ML20138F615

Transcript of Commission 851210 Briefing in Washington,Dc Re near-term OL Status.Pp 1-45.Viewgraphs Encl

ML20138F615
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/10/1985
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8512160137
Download: ML20138F615 (73)

Text

s et g.

- e, e. ' ,o " " * *1 IV 51 .

3(1 m] nemZI d Sijuiyk) 3 ?A 2 U da ~i.1 f_:s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

1 In the matter of:

r COMMISSION MEETING Periodic Briefing on NTOL'S

-s (Public Meeting)

Dccket No.

s N

Location: Washington, D. C.

Date: Tuesday, December 10, 1985 Pages: 1 _ 4s 8512160137 851210 PDR 10CFR PTP9.7 PDR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters

' 1625 I St., N.W.

Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

. i 1 D I SC L A 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 S 12/10/85 . in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9 N.W., Washington, D.C. ~he 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.

18 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.105, 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 statemer.t 20 or argument c ortt a i ned herein, except as the Cemmission may 21 authorire.

22 23 24 25

. a 1

i 1- UNITdD S 'J A T t. s OF AMc.h i G A 2 NUCLEAR RcGULATCRY CCMMISSION 3 - - -

4 PERIODIC BRIEFING ON NTOL*S s _ - -

6 PUBLIC MEETING 1

1 - -

8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 Mosm 1130 4

l 10 171'/ "H" Street, N.W.

I 11 Washington, D.C.

i a

12 4

i 13 Tuesday, December 10, 1985 14 .

15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 9:40 o* clock p.m., NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, Chairman of 17 the Commission, presiding.

18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

19 NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission i 20 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 21 JAMES K. ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission i

22 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member oi the Commission 23 -LANDO W. 2ECH, JR., Member of the Commission l 24.

l 2s-y y ?- ---af ga9y, a-3 -y a

%rw-- ,-e a 9 w-g e p g - +q y y- w w-g-, 9wv -- g---a

e 8 2

1 STAFF AND P h E S E14'I E R 3 SEATED AT CC .U.1: s L 1224 TABLE:

2 3 S. CHILK 4 H. PLAINE 5 M. MALSCH c W. DIRCKS 7 H. D EN',l'ON 8 H. THOMPSON 9

10 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:

11 12 S. SCHWARTZ 13 F MIRAGLIA 14 J. KEPPLER 15 E. CHRISTENBURY 10 D. MATTHEWS 17 S. BLACK 18 A. ROSENTHAL 19 B.P. COTTER 20 21 22 23 24 25

3 1 P R0 C E E D I NG S 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen. Commissioner Bernthal will be joining us shortly.

4 He went to accomplish another task.

5 The purpose of this morning's meeting is to have the 6 NEC staff update the Commission on the status of near term 7 operating license plants, NTOL's, and bring to the Commission's 1

8 attention status information about problems or potential 4

9 problems that could attect plant safety reviews or licensing 10 schedules.

11 I believe there is a handout which has been made 12 publicly available at the back of the room identifying the

~

13 specific plants that will be covered today.

14 Making the presentation before the Commission today 15 will be the Executive Director for Operations and members of 16 his staff as well as representatives from Ccmmission level 17 offices.

18 I propose that we have the EDO take the lead in each 19 case. We will ask the Licensing and Appeal Board i 20 representatives 11 they have any comments.

21 We should discuss any OI or CIA matters last so that 20 .we can close the meeting as necessary to address the matters 1

3

.23 involving ongoing investigations.

24 During the meeting I would like speakers to discuss 25 any-special resource problems associated with completing i

. e F:

4 1 reviews of the NTOL's. I wculd like OGC to rAcnitor these

.! discussions to warn the Commission of any communieations whien 3 come under ex parte rules. I would also like OGC to review 4 the meeting transcript and determine whether any portion of it 5 should be served on the parties to a pending proceecing.

6 I " understand that the staff's presentation is i

7 estimated to require an hour. The OI portion and the CIA 8 portion is 15 minutes each. I understand also that 9 Commissioner Zech has to leave-at 11: 00, so we should try to 10 focus our questions on the important issues that we have in 11 mind.

12 Do any other Commissioners have opening remarks at 13 .this time?

14 tNo response.) .

15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: If not, then let me turn the f

16 meeting o v ,e r t o . ht r . Dircks.

17 MR. DIRCKS: ,I think this is going to be Harold 18 Denton's presentation and Hugh Thompson's but I think Harold 19 first wants to say'something.

20 MR. DENTON: We issued last night a license that 1

21 would be the 99th-effective low-power license so we are l

22 getting close to having 100 licenses in effect and operating.

2 23 CHAIRMAN.PALLADINO: Which one was that?

24 MR. DENTON: That was Palo Verde 2 and Hugh Thompson l- .-

25 will cover that one. We reorganized several weeks ago along

\

,- - - , ,w ,,s , , . , . . , - . - c m,. , , , - 9+ - - , , - - . - . , + ,

~ . . . - . . - . -

o e d

1 ' vendor lines but I have asked Hugh for the purposes of this 2 briefing to surmari:e the status of all the plants that may 3 receive--licenses in the next 12 months.

4 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Harold. May I have the 5 overview and in view of tne limited time I will probably speak 6 trom that unless there are some speoitic . issues that the

? Commission would like to address. .,

8 (SLIDE.)

! 9 MR. THOMPSON: The first unit that'I would like to

10 discuss will be the Millstone Unit 3. Its low power license 4

11 was issued on November 25th and the licensee expects to be 12 rea'dy to exceed ~tive percent on January 8th and I believe a 13 Commission meeting right now is scheduled for January 6th on 14 that particular.one.

15 There are a couple of issues that we would like to 4

16 highlight for you. First is the need to complete the equipment 3

17 qualification for steam line break outside a 'c on t a i nmen t . This 18 is an issue where they currently have a pressure temperature 19- profile.for their environmental qualification issues. They are

'20 doing some analysis which they will have into us by the end of I -

21 .this month to address any change to any equipment qualification i

22 that may be needed.

l

-23 It is an; issue which-has been adequately addressed 24 'by other licensees and'I_ don *t expect it to be a problemobut  ;

l .

'l 25' it' is.one that we are pending and' reviewing. l 1

l

, -- ~ < - , . - , e ,- ---.-,-----n - ,,,, -

e r n ,- 6 y , - - - - , , - > , ,

i e

l

)

0 1 Another aspect is to complete the seismic intera:t:ca 2 program in order to meet the GDC-2. This deals with some 3 piping structures that have some class two piping above some of 4 the class one. piping and we want to make sure that in an 5 accident scme of that piping might not fall down and damage 6 some of the important piping that is needed to protect the 7 reactor during a transient.

8 CHAIEMAN PALLADINO: Will these issues be resolved 9 by January 6th?

10 MR. THOMPSON: These issues will be resolved right 11 now by January oth. We expect them to get the information in 12 this month so that we can c oro p l e t e our review in time to 13 support that.

