasant Diversion?
5 MR. EISENHUT: Let me ask Tom. In fact, i just 6 saw something the last day or so that said there really 7 wasn't any other alternative to making that volume. He just 8 finished talking to the utility about it.
9 MR. NOVAK: Again Tom Novak of the staff.
10 The applicant has considered other options. There 11 is a reservoir available that he has asked for, and it is 12 my understanding that the Delaware River Basin Commission l
13 has refused to use that water because this is consumptive 14 water and that was their concern, it would not be replaced.
15 Without getting into too much details, the name of
[ 16 that, I think, is the Blue Marsh Reservoir, as it is called.
17 Philadelphia Electric believes that if in fact this decision 18 is upheld and the Point Pleasant Diversion continues to be I 19 built and becomes a reality, that the likelihood at least 20 might be increased that a one-year relief to bse the Blue 21 Marsh water might come forward.
l 22 So, they would entertain that if in fact everything 23 else was ready for them to go. After about May 15, the 24 Schuylkill River does not become a source. So, this is a 25 possible alternative.
l l
.I
M 35 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: If substitute sources 2 were made available, e'it'her on a temporary basis or for the 3 long term, has the staff looked at the question of whether 4 you have to do a supplemental EIS?
5 MR. NOVAK: We would have to look at that, that's 6 correct.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any other questions?
8 COMMISSIONER ZECH: My review of the Limerick 9 performance during their low power testing indicates that 10 they have been having some problems mainly due -- it seems 11 to me -- in the area of personnel errors, perhaps a few more 12 than we might expect.
13 Has anybody noticed that or have you heard anything, 14 can you enlighten me any more on that particular matter? Is 15 it, you think, abnormal or is it -- it looks to me like it 16 might be a few more than we might expect. Is it peeling off, S
17 or what is your prognosis?.
18 MR. NOVAK: I can't give you a direct answer, but 19 let me just point out that the Limerick operating staf f to a 20 large degree has a lot.of experience from the Peach Bottom 21 station.
22 So, when we did our review of the operating staff 23 they came out quite high. They have always been what we 24 considered to be a good operating organization. I can' t speak 25 for the information that you have, but basically this is not k
36 1 a start-up crew with ,no previous operating experience.
2 COMMISSIONER'ZECH: Well, that's exactly why I was 3 s urprised, frankly, to see they had so many personnel errors.
4 I'm just reading the reports that you give me every day and 5 I would ask that somebody look into that and perhaps get back 6 to me on it. I would be interested to know.
7 It seens to me with this experience level that -- I 8 agree that they seem to have it -- there are more errors 9 than I would like to see anyway.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay.
11 MR. DENION: I don't think we have identified it 12 as an outlier yet, but we will certainly check and get back 13 to you.
l
.. 14 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I would appreciate some follow-up l 15 on it. Thank you.
l 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any comments from the Boards I 17 before we go oli?
18 MR. ROSENTHAL: There are a number of appeals that
! 18 are pending before the Limerick Appeal Board. But again, 20 since there are no stays outstanding, the Appeal Board 21 action on those appeals is not a critical path item.
H CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay, thank you. All right.
- I presume no comment from the Licensing Board.
94 MR. COTTER: We have no comment. What's on the M plate now, as I understand it, may well run up to about the l
37
, 1 end of February as p4esently scheduled.
2 . CHAIRMAN PALLAdINO: Okay, thank you.
3 (Commissioner Bernthal leaves meeting.)
4 MR. EISENHUT: The next plant is the Shoreham 5 facility. I won' t go through all the details on this since we 6 have discussed it in a couple of recent actions. Suffice it 7 to say that the plant did get a low power license.
8 The decision to go forth to five percent is now ,
l 9 pending before the Commissioners for their review. That is 10 the decision from the partial initial decision that came from 11 the '1 iller Board. That is pending before the Commission.
12 This facility is now expected to be ready to go 13 critical about January 21st and would be ready to go past 14 their present license within a day or so of that. As you 15 re ca ll, they have a fuel load, cold criticality.
16 Unless there are any questions, I won't go through 17 the details. 0 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any Board comments?
19 MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, my only comment would be, the j
20 Appeal Board has pending before it the appeal of Suf folk 21 County and the State of New York from that October 29 decision 22 of the Miller Licensing Board.
23 The brief for the appellants -- New York has been 24 filed. The briefs, responsive briefs, of the applicant and 25 the staff will be due later this month and the Appeal Board wi:.1
38 I
I 1 probably hear argument in February.
2 Now, the only' reason I mention all of this is that 3 it looks to me, as I noted in the conversation I had with
[ 4 the General Counsel's Office this morning that the principal
\
, 5 issues that are before the Appeal Board on that appeal are 6 the very same issues which the Commission has indicated are 7 the pivotal questions in its immediate effectiveness 8 determination.
9 I am fully aware of the fact that the Immediate 10 Effectiveness Rule says that unless the Commission indicates 11 otherwise, what it says or determines on an immediate 12 effectiveness review is to have no bearing on the Appeal 13 Board's deliberations in connection with an appeal.
14 (Commissioner Bernthal rejoins meeting. )
15 MR. ROSENTHAL: With due respect, I think in this 16 instance, sinde the Commission has gone to the great length it 17 has in identifying the issues which it sees as pivotal in 18 the decision on immediate effectiveness, it is going to be 19 very difficult for the Appeal Board to give full recognition 20 to that admonition.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What's the bottom line there?
22 (Laughter) 23 MR. ROSENTHAL: The bottom -- well, I just want 24 the Commission to bear that in mind when it renders its i
25 immediate effectiveness decision. I just want it to bear in
[
39 1 mind ,that at least up, to this point what it has said is, 2 the critical issues are the critical issues or the principal 3 issues that have been presented by the appeal.
4 Now, when the Commission renders its decision on 5 immediate ef fectiveness , whatever discussion it may have --
l 6 I don't know which way it is going and I don't know what 7 it is going to say -- but I think it ought to bear that 8 consideration in mind. That's the only bottom line.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Alan, when might we expect
.r 10 an Appeal Board decision?
l 11 MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, after you are likely to render l
1 12 an immediate effectiveness -- and I say that with recognition l
13 that the immediate effectiveness decisions aren't always 14 rendered on the most expeditious basis.
15 Now, bear in mind with no stay request in this 16 case --
E COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
IS MR. ROSENTHAL: -- again the briefs of the 19 FLEs are due later this month. I think the -- brie f M was filed December ll, the applicant's brief therefore will 1
- - - - - - - 21 be due about the 15th, staff's brief due about the 25th.
l
- - - - - - - 22 This, under nor' mal Appeal Board practice would call 23
[
fo oral arguments mid to latter part of February and I l / ,-
. _ __. ~ 24 would certainly think 60 days or something after that. So, H__ I i
25 L we are not talking about an Appeal Board decision in all l
l l
40 1 likelihood any earli,er 3 than the latter part of April.
S , .. COMMISSIONER'ASISELSTINE: Okay.
I 3
_MR. ROSENTHAL: And as I understand it, the 4 Commission may address the immediate effectiveness question e
5 considerably earlier than that. That was the reason for a my taking note, is the fact that the immediate effectiveness 7 review seems to be on the same issue as this appeal.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Any comments from the 9 Licensing Board?
10 MR. COTTER: No. (Inaudible) 11 CHAIRMAN PALIADINO: Okay, other Commissioner 12 comments? All right, you want to go on? l l
13 MR. EISENHUT: Yes. In the interest of trying to l
14 move along here, the next two plants, the discussion I am j 15 going to give actually addresses both Fermi 2 and Wolf Creek 2 ,
16 they have individual write-ups. Both' plants are coming up f
t .
17 for a low power license and this is the beginning of the low 18 power license plan.
l
', 13 Both are coming up for a low power licensing at i
30 the end of January. The FSAR reviews, the inspections, the 21 hearings are all complete with the exception of a few minor 22 items in the reviews. There are allegations on both plants j
23 and investigations which we will address in closed session.
88 Both of those plants are pretty much on schedule.
26 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: This is?
41 1 _MR. EISENHUT: Fermi 2 and Wolf Creek 3.
2-CHAIRMAN PALLAD'INO: And Wolf Creek. I understand 3 that Wolf Creek, the Appeal Board is waiting for information 4 on the exorcise-results? ,
t 5 MR. ROSENTHAL: Right. We indicated that we were
-1
~
6 not going.to' complete our sua sponte review. So, we are 7 awaiting the report on the exercise. The exercise, if I I'
- 8 understand it, occurred early in November and I think the 9 last word we got from the staff was that the report would be I
10 likely in our hands later this month.
' 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is that something --
i t
12 MR. MATTHEWS: It's presently scheduled to be 13 received January 25th from FEMA.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Again, I hate to repeat the l
15 same question I had before but it seems to me, I thought h.
f 16 Appeal Board actions were based on the record presented to it.
I I 17 Now, we seem to be waiting for information.
18 Could you just clarify that again for me?
I 19 MR. ROSENTHAL: . Yes. In this instance, a large part 20 of that Licensing Board decision focused on the emergency 21 plan. It seemed to myself, me and to my colleagues, that 22 for us to sign off on that with this remaining and it seemed M to us significant emergency planning aspect, namely the 24 exercise and the report thereof, would be not the height of M folly, it would be a part way up the mountain.
(Laughter)
42 1 MR. ROSENTHAL: Now, when we get this report, that 2 report at that point wi 1 not be in evidence. .
3 . CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That's what I was getting at.
4 MR. ROSENTHAL: If, however, the report indicates 6 that contrary to what the Licensing Board determined on 6 the basis of the record before it, that this emergency plan 7 is a hopeless disaster, what undoubtedly we would do is 8 have a little record re-opening in which the report would 8 come in and thera would be further hearing.
10 But it just didn't seem to us to make sense, 11 given the fact that there was this exercise, that we bless 12 the emergency plan without seeing what the results of this 13 exercise were.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. I wasn't being critical 15 of your interest. What I was wondering is, if the Appeal 16 I3oard starts to take the evidence, so to speak.
17 MR. ROSENTHAL: This would not be regarded as 18 evidence. Now, it may lead to a re-opening of the record 19 at which further evidence would be adduced.
- CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Now, is the Appeal Board on 21 the critical path here?
22 MR. ROSENTHAL: No, not at all.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Any comments from the M Licensing Board?
25 MR. CCyrTER: No.
i
43 I
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Other questions?
2 -
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I have one quick question 8 A number of months ago we heard from one of the on Fprmi 2.
4 fire protection inspectors our in Region III who said that 5
they were in pretty sad shape on fire protection.
-6 Have we made some progress in the past few months in 7
getting them up to speed?
8 We MR. DENTON: It received a lot of attention.
8 heard the same stories, of course, and it has been looked at.
10 I don't know what the final outcome was.
II 4 MR. EISENHUT: It was deleted from the slides at the last briefing, I know that.
13 (Laughter)
I Mk. EISENHUT: I assume that means --
MR.-NOVAK: Let me say, it was one major open issue 16 which you could have broken down into a hundred subparts.
17 (Laughter)
MR. NOVAK: It has been worked on. There was a lot o f ,
8 attention by both the staf f and the applicant. There will be
-I 20 i some compensatory measures immediately following licensing.
21 But by the summer of this year, this plant will have all of 22 the facilities necessary for an adequate fire protection 23 system.
24 So, they won' t need COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
'l 25 exemptions.
I i ._. . . - . _ __ __
44 1 MR. NOVAK: There will be no exemption. They will 2 have compensatory measu5es in place with licensing.
3 MR. TAYLOR: That's my understanding from the 4 regional people too, that they are satisfied that the 5 actions -- they have in fact been working with NRR and 6 interface agreements to get to this point. All the issues 7 got addressed.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It didn't appear to me --
10 this would have been, I guess, late last summer when I was 11 out there -- it didn' t look like there was a question of 12 there being great difficulty doing fixes for most of those 13 problems. It's just that there were a number of problems.
14 MR. TAYLOR: There were a number of problems. Some 15 of them got right back to the technical bases, which is the 16 reason NRR got back into the discussions.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay, are we ready to go on?
18 MR. EISENHUT: The next plant is Comanche Peak, and 19 because of the significance of this plant I will make a 20 couple of comments. ,
l 21 This plant is one of those where we have an assigned 22 senior executive from NRR that has been following the 8 project, Vince Noonan. He is here with us today to answer 24 any questions. ,
l 25 Also, I should point out that Bob Martin, the l
! l u -_-- - _ - _ - - - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - __ - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - ---
45 1 Regional Administratqr for Region IV is here today. In fact, s.
3 I
wgav,ebeendiscussingComanchePeakforthelastfewdays.
8 - .This plant probably , of these 15, 16 we are 4 discussing, is probably the most uncertain as to where it is 5 going and proceeding on what kind of a time line at this point 6 in time with respect to the licensing review, and by that I 7 include the hearing.
8 It is a very complicated technical review. We 9 have an extensive number of technical issues and hearing 10 issues before us. The main issue we are addressing is the 11 QA/QC issues.
12 Our target is to have all technical questions 13 issued, technical findings, so to speak, issues we found to 14 the utility by the end of this week from all of our site 15 work.
16 Our safety evaluations addressing those, what we 17 found; what we found good, what we found bad, is targeted to 18 be issued by the end of January, and on this project because 19 of two key issues we formed two speciel panels. One of the 8 panels 11s an Intimindation and Harassment Panel that is 21 reviewing the overall substance of all of those concerns.
22 The second panel that we formed is what we call 1
23 a Contention 5 panel -- Contention 5 being the overall QA/QC 8 issues from the hearing.
25 The reason we formed that panel is because of the vas t I
L
46 1
array of different piece,s of information we have on this 2 project coming as different things. The panel's job is 8
to a,ssess the overall look at, what do we really think of 4 the status of quality on this plant.
5 That effort will not be complete with the report 6 until probably the end of February. Now, the report of that t 7 group is an input to the hearing process which leads us to 8
the earliest we could see an initial decision date is on 8 the order of May of 1985.
10 Now, the plant is projected to be complete in late 11 January -- late this month. We do envision that the plant 12 will be getting completed in that time frame.
13 So, what we see is a number of QA issues, 14 recognizing that what we do is an input in the hearing 15 process. This is a major issue for us. We also, in closed 16 session, will be discussing some -- I think it's nine active investigations and the review of in the order of about I8 600 allegations in this plant.
19 Darrell, you gave me the CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
imp'ression that there were a number of technical problems, and 21 Is that the sole category I heard QA/QC bing the category.
I 22 or are there other technical problems?
23 There are other technical problems.
MR. EISENHUT:
You may reall, we issued a ' letter totally based on our detailed 25 reviews in some areas, electrical areas we found and l
L ,_
47 1 identified problems;, mechanical, structural questions. But 2 T Ihink' it's f air to s'ay' that those concerns are all clearly 3 workable. That is, they are clearly definable problems and 4 the utility can go forth and address those issues.
5 They are principally much more hardware related.
6 They are a lot more minor than the more general concern that 7 has been raised regarding QA/QC in terms of inspectors, how i
8 effective was the applicant's QA program.
9 MR. DENTON: This plant probably receives more 10 management attention at the moment than any of the others 11 in this group.
- 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Whose management?
13 MR. DENTON: Our management. I think there were
.i 14 over 70 individuals that have been interviewed with 15 allegations; a number of break-downs in the QA procedures 16 of this plant have been identified. We have taken a hard l
17 look at what the significance of some of those break-downs 18 was and have worked hard over the past three months to address 19 all these.
20 But from a schedule standpoint, the Board won't 21 be able to consider these issues until, I think, the 22 beginning of February at the earliest. The Board has issued 23 several decisions already in related areas and I think it's 24 probably likely to be mid-summer before a decision is forth-25 coming on this plant. It represents considerable delay for i
48 1 this plant. ,5 2 ,
CHAIRMAN PALL'AdINO: Have the inspections and tests a disclosed or confirmed poor QA and construction and/or design?
4 MR. EISENHUT: Let me make a comment, and then we 5 have Bob Martin here also.
6 One of the reasons we created the QA/QC Panel, to 7 look at the overall perspective. As Harold said, we have 8 interviewed a large number of allegers. We have put 9 probably 50 man years into inspecting this facility or looking 10 at it, or re-evaluating it, and now you have to make sure 11 you relatively index the findings.
12 We have a CAT Team report on this plant. There is i
13 .an independent design verification th*e.utilitp is' conducting.,
14 There is a large number of normal inspections that were 15 conducted. This plant has been audited probably every differe.it 16 way that we have tried. This plant has got one of just 17 about everything.
18 The results are not uniform. A lot of the hardware 19 inspections are showing and have shown things not as bad as
! 20 some of them'have shown more recently. So, the panel has 21 tried to put this in the proper perspective.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is the impliciclon, some of 23 them are showing as bad as --
24 MR. EISENHUT: Some are not nearly as bad as 25 others, certainly.
y ,-- --_--.-w- _. _ _ , , _ . . .
49 1
MR. DENTON:., .3 We are not prepared to make a judgment 2 yet, Mr. Chairman, that is why we formed this panel to look 3 at all the findings by all the people on the team and to try 4 to decide what it all means. It is fair to say that, dependinc 5 on what specialty looked at the plant, they came up with 6 differing views.
7 So, what we want to do is try to get a more 8 balanced look at the plant, reflecting everybody's input.
9 That's the panel that won't be complete until around the 1 10 end of the month.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: End of what?
12 MR. DENTON: End of February.
I End of February. That is when j 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
14 the panel would complete its report?
15 MR. DENTON: They will look at all the information i
I 16 compiled by all the sources, and that would be the staff's t
17 testimony then before the Board on Contention No. 5, which 18 is the significance of the QA/QC issue.
i 19 (Commissioner Roberts rejoins meeting.)
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Who sat on the two panels?
21 MR. EISENHUT: The QA/QC Panel is being headed by 22 Ed Jordan who is the division director in I&E.
23 MR. DENTON: It was Nelson Grace who was head of the 24 QA Department in I&E until he was moved to Region II. Ed 25 has replaced him.
J
50 1 MR. EISENHUT4 ,And the head of the Intimidation and 2 Harassment Panel is Jim Gagliardo who is now running the 3 Chattanooga -- or shortly will be running the Chattanooga 4 Training facility.
5 MR. DIRCKS: If we can get him out of there.
MR. EISENHUT: If we can get him out of there. He 6
7 assumed the poeition, probably, six, eight months ago but 8 hasn't been there yet.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay.
10 MR. EISENHUT: The panels have representatives from i
11 the various offices with the advice of offices such as OI, 12 et cetera.
13 MR. DENTON: It's a very complex proceeding, a lot 14 of different players. A lot of information keeps coming in l
15 on this plant and it will ultimately, I think, get before the 16 Board and get resolved by the Board.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any Board comments , either la Appeal or Licensing?
19 MR. COTTER: No. We have technically two Boards 20 dealing with it. There have been evidentiary depositions 21 last fall and we are simply waiting for -- while there are M some minor matters being attended to -- Waiting for the 23 input f' rom staff.
24 COMMISSIONER ZECH: But aren't these Boards pretty 25 much in session continuously out there at the plant right now?
a
51 1 MR. COTTER: 3 No.
2 COMMISSIONERZEbH: They are not?
3 MR. COTTER: They are in session off and on.
4 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well, I mean off and on. But 5 they are more on than off as I understand it. You've got a 6 lot of people out there. When I visited the plant not too 7 long ago, your Licensing Board was in session. I know they 8 come back and forth but it seems to me there is quite a big 9 effort going on. You have one Licensing Board involved in 10 the hearings or is it two?
11 MR. COTTER: Two.
12 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well --
13 MR. COTTER: You were there in December. I think 14 they were dealing with the harassment issue at that time.
15 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well, I think I was there before 16 that, I think. But it doesn't make any difference.
17 It just seems to me, just to support what the staf f 18 is telling us, there is a tremendous effort going on at this
- 19 plant from our people, both in licensing and extra --
I j 20 inspection of people. It is a tremendous effor't. It sounds 21 like we are doing everything we can but it looks like there Zi are a lot of licensing decisions yet to be made that is going 23 to delay this plant. Is that a fair statement?
