ML20135C710
| ML20135C710 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/03/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8509110509 | |
| Download: ML20135C710 (98) | |
Text
ORIGlNAL r~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
';UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Periodic Briefing on NTOLS (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
(
\\
l Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Tuesday, September 3, 1985 Pages: 1 _ g; o i
i 8509110509 850903 l
PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES i
Court Reporters 1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 l
. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
8'o 1
D I SCLA I M ER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Tuesday, 8
Septenter 3,1985 in the Commission *s office at 1717 H Street, 9
N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of epinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorize.
22 23 24 25 l
1
-g 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 l
5 PERIODIC BRIEFING ON NTOLS 6
Public Meeting 7
8 Room 1130 9
1717 H Street, N.W.
10 Washington, D.C.
11 Tuesday, September 3,
1985 12 13 The Commission met in public session at 2:05 p.m.,
14 pursuant to notice, Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman of the 15 Commission, presiding.
16 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
17 Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman 18 James K.
Asselstine, Commissioner 19 Frederick M.
Bernthal, Commissioner 20 Lando W.
- Zech, Jr.,
Commissioner 21 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
j j
~
22 S.
Chilk 23 M.
Malsch 24 T.
Novak 25 H.
Thompson
=..
. t i
2 1
W.
Dircks 2
H.
Denton 3
AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
4 A.
Rosenthal 5
R.
Bernero 6
B, Cotter 7
B.
Russell 8
R.
Fraley 9
V.
Noonan 10 D.
Matthews 11 TELEPHONE SPEAKERS:
12 R.
Denise 13 P.
Check 14.
E.
Johnson 15 16 17 i
i 18 r
19 20 i
21 22 23 4
24 25
f a
3 1
P R OC E ED I NO S 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Good afternoon, ladies and 3
gentlemen.
4 The purpose of this afternoon's meeting is to have 5
the NRC Staff update the Commission on the status of near-term 6
operating license plants, known as NTOLs, and bring to the 7
Commission's attention the status information about problems 8
or potential problems that could affect plant safety reviews 9
or licensing schedules.
10 I believe there is a handout which has been made 11 publicly available, identifying the s p e c.i f i c plants that will 12 be covered today.
13 Making the presentation before the Commission today 14 will be members of the EDO staff as well as representatives 15 from Commission level offices.
16 I propose that we have the EDO take the lead, and as 17 each case is reported, I will ask the Licensing and Appeal 18 Board representatives if they have any comments.
19 We should discuss any OI and OIA i t e.m s last, so that 20 we can close the meeting as necessary to address matters 21 involving ongoisg investigations.
22 During the meeting I would like speakers to discuss 23 any possible resource problems associated with completing 24 reviews of the NTOLs.
25 I would also like OGC to monitor these discussions,
4 1
to warn the Commission of any communloations which come under 2
our ex parte rules.
3 I would also ask OGC to review the meeting 4
transcripts and determine whether any portion of the 5
transcripts should be served on the parties to any pending 6
proceeding.
7 I understand that the Staff portion of the 8
pr e s enta t i on is estimated to require an hour and a half, and 9
the OI portion 30 to 45 minutes, and CIA portion 15 minutes.
10 In the interest of time, I ask that we focus our questions on 11 major issues as much as possible.
12 I am also informed that Region IV is in telephone 13 contact with us.
They can hear and we an turn, I am told, can 14 hear them.
15 Do any other Commissioners have any opening remarks?
16
[No response.3 17 Then let me turn the meeting over to br. Dircks.
18 MR. DIRCKS:
Just one point that I would like to 19 make before we start, Mr. Chairman.
We are going to, as the 20 Commission requested, concentrate on the near and near-term 21 plants.
22 However, we will, even on the outlying plants, 23 indicate to the Commission any significant issues that we 24 think the Commission should be aware of, because.we do want to 2$
make sure'that even at early stages the Commission is informed
l i
5 i
l I
1 of any problems, even on the outlying plants.
2 Mr. Thompson is going to discuss the plants.
3 MR. THOMPSON:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The outlying plants would 5
include Watts Bar, right?
6 MR. THOMPSON:
It will include Watts Bar and all of 7
those plants which are listed on your cover sheet as in the 8
third grouping, which is the low power license expected after 9
January of
'86.
10 COMMISS*IONEH ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
11 MR. THOMPSON:
With respect to the first plant, 12 which is the plant that has a low power license now --
13 actually, River Bend is another plant that falls into that I'd like to address Shoreham first.
14 category 15 As you know, the 5 percent power license was issued 16 on July 3rd, with the low power testing underway right now and 17 expected to be completed by mid-September.
18 The only issue that we have that is before us and 19 remains before the Commission now is completion of the 20 emergency planning
- aspects of the Shoreham facility, that is
~21 the offsita amergency planning.
And there again, that lies, I 22 think you'are' well aware of the status of that one, with the 23 state and the local authorities in conducting the exercise.
F 24 Recently the Board has ruled that that is a state-function as 25 well as the courts, and that's awaiting resolution of that
6 1
issue with the state and Suffolk County authorities to 2
implement that.
3 We have asked FEMA to cooperate to the extent 4
feasible in conducting the offsite emergency planning aspects 5
that can be conducted, the feasibility of it, but that is 6
essentially where that plant stands at this time.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do we have any comments from 8
any of the Appeal Board panel or the Licensing Board?
9 MR. ROSENTHAL:
No.
As I indicated on the handout, 10 the Appeal Board has currently before it the utility's appeal 11 on the legal authority issues.
That appeal was heard on the i2 12th of August. I think it will be decided either this month
(
13 or next, and I would imagine that the most recent Licensing 14 Board decision will also be appealed, though the time for 15 noting the appeal has not yet expired.
16 MR. THOMPSON:
The next plant we would like to 17 address would be --
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I'm not quite clear.
Are we 19 going to get the decision on the latest appeal, you say this 20 month or l
i 21 MR. ROSENTHAL:
There is not as yet a pending appeal 22 from the latest decision.
l 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I see.
24 MR. ROSENTHAL:
But I'm reasonably confident, as are l
25 the authors of this document, that an appeal will be i
l l
l l
r
i 7
1 forthcoming.
If not, it will break a long line of precedent.
2
[ Laughter.3 3
In this particular case.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right, thank you.
Any 5
other questions?
All right.
6 MR. THOMPSON:
The next plant we would like to focus 7
on and address is the River Bend facility which we did issue a 8
low power operating license last Thursday.
9 The major FSAR item that is needed to be resolved 10 prior to full power licensing is the completin of the ACRS 11 review and obtaining a letter from the ACRS.
The main issue 12 that is before the Staff and the ACRS is the hydrogen control 13 issue, and that relates to the burning and possible 14 qualification, environmental qualifications of some water 15 level transmitters for controlling of the water level during 16 an accident situation.
17 It is not an issue that's associated with the 18 concerns of the integrity of the containment during these 19 burns or that you may lose some equipment, and you may in 20 essence lose some glow pI:rg s and then the resultant loss of 21 some ability to b u.,s off hydrogen in the lower parts of the 22 containment.
I 23 The utility has committed to following the HCOG 24 resolution and to qualify his equipment as appropriate, and we 25 will be meeting with the ACRS on September 12th to complete
~
8 1
our review of t'h i s particular issue.
4 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Does the Staff has a concern 3
here?
4 MR. THOMPSON:
The Staff really doesn't have a major 5
concern.
There's a fairly easy fix, that if there's a problem 6
with the qualification of the equipment, it can be replaced at 7
the first refueling outage or some other type of arrangement.
8 It's not a significant issue, though it is one which we are 9
trying to get better definition from Gulf State Utilities is 10 what course of actions they plan to do, whether it's replace 11 the equipment or to relocate it or requalify the equipment 12 itself.
13 MR. DENTON:
There's been a testing program 14 underway, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps Bob Bernero would describe 15 it.
But the industry has been trying to resolve this issue 16 for some time, and I think tests are still being run.
17 MR. BERNERO:
Bob Bernero of the NRR Staff, i
l 18 Mr. Chairman, what we are dealing with here in the 19 case is the preliminary analysis which is required by the 20 hydrogen rule.
Typically these plants have used the CLASSICS 21 code, and if you use the CLASSICS code, you can calculate with 22 certain models that some of the equipment, after you get into 23 multiple burns, is overheated and is not likely to survive.
4 i
i 24 Hugh Thompson mentioned a couple of things.
.25 It is not containment integrity and we in~ fact are l
j 9
1 not terribly convinced that we should hang a great deal of 2
importance on the CLASSICS code calculation because we are 3
getting so close to much better data from the quarter scale 4
test program which is the long range analysis.
5 So what we have done is we have identified the 6
problem, we are coming to grips with it.
The solutions are 7
obvious and simple, if they are needed at all And we are and by "about," I mean in just a few 8
about to have in hand the product of the quarter scale test program which 9
months 10 will give us a much better data base for resolving these 11
. questions.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are there acceptable 13 replacements available?
14 MR. BERNERO:
Oh, yes.
In fact, it's quite simply 15 thermal blocking.
You know, just thermal insulation is 16 probably a sufficient solution.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Bob, if some of the 18 igniters fail, why doesn't that raise containment integrity 19 questions?
when we started out 20 MR. BERNERO:
Oh, because.the 21 with preliminary analyses, the licensees or applicants l
l 22 actually put in a vast number of ignitors, and as it turns 23 out, the quarter scale test program is, if anything, 24 indicating one igniter will do the trick because of the way 25 the hydrogen burns.
l 10 1
So that's one of the examples.
I don't think the 2
loss of a few igniters out of the many that are there is 3
really significant 4t all But it is de facto a survivability 4
question in the preliminary analysis.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is this the ACRS concern?
I can't 6
MR. BERNERO:
No, I don't think the ACES 7
tell you whether they have focused on that as a concern or 8
not.
The ACRS review was awaiting the preliminary analysis as 9
just the last item to be covered.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
11 MR. BERNERO:
But I don't know that they i
12 specifically are concerned about that or not.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay, any other questions?
All 14 right.
Do you want to go on?
15 MR. THOMPSON:
The next plant I would like to 16 highlight for you is the Perry unit, which has a projected 17 fuel load date of October of
'85.
That's the utility's 18 projected fuel load date.
Actually his current date is 1
19 September 27th, with a three to four-week negative float which 20 he doesn't have any expectation of improving that negative 21 float.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
How realistic is the 23 October date?
24 MR. THOMPSON:
Well, our belief is that it's 25 optimistic; that is, he has no contingency in that October
11 1
date, and if he runs into preoperational start-up testing type 2
issues, it will be more likely mid-November as a realistic 3
date.
4 The FSAR items are not any real significant ones.
5 They are the Mark III containment designs, with some of the 6
pool dynamics associated with some of the coating, the 7
Humphrey issues, and some RHR operation and cooldown mode.
8 They have some issues with the detailed control room 9
design review.
That is, they are attempting to not have any 10
= license conditions outstanding on the detailed control room 11 design review, and have all of their items completed.
12 We believe that's probably an optimistic position on 13 their part.
We have a pre-implementation site visit scheduled 14 very soon te look at what their program is, but it will not be i
l 15 a major pr',blem in licensing because there will be probably no 16 different position if they are not successful in making the 17 modifications to the control room that others have.
18 In fire protection, we did an audit out in March, 19 and there are a few minor items that need to be resolved.
We 20 don't see that to be a problem in that area.
So they seem to 21 be going along the major issues we would see in the FSAR 22 reviews, just closing.out some rather normal type items that 23 we would be facing at this time.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are there any License Board or 25 Appeal Board comments on either River Bend or Perry?
e_
w
,m
-,y-
j l
12 1
MR. COTTER:
An update from the Licensing Board.
2 The paragraph addressing hearings indicates that there is a 3
motion pending and a decision pending, in the last three or 4
four lines.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This is on Perry?
6 MR. THOMPSON:
On Perry, the last couple of lines.
i 7
MR. COTTER:
The motion was ruled on by the Board 8
and r(jected on August 30th, and the decision on the remaining 9
issues will be out this week.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other?
11 MR. ROSENTHAL:
The Appeal Board doesn't have either 12 of those matters before it.
However, once again, I would 13 anticipate an appeal.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Any other comments?
15 Can I go back to River Bend?
16 In your heading "Other," it talks about that there 17 was one of the construction or test items under consideration 18 that required an exemption, and I was wondering what it is and 19 what's the status of it.
20 MR. NOVAK:
What it involves is a requirement that a 21 sump pump, which would ensure that the level in the event of a 22 failure of a pipe, wouldn't exceed some level.