14 There is one other major aspect. As you know 15 Millstone was a high population density site and Harold to required this particular unit in accordance with the guidance 17 to pay particular attention to high population sites to ao a 18 PHA.

19 That study was performed and identified a couple of 20 areas that needed additional attention. These were identified 21 to the utility with respect'to the seismic design margin for 22 the diesel and some operator actions. The utility has 23 responded to that with a plan to review those areas and 24 implement _ appropriate-fixes prior to startup from the first 25 refueling outage.

7 1 We are also proceeding en the statton alackout issue 2 which was another major safety issue that was identified 3 here. This is one where we are currently following the 4 Commission's guidance in preparing a backtit analysis with a 5 $0.54(f) and we expect to issue that shortly.

6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Will these issues relate to

? full power license, these last issues?

8 MR. THOMPSON: In accordance, I believe, with the 9 Commission's guidance any backfit item will not be a part of 10 the licensing process directly though we intend to have 11 information available to the Commission at the time of full 12 power license to give you a status report.

13 It will be an item that we will address very 14 aggressively.

15 One last thing with respect to Millstone is that we J

16 have been carefully monitoring their status of operating 17 training. This is the plant that had to add'the shift advisors 18 at the last mcment in the training so we have that issue that 19 is ongoing and they were on three shift operations during the 20 initial startupLin accordance with their own company policy for 21 the fuel loading activities and we will be back up to do an 22 evaluation of their crews on the simulators and observe their 23 shift advisor training program. But it seems to be moving 24 along reasonably well 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: They are running with

_ - . . . _ , , . _ . . _ . ~ . ,

8 1 tnree shifts?

2 MR. THOMPSON: They are run witn tnree shifts. They 3 basically augment or essentially double each shift so that 4 they have people who are in the fuel loading activity 5 addressing out in the plant observing and monitoring what is 1, -

6 going on as well as the normal crew that they have in the

? control room and maintaining work activities.

8 It is an approach that we did evaluate for purposes 9 of low power operating and for moving into full power operation 10 they will be moving on into a six shift operation.

i 11 We had som. concerns about that and the region is 12 monitoring that very closely.

13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I thought we were no longer 14 using shift advisors?

J 15 MR. THOMPSON: As a matter of policy we don't use 16 shift advisors. We have two cases where I guess by not 17 properly planning tar enough in advance and in particular in 18 the Millstone case they needed to use shift advisors for two 19 shifts although they have experience for the other shifts, 20 they will need to use shift advisors.

21 I think we identified that to the Commission earlier.

22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.

23 COMMISSIONER ~2ECH: That's right.

24 MM. THOMPSON: It was something that wasn't 25 specifically desirable on our part but given the circumstances w -4 -.

-.m - . , .-~g., , .a r... , . - - , , - , _ +,,,e

.o e i

9 1 that we were in, we felt that that was a reasonable utili:ation 2 of the resources that were available.

3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is this two shifts out of 4 three or two shifts out of six?

$ MR. THOMPSON: It will be two shifts out of six il 6 my memory serves me correctly.

7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: How about now while they 8 are running three shifts?

9 MR. THOMPSON: This is a five percent limitation.

10 They are using no advisors. The advisors are in training 11 right now so that each of these shifts have experience on each 12 shift.

13 COMMISSIONER-ASSELSTINE: When did these advisors 14 arrive? Fairly recently?

15 MR. THOMPSON: I can't answer that question right 4

to oil of the top of-py head. I will see 11 there is someone in 17 the stati who can. One of them came from Connecticut Yankee i

18 and one was there on the site. So I think one of them has 19 been there for some period of time.

20 MR. DENTON: This was an area in which the utility 21 just did not want to go along with the --

22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Policy.

23 MR. DBNTON: -- policy statement and I think we did 24 analyze-it and decided ~it was not desirable and notified the 25 Commission, I.think, a couple of months ago that we were going

10 1 to proceed along this line.

l 2 There is one other plant actually and Hugh, maybe 3 you should mention the other one that is using advisors.

4~ MR. THOMPSON: The other one that we anticipate -

5 right now for using advisors is Comanch Peak. They found i

6- themselves in the situation of needing 4tiv i s o r s and planned 7 for it for some period of tire Y thi .. a couple of years ago

( 8 in fact. Their licensing day continued to slip past the March 9 31st policy date and they are still evaluating and justifying 13 that aspect right now.

11 We have not signed ott on the statt*s review of I

12 accepting that approach but it is one where they have. requested 13 the continued use of' advisors'and given their circumstances we 14 are evaluating their issue.

15 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Isn't Millstone the plant.also i

16 where you have a combineo SRO and STA with a little different i

17 qualifications perhaps?

18 MR. THOMPSON: For those areas where we have the 19 -dual role STA and shift supervisors, those are degreed 20 individuals. Now we do have, I believe, two shifts at 21 Millstons where there is a separate STA who is SRO licensed 22 but he has not completed all of the degree requirements.

23 So he has completed the equivalency and I think the

- 24 Commission's desires to have an engineer on each shift and 25 they are, I believe, prepared to address that issue at full

_ , , . , . . , . _ _ _ -, ~ _ - ,_._ _

11 1 ' power licensing and to understand precisely their p4ans to 2 move into where they have a degreed individual on each shift

.i 3 Now they do have two degreed shift supervisors who 4 are in training.right now and will take their SRO exams, I 5 believe, in March so that they would have the capability at b' that time to man all six shifts with degreed shift supervisors.

7' COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: On the sh11t advisor 8 business for Millstone in particular, first I would like to 9 know when these people were assigned to shift advisors and 10 second, given the fact that this is not the mos'. desirable

- 11 approach and in fact violates the policy that the Commission 12 laid down, I would hope that the stati would pay very careful 13 attention to both their training and the test that the utility .

14 gives to make sure that they know the plant.

15 (Commissioner Bernthal enters the meeting.)

i 16 MR. THOMPSON: We certainly are, Commissioner and 17 that is one of the things that the region and the stati i

18 combined will go up and observe the qualifications of the 19- advisors as well as how they interact with the crews and that 20 is scheduled during this low power testing.

~21 I think you ask.ed me a question and I would like to 22 clarity it. One, you asked when were they assigned as shift 23 advisors.

24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.

25 MR. THOMPSON: They have not been assigned as shift i

, - . -a m _ _ . _ _ . .~ _ _ _ _ . . . . _y-,---

l '2 1 aavisors. They are in the training program today. They will 2 be assigned shift advisors prior to going above five percent 3 power.

4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So these guys don't have 5 any experience so far in working with the shifts that they are 6 going to be advising unlike many other NTOL's where these 7 people have had some fairly extensive experience in working i

8 with the shifts.