24 MR. DENTON: They are not the big design issues 25 about single failures or meeting general design criteria, 1
1
52 1 those kinds of debates. , They tend to be details of 3 construction and whether the plant was actually constructed 3 in accordance with the application or not. So, it's getting 4 into a level of detail that normally we don't get into in 5 plants.
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I appreciate that.
7 MR. DENTON: That's what's taking the level of ef fort.
8 You have someone coming to you, telling you of a very specific 9 defect --
10 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Right.
11 MR. DENTON: -- and it requires a lot of time to find 12 out what are the requirements in this area and were they met 13 or not.
14 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well, there is a big effort going 15 on in the inspection folks too, they are tracing down allegations.
Hi As I recall, I was tol'd that you had up to 50 people and ten 17 different groups from your various organizations in NRC 18 across the board, the region as well as the headquarters. It 4
19 is a tremendous effort.
i 30 It seems to me like, you know, it's something that 21 we just couldn't do everywhere. We certainly couldn't do it 22 in ten different plants at the same time. But I would hope 23 that we are making progress here. It's not that the effort is 24 not being applied.
25 MR. DIRCKS: I think we have made progress. To go i
{
53 1 back in the history :of this thing, the reason why we mounted 2 such a terrific effort is that we assumed last year, it came 8 to our attention vividly, that we were getting input from 4 many different sources on the plant. We were involved in a 5 very contentious hearing where many facts were coming out.
6 We had CAT Teams going into the facility discovering 7 new issues. We had, as Harold pointed out, IDVP ef forts 8 going on. We had many allegations from the workers .
8 We decided then to pull it all together in a focused 10 agency program, and that's why we established this task force.
11 As you look at these facilities, though, with any intense 12 microscope, you are going to find a lot of problems and 13 defects -- it may be linear coordinated, the more you look, 14 the more you find.
15 We are finding a lot and as Darrell has pointed out, 16 from the many areas that we have looked at it's really boiled 17 down to essentially two now. So, at least we know what 18 the two major issues are and that's why we have these two 19 special groups looking at it.
- We are at that point where we will come up with a 1
! ~ 21 position on these two issues. QA is an issue that we can j 22 sometimes get our arms around and we are inspecting very 23 carefully -- that's workmanship, QA and so on.
1 24 The issue of harassment is one of these nebulous )
1 25 issues that it will be interesting to see how we come out on I
i l
54 1 it. It's very difficylt to define what is widespread, 2 what is perverse and whab is pervading. It's difficult to 3 define that and then say what effect that had on the plant.
4 This is going to be a very difficult issue and that's the 5 one where we have this team.
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well, are we winning or losing 7 out there, you think? Are we getting ahead or falling 8 behind, or do we just stand --
9 MR. DENTON: We are definitely getting ahead, 10 Commissioner, in terms of identifying the issues. We will be 11 able to identify back to the utility very shortly all the 12 findings that this team made where we found the plant did not 13 conform to the application.
14 COMMISSIONER ZECH: So, you are making progress 15 anyway, is what you are saying.
16 MR. DENTON: I think we are making progress in 17 identifying the issues. What we are standing back looking now 18 is, what's the significance of all of this and what position 19 does the staff want to take in the hearing --
i i 20 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Righ t.
21 MR. DENTON: -- in view of all the findings that we 22 have collected.
M Vince Noonan has been working day and night on this 24 since his assignment. You might like to hear from him to be M sure we have properly characterized it.
55 1 COMMISSIONEg ZECH: I think he deserves to be heard 2 from.
3 MR. DENTON: Where we stand on this plant.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Can I ask one question that maybe 5 he will want to address. You speak of 600 allegations in 6 the write-up. Has your effort included the normal screening 7 process, the special screening process that you have used in 8 other cases similar to this?
9 MR. EISENHUT: Well, the charter was a little broader 10 than that. I wanted to make sure that the assignment that 11 Vince got was, don't try to just address 600 allegations but 12 design a program knowing full well that you are going to get 13 600 allegations or a thousand allegations and try to lay the 14 framework for addressing that.
15 MR. DIRCKS: I think that's a very important point 16 because we were trying to -- we were chasing around trying 17 to identify -- not to identify but handle the issues as they 18 were flowing in. I think the charter that Vince got was to
! 19 define the total package of issues down there. Unless we se ce'lld define the problem, we were just wasting our efforts 21 j 1st solving the problems piecemeal. We had to get our 22 hands around that problem.
23 Vince did that and so far, I think, we are very 24 pleased with what he has done and will be mo;e pleased when 25 we have the whole issue resolved.
L 1
I 56 CHAIRMAN PAL,IADINO: Okay, Vince?
f' 1
- 2 MR. NOONAN: 'Vi'nce Noonan from the staff.
3 We have been making progress. The first thing that 4 I did when I came onto this program was basically take over 5 this thing of making sure that all the allegations were 6 addressed that we have. We have about close to 600 allegations 7 and about 70 people, allegers, involsed.
8 We have been traveling. During the month of g October and part of November, we have been traveling over 10 the country, talking to the people making these allegations 11 and we call them "close-outs. " We basically tell the 12 allegers what we have done about their particular concerns 13 and here is how we plan to resolve it.
14 That is being addressed in each SER. So, each SER, 15 then, has a section in it where we talk about the close-out.
16 That has taken a lot of time. We have spent, I know, at 17 least three sessions where we have spent at least eight is hotrs straight through talking to allegers. We might have 19 had 15, 20 people tied up in this thing. We had various 20 technical people talking. So, that has taken time.
21 We are going to get our QA/QC letter out this week, 22 and that will be the last letter where we have our findings.
23 Then, the next thing is to get our . staff positions. They are
- 24 in preparation. We have got two -- two of the SERs have been 25 through review by the legal staff and it is now mainly just for
~
2 57 1 me to get them out the door. So, it's my job to get these 3 things off the critical bath, so to speak and then develop a 3 dialog with the utility talking about particularly the 4 QA/QC areas, I think.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay, thank you.
6 ' COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: One last question. You may 7 have said this already. How many people, FTEs, if you will, 8 would you say we have assigned to that plant now?
9 MR. NOONAN: Right now we have -- at one time or 10 another, we had probably as many as 50 reviewers looking at l
11 various aspects of -- the technical aspects, I would think.
12 We had six groups composed of various people. I know our 13 QA/QC group had about at least twenty people on it where they l
I 14 went out and did an inspection. We had twenty people gqing 15 in a very detailed inspection on this plant.
16 MR. TAYLOR: And you should add that this includes l
) .
17 contractor support. We had to get some contractors; right, 18 Vince?
19 MR. NOONAN: I'm sorry.
30 MR. TAYLOR: This isn't just straight staff.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No, I understood.
Et MR. TAYLOR: We had to draw on --
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: What I'm asking is, I guess L 24 not only today but I'm curious about the time profiles.
I-'
26 How many total full-time equivalent people, either by I
L
58 1 contract or from our,pwn, staff in one form or another have 2 been' assigned to that project, and how long has this been 3 goin,g on that there has been this extraordinary kind of 4 assignment.
5 MR. EISENHUT: We could certainly get you that. The 6 number Vince gave you is the numberof the special unit, the 7 technical review team, as we call it. That, remember now, 8 is in addition to the normal FTEs that went into doing the 9 OL licensing review and the normal effort from ELD which is 10 very significant in this case, and the normal regional 11 inspections.
12 So, if you add those together, the number is 13 considerably higher and you could certainly look at it either 14 per year, on a year basis, or to do the OL review. It is 15 far, far in excess of the number that we are budgeting to do 16 that review.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess I'd like to see 18 those data, both as a function of time -- that is, the 19 extraordinary, the extra effort that has been put into this 20 particular project.
21 MR. DENTON: We'll provide that.
22 MR. NOONAN: We'll make that data available.
23 MR. DENTON: We get into such areas as paint 24 requirements and U-bolts, and details of the plant that become 25 very controversial because of the allegations. That is what
59 1 usually requires us havi.ng in many cases the contract for 2 specialists who work in those areas.
3 ,_
Bob Martin is here, you might like to hear from 4 Bob also.
5 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Before Vince goes, Vince, can 6 you tell me -- I 'just have one quick question for you. Are 7 you making progress?
8 MR. NOONAN: That's right, we are making progress.
9 That is, I need to prove that progress right now by getting 10 things out -- what I call getting things out the door.
11 I really feel optimistic that we will get this 12 staff position, the SERs , out -- at least most of them -- by 13 the end of the months with the exception of the QA/QC stuff.
14 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you. Bob?
16 MR. MARTIN: Well, not to be redundant to what 17 everyone else has already said and, I think, to focus my 18 answer perhaps towards Commissioner Zech's question, I think 19 when I first came on in October as regional administrator, I 20 probably felt a much greater degree of uncertainty relative 21 to Comanche Peak. As of this juncture, I feel much more 22 confident that, yes, things are starting to converge; the 23 issues are becoming pretty well defined and I think at least 24 the course of action for the agency is becoming much, much 25 clearer as a result of the TRT and the NRR ef forts in that
60 1 regard. ., ,
2 COMMISSIONERAdSELSTINE: Good. Did this licensee 3 have an aggressive program to identify and resolve problems 4 that their workers had identified early on, and is that part 5 of the reason why we have had to spend so much -- if they 6 didn' t have that, is that part of the reason why we have had 7 to spend so much time and effort the;past six months or so?
8 MR. EISENHUT: I'm not sure the verdict is really 8 in on that yet. It certainly -- what appears to have been 10 some problems just were not as well followed up as they 11 should have been. We are going to probably be having a i
i 12 discussion of these kinds of problens with the utility and 6
13 we just, as Harold said in the first place, we are not sure 14 how big the problem is.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
16 MR. EISENHUT: With respect to following up on it's also hard to say 17 allegers and those kinds of concerns, 18 because some of the issues really didn't turn out to be that 18 major of issues. For example, there were allegations about 20 welding deficiencies in the plant. I think there was a Board 21 ruling not very long ago, a partial initial decision, on 22 the welding which found that not to be that big of an issue.