It was defined 23 to have to be safety-related.
In effect, it mear.t upgrading 24 the quality of the pump.
That's being done.
That was the 25 only identified piece of construction not completed at the
J 13 1
time of licensing that we concluded required an exemption.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I didn't follow you.
You said 3
it was being corrected.
4, MR. NOVAK:
Yes.
What they are going to do is 5
upgrade the quality of either the motor or the 6
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So is the exemption only for a 7
limited period of time?
8 MR. NOVAK:
That is correct.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
10 Any other questions?
Why don't we go on.
11 MR. THOMPSON:
The next unit we would like to 12 highlight for tho' Commission is Palo Verde Unit 2 with 13 construction essentially complete, 99 percent complete, with a 14 fuel load projection date of November of
'85.
Essentially 15 this is similar to Palo Verde Unit 1,
and there are no major 16 licensing actions, and we are proceeding along on our normal 17 review.
18 The one issue that is before us, listed under how they will meet the hot operation 19 "Others",
is their 20 experience.
They have released their advisers from Unit 1 and 21 have not provided us with a detailed description of how they 22 will ensure that experienced operators are available for the 23 units that are starting up, Unit 2.
Remember, this was one of 24 the plants that we had to encourage very strongly to get some they probably have 25 advisers.
They were trying to take
14 on a number of the shifts there, and we are einimum experience 1
to ensure I
concerned that they have an adequate program 2
on l
l3 qual,fied advisers or at least hot operating experience 4
each shift, and we will be meeting with the utility on this 5
one shortly.
Are these shift advisers CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
6 they have left?
\\
7 available for Unit 2,
or are they gone, MR. THOMPSON:
They are probably available.
Some 8
Unit 2 and 3, and since they are a part from San Onofre, 9
came they would obvioully be somewhat evallable if they had 10 owner 11 to call for them again.
They also were using some of their own staff, some 12 13 of their own training staff as advisers, and those individuals 14 would be available again.
And that's why we wanted to have 15 them address this issue.
some of Remember, they had some advisers who 16 needed like two or three 17 their shift supervisors who only 18 months of experience in order to be able to meet the 19 Commission's guidance in Generic Letter 84-16.
I believe.
But you expect to settle this CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
20 21 matter before starting up?
MR. THOMPSON:
Certainly before starting up Unit 2,
22 significant issue, but 23 and I aon't anticipate there will be a 24 they have not addressed that issue at this time.
What is the reason, if any, COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
25
O L5 similar to that, procedure followed a
have they would not where they that in Diablo Canyon, 1
Diablo PG&E followed that I guess additional 2
able to have and were 3
have one plant running, running?
while it was that plant trained on you got any personnel Bill, have 4
Let me see.
THOMPSON:
situation MR.
different 5
slightly as I remember, you have got a separate There are 6
dual control room.
You don't have a able to 7
here.
in being so a lot of that experience control rooms, available.
readily 8
through is not quite as kind of rotate in getting aggressively 9
did not move Palo Verde Commission's 10 at the time that the experienced operators caught right near the 11 they were
- Remember, came out.
13 end and I can only surmise that they just thought th
&2 guidance already had was that they the experience 2
didn't need from Unit enough, and the fact they had to take some people 14 for Unit 15 adequate staffing an to Unit 1 to have 16 to move Bill, do you have over not 17 1.
And to the extent that they have comments?
other 18 any other one to clarify I would just like MR, RUSSELL:
the statement, 19 Commission's policy part of the after March As a 20 item.
advisers f
continue using wish to Commission did not 21 used on Unit 1 is not an that was 22 of 1985.
So the approach on Unit 2, and it is this concept available is approach which from their experienced operators 23 to have 24 of how are they going control rooms, separate staff on Unit 2, where they are 25 own
16 1
where Unit 1 has not had six months of operation at the proper 2
power level 3
So where there was a stagger in time between units, 4
they could use experience on Unit 1 to Unit 2,
and that's the
\\
5 issue that we are pursuing with the company.
They have not 6
responded to us yet as to how they are proposing to. resolve 7
the issue.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Have you given them a 9
deadline for when you want an answer from them on how they are 10 going to deal with this?
Because that sounds like a 11 MR. RUSSELL:
We had a meeting with them more difficult problem, 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
13 than simply, well, going back and rounding up these advisers 14 and bringing them back in.
15 MR. RUSSELL:
That's why we have the meeting 16 scheduled for this month with the utility.
17 MR. THOMPSON:
It's scheduled early this month.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any comments by either panel?
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
What's that mischievous 20 act?
21 MR. THOMPSON:
There have been some, it appears, 22 whether it's vandalism or whether it's acts that have created 23 some equipment damage there that has occurred on Unit 2.
They 24 have kind of a different security in place for Unit 1 and Unit 25 2 at this time.
Unit 2 tends to have less physical security
e s
17 equipment and so they've had some in there, arrangements 1
damaged.
investigated.
I 2
That's being COMMISSIONER ZECH:
3 4
presume?
investigated.
It's being MR. THOMPSON:
5 utility?
By the COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Both by the NRC as well as the local 6
MR. THOMPSON:
7 in Arizona.
authorities 8
Thank you.
All right.
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
far sufficiently 9
Is Unit i COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
13 will not cause any that that 11 along in the testing program this kind for Unit 2 start-up, given or problems complications that that is 12 independent sufficiently 13 of thing?
Are the units problem?
14 not really a Oh, the units, I think, are MR. THOMPSON:
15 problem.
independent that that won't be a sufficiently somewhat concerned, you'd like 16 Obviously the item that you are attention'.
It's 17 for management stabilised 18 to have one unit are> separate type 19 not quite as bad in this case because they i
But it approach.
s as opposed to _ dual control room type 20 units 21 is It's still the same COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
22
(
management.
management \\above-23 l
MR. THOMPSON:
It is still the same and a Unit 24
- 1. supervisor l
There is a Unit 25 the unit supervisor.
I b o
18 but to that level, so broken down They are 1
2 supervisor.
obviously that's his 2
then once you get to the site manager, 3
focus.
sufficiently You are COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
sufficient that they could do 4
satisfied that the timing is 5
6 both?
MR. THOMPSON:
Yes.
We looked at that issue.
7 Okay.
Yes?
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
MR. FRALEY:
There was one item in the ACRS report 8
4 9
10 of these identify Ray, would you CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
11 for the record?
12 yourself, please, MR. FRALEY:
Ray Fraley from the ACRS Office.
i 13 The Committee did request that it be provided a
14 15 report on the operation of Unit 1, the preoperational 16 start-up, before it was ready to sign off on Unit 2.
And I
?l i
understand that that is going to.be rather difficult to meet f
17 18 because the plants are running so close together, and we do j
19 plan to discuss that at next week's meeting, to see how it ca 20 best be accommodated, without holding anybody up.
But at the present time we don't have a specific 21 22 date for receipt of that report.
could But the Staff, I gather, CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
23 Now whether 24 give you at least as much information as it has.
remains to be seen.
25 that satisfies the Committee, of course, t
j
~'
~~
,1),;i,;
v
~
T
>q l
1 19 MR. FRALEY:
Yes.
We would have to discuss it with tho Ccamittee.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think it would be useful to got an updated Committee position as early as possible s
beforo any anticipated low power or full power licensing y
4 dooision, either by the Staff or by the Commission, if the Committee has a different view other than what they asked for
- bo, fore.
MR. FRALEY:
Yes.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Can we go on?
MR. THOMPSON:
The next facility would be Millstone Unit 3.
Again the construction here is approximately 99 porcont completed, with a projected fuel load date of November of
'85.
FSAR licensing items that remain include fire pr'otection, equipment qualification, shift staffing, technical specifications and emergency planning.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That sounds like quite a litany.
MR. THOMPSON:
Well, those are again, we include thoso which we are working on.
Fire protection, we did an aud i t', aj us t finished one, and there were a few items that so it does not appear to be an issue of major stompined, ccncorn.
Likewise, we did a review of the equipment e
i l
20 1
qualification in the middle of August, and only a few of the 2
equipment needs clarification for closing out that issue.
3 The one that is going to be a problem is shift 4
staffing.
They are planning to use the combination SRO-STA 5
position.
They have at least a couple of their shift 6
supervisors who are not degreed engineer types.
They in fact 7
have only associate degrees, and so we are looking very 8
carefully at at least using those two people in a dual role, 9
as well as the operating experience qualifications.
As you 10 remembered, we had the like type of reactor experience, being 11 of the requirement -- that is a PWR experience, and some of 12 their experience was BWR experience and some of the 13 individuals, in fact, they had licensed recently on a 14 simulator, they had a high failure rate of BWR licensed 15 operators on a PWR sinulator.
16 So we are anticipating some difficulties right now 17 with this issue.
This seems to be the major issue facing us 18 in the licensing aspect of Millstone 3.
The others are fairly 19 straightforward, with technical specifications, just 20 completing the review, and the emergency planning is an update 21 to reflect the current requirements as opposed to the 22 requirements that were in place when the Milzstone Unit 1 and 23
!illstone Unit 2 had their emergency plans approved.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did I understand you correctly 25 with regard to the simulator exam, they failed on the one that l
l
21 1
wasn't appropriate to them, or we all talked about the 2
MR. THOMPSON:
No, that 3
Commission's position of in fact insisting on PWR experience 4
for PWRs versus BWR experience.
Millstone had a number of 5
their BWR individuals not pass the PWR simulator test for the 6
Millstone reactor.
So I think it was appropriate that the 7
Commission identified the like type reactor experience as what 8
you were looking for for hot operating experience.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Do you know what they 10 propose to do about that?
Are they going to go find new 11 people or 12 MR. THOMPSON:
Im not sure if they Bill, do you 13 want to address that one?
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Or send them back for some 15 PWR work.
16 MR. RUSSELL:
Well, they had PWR experienced 17 operators who also failed the simulator portion of the exam.
18 So it's not just BWR.
19 The two issues that they have, there's not an easy 20 answer for either one.
Two of the shifts do not have 21 sufficient operating experience.
They have other people 22 available on their staff in other positions; some they are 23 training as shift test directors that have prior experience, 24 and they have other people in management positions who are 25 being licensed, that they were not proposing to use on shift p
. - - - -., - -. - - -, - - +
22 1
But they may be able to come up with some combination that 2
would provide experience on those two shifts.
3 They have two other shifts that do not have degree 4
on shift, would not meet our requirements as relates to the 5
shift technical adviser.
6 However, they have four additional licensed SROs 7
that they could use, two of whom are Navy engineer officers, 8
as well as three operating shifts that have qualified engineer 9
officers.
10 So they have quite a bit of experience.
It's just 11 that the experience that they have does not match the Newmark 12 negotiated guidance for experience on shift, and we are 13 looking to get a response from the utility.
I met with them 14 at the site on Thursday and Friday last week, and they will i
15 have a submittal in in about two weeks.
16 They will be proposing some alternative other than 17 the Newmark proposal, and the Staff will react to that and 18 present it to the Commission at the time it comes down for low 19 power licensing.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
You know, I can 21 understand, I guess, some of the uncertainty about the 22 combined SRO-STA thing, because I think that's been an area of 23 more uncertainty.
But in terms of the experience on shift, t
24 that's been settled now, for what, almost a year?
Or more?
25 MR. RUSSELL:
That's correct, More than a year.
It
23 1
has been an open item with this company for that long period 2
of time.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I guess, quite frankly, I 4
don't understand why we've got two cases here of utilities 5
where the guidance has been out for a year or more, and now at 8
this late date, a couple of months before they claim they are 7
ready for a license, they some in and they don't meet the 8
requirements.
I guess I'm puzzled why 9
MR. RUSSELL:
Let me identify what their position 10 has been.
They consider that large PWR and large BWR 11 experience in the noncasualty response is very similar.
12 They're both large units, and so that the majority of the 13 information would transfer across, and that for casualty 14 control and for start-up, that that's the type of activity 15 which is best done on a simulator.
16 They also went through and used their operators for 17 three years in doing component testing and system turnover 18 testing, rather than having the architect-engineer doing it.
19 And they felt that that specific plant experience was much 20 more valuable than going to one of the PWRs in their system --
21 for instance, Connecticut Yankee, which was operating steady i
l 22 state at the time.
23 The problem is that they made some of these 24 decisions without involving the Staff early on as to what 25 their decisions and their rationale were, and now that they l
, +
e
.p w
24 i aro starting to describe them to us, it does appear that many of their merits have merit.