9 MR. THOMPSON: I think that is correct but I think 10 one of the individuals though, obviously part of the training 11 program is involved in some of the on-the-job training with 1

12 respect to the crews but their crews have not been completely 13 stabilized because they are moving from the three shift to 14 the six shift operation.

15 So with respect to the stability of those crews, 16 they have not stabilized at this time.

17 The next plant will be Shoreham and I gt'e s s the 18 Commission is fairly well aware of the status of Shoreham.

19 The major issue there again is the emergency planning and the 20 associated legal concerns with that particular issue.

21 We have asked FEMA to schedule an exercise in the 4

22 near future to exercise as much of the plan as we can and that l l

23 is being done and I think with that. I would like to pass on to l

24 the next plant which is Palo Verde.

25 COMMISSIONER ASSEUSTINE: Does, FEMA have a target

i 13 I yet for when the exercise might be held?

2 MR. THOMPSON: The last I cnecked it and let me see 3 11 they have one?

4 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, they do. They are still 5 negotiating the date but it looks like it may be mid-February 6 at this point, 7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. Good. Could 8 you keep me posted on when the date is as soon as it gets 9 scheduled?

10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, sir. We wi'l send a paper up to 11 the Commission notifying the Commissioners of that.

12 - COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good. Thank you.

13 MR. THOMPSON: The next major facility was Palo 14 Verde Unit 2 and as Mr. Denton mentioned we issued the low 15 power license yesterday evening.

16 This is a plant, the second of a unit, and remember ,

17 the first unit received a license and is still going through 18 its startup test program.

19 We anticipate that. the utility and have gotten an 20 agreement with the utility that we don't have major startup 21 activities on unit I while we are trying to do the startup 22 activities on unit 2. That agreement'has been reached in 23 essence similar to what we reached at San Onotre units 2 and 3 j

i 24 in order to have the management attention en the safe operation 25 of the first unit.

y ,,- ,. -,- ,.- - ,n -

---

, - . e

i t

14  ;

1 We have one major area that we are evaluating prior f i

2 to tull power licensing and that is tne utilities modification '

l 3 to improve the reliability of the pressurizer auxiliary spray .

4 system.

i. l t

S You will remember that that was one of the systems i

6 that the Commission focused on and the ACRS focused on as well  !

7 as the staff during the low power licensing as well as the -

l 8 licensing of unit I and we had one operating event out there i 9 that demonstrated a need for additional attention to that 10 system and Ari=ona Public Service has provided that review and ,

11 we have reviewed their proposal and I think we are satisfied r 12 that 11 they make these modifications the plant will be ready i

. 13 for licenses for full power,  !

14 There are a couple of other minor issues with l 15 respect to Palo Verde. One is the aspect of the ACRS and their 16 considerations as to whether they wanted to issue another 17 letter. They obviously have issued a letter supporting the '

i ,

l

~

18 tull power operations'and we have been down to brief them in 19 light of the experience that has been had on the pressurizer l l

t 20 auxiliary spray system to see 11 they wanted to make any j T

, 21 changes. ,

t 22 Our understanding is they don't intend to do that at 23 this time although they will continue to encourage tne stait 24 to move forward on the resolution of1A-45 which is decay heat >

i -;

r 25 removal system.  !

s  ?

P 15 ,

1 COMMISSIONER ASSEL3 TINE: hugh, on the auxiliary f 2 pressuriser spray system, I noticed the stait paper a few days  ;

. 3 ago had indicated that you had some additional' questions that 4 you are sending back to the licensee. I take it the matter is ,

5 not yet closed out, t

6 MR. THOMPSON: It is not yet I don't think formally

? closed out. frcm our review. I think we have conceptually 8 agreed to the fact that there ara steps that they should take 1 i 9 to improve the reliability and we are in the process of j i

10 reviewing that just to make sure we understand it. Maybe 11 11 you had some additional questions, Frank Miraglia might be 12 able to address the specific detail on it, i y

13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It would be useful just .

l 14 briefly for me to hear what the steps are that they are going  ;

15 to take. When I read the paper it sounded like a lot of what [

16 they have done is just sharpening the poncil and doing some ,

17 re-analysis rather than specific changes to improve the ,

18 reliability of the system. j i

19 MR. M1HAGLIA: There are a number of hardware '

20 enhancements and those include the volume control tank level  ;

i 21 instrumentation, providing redundant means for measuring the 22 level of the line control tank.

i 23 They are also upgrading the power source to some of '

24 the motor operated valves. If you recall the September 12th 25 event,-one of the problems was one of the vatves'from the t i

_ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _____A. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -__.-______m

lu

.1 volume centrol tank in the line-up was ott of a ncn 1-S bus 2 and they are changing that to a class 1-E bus.

3 They are also enhancing the automatic realignmont 4 t r .e. the reactor water storage tank to the charging pumps.

5 That was a manual operation. They are going to automatic from j 6 the control room operation on those valves.

4 7 That has all been described to us. We had a 50 54(fJ

! 8 letter on the unit I event and that is in the process of review

-9 and all of those modifications will be completed prior to going 10 above tive percent power on Palo Verde.

11 So the stalt SER will fully address the review of 12 those areas, i

13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Will those modifications i

14 also be made before the restart of unit I?

lb MR. MIRAGLIA: On unit I there is a schedule and I i

16 don't recall exactly what it is, Commissioner Asselstine. In 17 the interim they had developed some interim procedures and 18 made some other modifications procedural and administrative

~

19 modifications that we felt were satisfactory for the plant to 20 resume operation until those modifications were done.

1 1 21 That was done in the analysis of the event in 22 concert with region V'as well as the NRR statt 23- CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: May isask'another question?

24 MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir.

25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you tinished with the

17 1 subject, Jim?

2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.

1 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: During my visit at Falo Verde 1 4 we discussed microbiologically induced corrosion in the spray 5 pump piping and some other-ECCS piping that is not in normal 6 use. How did that ever come out?

? MR. DENTON: I think that was resolved by a chemical l

8 treating of the water and is not now considered a problem.

9 MR. THOMPSON: I think to the extent that that was 10 an issue that may have been part of the hearing aspect that 11 has been settled and there are no hearing issues and all 12 hearing matters have been settled.

13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Eut you are satisfied with the 14 resolution?

lj 15 MR. DENTON: I don't think that is an issue now. I 1

16 think our main concern in unit 2 was the testing of unit 1 4

17 You will remember they had had five or six sort ~of unusual 18 events, none of them major, but where personnel didn*t perform

! 19 quite properly.

20 So that-is one' reason we wanted to see them operate 21 at full power-and complete the full power test before moving l

, 22 sets far into the next unit. It is a case where the second 23 unit almost. caught up with'the first unit and they were almost

. 24 in the process of starting up two brand new units 1

25 simultaneously.

- ~ _ . . .. . . - - . - - -, .

_ _ _ -. ~ _ _ -

, . , ^*

J

' 18 1 CHAIEMAN PALLADINO: But tnis corrosion prchlen on 2 the spray piping is resolved and you are satisfied'r 3 MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir.