23 We have gone back and gone the extra nine yards in This 24 this project to talk to as many allegers as we can.
25 program started off by -- it really wasn't talking to all the i
Fr' 61 1 allegers. Another way to put it is, I lowered the threshold, 2 make every effort you can to contact them if it appears 3 they, have any reasonable amount of information. We did that 4 just in the face of the uncertainty. Some people we never 5 did get around to talking to. But we have gone back out, 6 as Vince said, very recently, trying to recontact people to 7 try to get as much information as we can.
8 You have got to look whether there is real substance 9 to the issues or not, to whether the utility really put in 10 effort or not.
11 MR. DENTON: And some of these allegations are 12 before the Board. So, occasionally there are instances in 13 which we are talking to the individuals and they are also 14 appearing before the Board and the issues are not always 15 one-to-one correspondence and they all have to be dealt with.
16 MR. EISENHUT: I've got to say, though, I don't think 17 the utility is pursuing a number of the issues as aggressively 18 as they should have been, but not necessarily the allegations 19 in those kinds of concerns.
- COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay.
~
21 MR. EISENHUT: But if you hear an issue that comes 22 up in the hearing, it's just a matter of style. You put the 23 issue to bed squarely, firmly once and for all because at this 24 point in the process I just don't think anyone has any room 25 for continuing dialog.
62 l 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
2 MR. EISENHUT: And that's the message that I have 3 been. putting to the utility. So, in that framework I think 4 the utility is in fact -- has been taking steps and is 5 continuing to make steps to improve in that direction.
6 MR. DIRCKS: I think it's a factor of time. If 7 you say now, I would say they are making a very conscious 8 effort to do as much as they can to get this thing through.
9 But where we were one or two years ago, it's been an 10 enlightning process to many of these companies where many of l 11 them thought they could just push these things through the 12 process and get their facilities in operation relying on i
l 13 NRC to handle it.
14 I think across the board they have all made -- come 15 to a very hard realization they've got to go out and seek 16 problems before we find them. I think in this case they are 17 moving in that direction. I know we have had several meetings 18 with the top leadership there and you could see the developmen :
19 as it goes along. It's not a delegated function now to some 1 20 vice president, you are getting the CEO now to take it on as 21 his responsibility. As soon as that happens , things happen 22 and progress is being made. That's the major break-through.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Did you have one last --
24 MR. NOONAN: Just a very brief comment on that q
25 particular issue. Just last weekend I was told by the
63 1 utility that they ha4 taking the person that is head of 2 .their licensing section, which is Mr. John Beck now, he 8 reports directly to the president of the company. So, they 4 have elevated those activities directly to the president of 5 the company.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay.
7 MR. EISENHUT: Yes. As Mr. Dircks said, the a president of the company in this case is taking some rather 9 firm steps, I think, to get his arms around the problem. So, 10 it is happening at the very top level. So, we have to say --
11 MR. TAYLOR: I think that's in more contrast to what 12 we saw a year or so ago. A direct demonstration of that, 13 when the first CAT team exited down there, we had.the exit 14 on site, there were really no senior members from the company, 15 on the vice president level or above, there to digest all 16 those diverse findings.
17 So, today, I think, that's a dramatic change.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That sounds very assuring.
. 19 MR. TAYLOR: You know, there is a benchmark. j i i COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And that happens a month b 20 4
" 21 before they say they will be ready to get their license. l M CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Better than --
l 23 MR. TAYLOR: It's been going on, Mr. Dircks alluded
[
34 to a number of meetings with the company, and I think it's
- i. 26 been going on over the --
r l~
64 1 CHAIRMAN PALLAD,INO: I wonder if I could quote 2 Darrell Eisenhut, that time for a continuing dialog is 3 escaping us.
4 (Laughter) 5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We still have to hear from OI 7 and we still have to hear from OIA. I have a meeting that 8 is supposed to start at four, but I could push it up to 4:15.
9 But that still doesn't leave us a lot of time.
10 Let me ask if the staff could select the --
t 11 MR. EISENHUT: Mr. Chairman, I was going to propose --
i 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: -- out of the romaining plants 13 any particular one that ought to be identified for discussion 14 and then see if the Commissioners have any particular plants
/
15 they want to bring up.
} Mr. Chairman, I was going to propose i 16 MR. EISENHUT:
i 17 we only discuss Diablo Canyon Unit 2 yet. Beyond that, the 18 plants are out. The earliest is Watts Bar in Mach and then 4
19 most of the plants stretch out in the future.
20 There is one correction I need to point out here.
21 The Perry facility, when you get way to the back of the 22 package, was in here scheduled to be complete in December 1985 ,
23 We discussed this with the utility's management this week, 24 I believe, and in fact, it should be July 1985.
2 That plant, there has been some debate over the
7 65 1
schedule for some period of time. The plant is targeted 3 for July 19 85.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is that realistic?
5 MR. EISENHUT: Well, it turns out the December date 6 came along from -- it was never the uti'lity's date in the 7 first place. It was a case load forecast panel date which 8 we adopted sort of de facto for quite some time. We are 9 now taking another re-look at it and the utility just might 10 complete the plant sooner than that.
11 So, we have agreed for the sake of planning to
' 12 revert back to the utility's date of July 19 85. It probably a
j 13 will come out somewhere in between.
l 14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
15 MR. EISENHUT: But at this point it's certainly 16 safer from the "being ready" standpoint to assume it's going i 17 to be July 19 85.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That means that they are 19 going to be able to conform to the hydrogen rule then, or 20 what's the status of that particular issue?
f 21 MR. EISENHUT: Well, it depends on what the hydrogen 22 rule would say.
23 (Laughter) 24 MR. EISENHUT: You know, if I gazed into the
- 25 crystal ball and said, assuming that the hydrogen rule would ,
s .
i w .= , - , - .,--
66 1 reflect the same kindp of words as any other rule that we 2 issue at this time and' t$ hat is, you would have to look at 3 when they could come -- when it should be put into ef fect 4 and no hard and fast single date that, "Tnou shalt meet 5 this particular rule by this particular date," they certainly 6 could meet it.
7 As you recall, even plants like Catawba which are 8 now coming up next week, and just as the ice condensers that 9 we have licensed, all were issued with the best that could go 10 in at diat time and then you had a license condition that 11 said, you have the follow-on research work to conform or 12 confirm The details, and you install the details later.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: A question of the program 14 being in place.
15 MR. EISENHUT: Right.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right. Yes, 17 because the rule basically just requires that you have an 18 operable system. I 19 MR. EISENHUT: That's correct.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And do the analysis after i
>7 21 the fact.
/
22 MR. EISENHUT: But it depends on how you write the I
%L rule.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
[ < 25 MR. EISENHUT: But certainly, I think it's practical
~
F #
68 l l 1 ourselves through those with a rather pretty large effort.
2 Right now we see that we are going to be able to converge on 3 that kind of schedule of late February to support a licensing 4 decision for low power.
5 Anything that has not been reviewed in depth will be 6 looked at in accordance with the screening criteria and the 7 screening approach that we discussed here with Unit 1.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are allegations continuing to 9 come in, or have they levelled of f?
10 MR. EISENHUT: There are still some coming in. In 11 fact, we had a rather large installment, 1 believe, in the 12 November-December time frame. We are continuing to have t
13 allegations. In fact, we are embarking on additional meetings 14 with allegers. You will recall, that is an area that there 15 has been some criticism about -- both Region V ~and NRR are i 16 setting up meetings to see whether we can't sit down with 17 allegers and see whether there is any additional new concern.
18 We do have a major concern, though. It appeared 19 th at last installment of allegations we got, a rather large 20 subset of that, was the same information we had seen before 21 or the same issues, at least.
22 So, I think there is developing a better and better 23 base for our opinion that there is no major problem out there 24 at the plant, albeit, if you get another 500 allegations it's l1 i;
25 still 500 more to work yourself through.
67 1 to build that kind of aspect in the rule.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLAdINO: Well, do you want to proceed to 3 Diabl,o Canyon Unit 2?
4 MR. EISENHUT: Well, I was going to make a couple of 5 very short comments. This is a plant from a utility that 6 I persont lly think has come an extremely long way in the last 7 three years -- rather painfully, perhaps. But it has 8 certainly come to the point where Diablo 1 is up and running.
8 It has been up over 50 percent power now.
10 Unit 2 is coming along. It's projected to be 11 complete, ready for fuel load, in mid to late February of 12 this year. The staff's reviews are proceeding along in 13 parallel with that schedule. We do have a large amount of 14 work before us.
15 Two issues that I will mention is , the question of 16 the need for further hearings on design QA for Unit 2 is i 17 still pending before the Appeal Board. That is a matter i
18 that we have devoted considerable resources and attention to.
19 The other issue that we are looking at is the
- subject of some 2,000 allegations.
21 Yes, that's what struck me.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I 22 MR. EISENHUT: Well, you'll recall, sir, that when 23 we had the discussion on Unit 1, the way we addressed a lot
[
24 of allegations was to say that that relates to Unit 2, not 25 So, we are now going through those. We are working Unit 1.
i 69 1 But I think;,we are developing a pretty firm feeling 2 for the quality of the [acilities, and I think you will see 3 our, view on -- at least at this point in time for Diablo 2 4- will look very similar to what our view was on Diablo Unit 1.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You said they havh a number of 6 people working on this. Are you following pretty much the 7 same pattern that you have developed in other areas where 8 there are a large number of allegations?
9 MR. EISENHUT: Yes, sir. We are working very 10 closely with the Office of Investigations on a number of 11 these plants. Most of these where you see some -- it was 12 indicated there are a number of investigations underway. We 13 will try to look at them in a joint fashion to make sure 14 the real substance of the issues gets addressed both from a 15 technical standpoint and from a wrong-doing standpoint.
\
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thinking back to -- what was 17 it, Comanche Peak, I guess, not Diablo, where we have l
L 18 large numbers of allegations. It brings to mind in the past )
19 on those very crucial kinds of cases involving large numbers
'M of allegations you made a diagram showing how many were 21 screened in and how many were screened out, and how many 22 remained to be done by such and such a time.
23 Is that something that we should be getting into --
l 24 not in this session but later in an effort to see if we 25 can provide any help?
l w.,.