But it again is a case where they do not meet the spectfic requirements which were negotiated with Newmark which were specifically approved by the Ccmmission.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
MR. 3USSELL:
Many other plants have not met that, and have had some other alternative approach.
Comanche Peak is also one that falls in that catogory, where they are continuing to use advisers after March of
'85.
So that it's not unique to one or two plants.
Each one's case is a little bat different.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I guess I'm bothered by the same thing that Commissioner Asselstine is bothered by.
Uo work out agreements with Newmark and the agreements were probably minimal COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
at best.
And now they come CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
along and say, well, we don't even meet that minimum.
Is the word getting to them that we mean we want this minimum met' j
MR. RUSSELL:
I believe that they're getting that l
word, but they have not adequately responded to it.
They arguod that they really didn't agree with the Newmark l
proposal, and that Mr..Counsil had disagreed with that at the i
timo.
25 1
My point was that once that proposal was adopted and 2
issued as a generic letter in 84-16, that that became the 3
Commission's minimum position, and if you didn't meet that, 4
you needed to come in early and describe what your alternative 5
was.
6 That has not occurred yet.
It apepars that they do 7
have some options that they can use to meet that requirement 8
and will require some c h ang e s in their submittal, and they 9
hope to submit that within two weeks.
10 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
It seems to me that we are still 11 reviewing our final position on the engineering expertise on 12 shift.
I know we have communicated with Newmark and so 13 forth.
I think that's still in the works.
But it seems to me 14 that our position on the combined SRO and STA has been 15 reasonably clear.
But could you refresh for me what our 16 combined SRO and STA requirements are right now, currently?
17 MR. RUSSELL:
Currently the only option we are 18 approving is either the degree plus the SRO training, and the 19 SRO license, the STA training, and an engineering degree.
20 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Yes, that's what the rule says 21 right now, is it not?
Do we have any 22 MR. RUSSELL:
The option that 23 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
exemptions that we have 24 granted up until now?
25 MR. RUSSELL:
No.
The option that was rejected by
I l
i 26 1
four of the Commissioners was the associate degree with the t
2 accredited training program for the STA, with the accredited 3
training program for the SRO which was the position we 4
negotiated with Newmark.
5 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Right.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Was there any "or equivalent" 7
on the degree?
I don't remember.
3 MR. RUSSELL:
We have not utilized that option.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Does our rule s.ay "or 10 equivalent"?
11 MR. RUSSELL:
We haven't seen the composite package 12 back yet from Office of Policy Evaluation.
I have seen five 13 individual vote sheets, and I am waiting for someone to 14 interpret that for me.
15 MR. THOMPSON:
It used to say "or equivalent" when 16 it was originally, I think, proposed some year ago, and then 17 six months or so ago they had the " equivalent" aspect 18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Isn't it on the 19 affirmation list for this week,. !.think?
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We'd better look at that again, 21 MR. THOMPSON:
One of the reasons you remember that
-22 we had a list of equivalents, professional engineering 23 license, we had a number of things that were used to establish 24 that equivalent.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Thank you.
I was just
1 27 j
i i
trying to understand where we were.
2-COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Well, I don't think we're ready 3
for it yet if it's on this week.
But, in any case, it seems 4
to me that our position is relatively clear as to what the 5
rules are, an! I would be very interested to see what their 6
rationale is going to be for any kind of exemption they're 7
asking f o r..
8 MR. RUSSELL:
As it relates to the STA and the 9
associate degree program, they had developed a program that 10 they were sending a large number of operators through, where 11 they were actually pulling them off shift work and sending 12 them through' full. time for two years, plus giving them the 13 additional training in the technical areas that they would 14 have comparable training to a degreed program.
15 They had made a rather substantial investment.in 16 this, had developed a program initially with Memphis State i
done at a local community college, which 17 which is now being 18 has been accredited in their area, and they are putting a I
19 large number of people through it.
i i
i 20 So it's not a single associate degree on shift.
21 They're looking at eventually going to all of their people who 22 are licensed having. associate degrees.
And that's a 23 substantial commitment of resources on their it t.
24 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
It's very commendable,-but it 25 ought to be in coordination with the Staff and with the v.
i l
28 and so they should have some
'1
~Ccamission as to see
- 2 confidence ahead of time that that program will be acceptable
- 3 and will meet our regulations.
But certainly we should
- 4 oncourage people to undertake programs such as that, but the 5
ultimate bottom line is they've got to meet our regulations
'6 also.
4
'7 So, again, I'd be interested to see what they come 8
up with, and I think it's important that we review that 9
carefully.
0 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
- 1 MR. RUSSELL:
Well, as I indicateo, they do have two 12 people that are in the excess actually there are four, two 4
3.
back-up shift supervisors and two additional SROs that have 4
degrees that could be put onto those two shifts.
It's just a
'S matter of the company deciding to put them on those shifts.
.6 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Well, we just help them decide, 7
if we have to.
I8 MR. RUSSELL:
Yes, sir.
We are trying to help l9 them.
We have rejected their proposal as it relates to the
)0 STA with the associate degree.
h1 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Fine.
Thank you.
)2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Bill, you mentioned that h3 there are other cases in which people aren't meeting say the i
h4 operating experience 35 MR. RUSSELL:
Yes.
29 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
-- requirements and have
- propocod alternatives.
I'm kind of curious as to how those
.:oro boing handled, and I guess I wonder to what extent we'll bo involved in that process.
You know, if somebody doesn't moot what we said they have to meet as a minimum, how we are going to be involved in that when we find out about it.
MR. RUSSELL:
When we get to Comanche Peak later on,
- I will discuss another example.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
MR. DENTON:
Well, you are involved to 'he full
- torm, to the full power license COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
That's a heck of a placo to get involved, though.
MR. RUSSELL:
Thus far, they've been met.
It's now with the later plants, and it's only as a result of not being ablo to use advisers.
In the past what we have been doing is wa havo been looking at the adviser training program, ovaluating whether the advisers had sufficient knowledge to
!act in an adviser role.
We've been conditioning licenses to
- rotein advisers.
We are now past the March 1985 timeframe for
'not using advisers, and we are seeing that industry is having a hard time meeting it.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
If this is a problem, lacybe what we ought to do is look at it generically, rather I guess what I'm worried about is waiting for one of
'.han
4 30 thoco cases where it comes floating up when we get involved towards the tail end of the process and we have to make a tough decision.
anticipated a problem MR. DENTON:
Well, I think we a yoor ago when we talked about this, and this date coming up.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
MR. DENTON:
And it depends on what the plant could do in the intervening period.
And some have made more progress than others.
MR. THOMPSON:
Maybe it might be appropriate,'we havo a slide on how everybody will be meeting the hot oporating experience, if you would like to see it.
We'd be glad to put it up there.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
MR. THOMPSON:
Could we have the slide on the hot oporating experience.
CS11de.)
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Because I think I assumed that since we hadn't heard much of anything, that everybody was going to meet those requirements.
MR. THOMPSON:
As you can see, in fact, most of the plants do have a program in place that will provide some roosonable assurance that the hot operating experience roquirement will be met, either through hot participatory trotning or by hiring experienced operators.
31 i
i The two that are of some difficulty are Millstone 3,
2 which as we indicated, we just discussed, and Comanche Peak.
4 3
Comanche Peak was somewhat different in that their they had been committed to shift advisers for some 4
original 5
period of time prior to the recent difficulties that they've 6
had in being able to go through.
They thought they were going i
7 to be able to meet the March date, and then it appeared it l
8 was just going to be a month from the March date, and rather 1
9 than terminate advisers who had been an integral part of their i
10 training program and operating crew for a year or so, they i
11 felt that they wanted to maintain the advisers.
12 So right'now we are still working with Comanche Peak 13 with respect to how much hot participatory experience they can j
14 actually get, and I think that even if they get their own 15 licensed operators with some hot participatory experience, 16 they will probably maintain their advisers through the 17 start-up phase.
I think that is my current understanding.
18 MR. DENTON:
That is correct.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Our regulations don't prohibit 20 them from having advisers, but I gather they can't rely on 21 them to make up shift deficiencies; is that correct?
22 MR. THOMPSON:
That is correct.
Actually, it's not j
I 23 a regulation, per se, it's our generic letter requirement, 24 which was approved by the Commission.
25 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to go
=
32 but it seems discussion, with this particular ahead too long recently that I have 1
couple plants visits to a combined SRO and STA who did not 2
to me in my told that they had a qualified suffsciently 3
been who had been but 4
have the full degree, accepted by the Staff as had been I
that those people 5
qualifications.
the meeting that if the Staff indeed has essentially 6
problem with I have no 7
that there's been at but it seems to me made that judgment, informed about recently, 8
that I have been couple cases but I would ask the Staff to check least a 9
and I could be mistaken, and I'd like to know.
10 if you would, please, into that for me, there has been at least some 11 12 It seems to me that perhaps made them that you have and I would assume exemptions made, I would like to 13
- those, but if there are with good judgment, 14 about it.
like decisions 15 know I think there were some MR. DENTON:
had proposed joint 16 LaSalle I believe early on, 17 that approved I think the STA-SRO --
all degreed.
18 They were MR. THOMPSON:
19 Wolf Creek shift of are are maybe thinking had completed all of 20 ones you individuals and there the some supervisors, completed all 21 They had not courses.
engineering that were a part of it, and at 22 the liberal arts courses comment a
23 of the approved for public Commission had degreed 24 that time the of a an equivalency 25 paper that indicated that that was L
l
+
33 1
ongineer aspect, that one had completed the technical portions accredited program.
2 of the engineering degree in an s
Well, if you will look into it.
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
3 MR. DENTON:
We would be happy to look into it and 4
5 get back to you.
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I think it's appropriate that we 6
7 have a rather consistent policy in this regard.
It's matters 8
of such great importance.
MR. DENTON:
1 think it's taken a long time for this 9
10 policy to develop on the enginee-ing degree part.
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
But even if you have made some 11 12 exemptions, which I think you have undoubtedly made with good 13 judgment, it seems to me that that should not lead us to allow whatever of a policy that really is 14 further degradation or reviewing it, not 10 rather significant, especially when we're 16 right now with Newmark, and we all ourselves have different 17 ideas about it, and trying to come up with something.
As far we should be coming up with something that I'm concerned, 18 as 19 would upgrade the educational experience of our operators and 20 certainly not lower it at all.
will end up with a policy that will So I'm hoping we 21 22 point to that at least for the long haul and certainly will 23 not take a step backwards for the short haul That',s what I'm 24 looking for, anyway.
i_
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other comments on this?
25
34 I gather no comments from the panels.
All right.
Can we go on?
MR. THOMPSON:
The next facility we would like to identify now is Hope Creek, again whose construction is I
approximately 99 percent complete, with a projected fuel load i
date of December.
?
The issues remaining to be resolved are a riverborne Q
hazards analysis.
This is a concern with barges breaking away 9
and doing damage to some of the intake structures B
Equipment qualifications, where there are a number 1
of items that may need extensions to 1986, and they have 2
undergone a recent reorganization which we have not had an opportunity to review the management staffing activitics.
l
- 4 I don't think any of these will be a significant
- 3 issue with the possible exception of equipment qualification, l
6 and there the Commission has given us some recent guidance 7
with respect to no exemptions or not encouraging utilities to 8
got exemptions and be sure to have their equipment 9
qualification items prepared by the end of November.
O This equipment may or may not meet qualification 1
items, but we have not really resolved that particular issue i2 at this time.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
To what extent is the 4
management different at Hope Creek as opposed to Salem?
Or is 5
it basically the same?
W 35 MR. THOMPSON:
I think it is basically the same 1
Obviously the on-site unit management is 2
organisation.
3 different.
The engineering support is different.
Tom, do you 4
MR. NOVAK:
Well, I would just like to comment.
5 6
when we accepted the FSAR docketing, that was one of the 7
concerns that we had, was the separation of the Salem concerned that would 8
opgration from the Kope Creek.
We were 9
there be some shying away in terms of the management 10 involvement at Salem for the sake of g e tt i ng the Hope Creek 11 plant licensed.
Now the organisational structure is quite separate, 12 13 and to date we have seen nothing that would be obvrous that interaction between these two 14 there had been some At some point in time they do come together, 15 organisations.
16 but I would say on the whole it has been a separate 17 organisation that carried the plant through the design and 18 construction stages where they are today.
So to the extent that COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
19 20 we've had problems over the past few years with the Salem 21 organisation and operation, you don't see those or the I
22 potential for those reflected in the Hope Creek organisation?
i MR. NOVAK That's correct.