4 MR. DENTON: Yes.

j $ CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right Thank you.

6 MR. DENTON: I think on some of these detailed

? questions we don't bring down all of the technical stati all 8 the time but I don't think it is ~a problem today.

9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That is all I need to know.

, 10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Back to the pressurizer 1 '

11 auxiliary spray system question one more time, could you give i 12 me the rationale for requiring that these modifications be t 13 made before full power operation at unit 2 but not requiring a

14 that the modifications be made before unit I returns to full

15 power?

l

, 16 MR. MIRAGLIA: The system at APS, it was under

'I i 17 construction and.the time was available to do it right now.

l 18 'With respect to unit 1, the plant was in power ascension phase j 19 and the test program.and we saw that there was no safety 20 concern in having them run the plant at power until such time 4

21 that the modifications could be made.

22 It was just the licensing -- there was time to do it 23 on unit 2 at this ' time and we asked for it to be done.

i i

24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.

25 MR. THOMPSON: 11 I could move to Ferry Unit 1, a 4

.-- _ - . . _ _ __ ,.. _ _ . -- _ . _ _ , _ . . . , ~ . . , _ .

. , .- . ~ . -. -

19 1 bit of update frcm the slide information tnat I guess we had 2 earlier is that the applicant's projected tuel load cate is 3 now December 19th. It has changed a couple of days as opposec 4 ot December leth in the slide.

5 As you know, this is a date that we are looking at 6 very closely with the region. There were a number of 7 activities and a number of procedures to be developed by Ferry 8 prior to fuel loading and we want to be assured that they are i

9 not in the procedure generation phase as opposed to ready to 10 operate phase.

11 So there is a meeting scheduled with the region, the 12 licensee and NER for December 17th to make sure that we have 13 confidence that they are ready and have the procedures ready 14 to fuel load.

15 The only other major issue with respect to Ferry at 16 this time deals with their emergency planning exemption and 17 they will be required.to have an exemption because of the 18 greater than one year time period between the drill 19 It is not unusual for some plants to miss the dates 20 and need that exemption so we will review that in the normal

-! 21 fashion to see whether we will approve that request for 22 exemption.

23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINB: When was the last exerciseV 24 MR. THOMPSON:- I believe it was november 28, 1984.

25 MR. DENTON: Since Jim Keppler is here, maybe he 4

20 I would like add scuetning on Perryt 2 MR. KEPPLER: No, I.think we are satisfied.

3 MR. DENTON: One item I d: d want to mention on Ferry 4' is they and Davis Bessie are formin!t a service company, a 5 holding company and neither of them have subr'*,ed the details 4

6 of this holding company but it seems to have a potential to 7 put several managerial' levels between the head of the holding 8 company and the chief nuclear executive.

9 So we intend to meet with them to see what their 10 plans are. The holding company will not as I understand it be

$ 11 in effect for either Perry or Davis Bessie at the time of 12 licensing of Perry.

i 13 MR. THCMPSON: Yes. My understanding is they intend 14 to maybe place the bolding company in etteet for its 15 non-nuclear activities sometime early this year and then after i- 16 a full power license has been' granted look at the modifications l t

I 17 of the license to include the holding application for the l

18 nuclear plants, i,

19 Obviously, we want to make sure before we issue the

- 20 full power license that we understand where they are going so 21 that we don't face and they don *t face an unknown situation 22 down the road. .

23 MR. DENTON: It seems'to make a lot of sense in many l

24 areas to create a holding company and combine resources and 25 i that sort of thing but exactly how it is going to be structured  ;

^

l 4 i J

I

-- . _ . ._ _ . . _ . n o

• 1 21 1 has raised some questions.

2 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE: Would that take a license 3 amendment so-that we would have an opportunity to review the 4 4 structure to nake sure that there are no adverse safety

$ implications?

4 6 MR. CHRISTENBURY: Ed Christenbury, ELD, we

~

7 traditionally have not licensed the holding companies however

8 it there is some change in terms of the actual licensees, then i

I 9 that would be reflected in-an amendment but the holding i 10 companies are not placed'on the license.

11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.

12 MR. THOMPSON: With respect to Ferry I should note 13 that the Licensing Board nearing has been completed and it has 14 been appealed and oral arguments are scheduled for December J

1$ 19th.

r le COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: One other question on 17 Perry, when I was out there some time ago the utility had i

i 18 stated its intention before.it came in for a low power license 19 that it wanted to have all of the open items closed out and 1

I i 20 simply have everything done, procedures, tech specs, absolutely 21 everything done.

22 I take it from what you said earlier aboutLthe 23 meeting that is coming up, they may not quite achieve that 24 goal, having all the open items closed out before getting the 4

4 25 low pow-6 11 cense, is that correct?

l 22 )

t I i

1 MR. THCMPSCN: For licensino issues, they are ,

-2 essentially closed out. As you know as the plant gets down to 3 the last end, there are hundreds of check list items and a 4 number of procedures that tend to be required and these are 5 often items that properly can await completion after the fuel j

6 loading goes on.

!. 7 For purposes of licensing issues, we see all the 8 open Atcensing issues completed although there are more 9 procedures in the closing out of deficiencies at this time 10 than we are comfortable with.

11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.

12 MR. DENTON: I think there has been a little 13' softening of the goal as originally set.

14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Would this be the 10 'J t h e i

I 15 low power license?

16 MR. DENTON: I think it would be but I would like to 17 check it to be sure but on the bus down we were, talking about 18 this.

l 19 MR. THOMPSON: We think it will be the 100th but it 20 depends on how you count them and also the industry has a way 21 of counting the end reactor as part of their reactors and we 22 obviously don't license that one so numbers float around.

23 This is the 100th or that is the 100th.

i

+ 24 MR. DENTON: Our counting does not include those 25 plants which won't be operating again such as Humbolt Bay.

i

23 l

1 GCMMISSIGNER ASSELSTINE. All right.

2 MP. . THOMPSON: The next plant unless the Commission 3 has any other questions I would like to focus on is Catawba 4 Unit 2, 5 The applicant's projected fuel load date is January i

6 15th but I believe that is probably optimistic by somewhere

? between a week and a month as I will probably continue on to 8 identity, 9 There are basically two licensing issues. One of i

10 them is a fairly critical aspect and that is recent bearing 11 tailure on their TDI diesel To the best of our information 12 to date they have not identified the specific cause of the 13 bearing failure but it does appear to be unit and hearing 1+ specific.

1$ That is, it appears to'be just a problem with the 16 number seven bearing on the 2-B diesel and the preliminary 17 thoughts is it may be a' misalignment but that is wnat they 1

18 thought caused it originally and had gone through some fairly 19 careful realignment when they reassembled the diesels so they i,

20 are still investigating the process.