.- '~
70
}
ill end up I think Comanche Peak d w that's So, MR. DENTON:
the Board and'conteste .
bming adjudicated beforedidate for that. f
- probably not a good ~chn k at Diablo 2 and see on it i Why don't you let us loo xplorations -
useful to have earlier e it would be All right.
wo think on what the CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
e I guess it also depends MR. DENTON:
7 on - right.
Right, 8 ' Board does flag, namely COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
9 - this issue that we MR. DENTON: it, that would be 10 If they re-open, then the re-opening.
11 a good point.
the forum. Yes , that's 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: we getting a fairly Are ing 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: rized system for filter i 14 ;
15 efficient, I would presume , compute h them quickly to now and sifting throug have been these things and which ones you 16 are new which ones 17 determine " but through before? start by saying "no ,
18 Let me MR. EISENHUT:
where we are. went out 19 l
we let me tell you as I remember, which we hope 20 went out I think we computerized system l
21 the 22 for contract and we havef this a year, having all operational by April o 23 to be f computerized. in-house allegations been doing it 24 Short of that, we have 25
71 1 either manually or on, a small computer we have in the office.
3 But we are -- I think thfe tracking of them is better than we a were before and in the sense that we are now using it as a 4 management tool the target would be that the same tracking 5 system would be used, would identify them all, would 6 identify the responsible offices following up, and it would 7 be accessible from the region, for headquarters, and from OI.
8 So, from that standpoint we are certainly heading 9 in that direction.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: How long have we been 11 working on trying to -- I mean, it's been a year more or 12 less now that we have realized we face this sort of thing, i
13 at least on that plant and some others as well.
14 How long have we been working on a system to 15 automate that process?
16 MR. EISENHUT: Probably actually working on it, 17 not before, about -- no more than about three or four months.
l 18 I think the system of tracking allegations, before it was 19 just a manual tracking system -- or maybe it was a computerized 20 system in I&E. Jim, maybe you remember.
21 MR. TAYLOR: We had to load it, but it wasn't --
22 MR. EISENHUT: An interactive system by any means.
23 MR. TAYLOR: Righ t.
94 MR. DENTON: I think part of the problem, Commissioner, 25 most of our data handling in that area was written, I believe,
72 1 in COBOL which is very d1fficult language to reprogram, and 2 we have to go back to a group in-house who does that.
8 .Today's programs, things like Data Base II that 4 are available which are relational data bases, we've got a 5 lot of'our material now on our own PCs that we have in the 6 office where you can search it.
7 But when we have to go to a big main frame and 8 you have to write programs in a rather archaic language, it 9 takes a long time to get it switched around. I think we will 10 eventually ge t there. The field has moved awfully fast and 11 we haven't kept up with it.
j 12 MR. EISENHUT: We have been working about three 13 months , I think. We assigned, remember, a couple of people I' 14 in NRR are now assigned full time to this when we picked it 15 up. I think it started about three months ago.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: One last question. Last l
17 time around on the other Diablo plant, the qualification of 18 operators, you recall, was a major issue.
19 Is this utility going to be prepared now to approach t
30 operating another plant with a full complement of operators ,
21 or are we going to face that problem all over again?
l 22 MR. DENTON: We have had several meetings with them 23 as to how they are going to transfer operators from Unit 1 24 to Unit 2. I don' t remember the details , but it's intended i
25 to bring experience into Unit 2 from Unit 1.
i 1
A-
73 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That's a good question. We I probably ought to get a separate report on that.
<~.
3 __ -COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Do they still have the 4 - advisers at Unit 1, or are the advisers gone now?
6 MR. EISENHUT: I think they still have the advisers.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So they would have advisers 7 on 2, or do they propose by then --
8 MR. EISENHUT: I'm not sure.
9 MR. DENTON: I don't recall the details.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay, any other questions or 11 comments from Board reps?
12 MR. ROSENTHAL: I would be just curious as to whether 13 the staff still plans to gets its SSER in the hands of my 14 Diablo Fuel Board this month. That is the SSER with respect 15 to the adequacy of the signed verification program for Unit 2 16 because that's the sticking point on the Appeal Board's 17 dispatch of that sole remaining Diablo Canyon issue.
18 Do we get it in January, you think?
19 MR. EISENHUT: I don' t know. Tom, do you remember?
20 We just went through this but it totally escapes me what 21 the schedule was.
22 MR. ROSENTHAL: All right. Let me put it to you 23 this way, the Board is expecting it in January. If there is 24 going to be any further slippage, I would suggest the Board 25 be notified promptly.
o
Okty, cny cthar commento?
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
1 Unless Commissioners have particular plants they 2 ' '
want to address or a burning question on this one, I was going :
3 4
to suggest we hear from OI.
I have one quick question COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
5 6
on one plant, on Riverbend.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
7 I noticed in the write-up 8
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
9 you say that the applicant has orally indicated the desire to load fuel with a number of structures, components, and 10 11 systems to be completed and verified as operable after 12 licensing. You mentioned some of them.
a terribly great idea.
13 That struck me as not (Laughte r) 14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I was interested in 15 16 hearing the staff's view on that.
and it MR. DENTON:
We plan to meet with them on it, 17 18 didn't strike me as a particularly correct way to go in view 19 of the Grand Gulf experience.
Right, right.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
If it's MR. DENTON:
So, we will explore that.
21 22 things like cooling tower completion, it might be a different It's not clear 23 issue than if it's reactor system completed.
- he does 24 yet exactly what his plans are , except he did plan That's what we want to 25 apparently have a phased program.
i 75 1 explore with him.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay. Particularly with 3 a first-time utility like that, you know, it just struck me 4 as something that needed attention.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And I think I would say more 6 than one Commissioner raised eyebrows on that.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, good.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Well, unless there 9 are other points that the Commission wants to bring up at 10 this time, I suggest that we, I guess, recess this portion 11 of the meeting and go into a closed meeting. We will hear
'g 12 from OI, and then I guess we have to go in a further closed 13 meeting and hear from OIA.
14 So, let me call for a recess and ask people who are 15 not to stay to leave the room as promptly as possible.
I 16 (Whe reupon , at 3:45 p.m., the meeting of the 17 Commission was adjourned, to reconvene in closed session.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t
)
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to- certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: .
NAME OF PROCEEDING: Periodic Briefing on NTOLs Public Meeting DOCKET NO.:
PLACE: Washington, D.C.
anuary 8, 1985 DATE:
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt) b (Ld[ S (TYPED) M. E. Hansen 1
h Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation 1
x
January 3,1985 OUTLINE
~~
PERIODIC BRIEFING ON NTOLs JANUARY 8, 1985 I. Potentially significant issues for upcoming OL Licensing Cases II. Update of September 4,1984 Periodic Status Report III. Status Reports for Plants currently authorized to load fuel and perform low power testing, including plants presently scheduled for licensing in 1985 IV. Viewgraphs (enclosed) l NRR D. G. Eisenhut 27672 1
i!
> HUW8ER OF PLANTS
- T t ? * ?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
re l, rf d a o Verdi 1 3 Femi 2 Watts Bar 1 Wolf Creek 1 A Comanche Peak, Diablo Canyon 2 River Bend 1 4
- bxNNNNNNNNNN NNNNao er 5
! Comanche Peak 2, Clinton 1, I j . b\NN\N\NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Hope Creek, Nine Mile 2, Harris]1 x raidwood I, Seabrook 1, Watts j 3 BBar 2, Beaver Valley 2, Byron 2 j A \
Vogtle 1 l
South Texas 1 f
Pale Verde 3 Braidwood.2 Bellefonte 1 ANNNNNNNNNNNNNxNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNT l
l
\
l
'e
--...c, ,,. .. - _. - .._ _ _______ __. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TYPE LICESSED TO BE LICENSED.
1 WEST 37 19 i
I GE 33 9
.l B&W 8 5 ..
l l CE 13 3
! AC 1 0 1
GAC 1 0 1
j .
i
\$ba**
\ L kg%',~
\ ,,*** - '
g
_.t# .t _,n*# s## px
CATAWBA UNIT.1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. SCHEDULE - THE LICENSEE ESTIMATES THE PLANT WILL BE RFSDY FOR INITIAL CRITICALITY ON 1/9/85, NEED FOR INSPECTION OF CONTROL R0D DRfVsS RESULTED IN ONE MONTH DELAY IN INITIAL CRITICALITY, PLANT WILL BE READY TO EXCEED 5% POWER ON 1/19/85, COMMISSION MEETING ON FULL POWER SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 1985, 2, FSAR REVIEW - FSAR REVIEW COMPLETE,
- 3. INSPECTIONS /IDVP - NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEES STARTUP OPERATION IS CONTINUING.
- 4. HEARINGS - THE FINAL PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION WAS ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 27, 1984, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A FULL POWER l OPERATING LICENSE.
- 5. ALLEGATIONS - ONE ALLEGATION REMAINS OPEN, (BAD WELDS IN NON-SAFETY RELATED PIPING).
l 6. 0_I - NO OUTSTANDING INVESTIGATIONS, GENERIC TNVESTIGATION IS UNDERWAY CONCERNING TDI DIESELS. THIS INVESTIGATION j AFFECTS SEVERAL PLANTS WHICH HAVE TDI'S, l
- 7. OTHER - THE LICENSEE INTERRUPTED PRECRITICAL TESTING ON DECEMBER 7, 1984 TO COOL THE REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM AND INSPECT CONTROL R0D DRIVES TO ASSURE THAT BREECH GUIDE SCREWS WERE SECURED, A KOREAN REACTOR HAD EXPERIENCED A l
CRD FAILURE-TO-INSERT DURING TESTING BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM, A THIRTY DAY DELAY WAS ANTICIPATED,
WATERFORD UNIT,3 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES C
~
- 1. SCHEDULE L
I LOW POWER LICENSE WAS ISSUED DECEMBER 18, 1984.
INITIAL CRITICALITY IS EXPECTED FEBRUARY 18, 1985 AND READINESS-TO EXCEED 5% BY MARCH 25, 1985.
THIS SCHEDULE REFLECTS CONFIRMATORY TESTS TO BE CONDUCTED DURING POST CORE HOT FUNCTIONAL ~ TESTING AS WELL AS OTHER LOW POWER PHYSICS TESTS PRIOR T0 p EXCEEDING 5%.