In fact, we have seen
(
23 l
We went f
24 more positive signs on the Hope Creek application.
25 through the committee, we got what I would call a rather clean
4 4
S 36 1
letter, which would suggest the responsiveness on the part of 2
the Applicant to meet our regulations first time through.
3 So we were looking for it, because that was one of 4
the concerns that we had initially.
5 MR. RUSSELL:
There have been major changes in the 6
overall structure in the Public Service Electric & Gas 7
Company.
They have filled their senior spot there with a Vice 8
President for Nuclear who comes with very high recommendations 9
and good experience, and there has been s igni f ic ar t, at least 10 from what I can see, changes for the better in the total 11 organization.
12 Harold, I don't know if you have noticed it or not, 13 but I think I've noticed it and 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I can't hear you, Bill 15 MR. RUSSELL:
I'm trying to recall the'new 16 replacement, the new vice president appointment up there.
17 MR. DENTON:
I don't remember his name, but 13 MR. RUSSELL:
I think it's Corbin MacNeill, the vice 19 president up there in Public Service.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Which position did he 21 takek Tha senior vice president, or the on-site 22 MR. RUSSELL:
He took the senior vice president.
I 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Oh, okay.
l 24 MR. DENTON:
But it will be at some point the same
\\
25 organisation running all the units, and at that point it will
37 1
be a new organisation to what has been there in the past, 2
CHA!RMAN PALLADINO:
Well, maybe you could supply 3
the name for the record.
4 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes, we'd be happy to.
5 MR. THOMPSON:
That was the only other major item on 6
Hope Creek.
There is one additional, I'm sorry.
Hope Creek 7
has an innovative proposal that they have met with the Staff 8
and GE on, and they have made some effort to reduce the amount 9
of time and eliminate some duplication of some preoperational 10 start-up and testing programs so it will reduce the time that 4
11 a unit is in the testing phase.
So I think it's the first 12 time'we have taken, I guess, a fresh look at the testing 13 program in some five or six years and they have taken the lead 14 in that effort.
So hopefully that will be a process that will 15 work well with the Staff and the regions to make sure they 16 have the same level of confidence that the testing program is 17 adequate.
18 MR. DIRCKS:
I have the name, Corbin MacNeill.
19 thought Admiral Zech might know.
He was a captain of a 20 cruiser.
~__
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I should have remembered, but 1 22 wasn't sure what plant he was Ot.
23 MR. DIRCKS:
He's new.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other comments on Hope 25 Creek?
~-.
38 of the panels?
Anything by either 1
list of the ones I can pick From our THOMPSON:
I would like to MR, from at this time, I suppose 2
I would and choose although i
and Clinton, 3
2 over Catawba allegations probably pass of larger number 4
a Clinton probably has to the NRC to the note that identified 5
being are system that They are in 6
in its of the other plants.
Staff than some over 6000 workers Region III some terminating 7
of at this time program aggressive the process fairly 8
a and they have few months, but we are the next as they leave, 9
employees the interview that plant to on in place allegations 10 of number larger on to-some still getting I will just pass 11 So with that one, skip Catawba?
on others.
to than you going 12 Are CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
skip Catawba.
4
,)
to 13 I was going THOMPSON:
something in MR.
say 14 Well, you do CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
recent-experience It says 15 understand.
that I didn't interaction between there 16 operational of little the presence a
if you could give indicates 17 wondering 18 ~
Units 1 and 2, and I was on that, insight 19 Tom?
Okay.
THOMPSON:
out that MR.
only pointing 20 were we
- Well, MR. NOVAK:
are some there
- tests, 21 preoperational and in doing some of the during
- system, i
22 common in the makeup interaction that are an systems we noticed 23
- tests, preoperational indication of 24 some of the was an there Certainly two units-between the 25
u - - =
39 oporating personnel, for example, coming off the Unit 2 facility to help the Unit 1 operation.
So we are careful to look at those pre-op tests boing conducted on the second unit, while the first unit is boing operated.
But at some point in time there is a ccamonality of certain systems and there is a need that's part of the pre-op test to go through that exercise, and that's what the MR. DENTON:
You may recall, Mr. Chairman, a pipe was overpressurised, and I think mentioned this to the Ccamission, a section of pipe was overpresstrised during a prooperational test.
I think I mentioned this during a briefing several months ago.
And the event, I guess, very nocrly repeated again recently, and in looking into it, we i
found some interconnections between the two units we weren't
{
aware of, and that's, I.think, one of the reasons we are
?
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are you taking the point of
)
view that these should be eliminated?
)
MR. NOVAK:
Well, what we are concerned about was it so happened there was an event on Unit 1,
and in the
')
the
)
Unit 2 operators, he wanted to assist.
So he left his station 3
on Unit 2 board while a test was undergoing.
It did have the
<)
offect of overpressurising the tressel and so forth.
3 So we are going back and looking very carefully at it is a common 3
the duties that each of these control room
40 don't people that these sure want to make and we independence, i
- room, this control is l
and that there or
- stations, interaction by people their
)
loave Is the CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
l y
components?
of interaction was an is it the Well, in this case there l4 that MR. NOVAK:
out while l5 Harold also points interaction by people.
performed, and because l6 test being pre-op with test, a units was a between there done 7
that are things that it interaction, careful of that, of the 8
to be you have
- systems, two units, common these the connection between 9
to get a is possible w h a't was 10 Well, this is CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
very disconcerting It's 11 interaction.
and about the concerning me the other, 12 unit that impacts in one something done to have 13 control.
are 14 fairly recent LER, and we there's no This is a MR. DENTON:
and that's why
- unusual, l
15 look a bit into it.
It does l
looking 16 I'm sure.
- flagged, into it?
it was looking 17 You are CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
18 we are.
- Yes, DENTON:
about the MR.
question I had a 19 ASSELSTINE:
COMMISSIONER they don't fact that 20 Given the that.
paragraph just before looking and they are licensed yet, 21 that are operators it looks like the two 22 have any fuel load date, January significant
- what, are pretty 23
- for, and October in September short examinations could end up that they 24 potential of what is the in terms 25
i 41 9
1 of operators.
How many do they need?
2 MR. THOMPSON:
Bill, do you know?
~
3 MR. RUSSELL:
It's an extremely large class, with 43 5
4 and 20, that would be 60-some candidates.
Minimum staffing 5
would be for six shifts, plus the licensed positions of op 6
supervisor would be about 25 licensed operators.
So you're 7
over twice as many candidates.
So they would have to have a 8
failure rate of something around 50 percent or greater before 9
it would be a concern.
10 COMMISSIONER AS'SELSTINE:
Why did they sort of wait 7
11 till it looks like the last minute, or pretty close?
Or is f
12 this typical?
13 MR. RUSSELL:
No, it's not typical.
Usually you 14 have earlier results.
15 MR. THOMPSON:
You might remember this was one of 16 the plants that Duke Power accelerated their construction and 17 operational dates when they canceled the other units.
And as 18 I remember, they had the similar type problem on Unit 1,
19 getting the Unit 1 operators licensed, almost kind of at the i
remember they were at four 20 last minut.
And that's where J
21 shifts at that time, because of the fewer number of licensed 22 operators, and I think it was just putting people through the l
23 pipeline, and they moved the OL date up, and it was just this 24 close in getting the completion of the operators.
25 So I think it was easier to, I guess, weld pipes and
42 through training than it was to get people concrete So that's, I think, the 1
pour time.
accelerated courses in an 2
so close to the OL date.
3 reason the dates were 6 heir But the delays on COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
examinations, ready to take the 4
their people they're ready to take 5
part in getting whenever the exams 6
we're ready to give 7
it?
That's correct, THOMPSON:
MR.
8 Okay.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But obviously the 9
That's correct.
THOMPSON:
through it at MR.
so many people 10 program can only handle too quickly.
training it 11 really accelerate 12 a time, so that you can't their they have given I hope COMMISSIONER ZECH:
them the and give 13 simulator on a train and work 14 people time to can be used for an the operators rather than --
you know, and awful lot of things during their testing program 15 couple we've had a 16 so you know preliminary work-up program, at a failing 17 themselves sudden found that all of a 18 plants I think it's been in retrospect
' 19 pretty rapid rate, and the the operators simply didn't give that they acknowledged to study and to train and to think and to
,, 2 0 time,they needed and so and to get on the simulator 21 walk down the systems 22 coming up a forth.
in this case, since they are 23 So I hope their people that they have given 24 little bit late in the game, 25
43 1
time enough to settle down and to attend to their studies and 2
their training that is just so necessary to pass the exam, and 3
not only pass the exam, but operate the plant.
MR. THOMPSON:
Well, I think that's correct.
Like 1 4
5 say, I think there's been -- their program they've held, at 6
least in the past on Unit 1, they held very carefully to that and did not accelerate it in 7
program, their training program, 8
order to get people qualified earlier.
in this case you will have a unit there with 9
10 procedures that have been checked out on a similar unit, so i
11 it's COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Well, we had better watch their 12 13 pass-fail rate.
MR. THOMPSON:
Right.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right, because as 15 16 Lando points out, these are the same people that are pretty 17 heavily involved in hot functional testing program, too, and 18 that gets pretty intense a few months before they are ready to 19 load fuel COMMISSIONER ZECH:
That's right.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
We'll see how they do.
21 f
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
- Hight, 22 e
CHAIRMAN PALLAD1HO:
Would you like tc try to bypass 23 24 another plant?
25
[ Laughter.3 I
44 MR. THOMPSON:
I think I would rather just address them head on and see if it's faster.
I would like to highlight on Nine Mile Point the Applicant's profected fuel load I think the construction dato of February '86 is overty optimistic.
Construction is about 89 percent complete.
We haven't really received their prooporational and start-up testing program for final review
.and approval, so it is our view, ! Just want to highlight for that particular plant, I think it is an overly optimistic cohodule.
Shearon Harris, I guess I would try to pick out one typo of issue for these plants to highlight.
There is a CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let's see, was there any acamont by the panels on Nine Mile Point?
All right.
Go chood.
MR. THOMPSON:
On Shearon Harris, the one issue that wo wnuld flag for the Commission's attention or information is that one of the hearing items that remains is a drug use during construction issue, and that's one that we are not typically facing as part of a hearing issue, and that's one which we are now trying to define precisely what the scope of tho hearing will be, and it has the, I guess, potential for doponding on what area gets involved, fairly extensive issues cnd what it all would involve would remain to be possibly litigated, and I would just f;ag that as a potential delay in
45 1
the process.
2 CCMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The State has raised that 3
issue, haven't they?
i 4
M R '. THOMPSON:
Correct.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do any of the panel board 6
members have a comment?
7 All right.
8 MR. THOMPSON:
For Braidwood, which is the next 9
plant, the one issue that I'd like,agal.n to identify is a 10 potential issue that relates to a hearing issue on the OA-QC 11 contention, and this is one that has some similarity to the 12 Byron OA-QC issues, and the hearings are scheduled to begin in 13 October, and there is pending before the Appeal Board an 14 Applicant's request for a review of the Licensing Board's 15 decision to grant the OA-QC contention in this proceeding.
We 16 think that is the most significant licensing issue on 17 Braidwood at this time.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It says Region !!! has placed 19 special management attention on Brandwood, stattar to that 20 maintained by Byron.
Could you explain what special attention 21 is being given, and why?
i 22 MR. NOVAK:
Well, if you recall, there was a 23 designated manager at the Byron Station, and when they came 24 before the Commission, he identified what his duties had been, 25 that he had been a dedicated manager responsible only for t'
4 s s
F
!+
46 i
Byron, and Mr. Keppler has followed through on that commitment 2
ana --
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What?
4 MR. NOVAK:
Mr. Keppler has followed through with 5
that same concept and he has identified a dedicated manager to 6
the Braidwood station, and he will stay with it through 7
licensing.
8 MR. THOMPSON:
That is a member of the Region III 9
management staff who is responsible for assuring all of the 10 inspection activities which are needed to support licensing 11 are carried out in a timely fashion.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are you all looking at the 13 Byron start-up experience and what implications that might 14 have for Braidwood, like the problems they've been having?
l 15 MR. THOMPSON:
I am sure the Region is.
I have not j
i 16 personally done anything on that specifically, but the Region 17 follows that very carefully and very closely, and our project 18 managers are very in tune to what the issues are being 19 identified on one issue vs.
the other, but 20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
21 MR. THOMPSON:
-- on Seabrook 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are there any comments by the 23 panels?