21 If there are minor fixes like replacing the cap and 1

22 the cap may have been pushing in on the bearing causing some 23 of the misloading or heavy loading or wnether they can 24 manufacture based on some detailed analysis a special designed 25 bearing to support it, they will probably be able to support

. _ _ _ . ~. -

i 4

24 l

1 they believe a tuel load date et January 22nd or scmewnere O about a week later than the current January 15th cate.

3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is this TDI ditterent from any 4 other TDI?

5 MR. THOMPSON: It is similar, I believe, to other

, o TDI's and I want to say Shoreham.

? MR. MIRAGLIA: No. It is similar to the Grand Gulf 8 and Perry, I believe, also has these diesels.

9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Have they had this similar j'

10 bearing problem?

11 MR. THOMPSON: They have not had this similar j

12 bearing problem. They are contacting the TDI's to find out do 13 they have this bearing problem any where on any plant, any TDI 14 diesel in the world and they have not identified any specifics 15 other than the possibility of this misalignment issue.

j 16 COMMISSICNER ASSELSTINE: How do the hours of 17 operation and testing compare for this particular diesel to i

18 the other diesel at Catawba as well as the other similar TDI 19 diesels?

20 MR. THOMPSON: They were in the early phases of 21 testing the diesel for qualification of the diesel and its run 20 in low testing and it tailed fairly early. They were ~able to l

23 capture and shut down the diesel on the second event so that 24 the bearing re, ally didn*t disintegrate so that- they had a ,

25 better understanding of how the tailure mechanism was startini t

, - , - - - - ~ - - - - - -- = - . -~

=

s i

25 4

1 but it was very early in the testing.

2 I don't know the exact number of hours but it wasn't 3 very far along, i

4 Other than that the Licensing Boarc decision has j 5 been affirmed by the A~p p e a l Board and the unit I completed 1

6 startup testing in April and declared commercial in June of 1

.  ? 1985.

1 4

8 One other issue that is currently under review is 9 the hydrogen control. This is an. ice condenser and there was i

10 an issue with respect to the change in the hydrogen rule 11 between the time we issued the license for unit 1 and for unit 3

12 2. The current calculations would indicate a higher i

13 temperature in some of the areas on the hydrogen burn issue 14 because of a higher metal to water ratio from 50 percent to 75 i

15 percent.

16 Because of that, the higher temperatures and that a

17 issue is being evaluated. Again it is one which we don't 18 anticipate to be a significant problem at thi. time. We i

19 recently got in our initial preliminary staff's evaluation 20 yesterday. So that should be an issue that is moving forward.

21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: On this TDI bearing failure, is 22 that going to be resolved?

23 Md. THOMPSON: It will have to be resolved prior to 24 licensing. Again it it is not an alignment problem that can 2 25 be readily fixed, it may have a significant impact on the fuel

.. ._ . , _ . . .~ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ .._ - ._ _ -. - _ _ _.

2e 1 loac date for this unit 1

s a 2 CHA1EMAN PALLADINO: The fuel loac date or the tult I i

} 3 power date?

< 4 MR. THOMPSON: It would require an exemption for a o

d fuel load date and obviously they would have to have it 1

j- e available for full power. They are looking at the i i

~

1 4

7 possimilities now of purchasing another diesel or aspects et 4

i-B it it necessary.

i 9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE; Ch, really!

, 10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: You don't buy one of those 11 ott the shelt, do you? ,

1 1

12 MR. THOMPSON: I don't believe so, no, sir.

i

, 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO

You have to have a place to put i

14 it, too, an appropriate place. l i.

13 MR. THOMPSONi I think.it would be a replacement, 16 just pull the old one out and put the other one in.

i 17 11 there are no other questions, I would like to

~

j 18 turn to Clinton. The applicant's projected fuel load date is [

f j 19 somewhere in the' February to March of 1986. This may be a  ;

t 4 I 20 little optimistic but .there are only minor PSAR review items 21 remaining, 22 The construction inspection program and i

21 preoperational test inspections are current with the 1

24 applicant's activities.

t I 25 All the hearings as you know were settled on this.

. ; .: - _ _ __ a, _. .-_, __ . , . _ _ , _ _ . - - - , - _ . , . . _ _ . . _ , . _ , - . _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ , - ,

c s

27 1 particular one.

2 To the extent that there is an issue nere, there

5. seem to be a larger number of allegations that have been 4 reported to the region's statt and they also have a fairly 5 extensive SAFETEAM ettort underway which we are monitoring and 6 staying on top.ot but that is probably the major issue and 7 concern that we,have with respect to Clinton I think e Mr. Haye s- may discuss one in a little more detail in a closed 9 meeting.

10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I note they had an emergency 11 preparedness exercise on December 4th. Do we have any 12 preliminary indication or results*

13 MR. MATTHEWS; The indications that we have is that 14 both the on-site and tne oft-site exercises were graded as 15 successful by the NRC but as you understand we won't say that 16 formally until we receive FEMA *s report et the exercise whion 17 has not been received yet.

18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Did they identity any major 19 deficiencies that you know?

- 20 MR. MATTHEWS: No.

21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: None?

22 MR. MATTHEWS: No.

23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: thank you.

24 MR. THOMPSON: With respect to the next plant which i

25 is-Hope Creek, the applicant *s-projected fuel load is February e

i

. -=

f i

29 1 of 1980 and we celieve that they are reascnaoly maxing progress 4

! e

, 2 to meet that date.

i 3 There are a few minor items that need to be resolvec 4 with respect to equipment qualifications and the management a

, 5 staffing and those are ones which we currently have under i,

o review.

i h' 7 The construction and preoperational test inspection

8 program is current again with the applicant's activities. A 1

9. kind of a good point was that the IDVP.that was recently

! 10- completed .and the team thought it was the best IDVP they have 11 seen to date and thought the piant was quite well designed and 12 was the best one that- they have seen today. '

13 COMMISSIONEN ASSELSTINE: Who did it?

14 MR. THOMPSON. I believe it was Bechtel but let me

} 10 check.

It MS. BLACK: I think Bechtel designed the. plant and 4 .

17- they-were in San Francisco'but I believe Sergeant Lundy who 4

18 did the IDVP.

19 MR. THOMPSON: But we anticipate that this one will

?

l 20' be pretty much on schedule right now.

'21 If there are no other questions on Hope Creek. I 22 would like to-turn to Nine Mile Point Unit 2.

23 The schedule on Nine Mile may be one of.the bigger 1

24 issues t ha t - 'i s before us right now. The. utility is projecting 25 .a February fuel load date and based on our case load'iorecast ,

G

. _ . . ~ . . . _ . _ _. . . _ . _ . . _ .

I i .

l

39 i

I t panel we had a difference c; greater t h e. n six montas and in i

2 accordance with the stait and the Commission's paliev to 3 elevate this up to appropriate management attention a meeting i

4 was held with Mr. Denton in November and the new project 1-i 5 division director was sent out to review the scheoule.