[ 2. FSAR REVIEW NO OPEN ISSUES, SEE ITEM 5, i
3, INSPECTIONS NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S STARTUP OPERATION IS CONTINUING, NO MAJOR ISSUES IDENTIFIED, i
h 4. HEARINGS MOTION PENDING BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD (ASLAB) TO
.h RE0 PEN HEARINGS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE COMMON FOUNDATION BASEMAT, THE STAFF RESPONDED TO BOARD ORDER ON DECEMBER 17, 1984, ANOTHER MOTION CONCERNING MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE TO RE0 PEN HEARINGS WAS FILED ON NOVEMBER 8, 1984,- THE STAFF RESPONSED TO THIS MOTION ON DECEMBER 21, 1984, ACTION ON BOTH MATTERS PENDING BEFORE APPEALS BOARD, I
WATERFORD 3.(CONT'D) .,
5, ALLEGATI0'NS A TEAM, COMPOSED OF HEADQUARTERS AND REGIONAL STAFF AND CONSULTANTS, ADDRESSED NUMEROUS ALLEGATIONS, DEALING WITH IMPROPER PRACTICES DURING CONSTRUCTION, ON 0CTOBER 1, 1984, THE STAFF RELEASED SSER #7 WHICH DISCUSSES
.THE RESULTS TO DATE OF THE STAFF'S EVALUATION OF APPROXIMATELY 350 ALLEGATIONS AND CONCERNS OF P00R CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES AT THE WATERFORD 3 FACILITY, SSER
- 9, TO BE RELEASED IN JANUARY, ADDRESSES RESOLUTION OF THE 23 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY STAFF TO BE A SAFETY CONCERN.
- 6. 01 SEVnRAL ONG0ING 01 INVESTI.GATIONS; PRINCIPALLY RELATING TO DRUG USE; DA; AND MANAGEMENT INTEGRITY,
't w
BYRON UNIT 1,SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. SCHEDULE - OL ISSUED OCTOBER 31, 1984, INITIAL CRITICALITY
~
EXPECTED JANUARY 20, 1985 WITH LOW POWER TESTING UP TO 5% POWER COMPLETED BY FEBRUARY 15, 1985. 3-4 WEEK DELAY IN INITIAL CRITICALITY CAUSED BY SEVERAL OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS TYPICAL OF NEW PLANTS.
- 2. FSAR REVIEW - SEVERAL ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO EXCEEDING 5% POWER.
- 3. INSPECTIONS /IDVP - NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S STARTUP OPERATION IS CONTINUING. NO MAJOR ISSUES IDENTIFIED.
- 4. HEARINGS - A FAVORABLE SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DECISION WAS ISSUED IN OCTOBER 1984. INTERVENOR'S APPEAL OF ASLB SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DECISION FILED NOVEMBER 6, 1984.
ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE APPEAL BOARD HELD ON NOVEMBER 29, 1984. APPEAL BOARD DECISION ISSUED DECEMBER 20, 1984, AFFIRMED LICENSING BOARD'S FAVORABLE DECISION.
4
- 5. ALLEGATIONS - 77 ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW IN THE GENERAL jl_ AREAS OF HVAC TESTING, SEALING PRACTICES FOR TRANSCO FIRE SEALS, AND PLANT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.
- 6. 01 - N0 OUTSTANDING INVESTIGATIONS.
l l
h PALO VERDE UNIT-1 .SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1, SCHEDULE -
~
AN OPERATING LICENSE, RESTRICTED TO 5% POWER, WAS ISSUED ON ,
DECEMBER 31, 1984, INITIAL CRITICALITY SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 4, 1985. PLANT READY FOR FULL POWER LICENSE APRIL 18, 1985,
- 2. FSAR REVIEW NO OPEN ISSUES, 3, -INSPECTIONS /IDVP NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S STARTUP OPERATION IS CONTINUING, N0 MAJOR ISSUES IDENTIFIED, i
l . 4, HEARING l
LICENSING BOARD AND APPEAL BOARD DECISIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED, j
5, ALLEGATIONS THERE ARE 18 ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW,
- 6. 01/0lA i THERE ARE 6 INVESTIGATIONS ONG0ING, THERE IS 1 ONG0ING OIA INVESTIGATION,
- 7. OTHER THE C0ALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY EDUCATION HAS WRITTEN TO THE DIRECTOR OF NRR CONCERNING CERTAIN INCENTIVE PLANS IMPLEMENTED BY THE APPLICANT UTILITY AND OTHERS IMPOSED BY THE STATE UTILITIES COMMISSION, THIS LETTER IS BEING REVIEWED AS A 2,206 PETITION, THE INITTAL REVIEW HAS NOT INDICATED A SAFETY IMPACT ON LOW POWER OPERATION OF-THE PLANT,
.i i
LIMERICK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. SCHEDULE _
A LICENSE, RESTRICTED TO 5%, WAS ISSUED OCTOBER 26, 1984.
INTIAL CRITICALITY ACHIEVED ON DECEMBER 22, 1984. PLANT EXPECTED TO BE READY TO EXCEED 5% POWER BY JANUARY 20, 1985.
HOWEVER, OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING HEARINGS, WHICH STARTED NOVEMBER 19, 1984, WILL LIKELY DELAY A FULL POWER DECISION UNTIL APPR0XIMATELY MAY 1985. .
- 2. FSAR REVIEW NO OPEN ISSUES.
- 3. INSPECTIONS /IDVP NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S STARTUP OPERATION IS CONTINUING. NO MAJOR ISSUES IDENTIFIED.
IDVP WAS SUBMITTED DECEMBER 12, 1984. STAFF REVIEW WILL BE COMPLETED BY JANUARY 31, 1985. ;
- 4. HEARINGS
, HEARINGS ON ALL ISSUES OTHER THAN OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING L HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND THE PID'S ISSUED.
1 HEARINGS ON THE OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES WILL LIKELY EXTEND THROUGH JANUARY 1985. A BOARD DECISION ON THESE ISSUES IS ESTIMATED BY MAY 1985. THUS AN IMPACT OF UP TO FOUR MONTHS ON FULL POWER LICENSING IS PROJECTED.
1
LIMERICK (CONT'D) .,
! 5. ALLEGATI0NS THERE ARE CURRENTLY 5 ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
i
- 6. 91
( THERE IS ONE ONGOING INVESTIGATION.
- 7. OTHER - POINT PLEASANT DIVERSION PROJECT j LICENSEE INTENDS TO USE WATER DIVERTED FROM THE DELAWARE j RIVER AT POINT PLEASANT FOR MAKEUP FOR CONDENSER COOLING EVAPORATIVE LOSS DURING SUMMER MONTHS (APRIL - OCTOBER)
WHEN THE SCHUYKILL RIVER IS NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO FLOW AND l TEMPERATURE RESTRICTIONS.
l l A DELAY IN COMPLETION OF THIS POINT PLEASANT DIVERSION SYSTEM (PPDS) WILL LIKELY IMPACT THE LICENSEE'S ABILITY TO OPERATE AT ANY SIGNIFICANT POWER LEVELS DURING THE WARM WEATHER. MONTHS OF 1985 AND POSSIBLY 1986.
l THE PPDS WOULD TRANSFER WATER FROM THE DELAWARE RIVER WHENEVER HIGH SCHUYLKILL RIVER TEMPERATURE OR LOW RIVER FLOW RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION PRECLUDE ITS USE FOR CONSUMPTIVE COOLING.
CURRENT LITIGATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IS EXPECTED.T0 DELAY COMPLETION OF THE PPDS UNTIL AT LEAST LATE 1985 AND MAY RESULT IN A POSSIBLE SUBSTITUTE SOURCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL COOLING WATER BEING CONSIDERED.
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES a ,
- 1. SCHEDULE -
AN OPERATING LICENSE (PERMITTING FUEL LOADING AND OPERATION TO 24 KWT) WAS ISSUED ON DECEMBER 7, 1984. FUEL LOADING STARTED DECEMBER 21, 1984 AND INITIAL CRITICALITY IS EXPECTED THE WEEK 0F JANUARY 21, 1985.
- 2. FSAR REVIEW THE REMAINING FSAP REVIEW ISSUE CONCERNS A CHANGE IN THE LOADING 0F THE ONSITE TDI EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS (EDG).
THIS ITEM MUST BE ADDRESSED BEFORE OPERATION AB0VE FIVE PERCENT POWER.
I 3. INSPECTION /IDVP 1
NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S FUEL LOAD OPERATIONS
! IS CONTINUING. IDVP REVIEWED BY THE STAFF AND FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE.
l- 4. HEARINGS l A. MILLER BOARD (LOW POWER / EXEMPTION HEARINGS)
FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF LOW POWER / EXEMPTION HEARINGS THE MILLER BOARD ISSUED A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON OCTOBER 29, 1984 WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE OPERATION AT UP TO FIVE PERCENT POWER. THIS INITIAL DECISION IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION.
d
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)
B.,_LAURENSON BOARD (EMERGENCY PLANNING HEARINGS)
A BOARD DECISION ON THE COMPLETED EMERGENCY PLANNING HEARINGS IS EXPECTED IN MARCH 1985.
C. BRENNER BOARD (ALL OTHER HEARINGS)
L A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION WAS ISSUED ON
! SEPTEMBER 21, 1983 ON ALL CONTENTIONS EXCEPT THOSE RELATING TO 0FFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING AND THE TDI DIESELS.
ON OCTOBER 31, 1984 THE APPEAL BOARD REMANDED THREE MINOR PID ISSUES TO THIS BOARD INVOLVING:
j 1) UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE A-47 (SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS), 2) HOUSEKEEPING (PLANT CLEANLINESS) AND 3) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT.
BY BOARD DECISIONS DATED NOVEMBER 30 AND DECEMBER 20, 1984 THE BRENNER BOARD ISSUED, j
RESPECTIVELY, A MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON THESE REMANDED ISSUES AND AN ORDER TERMINATING
- FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THESE REMANDED ISSUES.
l EDG HEARINGS WERE HELD BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1984 AND NOVEMBER 1984, BUT HAVE RECESSED WHILE THE STAFF )
EVALUATES A PROPOSED LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT
^
TO THE EDG LOADING SEQUENCE. EDG HEARINGS ARE SCHEDULED TO RESUME IN MID-FEBRUARY 1985 ON THE CHANGE. A BOARD DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS NOT EXPECTED BEFORE MAY 1985, i
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) l
- 5. ALLEGATi0hS THERE IS ONE OUTSTANDING ALLEGATION.