24 MR. ROSENTHAL:
The Appeal Board's decision on the 25 Applicant's pending motion for recortification should be
a m.--,.-J.p
--e 4-2
-J--
4hJ
_1.
h_,_
._A.
3
- u.L54 4
54
,_4s a
_2-+4._e 4w-4
.ma._a A_
O t
O 6
e J
d I
i 4
i e
l l
ie C
q
~)
,J i
a k
I I
./
,l 4
E k
1 4
/ )
4 i
1 u'
k i
4
,l f
1 3
i 1
J i
J t
}
j E
Y 4
1 l
i I
'"'P15W4" av gr' w
'Yw ry-#9p,,y g..ey--g,y.9,.9--gm79a-y yq wwwpyy%y wm -
y-g, y ye.dgp-9 g*wpwet pg9,-y-ie ww w, ge e tvog -pq-7-a
.ggyn--i-,we-,
r"#'M-
~!
we aew--
gp>-eW+-
-vg w9%wg.,9--F't'
46 i
Byron, and Mr. Keppler has folicwed through on that commitment 2
and 3
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What?
4 MR. NOVAK:
Mr. Keppler has followed through with 5
that same concept and he has identified a dedicated manager to 6
the Braidwood station, and he will stay with it through 7
licensing.
MR. THOMPSON:
That is a member of the Region III 8
9 management staff who is responsible for assuring all of the 10 inspection activities which are needed to support licensing 11 are carried out in a timely fashion.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are you all looking at the 13 Byron start-up experience and what implications that might 14 have for Braidwood, like the problems they've been having?
15 MR. THOMPSON:
I am sure the Region is.
I have not 16 personally done anything on that specifically, but the Region 17 follows that very carefully and very closely, and our project 18 managers are very in tune to what the issues are being 19 identified on one issue vs.
the other, but 20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
on Seabrook 21 MR. THOMPSON:
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are there any comments by the 23 panels?
24 MR. ROSENTHAL:
The Appeal Board's decision on the j
25 Applicant's pending motion for recertification should he
47 1
issued very shortly.
I would say probably later this week.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other comments?
2 3
MR. THOMPSON:
On Seabrook, again I would highlight 4
the issue that I highlighted for you last time, as the 5
potential delay, and that is the recent court decision which 6
allows litigation of the emergency planning exercise as part 7
of the emergency preparedness activities.
And again there is 8
some, I guess, scheduler aspects associated with getting all 9
the local plans completed in order to schedule the exercise 10 which then would be subject to a hearing, if a hearing is 11 requested on the activity.
We would anticipate if the history 12 and experience in this particular licensing case would.
13 indicate that a hearing would likely be requested on that 14 area.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, let's see, where do we 15 16 stand on the exercise?
17 MR. THOMPSON:
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What's the status with regard 18 f
i 19 to that exercise?
They haven't MR. THOMPSON:
Dave, if you could give us a status 20 21 breakd?wn on that.
I'll give 22 MR. MATTHEWS:
Right at the moment, the 23 you the status of the plans and the exerciss.
Information 24 from FEMA indicates that the plans have been informally 25 reviewed by the regional assistance committee, and comments v...
48 1
have been delivered back to the statos New Hampshire and 2
3 The formal submission of those plans for 4
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did they have adverse comments 5
on the plan?
6 MR. MATTHEWS:
I'm sure they had comments for areas 7
requiring improvement.
The plans need yet to be submitted 8
back to FEMA, which for New Hampshire is expected shortly, and 9
there is an uncertainty in the schedule as to how soon 10 Massachusetts will submit their plans back to FEMA.
That 11 process is going on.
Right now a full participation exercise 12 is tentatively scheduled for February, but whether that occurs 13 or not does depend upon the rate at which the plan revisions 14 are reviewed by FEMA.
15 MR. DIRCKS:
Because of the nature of the New there are 22 townships and subdivisions 16 England governments have to participate in this activity, 17 or whatever they are 18 so it's not -- we're not dealing with one county and one 19 state, we're dealing with two states and several townships, 20 many townships.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Thank you.
22-MR. THOMPSON:
With some degree of bravery, I will 23 skip Byron 2.
'34
[ Laughter.3 35 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Let me just ask one
49 qusotion of Tony.
I take it that the schedule for the hearing en tho emergency planning issues has not been set yet?
The Board is basically waiting for the plans to be finalized?
MR. COTTER:
No contentions have been filed yet on the offsite emergency planning.
I should also comment, I guoss, under hearings, the last sentence says that the decision on'all of the previously litigated safety issues is expected October 1985.
I do not think that is correct, for a couple of reasons:
and this is not certain, One, the Board may ask but the Board may ask the parties to update the information and conclude that the matter is already litigated.
Secondly, Judge Hoyt is temporarily hospitalized, end I don't think she is going to finish writing by the end of the month.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
Any other comments en Seabrook?
MR. ROSENTHAL:
I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that 9
I understand that the reasons for the possible delay in the issuance of a decision on the other safety issues, speaking from the standpoint of the Appeal Board, I would be hopeful that that decision came down at an early a date as possible,
. consistent with Judge Hoyt's health and with any updates.
Docause we would-certainly like to be in a position to review
e 50 the brink is on Seabrook that to the time decision prior that 1
operation.
is all know, of possible as we 2
- which, case another predict what That's to endeavoring 3
and without contested, result it reaches reach, any heavily Licensing Board might 4
we results extent possible the and to the 5
appealed reviews to be these is going conduct like to be able to 6
if obviously would inevitable which are 7
- face, in our stay motions operation.
8 of possible plant without down on the eve appreciate come certainly decisions Well, I 9
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
Board the to help can do 10 anything we Is there comment.
that 11 They help Helen Hoyt?
completed.
no plans or 12 are There is COTTER:
exercise the MR.
know when I don't 13 reviewed.
Panel's even been Appeal haven't about the 14 concerned am deeply and scheduled.
the material I
15 work until do the can't but we
- schedult, 16 ready.
comment documentation thought Alan's are I
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
17 issues.
18 safety to the emergency directly about the went more 19 I'm not talking heard ROSENTHAL:
that were MR.
20 about the issues I'm talking issues.
planning 21 ago.
two years Right.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
22 were will recall, if you 23
- issues, l
Those that was COTTER:
issue l
MR.
was one there 24 decided because t
delayed in being 25
O 51 i
i supposed to have been heard within three months, and then i
2 there were recusal motions filed and they were not resolved 3
for a year.
That is why the case is in the posture that it is 4
in now.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Again, is there anything, Tony, 6
that we can do to help?
7 MR. COTTER:
I don't think anything can be done 8
right now, no.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We might be alert to where help 10 might be used.
11 All right.
Any other comments or questions?
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I guess one question I'd 13 have is whether it makes sense to have two Boards, have an 14 emergency planning board to help the situation.
But that's 15 something you should think on.
16 MR. COTTER:
I have had that under consideration, 17 but I do not see the need for it at this point.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other questions or 19 comments?
20 Can we go on?
21 MR. THOMPSON:
I would like_to not focus on Byron 22 2.
It is very similar to Byron Unit 1,
and hearings were held 23 in conjunction with Unit 1 We expect the date may be 24 optimistic on construction completion date.
25 Comanche Peak I-would like to go to, though.
e
i I
52 1
As you know, this has been a significant Staff 2
effort in reviewing Comanche Peak, and we have a dedicated 3
senior manager who has been in charge of this review for over 4
a year now.
5 We basically have the FSAR review nearing 6
completion, and there are still some supplements that will be 7
needed to be ecmpleted.
8 There was recently one area that I'd like to 9
highlight is the case management plant.
The utility had 10 submitted to the Hearing Boards a way to address resolution of 11 all the issues that have been identified, and the utility had 12 made a recommendation that that particular issue be resolved 13 by reviewing the management plan and then allowing its 14 implementation to be subject to Staff review.
15 Recently the Board ruled that there were enough 16 issues associated with the implementation, they felt that they 17 wanted to allow the implementation to be subject to 1
18 litigation, and that indicates probably a longer hearing.
I l
19 don't think we have a good feel for how long that hearing 20 would take, and I'm not sure that the Board has a good feel 21 for how long that hearing would take, given the number of 22 issues to be resolved, and since the implementation aspects 23 are appropriate for the Board -- in accordance with the Board 24 decisions, they will obviously want to see not only the. plan 25 but how it is implemented.
53 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is there any comment by the 2
Hearing Board?
3 MR. COTTER:
We have no comment.
4 MR. ROSENTHAL:
No.
5 MR. FRALEY:
Last month Judge Block requested that 6
the Staff send the Committee several supplements to the SER, 7
7, 8,
9, 10 and 11, as I recall, for the Committee's 8
consideration.
And that material has been provided to the 9
Committee, and they are looking at it and we hope that at next 10 week's meeting we will determine if any additional action by 11 the ACRS is necessary.
12 These supplements have to do with the resolution of 13 many unresolved safety issues and allegations which the Staff 14 indicated they did not intend to refer to the Committee, but 15 they did send them down at Judge Block's request, and we are 16 looxing at them now.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
In terms of the 18 allegations, I take it you have done 800 and you have 200 left 19 to do?
And those other 200 will be addressed in subsequent 20 technical review team SSERS?
21 MR. NOONAN:
Yes, sir.
Vince Noonan from the Staff.
We have just about got all the 200 done also.
We 22 23 just haven't published them yet, but almost all the 24 allegations that the Staff has in its hands now have been I
(
25 reviewed and are in the final stages of. completion.
We have i
54 tho allegation system ready to go back to the region.
We will turn it over back to them, and it is my proposal to the region that they start handling allegations after say the ist of
.Soptember.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And how many specific itcmn have you come up with in terms of items that have to be corrected as a result of the technical review team reviews?
MR. NOONAN:
I don't have an actual count, but probably 75 percent of the allegations are COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are valid?
a MR. NOONAN:
Valid.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
75 percent of the 1000, then?
MR. NOONAN:
About that.
Pretty close to it.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
MR. NOONAN:
At least it led the Staff in the diroction where we looked and found some other things that waro wrong.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What's coming about as a result of these findings?
Are you making corrections?
MR. NOONAN:
The Applicant's program plan is basically addressing the corrective actions for these things.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So this plant still has a fair way to go in terms of MR. NOONAN:
Yes.-str.
I would suspect that we will
55 Board until about this time hearing from the Hearing not get a 3
next year.
an extraordinarily That's COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE; D
isn't it?
4 high percentage, little bit.
Yes, sir, a MR. NOONAft this plant for 5
flagging been We have MR. DENTON:
6 I think the Staff has a for delay.
potential out now than we 7
some time as a to come it's going feel for where much better of all the work 8
because briefed you, had say last time we utility has that the 9
program plan in this that's been done wel11 lay out how they 10 with them, Once de agree submitted.
which have been 11 deficiencies all the to resolve 12 are going satisfaction.
found to our today is that 13 wanted to flag here we I think what and 14 litigated, then be issues will 15 many of these same for a So the prospects begin for some time.
litigation won't prolonged.
16 I'd say, this plant are, is if 75 dec sion on One of the concerns 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
18 out to be valid, such turn 800 allegations needs to take of some percent the plant 19 on the to take action that you need did where there 20 that they about those items some merging I worry
- action, to see 21 Eventually you hope no' allegations.
l were l
22 and allegations.
confidence I think that was the basis for this of quality 23 MR. DIRCKS:
dealing allegations 24 beyond just the They moved program plan.
25
56 1
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are they going to be looking at 3
things 4
MR. DENTON:
Some of this might be the subject of 5
adjudication, but maybe Vince should explain why they are 6
proposed.
7 MR. NOONAN:
I think I can speak generally.
When !
8 say 75 percent, you know, we received about 1000 allegations.
9 The Staff looked at every one of them.
A lot of the 10 allegations were in non-safety areas, but we still looked at 11 them, ju,st to see whether or not there was something there to 12 give us a generic concern or looked into design, maybe design 13 things.
14 So when I say 75 percent, that doesn't necessarily 15 mean that 75 percent are all safety-related.
They're not.
We lo did look at them all 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But even if not safety-related, 18 they must have some importance to the operation of the plant.
i 19 MR. DENTON:
Our program isn't just on -- in no 20 other case have we focused just on allegations as a matter.
21 We focus on a whole area, as to what it's brought up.
And the 20 utility has proposed a reverification program somewhat along 23 the lines of the Diablo Canyon one that was focused on 24 seismic.
This one is focused on even it has a focus on a 25 lot of diverse different areas to take a broad look at it.
We
57 e
that completely on utility the agreed with a massive program, haven't yet 1
back and it's But they are going program.