1 1

6 G*enerally, we believe April is probably the most  !

t 7 optimistic date that the utility can make and probably would i j.

I 8 be with no contingencies and no problems being identified.

9 We are reviewing the tech specs based on an April 10 date in order to assure that the plant has adequately completed 11 its own reviews and check-outs prior to tne completion of the i

12 tech specs and certification of the tech specs.

13 Typically they are a larger number of FSAR amendments i

14 that come in at the last minute so to assure that the FSAR j 15 reviews and the plant as-built review are completed with a 3

16- plant'that is completed, we feel,that resources should be

17. expended in the April time frame.

18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: What was the caseload

_i

. 19 torecast panel's estimate?

s t

-20 MR. THOMFSON

Their estimate was 1ato 1986. It was r ,

i

21 about ten months difference. The regional estimate that the 22 caseload forecast panel was probably in the ball park and we 23 feel that it probably is more likely to be an August / July time 24 trame as opposed to April but we' feel it is appropriate and 25 there is the possibility

• hat 11 the resources are applied

. =

!C 1 that it can make in earlier date and i telieve t r. , u t i l i t~, is 2 recogni=ing they have a 12 to 14 week negative 11 cat an their 3 February date.

4 They just have not made a formal change in their 3 fuel lead date and because of that we had to exercise the b process that we have to go througn when we have a greater than 7 six month ditterence in fuel load cates.

8 The issues that we are resolving in the FSAM review 9 include equipment qualification, containment system, some 10 in-service inspection and testing and scme preoperational and 11 startup testing issues.

12 I don't think any major issues are on any of those 13 Those are just ongoing reviews that we need to ecmplete.

14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You used the word ' schedule for 15 technical spec review.* What do you mean by that*

16 MR. THOMPSON: That is what I was describing, the 17 process that we were just going through the ~ schedule, when we 18 would complete the technical specifications review basically 19 the proof and review copy as well as thw reviews for the final 20 sign-off which we are scheduling now for an April date 21 depending on plant completion. j 22 The proof and review copy is done consistent with 23 completion and update of the FSAR and the consultants tnat we 24 use as well as the region use to assure that they review the 25 tech specs a g a i r.s t the FSAR.

g - - - m * ~ * '

. - . .~. .. . . .. . . -. . . . . . . . . _ . _ . _ . . - .-

j . =

31 i

1 The final certification is cone about one month 3 prior to the issuance of a full power license suon that the r 3 systems have been checked out sutticiently that we know what I

! 4 their performance numbers are for the various parameters that

$ .need to be set an the tech specs.

6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Hugh, how does this 7 engineering assurance program that Stone and Webster is doing 4

f 8 differ from an IDVP-or an IDI? As I recall this is a plant i

9 that had some trouble during the construction phase. Why did i

10 you decide that an IDI or an IDVP was not useful in this c a s e 'd 1

l 11 MR. THOMPSON. I am going to have to get some help .

12 on that one, I believe.

! 13 COMMISSIGNER ASSESSTINE: All right.

14 MR. THOMPSON: My backup is not very close. We will a

15 respond I guess in a little more detail 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Since it looks like you

]

17 have a 1ittie time on this 'one, that is iine.

i

, 18 MR. DENTON: We never did have a policy of requiring 1

19 IDVP*s.

20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: It was never written down but

] 21 de facto we certainly did have a policy. I would argue that, i

i j 22__ COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: In some cases we encouraged i

23 more than in others.

I

24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS

We certainly did.

25 MR. DENTON: There were a few in which we didn't i

4

- . . - . . .-. . . , . - _ , - - - , . . _ , , - . - ~ , .-.-, ., _ - - . . .- - - , - - - . - , - - - -

n 12 1 require.

2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.

3 Md. DENTON: We transferred tne responsibility for 4 this area to IE.

5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess my concern is --

o COMMISSIONER HOBERTS: There is no written 7 requirement.

8 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE: That's right 9 COMMISSIONEN HOWERTS: No regulatory requirement 10 COMMISSICNER ASSELSTINE: My impression was that 11 this plant had had some problems and I would be interested in 12 knowing how the Stone and Webster program differs from what 13 has been done in other cases and wny that is appropriate-14 MR. DENTON: We didn't flag this to indicate there it was a known problem with it but it is just a d111erence and 16 the results of that, I guess, are still under review.

17 MM. THOMPSON: The CAT team that just came back as I 18 mentioned earlier thought it was particularly successful 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: A CAT team was done on 20 it. All right 21 MR. THOMPSON: 11 there are no others, I would like 22 to turn to --

23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: One thing that I forgot I had 24 intended along the way to see 11 the Licensing Board or Appeal 25 Board panels had any problems or any points you wa..ted to

3 '3 1 maxe. Let me at least start with Nine Mile ?ctat 31 ace we tr+

i 2 there anc we will go back to see it there are any others they 3 have comments on.

4 Do either of the pane 1s have comments?

5 (No response.>

o CHAIRMAN PALLADINO; All right Thanx you. Do you 7 want to go en?

8 Mit THOMPSCN; The next piant would be Shearon 9 Harris Unit I with its construction is approximately 90 2

10 percent complete with a projected fuet . c. a c cate of March of 11 1980.

12 We believe tnat is a fairly optimiatic date. The l'J regica w4s just at the site and we think tnat maybe even June 14 would be optimistic and the ut111ty is currently reevaluating 13 that date at this time.

Io To the extent that there is a major issue with 17 respect to Shearon Harris it deals with the hearing and the 5

18 hearing aspects associated with the emergency preparecness and 19 planning.

20 You might note that the Commission has been notified, 21 I believe, by the Licensing Board of the siren issue with 22 respect to the ability to alert people at night and because of 23 its generic implications they have directed that to the 24 Commission directly.

25 The other aspect related to the hearing is the drug

c 34 1 issue. As you kncw, that is .i n issue tnat aas been betore the O Commission recently and it was a part of the contested case 3 here and testimony ha' been given by the staff and by the 4 utility and the interveners in that area.

5 Cther than that, there are no special issues on o Shearon Harris.

7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It says, " Additional hearings e may be held on two remaining off-site emergency preparedness 9 issues.

10 MR. THOMPSON: Hight.

11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What are those two issues?

12 MR. MATTHE'4S: This is Dave Matthews of the NHC 13 statt This is one instance where tne interveners moved to 14 enter cententions into the hearing as a result of the emergency 15 preparedness exercise that was held in May of 1983. We have lo received an interim finding from FEMA that did include the 17 results of that exercise and they did not uncover any 18 deficiencies that would give rise to a negative finding.

t 19 But there were evidently some issues that the 20 hearing board felt that it was appropriate to pursue with 01 regard to the intervener's. contentions so those are two issues 22 remaining yet to be heard.

23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any comments by the Board?