- 6. 1
_0_1 THERE ARE N0 01 INVESTIGATIONS.
- 7. OTHER THE APPLICANT IS PROCEEDING WITH THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING AND INSTALLATION OF COLT DIESELS. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION IS ESTIMATED FOR SUMMER 1985.
i t
9 4
p-
FERMI UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. SCHEDUL,E_- APPLICANT'S ESTIMATE OF THE FUEL LOAD DATE IS THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF JANUARY 1985,
- 2. FSAR REVIEW - CERTAIN UNQUALIFIED C0ATINGS USED INSIDE CONTAIN-MENT AND THE HVAC INSIDE THE CONTROL ROOM REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REVIEW.
- 3. INSPECTIONS /IDVP - REGIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM IS PROGRESSING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPLETION OF PLANT ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S FUEL LOAD DATE. REGION III HAS IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES IN THE UTILITY'S MANAGEMENT OF THE "AS BUILT" DRAWINGS WHICH MAY IMPACT THE PLANT'S READINESS FOR LICENSING.
CYGNA IDVP HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND IS PRESENTLY UNDER REVIEW BY THE STAFF. A CAT-TYPE INSPECTION BY DUKE HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND REVIEWED BY REGION III. NO MAJOR PROBLEM AREAS IN EITHER OF THESE TWO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.
- 4. HEARINGS - THE HEARINGS WERE COMPLETED IN APRIL 1982. THE FAVORABLE INITIAL BOARD DECISION WAS ISSUED IN OCTOBER 1982 AND THE APPEAL BOARD AFFIRMED THIS DECISION ON JUNE 2, 1983. THE COMMISSION DECLINED TO REVIEW THIS DECISION WHICH BECAME FINAL AGENCY ACTION ON OCTOBER 17, 1983.
- 5. ALLEGATIONS - THERE ARE 23 ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
I 6. _0_1 - THERE ARE 2 ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS.
t l
k-
WOLF CREEK.SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. SCHEDULE _- THE APPLICANT'S SCHEDULE FOR FUEL LOAD IS JANUARY 17, 1985. STAFF ESTIMATES FUEL LOAD LATE JANUARY 1985.
- 2. FSAR REVIEW - SEVERAL MINOR ITEMS REMAIN TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO LICENSING.
- 3. NRC INSPECTIONS - A REGION IV TASK FORCE, WITH REGION III ASSISTANCE, HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO COMPLETE ALL INSPECTIONS 1 BY FUEL LOAD. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FROM REGIONS II AND III ARE BEING PROVIDED TO REGION IV.
i APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED THEIR REINSPECTION OF 2420 STRUCTURALLY SIGNIFICANT WELDED JOINTS. APPR0XIMATELY 55 0F THESE WELDS j REQUIRED REWORK AFTER EVALUATION. STAFF REVIEW 0F THE APPLICANTS FINAL REPORT ON THE STRUCTURAL STEEL WELDING WILL BE COMPLETED IN JANUARY 1985.
- 4. HEARINGS - FAVORABLE INITIAL DECISION WAS ISSUED ON 7/2/84.
ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1984 THE APPEAL BOARD AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL
, 0F INTERVENORS REQUEST TO REINSTATE ITS FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION CONTENTIONS.
! 5. ALLEGATIONS - THERE ARE 74 0UTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS, STAFF SCHEDULED TO COMPLETE REVIEW 0F ALLEGATIONS BY 01/15/85.
APPLICANT HAS ESTABLISHED A SPECIAL TASK FORCE TO IDENTIFY AND INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS FROM WITHIN ITS WORK FORCE.
- 6. 0_I_ - THERE ARE 5 ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
i Ll . _ . . . - , .
COMANCHE PEAK SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1
t1 ,
1, SCHEDULE-lTHEAPPLICANTADVISEDTHATITSFUELLOADDATEIS SCHEDULE &FOSLATEJANUARY1985, THE ASLBP HAS(ESTIMATED
.A MAY 1985 INITIAL DECISION DATE,
, 2 ,' FSAR REVIEW - THE STAFF ISSUED SSER #6 RESOLVING OUTSTANDING SAFETY ISSUES!0N NOVEMBER 13, 1984. AT LEAST TWO MORE SSERs, WILL.BE ISSUED, PRIOR TO LICENSING, THE HRC STAFF ASSIGNED OVER 50 TECHNICAL EXPERTS FROM THE i NRC, NATIONAL LABORATORIES AND CONSULTING ORGANIZATIONS T0 i '
oTHE.TRT TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS AND REVIEW SPECIFICS OF
' THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTIONLOF THE FACILITY, THIS TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM'(TRT) HAS COMPLETED INITIAL ON-SITE REVIEWS IN THE AREAS OF, CIVIL / MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, TEST PROGRAMS, ,
y'
/ .C0ATINGS'AND QA/QC, 3
- ALL TECHNICAL ISSUES ARE BEING FINALIZED AND SAFETY EVALUATIONS ARE BEING PREPARED, THE FINAL ISSUE OF DA/0C WILL BE DISCUSSED ,
WITH'THE APPLICANT IN EARLY JANUARY,-
I TW0' SPECIAL PANELS CONSISTING OF SENIOR STAFF MAN GEMENT HAVE i
BEEN FORMED TO ASSIST IN THE RESOLUTION OF SAFETY ISSUES REGARDING INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT, AND THE REVIEW 0F
- STAFF POSITIONS ON THE QA/0C CONTENTION. '
/> !
3 4
\
9
1 (
COMANCHE PEAK (CONT'D) -
- 3. INSPECTIO_NPROGRAh!ANDIDVP-MOSTOFTHEROUTINEPRE-OPERATIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM IS COMPLETE. THE REMAINING AREAS TO BE COMPLETED ARE TEST RESULTS EVALUATION, PROCEDURE s
REVIEW, AND OPEN ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN EARLIER INSPECTIONS.
t l THE INITIAL START UP PROGRAM IS IN PLACE AND THE PRELIMINARY l
.(PRE-OL ISSUANCE) INSPECTIONS ARE ALMOST COMPLETE. ALL REGIONAL I ia INSPECTION AREAS REQUIRED FOR FUEL LOAD WERE SCHEDULED FOR f COMPLETION IN DECEMBER 1984. I b STAFF EVALUATION OF THE INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS ON
'3 ADE00AC'Y OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION BY CYGNA, HAS BEEN COMPL'ETED. THE STAFF PLANS TO ISSUE A FINAL REPORT IN LATE JANUARY.
c 7
+
l
" 4. HEARINGS - ON OCT BER 19, 1984', THE STAFF PROVIDED THE BOARD A STATUS AND SCHEDULE FOR ADDRESSING HEARING ISSUES. THE ;
( STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT TnE MOST PRODUCTIVE METHOD OF L ,
RESOLVING HEARING ISSUES IS TO PERMIT THE STAFF TO CONCLUDE ALLv0F ITS REVIEWS AND' PROVIDE AN OVERALL POSITION TO THE
- BOARD,/IN JANUARY 1985. MANY ALLEGATIONS OF DESIGN AND CON-
! STRUCTION DEFICIENCIES HAVE BEEN ADMITTED INTO THE HEARING
' ~
.AS RELEVANT TO THE ONE REMAINING CONTENTION (0A/0C-RELATED).
. 's A SEPARATE LICENSING BOARD HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO RESOLVE i 1 ALLEGATIONS (QA/0C-RELATED) 0F INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT.
DURING JULY AND AUGUST 1984, ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATED IN
,. NUMEROUS DEPOSITIONS RELATED,TO INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT.
h e
THESE DISPOSITIONS WERE TAKEN FROM VARIOUS ALLEGERS, NRC STAFF AND APPLICANT PERSONNEL. HEARINGS ON THESE ISSUES f WERE HELD FROM SEPTEMBER THROUGH DECEMBER 1984. ADDITIONAL
/ FEARING SESSIONS ARE REOlIRED
- TO COMPLETE LITIGATION.
/ ,
L _
l COMANCHE PEAK (CONT'D) ,,
APPLICANT. HAS FILED A MOTION SEEKING AUTHORIZATION TO LOAD FUEL AND CONDUCT CERTAIN PRECRITICAL TESTING. THE STAFF HAS RESPONDED TO THIS MOTION WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS MOTION NOT BE CONSIDERED, BUT RATHER THAT THE BOARD AND PARTIES SHOULD EXPEND EFFORT ON RESOLVING THOSE ISSUES NECESSARY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A FULL POWER LICENSE. THE ASLPB HAS ESTIMATED A MAY 1985 INITIAL DECISION DATE.
- 5. ALLEGATIONS - THERE ARE CURRENTLY APPR0XIMATELY 600 ALLEGATIONS.
THE MAJORITY OF THESE ALLEGATIONS INVOLVE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES, SEVERAL FORMER UTILITY EMPLOYEES HAVE CONTACTED THE DEPT, OF LABOR CONCERNING ALLEGED INTIMIDATION / HARASSMENT,
( 6. 01 - TEN ACTIVE 01 INVESTIGATIONS RELATE TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION QA/0C, INCLUDING ALLEGED INSPECTOR HARASSMENT, AND FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS, b
- 3 l
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. SCHEDULE _
THE LICENSEE'S SCHEDULE FOR FUEL LOAD IS MID FEBRilARY.
- 2. FSAR REVIEW ISSUES BEING EVALUATED INCLUDE APPLICATION OF IDVP/ITP TO UNIT 2, PIPING AND SUPPORTS, LICENSING 0F UNIT 1 OPERATORS FOR UNIT 2 GPERATIONS, AND VARIOUS TECHNICAL MATTERS.