2 a lot more But it will include to 3
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
4 allegations?
allegations 1000 find than the And once you 5
Oh, yes.
MR. DENTON:
question a
call to 6
it does
- area, them in a given and verify 7
based activities.
broader a
lot more So you do have 8
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
allegations?
these 9
than just would catch more will be one in program that The program 10 a
Oh, ye DENTON:
program he
- has, MR.
this massive 11 work with Licensee adjudicate does which the eventually we 12 audit and check it, and then and we 13 results.
adequacy of Staff have a view the Does the the 14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
fundamental fairly a
indicate 15 this Does happened?
cause?
Do on why this Is that the root 16 in their QA program?
here?
breakdown was 17 what the problem for in the a sense breakdown you have was a 18 i
Partly there MR. NOONAN:
qualified 19 were not properly tespectors of that is QA.
Some of the Some of things.
20 number were a There to get into inspectors.
I don't want 21 that's why litigation, is pretty of the 22 part program plan Applicant's but the and much detail, identified He not only looks at what we have too 23 program 24 but he's also got a extensive.
brought up, Intervenors what the 25
=
GB where he's looking for self-initiated, it's where in there a
haven't found.
2 things that we that Bill Counsil is no I might mention MR. DENTON:
brought in a number of new 3
4 longer at Comanche Peak.
They've with this problem.
down there to cope 5
faces and new people Okay.
Any other comments or CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
6 Any panel comments?
questions?
Are we going to do Watts 7
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
8 9
Bar?
and'not least is Watts Bar.
Last MR. THOMPSON:
Watts Bar is one of the TVA plants.
10 As you know, 11 continued list there is the on TVA's priority 12 Right now the continued the top priority was or I guess 13 operations, Browns Ferry back on line, and Sequoyah, getting operation of for Watts Bar was the third 14 the licensing process 15 completing 16 priority.
essentially complete and the is Construction essentially 17 testing in support of fuel load is
]
preoperational 18 l
19 complete.
in kind of three j
in Watts Bar I look at the issues 20 21 ways, three kinds of groupings:
who has One, Bill Cottle, who was the site director 22 individual I staff, was a key to Hugh Parrssh's f
been moved up individual 23 view and the region's view as an 24 think in both our 25 for directing the activities of that site.
59 Obviously there needs to be some replacement for him as the site director.
Secondly is the employee concern.
You know, the utility, TVA, has i ni t.i a t e d a major effort with the employee rosponse team effort,down there, in interviewing some 4000 or so people at the Watts Bar site, and any others that are raisod, and so those are being reviewed.
As you know, those aro being identified by the Quality Technology Corporation, OTC group, and then turned over to the NSRS group for
. resolution on the tschnical resolution and working with the line organisation to the extent that they have resources to do that.
And otherwise, they will contract to others.
So they have finished about 4000 of the 4500 people to date, and we will be getting an update this week on the status of where they are in completing the closecut.
We have done an inspection,'one audit of that program, and are pleased with the results we saw today in the quality of the people doing the review and the process they waro using.
But we have not gone to follow up the end ronults.
They do not have enough there for us to take a good Sample on that program as planned.
MR. DENTON:
We thought we'd cover this, I guess, in the meeting with you on TVA in general.
I don't foresee noving toward low power license in the future on this plant N
Thoro are lots of outstanding issues and activities underway.
60 1
And since we have already scheduled a meeting to cover TVA 2
specifically, it seems like we should cover that along with 3
Sequoyah and Watts Bar.
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
As a matter of curiosity, 4
9 are they in the process of finding a site director for this 6
plant?
Does anyone know?
Are they likely to find one?
7 This is a plant that's essentially complete right 8
now and sitting there; right?
9 MR. THOMPSON:
Well, as I said, the site director 10 they are actively taking steps to identify people that they 11 think they may be able to attract back to TVA or whatever.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
What kind of site director 13 are they looking for?
14 MR. THOMPSON:
Well, they have three sites.
15 MR. DENTON:
We have a meeting coming up with TVA 16 and we have given them an agenda covering many of these 17 topics.
So we are awaiting an answer actually to a memo that l
18 Bill sent TVA some time ago in detail We've had a lot of I
19 inspections and a lot of reviews, but we've had no direct 20 answers to many of these kinds of issues.
21 MR. THOMPSON:
But I t,t i n k they are prepared to come l
l 22 in and give us some more details on where they are, what their l
l 23 program is, and where they're going, fairly soon.
And again, l
24 they have not scheduled a fuel load date.
And again, I guess 25 that is consistent with their priorities of where they're
+
61 1
putting their emphasis on their five other units the;
. ave 2
operating.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What are the problems on 4
equipment qualification?
5 MR. THOMPSON:
Well, part of that goes to Sequoyah, 6
in that the equipment at Watts Bar is considered to a large 7
extent the same or very similar to that of Sequoyah.
So to 8
the extent that they have a problem at Sequoyah, you have a 9
problem at Watts Bar.
10 So we don't know the extent of that, and that's one 11 of the other bits *of information that we are going to be 12 addressing.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I had one question on the 14 allegations.
Have the allegations all been directed to TVA, 15 or have any of them been directed to us?
The ones that we are 16 aware of.
17 MR. DENTON:
I think there have been ones directed 18 towards the agency, and we referred those to OIA.
19 MR. THOMPSON:
To where they address issues 20 concerning NRC, we have addressed those to OIA.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
The ones that focus 22 on safety of the plant, the adequacy of construction of the 23 plant, are we basically leaving those to TVA to look at 24 through the process that you just described, or are we 25 independently looking at those as well?
And if so, what is
1 1
62 t
our role in that?
What are we doing?
2 MR. THOMFSON:
Well, I think the answer is going to 3
be kind of both.
There is a program there that we think is 4
being set up to address a number of the concerns.Certain 5
allegations were given to us, and we have been in fact 6
reviewing these allegations concerning some 7
welding issues, some embed plates, some IDV with the Black & Veatch 8
report, a number of these that we have been looking at, we have don 9
special inspections on.
I anticipate the individuals who had 10 those concerns would have identified those to the i
11 employee concern team at the same time.
i 12 So obviously we are looking at some of these in 13 probably much more detail than we would be 14 on others.
We won't really know that until we see what the 15 the others have been complete list of identified.
16 MR. DENTON:
If they involve wrongdoing, 17 them to OI, but I just we refer received one within the last 18 week where an employee thought he had been improperly 19 suspended-without pay over a safety matter, and in ones like that, we do make 20 extra effort an to check ourselves to see how the 21 company is responding to his concern.
So even though it goes into their 22 system, we pick out ones like that to 23 check on.
But it is a massive program and it as still going on.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Did we do a CAT or 25 for Watts Bar?
an IDI
~~~~~~ ~ ~
63 e
1 MR. NOVAK:
We did an IDVP.
There was an IDVP.
In IJ 2
fact, that's one of the allegations regarding the Black &
3 Veatch Report.
4 MR. DENTON:
I don't think a CAT was done.
5 MR. NOVAK:
Well, certainly the IDI was a substitute 6
for the IDVP, so we did a comparable one.
The CAT inspection 7
would be something special 8
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
Is the Staff 9
thinking about a CAT at this point or not?
10 MR. DENTON:
I don't think we are.
The plant is 11 receiving all kinds of attention on different matters.
I 12 can't speak for Jim Taylor.
13 MR. DIRCKS:
It may not be a CAT, but I'm sure you 14 are concerned do we have a comprehensive team type review of 15 that plant, and that probably is in the cards, 16 MR. THOMPSON:
Certainly as it relates to QA issues 17 that we are addressing and how they were properly addressed.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Right now there is no schedule 20 for fuel loading?
21 MR. THOMPSON:
There is no schedule for fuel 22 loading, but obviously, you know, if they can address these 23 issues, the plant and they don't require any modifications 24 to the plant, then the plant as we know it is essentially 25 completed on the construction activities as well as the
64 prooperational start-up and testing.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I wonder maybe by the time wo have the meeting on TVA if you might have some more details on the kind of comprehensive approach and look that you-all s
havo in mind for what we are going to do.
MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
I think what we're trying to do is to get some sort of a detailed response to our letter that wo cont, where we outlined cur concerns in a pretty broad scopo term, and then when we get this back and get the information in, then I think we want to pick and choose how we movo next, and certainly that will then require our developing a program to go back and select those segments to give intensive inspection to.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Did your letter focus epocifically j '* s t on Watts Bar or did it also raise broader menagement concerns for the whole TVA operation?
MR. DIRCKS:
Right.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
i MR. DENTON:
I think just to be double sure on this, t
wo are putting absolutely no pressure on TVA to move on Watts Ber.
I mean everyone recognizes they have the programs undorway and they have not asked us to move and we don't intend to move until much more is known about these issues that are outstanding.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
If this is their third
l 65 1
1 priority, they've got their hands full with priorities one and 2
two.
MR. THOMPSON:
That was completing our near view of I
3 4
the licensed plants.
You also asked that we address any resource 5
t 6
problems.
I'm not aware of any specific resource problems 7
associated with any of these reviews of any nature.
Obviously l
8 one of the areas that we are paying particular attention to is 9
any impact on the NRR reorganization and being very careful to 10 identify that we have careful attention to these activities 11 just so that there will not be any impact on the licensing 12 schedules based on that.
But that is the only major activity.
Obviously we would not want our reorganization to 13 detrimental impact on the licensing process.
14 have a CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think, though, maybe I should l
15 16 ask you for further classification on that, because when we 17 review our budget needs, we point to the need for special team i
and we say since we can't i
18 efforts on certain problem plants, other l
from delayed license 19 budget for them, they come 20 licensing actions, and I was wondering, are you implying that 21 this is not delaying other licensing actions, or are you 22 saying recognising that, there is no resource problem for the 4
23 actions you have taken with regard to these?
MR. DENTON:
I don't think we see in this list the I
24-25 kind of demands that were placed on us, as I say, by Waterford
. ~..
66 1
or Comanche Peak in the early days, or Diablo Canyon or TMI.
2 So 3
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So you're not requiring that 4
MR. DENTON:
So these are more normal sort of 5
demands.
But we haven't tried to add up everybody to be sure 6
they're all accounted for.
Comanche Peak took tremendous 7
resources, but it's gotten more in the normal mode now.
At 8
least we put the ball back in the utility's court.
9 So none of these are taking what I would call a 10 disproportionate chare of resources at the moment.
11 MR. THOMPSON:
Watts Bar, we are obviously spending 12 more resources on Watts Bar than we had anticipated or
.i 13 budgeted.
In fact, we have some dedicated review teams 14 associ'ated with that.
We again are able to do that.
You're i
15 correct, Mr. Chairman, that does come out of somewhere, those 16 aren't free resources, and typically what will happen is you look at 17 licensing actions or some other activities will 18 it, what you do is you count on the delays that the utility's 19 reviews who said we are going to be finishing in early
'87, 20 and most likely they will not be finishing early
'87, and you l
I 21 will be able to make that time up.
l 22 MR. DIRCKS:
I think we have anticipated these 23 plants, and we built them into our projection.
I think we 24 also want to say that if something develops in one of these 25 plants, that would lead us down a path of another Comanche
67 we don't have the resources in another Waterford, 1
Peak or 2
reserve.
We are going to have to then divert those resources 3
from ongoing licensing or ongoing other activities.
But I wanted to make sure that other than these 4
5 plants, I want to make sure the Commission knows of any 6
problems that we might have on any of those plants further 7
out.
This is the concern that some of these plants further 8
out, may have some incipient problems, and I do want to make about them.
9 sure the Commission knows MR. THOMPSON:
Well, I am not aware of any others.
10 11 I know that we have a fairly tight schedule on the Vogtle 12 hearing aspect and ability to keep that.
In South Texas, 13 there is the lawsuit review out there that has the potential 14 for a fairly significant effort and review.
If we have to do 15 a review similar to that that we did on the TMI lawsuit significant impact on Staff resources 16 review, that would be a 17 in that activity.
plan underway right now to We think that there is a 18 19 have the utility do that, and that we would oversee that 20 review and we think that is an approach that will be 21 reasonable.
But if that doesn't pan out, then we may have a i
22 fairly significant impact on resources in that activity.
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Have we covered i
23 I
24 everything that we had planned in this part' All right, let me suggest that we go to a closed 25
68 1
meeting to hear the OI information and the OIA information on x
2 pending investigations, and we take a five-minute recess so 3
that we can clear-the room.
4 Okay.
Thank you.
