ML20132C726

Forwards Full Power Briefing Slides,Proposed Full & Low Power Licenses,Evaluation of Facility Operating Experience & Region QA Rept for Use in Considering Full Power Licensing of Facility on 850226.W/o Encls

ML20132C726
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford, 05000000
Issue date:	02/21/1985
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Palladino NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20132C730	List: IA-85-191, Responds to FOIA Request for Documents Re Commission 850315 Closed Meeting Concerning Facility.Documents Listed on Apps a & B Available in Pdr.Documents on App C Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemptions 5 & 7) ML20132C726 ML20132C792 ML20133K206 ML20133K280 ML20133K523
References
FOIA-85-191 NUDOCS 8502270446
Download: ML20132C726 (2)

Text

CCC

%, UNITED STATES

[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 FEB 21585 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF FULL POWER LICENSING OF WATERFORD 3 Consideration of full power licensing of Waterford 3 is presently scheduled for February 26, 1985. Provided for your use is a copy of the Waterford 3 briefing package, Enclosure 1, which includes:

1. Briefing Slides for the full power briefing

2. The Proposed Full Power License

3. The Low Power License

4. Evaluation of Waterford 3 Operating Experience to Date

5. Region QA Report (to be provided by Region before meeting)

An SSER has not been prepared since only a small number of license conditions needed to be satisfied prior to issuance of the full power license. A letter Safety Evaluation covering these items will be issued at the time of full power licensing.

There are two motions to reopen currently pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. The first of these deals with the adequacy of the foundation basemat. The views of the staff and its consultants are provided in Attachments 2 and 3 to SSER 7, and in Attachment I to SSER 9 (pages A-3 through A-33, A-86 through'A-123, and A-144 through A-230).

The statements of two other staff members with differing views have been filed with the Appeal Board, and are presented in Attachment I to SSER 9 (pages A-37 through A-85, and A-124 through A-138). The second motion to reopen deals with the adequacy of LP&L's construction QA/0C program and the competence and integrity of its management. The staff's review of allegations in these areas is documented in SSERs 7 and 9, and the staff's response to the motion to reopen is presented in Attachment 2 to SSER 9 (pages B-1 through B-104).

Both motions to reopen have been briefed by the parties, with one final staff brief to be filed by February 28, 1985 concerning the motion to reopen on QA/QC and management competence and integrity. It is unlikely that the Appeal Board will render its decisions on either motion to reopen prior to the Comission meeting to be held on February 26, 1985.

$ M,.'O [ MNb q 6

= 7l)

/

Enclosure 2 is provided for background and includes the Waterford 3 SER and Supplements 1-9.

V kk William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Waterford Briefing Package

2. Waterford SER and Supplements 1-9 cc: SECY OPE OGC

Contact:

J. Wilson, NRR x27702 I

_ .___ _ _ _ -