} {
l
- 3. INSPECTIONS f THE REGION V INSPECTION EFFORT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANT l STATUS. I i ,
i 4. HEARINGS i i THE QUESTION OF NEED FOR FURTHER HEARINGS ON DESIGN QA WITH RESDECT TO UNIT 2 IS PENDING BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD. (A )
l SAFETY EVAL!IATION ON THE IDVP/ITP REGARDING THIS MATTER IS
! IN PREPARATION). THE BOARD IS CONSIDERING THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ON THIS MATTER. (0N DECEMBER 31, 1984 THE US COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE COMMISSION'S DECISTON REGARDING
- ISSUANCE OF A FULL POWER LICENSE FOR UNIT ]).
- 5. ALLEGATIONS 1
AS OF DECEMBER 1 APPR0XIMATELY 2000 ALLEGATIONS, INCLUDING THOSE IN AN AMENDMENT TO AN EARLIER GAP 2.206 PETITION.
. MOST WERE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING UNIT 1, HOWEVER, All ARE BEING REVIEWED FOR APPLICABILITY To UNIT 2.
)
l ur i
DIABLO CANYON (CONT'D) 6, 9]I_
01 IS CONTINUING ITS EVALUATION OF MORE THAN 100 ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO FALSE STATEMENTS, FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS, 1 DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS, AND PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS, I
I l
i
WATTS BAR UNIT.,1.SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1, SCHEDULE _- APPLICANT'S SCHEDULE FOR FUEL LOAD IS MARCH 1985,
- 2. FSAR REVIEW - SIGNIFICANT ITEMS YET TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE-(1) SEISMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT, (2) FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM, (3) MAIN STEAM LINE BREAK ANALYSIS, AND (4) ORGANIZATION OF CORPORATE AND PLANT STAFF,
- 3. INSPECTIONS /IDVP - REGIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM IS PROGRESSING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPLETION OF PLANT ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S FUEL LOAD DATE, RESilLTS OF THE IDVP ARE UNDER REVIEW BY THE STAFF AND ARE EXPECTED TO BE AVAllABLE TO SUPPORT LICENSING,
- 4. HEARINGS - THE WATTS BAR REVIEW IS UNCONTESTED,
- 5. ALLEGATIONS - THERE ARE CURRENTLY 6 OPEN ALLEGATIONS, THESE INVOLVE PIPE HANGERS AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS, USE OF PROCEDURES, AND SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION TO THE NRC, 6, 01 - THERE ARE 2 ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS,
- 7, OTHER - THE APPLICANT'S SCHEDillE REFLECTS ONGOING EFFORTS TO
- RESOLVE FTRE PROTECTION CONCERNS RAISED AS A RESULT OF THE FIRE PROTECTION INSPECTION CONDUCTED .IllLY 16-20, 1984, BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 15, 1984, TVA APPEALED THE STAFF'S POSITION REGARDING THE FIRE PROTECTION SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND INTERVENING COMBUSTIBLES, AN APPEAL MEETING WAS HELD ON NOVEMBER 14, 1984, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT IS EXPECTED JANUARY 4, 1985, a.
RIVER BEND UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES i
- 1. SCHEDULE _
APPLICANT ESTIMATE OF FUEL LOAD DATE IS APRIL 1985; THIS i
APPEARS TO BE OPTIMISTIC TO THE STAFF.
APPLICANT HAS ORALLY INDICATED A DESIRE TO LOAD FUEL WITH A NUMBER OF STRUCTURES, COMP 0NENTS, AND SYSTEMS TO BE COMPLETED AND VERIFIED AS OPERABLE AFTER LICENSING. A FORMAL REQUEST INDICATING THE SCOPE AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SUCH INCOMPLETIONS IS EXPECTED IN JANUARY 1985 FOR STAFF CONSIDERATION, ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DELAYED COMPLETION REQUEST ARE SEVERAL SPENT FUEL STORAGE RACKS, ONE OF THE FOUR CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM COOLING TOWERS, AND THE ELEVATOR INSIDE CONTAINMENT.
- 2. FSAR REVIEW THE SER WAS ISSUED MAY 1984 AND THE ACRS ISSUED A FAVORABLE INTERIM (5% POWER) REPORT IN JULY 1984. FULL POWER ACRS REVIEW IS BEING TARGETED FOR LATE SPRING (APRIL-JUNE) 1985 WHEN THE COMMITTEE WILL FURTHER CONSIDER HYDROGEN CONTROL FOR RIVER BEND. REMAINING OPEN ITEMS NEEDING RESOLUTION FOR A 5% LICENSE WILL BE ADDRESSED IN AN SSER TO BE PUBLISHED IN MARCH 1985.
- 3. INSPECTIONS /IDVP/IDI AN INTEGRATED DESIGN INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED IN MAY 1984 AND A FOLLOWUP INSPECTION CONDUCTED IN NOVEMBER 1984.
1 1
RIVER BEND SIGNIFICANT ISSUES3 (CONT'D)
A CAT INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED IN AUGUST 1984. APPLICANT IS RESPONDING TO FINDINGS OF INSPECTION, REGION IV INSPECTION EFFORT IS CONSISTENT WITH PLANT STATUS.
- 4. HEARINGS ALL HEARING CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE PARTIES AND THE SETTLEMENTS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD ON OCTOBER 9, 1984.
- 5. ALLEGATIONS THERE ARE 13 OUTSTANDING ALLEGATIONS,
- 6. 01 TWO INVESTIGATIONS ARE UNDERWAY.
- 7. OTHER - EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS 1 RIVER BEND HAS TWO TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS, MODEL R-48. THESE ARE THE SAME AS THE DIESEL f GENERATORS AT SHOREHAM.
L
CATAWBA UNIT _.2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. SCHEDULE - THE LICENSEE ESTIMAYES THAT CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETED IN OCTOBER 1985,
- 3. INSPECTIONS /IDVP - THE REGIONAL CONSTRUCTIONAL INSPECTION IS ON SCHEDULE AND THE REGION DOES NOT ANTICIPATE ANY PROBLEMS WITH MEETING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETION OF INSPECTION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PRE-0PERATIONAL l TESTING.
4 HEARINGS - THE FINAL PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION WAS ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 27, 1984, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A FULL POWER
( OPERATING LICENSE.
- 5. ALLEGATIONS - ONE ALLEGATION REMAINS OPEN. (BAD WELDS IN
( NON-SAFETY RELATED PIPING).
- 6. 0_I_ - NO OUTSTANDING INVESTIGATIONS.
l k
MILLSTONE 3 SIG,NIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. SCHEDULE _- FUEL LOAD SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 1, 1985
- 2. FSAR REVIEW - SIGNIFICANT OPEN ITEMS REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED IN SAFETY REVIEW ARE FIRE PROTECTION AND LEAK BEFORE BREAK.
- 3. INSPECTIONS /IDVP - ROUTINE NRC INSPECTIONS ARE ONGCING.
CAT INSPECTION TO BE CONDUCTED IN FEBRUARY 1985. STAFF AND APPLICANT SCHEDULED TO MEET ON JANUARY 11, 1985 TO DISCUSS NEED FOR IDVP/IDI.
- 4. HEARINGS - N0 HEARINGS SCHEDULED ON MILLSTONE 3.
- 5. ALLEGATIONS - FOUR ALLEGATIONS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW.
- 6. 01 - ONE OUTSTANDING INVESTIGATION.
- 7. OTHER - PROBABILISTIC SAFETY STUDY TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL STAFF AND ACRS REVIEW.
l l
t
s PERRY 1 SIGNI,FICANT ISSUES
- 1. SCHEDUL_E_- CURRENT ESTIMATED FUEL LOAD DATE IS DECEMBER 1985.
- 2. FSAR PEVIEW - SIGNIFICANT OPEN ITEMS INCLUDE HYDROGEN CONTROL, TDI DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY, AND PLANT SPECIFIC CONCERNS RELATED MARK III CONTAINMENT DESIGN.
- 3. HEARINGS - ASLB HEARING INITIATED MAY 1983 TO LITIGATE QA CONSTRUCTION (ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR) ISSUES. FAVORABLE BOARD DECISION ON THE QUALITY ASSURANCE ISSUE WAS RECEIVED DECEMBER 1983 AND IS ON APPEAL, FIVE ISSUES REMAIN INCLUDING EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLANS; HYDR 0 GEN CONTROL FOR DEGRADED CORE ACCIDENTS; INSTALLATION OF IN-CORE T/C'S TO DETECT INADEQUATE CORE COOLING; STEAM EROSION EFFECTS ON PIPING AND VALVES; RELIABILITY OF TDI DIESEL GENERATORS. THE STAFF WILL SEEK
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION FOR THESE ISSUES.
- 4. INSPECTIONS /IDI - CAT INSPECTION REPORT ISSUED NOVEMBER 17, 1983.
IDI REPORT ISSUED DECEMBER 7, 1984. N0 MAJOR PROBLEMS WERE IDENTIFIED FROM EITHER INSPECTIONS BUT SEVERAL FOLLOWUP ITEMS
- REQUIRED BY APPLICANT.
- 5. ALLEGATIONS - 16 ALLEGATIONS UNDER RE'/IEW.
t
- 6. 01 ONE INVESTIGATION UNDERWAY.
1
.I I
PALOVERDEUNIi'2SIGNIFICANTISSUES k
- 1. SCHEDULE -
THE PLANT IS SCHEDULED FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION DECEMBER 1985,
- 2. FSAR REVIEW A NUMBER OF ISSUES WILL BE REVIEWED BASED UPON UNIT 1 EXPERIENCE AND CONFIRMATORY TESTS,
- 3. INSPECTIONS /IDVP NORMAL INSPECTION OF APPLICANTS CONSTRUCTION, TRAINING AND TURNOVER IS CONTINUING, NO MAJOR ISSUES IDENTIFIED, I4 , HEARING LICENSING BOARD RESERVED CONTENTIONS ON CHEMICAL DEPOSITION ON AGRICULTURE LAND WITH RESPECT TO UNITS 2 AND 3,
- 5. ALLEGATIONS THERE ARE 18 ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW INCLUDING THOSE UNDER )
01 & OIA INVESTIGATION,
- 6. _0_I_
THERE ARE 6 INVESTIGATIONS ONGOING, THERE IS 1 ONG0 IGG OIA INVESTIGATION, ,
1