5
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m.,
the public portion of the 6
Commission meeting was adjourned, to go into a closed 7
session.]
8
)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 f
l 17 4
l 18 19 20 l'
21 i
22 23 24 i
25
i e
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
3 4
5 This is to certify that
- t. h e attached proceedings 6
before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7
matter of Commission Meeting 8
9 Name of Proceeding:
Periodic Briefing on NTOLS (Public Meeting) 10 11 Docket No.
12 Place: Washington, D.C.
13 Date:
Tuesday, September 3, 1985 14 15 were held as here!n appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
13 (Signature) 3e gg c]
(Typed Name of Reportir)
Marilynn Nations 20 21 22 23 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
24 25
PLANTS WITH LOW POWER LICENSE FULL POWER FACILITY DATE ISSUED (ESTIMATED)
SHOREHAM 07/03/85 NOT SCHEDULED PLANTS EXPECTED TO BE LICENSED FOR LOW POWER IHROUGH DECEMBER 1985 RIVER BEND 08/85 PERRY 1 10/85 PALO VERDE 2 11/85 MILLSTONE 3 11/85 HOPE CREEK 12/85 PLANTS EXPECTED TO BE LICENSED FOR LOW POWER FROM JANUARY 1986 IHROUGH AUGUST 1986 1
CATAWBA 2 01/86 CLINTON 01/86 NINE MILE POINT 2 02/86 SHEARON HARRIS 1 03/86 BRAIDWOOD 1 04/86 SEABROOK 06/86 BYRON 2 06/86 COMANCHE PEAK 1 NOT SCHEDULED WATTS BAR 1 NOT SCHEDULED e
F i
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE ANOPERATINGLICENSE(PERMITTINGFUELLOADINGANDOPERATI0tj TO 24 KWT) WAS ISSUED ON DECEMBER 7, 1984.
COLD CRITICALITY.
7 TESTING WAS COMPLETED ON FEBRUARY 17, 1985.
FIVE PERCENT LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 1985.
LOW POWER TESTING IS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETE BY MID-SEPTEMBER, 1985.
2.
FULL POWER LICENSE ISSUES REMAINING ISSUE CONCERNS EMERGENCY PLANNING; USING THE LICENSEE'S. PLAN REQUIRES RESOLUTION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY QUESTION 6 AND COMPLETION OF AN EXERCISE.
3, INSPECTIONS NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S OPERATIONS IS CONTINUING.
4.
HEARINGS ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1983 THE LICENSING BOARD ISSUED >A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON ALL ISSUES EXCEPT F0P THOSE RELATING TO 0FF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING AND THE TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, fNC.
(TDI) EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS..,0N JUNE 14, 1985, THE BOARD ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION ON THE "
EL GENERATOR ISSUES AND THE DECISION IS PRESENTLY ON.'.
dAL.
ON APRIL 17, 1985, THE LICENSING BOARD ISSUED A DECISION ADDRESSING OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES, AND THIS DECISION IS CURRENTLY PENDING ON APPEAL; ONE OF THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD IS LILC0'S LEGAL AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT ITS 0FF-SITE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN.
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)
ON AUGUST 26, 1985, THE LICENSING BOARD ISSUED ITS CON-CLUDING PID ON OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES, HOLDING THAT LILC0 HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT ADEQUATE PROTECTIVE MEASURES CAN AND WILL BE TAKEN IN THE EVENT OF A RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY, FOR TWO FUNDAMENTAL REASONS:
(1) LILC0'S LACK 0F LEGAL AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT ITS OFF-SITE PLAN, AND (2) THE STATE AND COUNTY'S OPPOSITION TO THE PLAN RENDERS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER LILC0'S PLAN COULD BE EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED.
THE LICENSING BOARD ORDERED THAT AN OPERATING LICENSE SHALL NOT BE ISSUED TO LILCO.
THIS DECISION IS LIKELY TO BE APPEALED.
5.
ALLEGATIONS NINE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
6.
01 ONE ONG0ING INVESTIGATION.
7.
OTHER LILC0 SUBMITTED REVISIONS TO THE SHOREHAM 0FF-SITE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN AND THE STAFF REQUESTED FEMA REVIEW THE REVISED PLAN.
THE STAFF ALSO REQUESTED FEMA'S COOPERATION IN SCHEDULING AS FULL AN EXERCISE OF THE LILCO 0FF-SITE PLAN AS IS FEASIBLE.
RIVER BEND SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE AN OPERATING LICENSE RESTRICTED TO 5% POWER, IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED IN LATE AUGUST 1985.
THE APPLICANT IS SCHEDULING A 39-DAY LOW POWER TESTING PROGRAM WITH FULL POWER LICENSING, THEREFORE, IN OCTOBER 1985.
2.
FSAR REVIEW THE ACRS ISSUED AN INTERIM (5% POWER) REPORT IN JULY 1984.
AN ADDITIONAL ACRS MEETING TO REVIEW HYDROGEN CONTROL IS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 1985.
l 3.
INSPECTIONS 1
l NORMAL INSPECTION OF THE LICENSEE'S OPERATIONS IS CONTINUING.
AN INTEGRATED DESIGN INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED IN APRIL /MAY 1984 AND FOLLOWUP INSPECTIONS WERE CONDUCTED IN NOVEMBER 1984 AND FEBRUARY 1985.
A CLOSE0VT INSPECTION REPORT WAS ISSUED IN MARCH 1985.__A CAT INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED IN AUGUST 1984.
INSPECTIONS IN PREPARATION FOR POWER ASCENSION I
ARE BEING PERFORMED.
4.
HEARINGS ALL HEARING CONTENTIONS WERE SETTLED BY NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE PARTIES.
SETTLEMENTS WERE ACCEPTED BY BOARD ORDER DATED NOVEMCER 20, 1984.
RIVER BEND SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 5, ALLEGATIONS TEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
QI ONE ONG0ING INVESTIGATION, 7.
OTHER THE LICENSEE HAD REQUESTED THE NRC STAFF ISSUE THE LICENSE WITH A NUMBER OF STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS INCOMPLETE.
THE STAFF REVIEWED THE ITEMS TO DETERMINE WHETHER EXEMPTIONS FROM THE REGULATIONS WERE REQUIRED, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT ONLY ONE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OR TEST ITEMS UNDER CONSIDERATION REQUIRED AN EXEMPTION, i
t 4
y
.. - -, - -. ~ -
r-
=.
-,r-..-.
-y, r
y-e,---.r.
PERRY UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS OCTOBER 1985.
2.
FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE MARK III CONTAIN-MENT DESIGN PLANT-SPECIFIC ISSUES, DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW AND FIRE PROTECTION, 3.
INSPECTIONS REGIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM IS PROGRESSING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPLETION OF PLANT ACTIVITIES.
SEVERAL FOLLOWUP ITEMS FROM THE DECEMBER 7, 1984 IDI REPORT (E.G., SYSTEM VOLTAGE DROPS) MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO LICENSING.
4.
HEARINGS ASI.B HEARING BEGAN IN MAY 1983 TO LITIGATE GA CONSTRUCTION (ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR) ISSUES.
A FAVORABLE LICENSING BOARD DECISION ON QUALITY ASSURANCE WAS ISSUED IN DECEMBER 1983 AND AFFIRMED BY THE APPEAL BOARD.
HEARING ON HYDROGEN CONTROL FOR DEGRADED CORE ACCIDENTS WAS COMPLETED ON MAY 3, 1985; HEARINGS ON EMERGENCY PLANS AND RELIABILITY OF TDI DIESEL GENERATORS WERE COMPLETED ON APRIL 12, 1985.
INITIAL BOARD DECISIONS ON THESE ISSUES ARE EXPECTED IN LATE AUGUST 1985.
A MOTION TO RE0 PEN THE RECORD FOR LITIGATION OF A LATE-FILED CONTENTION ON AN APPENDIX J EXEMPTION REQUEST IS PENDING BEFORE THE ASLB, 5.
ALLEGATIONS NINE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
PERRY UNIT-1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 6.
01 TWO ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS.
7.
OTHER AN EXEMPTION MAY BE REQUIRED FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FULL PARTICIPATION EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE TO BE CONDUCTED WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO OPERATION AB0VE 5% POWER.
A FULL PARTICIPATION EXERCISE WAS LAST CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 28, 1984 AND AN APPLICANT-ONLY EXERCISE IS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 20, 1985.
PALO VERDE UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS OVER 99% COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS NOVEMBER 1985.
2.
FSAR REVIEW NO MAJOR ISSUES OUTSTANDING SINCE UNIT 2 IS IDENTICAL TO UNIT I WHICH RECEIVED A FULL POWER LICENSE ON JUNE 1, 1985.
3.
INSPECTIONS NORMALINSPECTIONOFCONSTRUCTION,TRAININGkNDSYSTEM TURNOVERS IS CONTINUING.
4.
HEARINGS N0 HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED. ON JULY 22, 1985, THE BOARD DISMISSED THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF A SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
5.
ALLEGATIONS NINE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
6.
01 SIX ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS.
PALO VERDE UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D.)
7.
OTHER UNIT I IS STILL CONDUCTING START-UP TESTING.
THIS TEST ~
PROGRAM IS SCHEDULED FOR COMPLETION IN NOVEMBER 1985.
THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT, BY EARLY SEPTEMBER, 1985, A PROGRAM DESCRIBING HOW UNIT 2 WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF SHIFT HOT OPERATING EXPERIENCE.
UNIT 1 HAS RELEASED ITS SHIFT ADVISORS.
UNIT 2 HAS RECENTLY EXPERIENCED MLSCHIEV0VS ACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
W*
MILLSTONE UNIT 3 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 99 PERCENT COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS NOVEMBER 1985, 2,
FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE FIRE PROTECTION, EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION, SHIFT STAFFING, TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND EMERGENCY PLANNING, 3.
INSPECTIONS CAT INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED ON MARCH 22, 1985, STAFF ACCEPTED STONE a WEBSTER ENGINEERING ASSURANCE PROGRAM (EAP),
WITH MODIFICATIONS, AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR IDVP/IDI, THE EAP IL SCHEDULED FOR COMPLETION PRIOR TO FUEL LOADING, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES, 4,
HEARINGS MILLSTONE 3 PROCEEDING UNCONTESTED, 5.
ALLEGATIONS FOURTEEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
01 TWO ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS, 7.
OTHER PRA STUDY WAS PERFORMED,
HOPE CREEK SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 99 PERCENT COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS DECEMBER 1985.
2.
FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE RIVEh20RNE HAZARDS, EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION, AND MANAGEMENT STAFFING, 3.
INSPECTIONS CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM IS CURRENT WITH APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES. AN IDVP IS BEING PERFORMED BY SARGENT & LUNDY.
IDVP FINDINGS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN SEPTEMBER 1985.
4.
HEARINGS ALL HEARING CONTENTIONS WERE SETTLED BY NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE PARTIES AS A RESULT OF THE IDVP.
THE SETTLEMENTS WERE
. ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD ON FEBRUARY 28, 1985.
5.
ALLEGATIONS TWO ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, I
6.
01 NO ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS.
7.
OTHER A JOINT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE INVOLVING BOTH ONSITE AND OFFSITE EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS IS SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 29, 1985.
CATAWBA UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 99 PERCENT COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS JANUARY 1986.
FSAR REVIEW FSAR REVIEW IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE, UNIT 2 IS IDENTICAL TO UNIT 1 WHICH RECEIVED A FULL POWER LICENSE ON JANUARY 17, 1985, INSPECTIONS REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING INSPECTION PROGRAMS ARE ON SCHEDULE.
EEARINGS ON JULY 26, 1985, THE APPEAL BOARD AFFIRMED, WITH ONE EXCEPTION, THE LICENSING BOARD'S AUTHORIZATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF FULL POWER OPERATING LICENSES FOR THE CATAWBA
- FACILITY, A SEPARATE SUBSEQUENT DECISION WILL BE ISSUED BY THE APPEAL BOARD CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR RECEIPT AND STORAGE OF OCONEE AND MCGUIRE SPENT FUEL AT CATAWBA.
ALLEGATIONS JNE ALLEGATION UNDER REVIEW.
ll.
40 ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS,
CATAWBA UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 7.
OTHER ON JUNE 29, 1985, CATAWBA UNIT 1 WAS DECLARED COMMERCIAL, N0 OPERATORS HAVE BEEN LICENSED FOR UNIT 2.
EXAMINATIONS FOR 43 UNIT 1 LICENSED OPERATORS AND 22 NEW CANDIDATES ARE SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 1985.