24 MR. HOSENTHAL. No. As Hugh notes there are two 2b Licensing Board decisions that are currently under appellate

i 3? l l

1 review. One at tnem cral argument nas tarea piace and tne l l

2 cptaion.as being written. The other one is still actualty in 3 briefing and wiis probably be heard scmetime in early 1960.

4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right t COMMISSIONER BLRNTHAL: As a matter of curiostty o since we have various judges and legal experts here, what is 7 the legal implication of this decision, not decision I guess e but issue, I guess, that was thrown to the Commission on 9 strens?

i i 10 Given that it is said to be a generic issue, leave 11 aside for the moment that summer doesn't start even in North 12 Carolina for several months at least I hope, how would that 13 normally be handled legally? It seems like it is sort of a 14 sui sponte 11 I can use that word action on the part of the 1$ Licensing Board. Does that attect this licensee directly then le given that the Licensing Board recognizes it is a generic 17 issue?

18 MR. COTTER: The Board has the quost1on beiore it 19 which as to advise the Commission of and probably will resolve 20 it sometime in February. The Board just telt that the matter 21 had larger reach and addressed the generic implications. They 22 were not speaking to the decision that they have to reach in 23 connection with this pl. ant

24 CCMMISSIONER BERNTHAL

So it essentially is an 25 issue that came to their attention almost independently of

l 30 t

i this specirte adjudication and iney tnrow tne issue to tne

'J Commission.

3 MM. COTTER: That is correct They thought the 4 Commission would want to know about it.

5 Mh. RUSENTHAL: On a generic issue, a truly generic 6 issue, and I don't know enough about this particular one to 7 pass judgment as to whether it is generic or not but it at is 8 truly generic the Commission has really two choices before 9 it. It can allow it to be litigated case-by-case in the 10 individual proceedings or it can deal with it in rule-making.

11 That is basically the choice that you have. So I 10 think in this instance I would think that the Commission would 13 want to look at the memorandum that has been put before it by ,

14 that particular Licensing Board and decide whether it agrees 15 with the Board that it is a generic issue and it so, then 16 reach some conclusion as to wnether it wants to deal with it 17 in rule-making as a generic issue or allow it to be litigated 18 in individual cases.

19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So we snould have a rule 20 that everybody has to buy Carrier air conditioners because 21 they are quieter or something like that?

22 (Laughter.)

1 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I don't know whether they 24 are quiet 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think there are various t

I l

3; i experiences tco in being acie to near stren; I caa ;,i v e you 2 some et mine.

3 COMMISSIONER HOBERTS: I remember some et your 4 colorful examples.

$ (Laugnter.)

e MR. THOMPSON: I think I have addressed most of the i'

? plants that are within the next six months 1 au more than 8 prepared to address the other plants that are on tn Itst or 1

(

i 9 just identity any special situations. There are s cra e rescurce 13 implications on a number of these p l .a n t s that I might like to i

11 identity for you that would be helpful I know that you have

{ 12 a rather short per1od oi time, Mr. C h a t t ro a n , sa whatever your 13 preierence is i

14 CHAIRMAN P A 1. L A D I N O : Do you have any signiticant it comments that you think you should call to our attention on ic those plants that come later?

17 MR. THOMPSON: I will maybe just take a moment to 14 touch base on a couple. On Seabrook the only significant 19 thing I might highlight at this time ia tnat althougn we have 20 not received it the utility .4 considering a modtiteation to 21 the energency planning zone distance to reduce the planing 22 2one from ten miles to something less than that to address J. s ocae of the emergency planning concGrns that they have, That 24 would be a major issue that the Commission I believe is aware l 1

2$ of but -that is the only major one at Seabrook.

- e.

JU I

1 CHAIXMAN PALLADINO 'i h e y would 41sc nave to nave an 2 exercise arter t h a t

3 MM. THOMPSON. They would have to have an exercise.

4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Then it could be litigated.

4 3 MM. Th0MPSON: That's correct o CHAIRMAN PALLADINO, So there is a little surprise 1

7 11 they are not settling their emergency planning basis until 8 this spring how they could hope for a June 196u tuel load 9 date.

13 cot 4M I S S I ONER ASSELSTINE: Low power doesn't require 11 the resoluticn of some of these things, a

J 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, I know, but snortly l

I 13 thereafter they would expect to come in for a full power 14 11:ense.

I 13 MM, THOMPSON: Hight. They are going in a part tel to path obviously to get all of the local communities and new 17 Hampshire and in massachusetts to develop and submit their 18 training plans and emergency plans.

19 It is an issue that obviously is one very sensitive 20 to the people in that area.

21 CHAIHMAN PALLADINO; Do Commissioners have desires 22 to address any other plants?

23 MM. THOMPSON: I must just mention a couple that 24 have maybe some special resource implications, One would be i

25 the Braidwood with respect to the hearing and the scope of the

i 'J 1 hearing on qu111ty sssurance whicn i cetteve is cetore tne 2 Ccmmission on appeat now and I would just again you wanted to 3 know resource implications, that is a fairly depending on the 4 scope of that one could have some resource implications as 5 well as a similar type decision on the Comanche Peak activity 6 would be one that would be a potential use of resources.

? Watts Bar again clarification of the issues with B respect to Watts Bar particularly in the employee concern area 9 will be one that will be receiving additional statt resources 10 I think those are the main issues that I would like 11 to highlight for the Commission.

12 COMMISSIOrdEH B E H t4 T H A L : Where is Comanche Peak?

a 13 MR. THGMPSON. Comanche Peak has a projected 14 commercial operation date sometime like in June of 1987 which 1b would indicate scme normal fuel load date around December 11 16 we use the typical scale like December of 19Eo, 17 COMM I S S I Off EH BERNTHAL: Do we know what caused that 18 radical revision in their target date for operation?

19 MH. THOMPSord. I think the m a t ., thing was a better 20 scoping on their part of the . mount of work that needed to be 21 done when their nirw management got in place, got to understand 22 the signi!!cance of the issue and the modifications that would 23 be required I think that was the driving torce and tne tunction 24 on it.

25 COMMISSICMEH A S S E L S T IllE : But it is really big

4C 1 :a e : t: cation worx, la 11 net

• 2 MR. THOMPSGN. A tairly extensive number c: supports, 3 a large number of them.

4 COMMISSIONER BtHNTHAL. One of the things that I b guess I don *t have a complete picture on here and I know you o said it in almost every case but I would wonder wnether as a

/ matter of course unless there is some special reason you don't 8 want to do it whether you couldn't give us Just down the list 9 here your statt estimate of realistic dates of licensing as we 10 go down here trcm Palo Verde on down? I managed to write down 11 one or two here.

12 MR. THOMPSCN' I will go with gr+at confidence on 13 Falo Verde, December.

14 COMMISSIONER BENNTHAL. all right.

It MR. THOMPSON- Perry, we believe will be probsbiy to late December or at least early January. I think that is 17 within the time frame.