RECENT EXPERIENCE INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF OPERATIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN UNITS 1 AND 2.
6 a
i
}
i 1
CLINTON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 95 PERCENT COMPLETE.
APPLICANT"S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS JANUARY 1986, 2.
FSAR REVIEW FSAR REVIEW IS NEARING COMPLETION.
NO REMAINING ISSUES ARE EXPECTED TO IMPACT FUEL LOAD.
3.
INSPECTIONS AN IDVP WAS CONDUCTED BETWEEN MAY AND DECEMBER 1984. A CAT INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED IN JUNE 1985.
NO DEFICIENCIES WERE IDENTIFIED THAT SHOULD IMPACT FUEL LOAD.
4.
HEARINGS ALL HEARING CONTENTIONS WERE SETTLED BY NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE PARTIES BASED ON THE CONDUCT OF A CAT AND AN IDVP.
SETTLEMENTS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE BC %RD ON FEBRUARY 26, 1985.
5.
ALLEGATIONS FORTY-THREE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
01 FIVE ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS.
7.
OTHER A FULL PARTICIPATION EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE IS SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 4, 1985.
NINE MILE POINT, UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 89 PERCENT COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS FEBRUARY 1986,
- 2.
FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE EQUIPMENT QUAL'FICATION, CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS ISSUES, IN-SERVICE INSPECTION AND TESTING AND PRE 0PERATIONAL AND STARTUP
- TESTING, 3.
INSFECTIONS CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM AND PRE 0PERATIONAL TEST INSPECTION ARE CURRENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES, I
STONE a WEBSTER IS PERFORMING AN ENGINEERING ASSURANCE PROGRAM IN LIEU OF AN IDVP OR IDI, THIS PROGRAM IS SCHEDULED TO BE COM-PLETED BY OCTOBER 1985, 4.
HEARINGS NMP-2 PROCEEDING UNCONTESTED, 5,
ALLEGATIONS
- FOUR ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW,
- 6. - 01 FOUR ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS, 3
SHEARON HARRIS UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 92 PERCENT COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS MARCH 1986.
FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE TDI DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY, FIRE PROTECTION AND EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION (AUDIT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 1985).
INSPECTIONS AN IDI REPORT WAS ISSUED IN APRIL 1985.
CAT REPORT WAS ISSUED IN DECEMBER 1984.
ONE IDI DEFICIENCY WAS IDENTIFIED (CONTAINMENT SUMP DESIGN),
HEARINGS HEARINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND MANAGEMENT QUALIFICATION ISSUES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND THE LICENSING BOARD HAS ISSUED TWO PARTIAL INITIAL DECISIONS ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES.
BOTH DECISIONS WERE FAVORABLE TO THE APPLICANT.
THE LICENSING BOARD'S DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IS CURRENTLY PENDING ON APPEAL.
ADDITIONAL HEARINGS REMAIN TO BE HELD ON ISSUES INVOLVING OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND DRUG USE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
ALLEGATIONS TWELVE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
SHEARON HARRIS UNIT I SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 6.
0]I.
ONE ONG0ING INVESTIGATION.
7.
OTHER A FAVORABLE FEMA FINDING ON OFFSITE EMERGENCY PREPARDNE RECEIVED ON AUGUST 14, 1985.
I 1
,.,_,,r
~
BRAIDWOOD UNIT I SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 85 PERCENT COMPLE APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS APRIL 1986, 2.
FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE EMERGE NESS PLANS AND FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM, 3.
INSPECTIONS CECO HAS UNDERTAKEN A SERIES OF INSPECTIONS [BRA 4
CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (BCAP)I TO EN QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION AT BRAIDWOOD, THE BCAP ACTIVITY, WHICH SUPPLEMENTS THE CECO QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM, WAS CONCEIVED BY CECO IN FEBRUARY 1984 AND INITIATE 1984.
A CAT INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED DURING DECEMB AND JANUARY 1985.
THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CAT AND BCAP FINDINGS; NO NEW MAJOR CONCERNS WERE IDENTIFIED, CECO HAS SUBMITTED INFORMATION TO THE NRC CONCERNING HOW THE APPLICABLE BYRON 1 IDI AND IDR FINDING AS WELL AS THE APPLICABLE CLINTON IDR FINDINGS, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED FOR BYRON 2 AND BRAIDWOOD 1 AND 2.
THIS INFORMATION IS CURRENTLY UNDER NRC REVIEW.
REGION III HAS PLACED SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ATTENTION ON BRAIDWO THAT MAINTAINED ON BYRON,
BRAIDWOOD UNIT I SIGNIFICANT. ISSUES (CONT'D) 4.
HEARINGS THE ONLY REMAINING ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED IN THIS PROCEEDING INVOLVE OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING AND THE ADEQUACY OF THE APPLICANT'S QA PROGRAM.
HEARINGS ARE SCHEDULED TO BEGIN ON OCTOBER 1, 1985.
PENDING BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD IS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW 0F THE LICENSING BOARD'S DECISION TO GRANT 0A/QC CONTENTION IN THIS PROCEEDING.
5.
ALLEGATIONS FIFTEEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
01 THREE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS.
4 r
5
SEABROOK SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 90 PER CENT COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS JUNE 1986, 2.
FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE FIRE PROTECTION, EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION, CONTROL ROOM DESIGN, TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, 3.
INSPECTIONS REGIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM IS PROGRESSING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPLETION OF PLANT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, 4.
HEARINGS THE ITEM REMAINING TO BE LITIGATED IS OFF-SITE EMERGENCY
- PLANNING, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND MASSACHUSETTS HAVE NOT FORMALLY SUBMITTED THEIR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANS TO FEMA FOR REVIEW, HOWEVER, FEMA HAS PROVIDED COMMENTS ON THE STATES' DRAFT PLANS.
THE DELAY IN SUBMITTING THESE PLANS HAS, IN PART, DELAYED THE OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLAN HEARING SCHEDULE AND MAY HAVE AN IMPACT ON LICENSING.
A SCHEDULE FOR LITIGATING THIS ISSUE HAS YET TO BE ESTABLISHED, A DECISION ON ALL OTHER PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED SAFETY ISSUES IS EXPECTED IN OCTOBER 1985, 5.
ALLEGATIONS FOUR ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
01 THREE ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS.-
SEABROOK SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 7.
OTHER THE APPLICANT HAS DEVELOPED A SEABROOK STATION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, THIS PROGRAM, PROPOSING CHANGES TO THE STANDARD TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PREDICATED UPON RISK ANALYSES AND ENGINEERING JUDGMENT, WAS RECENTLY PROPOSED TO THE STAFF.
THE STAFF WILL REQUIRE TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGES FROM THE APPLICANT, 3,
e e
BYRON UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 76 PERCENT COMPLETE, APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS JUNE 1986, 2.
FSAR REVIEW N0 MAJOR ISSUES REMAIN TO BE RESOLVED SINCE UNIT 2 IS SIMILAR TO UNIT 1 WHICH RECEIVED A FULL POWER LICENSE ON FEBRUARY 14, 1985, 3.
INSPECTIONS A CAT INSPECTION IS SCHEDULED FROM AUGUST 19, 1985 TO SEPTEMBER 20, 1985.
4.
HEARINGS HEARINGS WERE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LICENSING OF UNIT 1, 5.
ALLEGATIONS THREE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
01 NO ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS,
COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE APPLICANTS' HAVE INFORMALLY ADVISED PLANT MODIFICATIONS SHOULD BE COMPLE QUARTER OF 1986.
2.
FSAR REVIEW IN RESPONSE T0 i.'JMEROUS CONCERNS R AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLANT, APPLICANTS HA AND SUBMITTED THE " COMANCHE PEAK R PLAN AND ISSUE SPECIFIC ACTION PLANS AND DELINEATES ACTIVITIES WHICH WILL B TEXAS UTILITIES REGARDING COMANCHE STATION (CPSES). THE STAFF HAS COMPLETED ITS INITIAL REVIEW 0F THE PROGRAMMATIC ASPECTS AND PROVIDED THE APPLICANT WITH COMMENTS, FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF PLAN MODIFICATIONS RESPONS 1
COMMENTS AND REVIEW 0F COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF WILL FINALIZE ITS EVALUATION A IN AN SSER.
STAFF FSAR REVIEW IS NEARING COMPLETION.
AT LEAST TWO MORE SSERS WILL BE ISSUED TO RESOLVE ISSUES.
THE APPLICANTS' HAVE BEEN REQUESTE THEIR PROGRAM FOR USE OF SHIFT ADVIS SION'S CUT-OFF DATE OF MARCH 30, 1985.
i
i 4
COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 3.
INSPECTIONS THE REGION IS PARTICIPATING IN FOLLCNUP INSPECTIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPLICANTS' PROGRAM PLAN.
4.
HEARINGS ASLB HAS DEFERRED SCHEDULING FURTHER HEARINGS AT THE REQU OF BOTH APPLICANTS AND STAFF. APPLICANTS HAVE FILED THEIR CURRENT MANAGEMENT VIEWS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR RESOLUT OF ALL ISSUES WITH REGARD TO THE ASLB HEARINGS.
THE INTER-VENOR AND THE STAFF HAVE RESPONDED TO THE APPLICANTS' MANAGEMENT PLAN.. HEARINGS WILL RESUME *AFTER A DETERMIN BY THE BOARD REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ON MATTER BE LITIGATED IN THE HEARING.
5.
ALLEGATIONS APPR0XIMATELY 200 ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
ALL TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM (TRT) SSERs HAVE BEEN COMPLETED (SSER N0s. 7-
. RESOLVING AROUND 800 ALLEGATIONS.
6.
01 1
SIX ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS.
o WATTS BAR UNIT I SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE.
PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING IN SUPPORT OF FUEL LOADING IS COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S READINESS FOR FUEL LOAD IS NOT SCHEDULED.
2.
FSAR REVIEW SEVERAL ISSUES, INCLUDING EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND MANAGEMENT (SITE DIRECTOR) STAFFING REMAIN TO BE RESOLVED.
3.
INSPECTIONS REGIONALINSPECTIONPROGRAMISPROGRESSINGCONSISTENTWITH THE COMPLETION OF PLANT ACTIVITIES.
ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS TO CLOSE QUALITY ASSURANCE CONCERNS MAY BE REQUIRED.
THE REGION'S INSPECTION OF TVA'S SURVEILLANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR FUEL LOAD AND COLD SHUTDOWN IS COMPLETED.
4.
HEARINGS WATTS BAR PROCEEDING WAS UNCONTESTED, 5.
ALLEGATIONS SIXTY-SIX ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
4 QUALITY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION IS EXPECTED TO COMPLETE ITS INTERVIEWS OF TVA EMPLOYEES BY MID-SEPTEMBER.
THE STAFF IS i
AWAITING TVA'S EVALUATION OF CONCERNS RAISED FROM THIS
- PROGRAM,
e.
e WATTS.BAR UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 6.
0_[
ONE ONG0ING INVESTIGATION.
7.
OTHER SITE DIRECTOR POSITION IS VACANT.
TVA IS REORGANIZING AS A RESULT OF STAFF CONCERNS, ACCEPTABILITY OF TVA REORGANIZA-TION HAS NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED, O
e S
b kkkk0 00000kg kkt000000Nthh((hg0th90hghgQ9Qg0yQyQqQgQgQgl)gQ M
9/35 TRANSMITIAL TO:
Document Cbntrol Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY 70: /
/
The Public EYv'wnt Fom
/9,/ bl DATE:
cc: C&R N
FBOM:
SECY OPS BRAN G t
i.
papers)
Attached are copies of a Cbmnission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting doctanent(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Rxan. No other distribution is requested or required. Existing DG identification nunbers are listed on the individual docunents wherever known.
Meeting
Title:
f1KubO lbr^ 2--&
dx - A / 7 0 4.c f W > j]
]
Q Meeting Date:
G /3 /f[
Open N Closed DCS Copies (1 of each checked) p.
Iten
Description:
Copies Advanced Original May Duplicate To PDR Doctrnent be Dup
- Cbpy*
1.
TPANSCRIPT 1
1 When checked, DCS should send a copy of this transcript to the LPDR for:
/> ) / An a n evt-* ;.Q h Y l
2.
g l
3.
4.
l i
(PDR is advanced one copy of each document,
- Verify if in DCS, and two of each SIrY paper.)
Change to "PDR Available."
l lll ll l
l l
ll Il l
-_