18 Catawba, likewise with the question on the diesel 19 issue 11 that is resolved, it will be late January or early 20 February but if the diesel issue is not resolved, it may go 21 out for some time.

22 COMMISSIONEH UERNTHAL; all right 23 Mk. THOMPSON: Clinton is probably within the 24 February to March time trame along with Hope Greek. Nine Mile 25 Unit 2 is more most likely June / July time trame as opposed to

41 1 rebruary. Aprai 14 tne t i ra e schecule tnat we are wcrking !cr 2 today and we are prepared it the utility is successtut, we 3 will be prepared to support an April cate. Harris again is a 4 June / July time trame 5 I think with respect to the others we are probably o far enough out that we don't have any real expectations except

? I believe Byron 2, we would think that October ot 1980 is 8 overly optimistic and I guess I would add at least tour or six 9 months to that 10 COMMISSICNER BERNTHAL- Is Seabrook realistic, olee?

11 MR. DENTON: I think it is It is coable. In all 12 of these cases our goal is to stay ott the critical path-13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL. Sure.

14 MR. DENTON: So it they are not too far out of line, 13 then we assume that their date is possible and at may not be 10 the one they actually meet but we schedule our work to meet 17, theirs.

18 MR. THOMPSON: I don't have it listed as an issue 19 that we have a major concern that they are that tar ett So 1 20 would say the s u T.m e r , June / July time trame.

21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I am wondering also on 22 scheduling we have listened to these reports now for some time 23 and we always have the projected dates and we all I think go 24 around the country saying that we are scheduled to license 24 25 plants or something like that in the next couple of years or

. =

42 1 20 plants, whatever tne nuacer is 2 How much in tact now have these Itcenses slipped?

3 HAve you gone back and looked at what you have told us over 4 the last 18 months, let s say, to see how many we really are 5 licensing per month, per year, per semt-year

o MR. DENTON; More like six or eight per year Some 7 people make it 1

8 COMMISSIONEN UbHNTHAL: Yes 9 MR. DENTON: Others don't. It is usually impossible i

10 to tell at this point who will make it.

1 l 11 MR. CCCHMAN: Sure, on the individual but in general 12 is what I am asking really.

13 MR. DENTON: I think in general they are getting 14 more and more realtatic and that is why we only flagged the 13 one which had slipped past the six month ditterence. It used s

16 to be we had disagreements with everyone over the six month 17 and it was because the utility saw they had to get in line to 18 get more statt attention and I think now we have budgeted 19 resources so that we are giving attention to all of them and 20 they don't feel they have to --

from their standpoint they 21 want a date that keeps the pressure on the architect engineer 22 to linksh the plant 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I remember your saying when we 24 talk of planning on the order of eight or so per year and i 25 think sc far in 1985 we have had nine that have been licensed.

$3 1 M.:t . T h u M r S O.N : W1tn the exception et Niae Mtle we 2 still have a number in this top group that we think aill be 3 olearly licensed this year and Nine Mile could clearly raake it 4 also within the first six months of the year, o LUMMISSICNER B E.4NT H A1, : Ia thero any e 2 t t ra a t e yet o a n:1 it may be too soon but it is striking in a uay that in a

? time when we are looking at the possibility of radical budget 9 cuts that we are trying to do scmething no one in the world 9 has ever done before and that is to license approaching eight, 10 nine, ten plants per year over a two or three year period

• 11 Given the fixed nature ci the resources right now, 12 have you projected what might happen here 11 TVA requires 13 substantial additional component of our resources

• 14 MH. DENTON: No, I haven *t. We are trying to avoid 15 committing resources in that sort of thing. For example,tn to any area of allegations we try to make the licensee do the 17 bulk of the work on allegations and then we audit that work 18 rather than us taking on the task of running down each one.

19 That is what was such a big manpower consumer in some previous 20 cases 21 So what we have done in tne TVA case, for example, 22 is that we have hired Brookhaven as a consultant to review the O 'J adequacy of TVA's work in that area but not to try it on 24 ourselves weld by weld.

25 COMMISSIONEW SEHNTHAL. How often has Brookhaven

44 1 cone that kind of thing thought Brocknaven always stucx me as 2 more of a researen institution.

3 MR. DENTON: They have been more interested in 4 applied metallurgical issues than most labs. So we typically

$ go to them when it involves welding and non-destructive 6 testing in this area and they seem to set aside resources for 7 that type of work.

9 MR. THOMPSON: We are also able to utilite them as 9 kind of the catalyst to get consultants who clearly are weld 10 experts in the area to advise and to assist in reviews, So it 11 is an opportunity that they can do this very readily for us 12 and that is one of the reasons labs are selected for that l '3 MR. DENTON: I think TVA in that case has hired 14 EG&G, I believe It they haven't announced it, it is very 15 close to being selected.

to MR. THOMPSON: I am pretty sure they have been 17 selected. .

18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO. In view of the fact inat 19 Commissioner Zech has to leave at 11:00, is this a good time 20 to turn to Ol?

21 COMMISSIONEH ASGELSTINE: Yes 22 COMMISSIONEW BEMNTHAL: Yes.

2 '3 COMMISSIONEH ZECH: That's itne. I appreciate that 24 CHA!HMAN PALLADINO. All right Did we have any 25 other comments from the boards that we overlooked?

r 45 1 ( IJ C response >

2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All ri 2ht Tnank you. W h 'f 3 don *t we clear the room so we can have a closed meeting with 4 O!

5 twhereupon, the open Commission meeting was adjourned 6 at 10:38 o' clock a.m., to reconvene in closed session at the 7 call of the Chair.)

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

..-. . .- ._.- . _ . ~ _ _ . _ _ . - - - . . _ _ _ - . . . _ _ . . . ..,

, . i 1

I a I i.

1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFIC1AL PEAORTER ,

1 O i 1

3 l

j t

4 I

] 5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings t3 before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the

)

7 matter of. COMMISSION MEETING i e l

9 Name of proceeding: Periodic Briefing on NTOL'S (Public Meetinc i

i 10 i

11 Cocket No.

12 Place: Washington, D. C.

i '

l 1? Date: Tuesday, December 10, 1985 t

14 5 j 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original ,

J ,

1 t t3 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear P 1

4

} 17 Regulatory.Commisslon.

i 1

13 i

{ 39 (Signature) %g g g gq y i

j

{ (Typed Name of Reportir) Marilynn Nations i 20 21 t

$ 21 l 23 Ann Riley & Associates, t. t d . I 4'

24 i

1 25 i

_ . , . . _ _ . . . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ ~ _ - _ . . , , _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . ,_____ . ___. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .- --_ _ , . - ---

PLANTS WITH LOW POWER LICENSE FULL POWER FACILITY DATE ISSUED (ESTIMATED)

MILLSTONE 3 11/25/85 01/08/86 SHOREHAM 07/03/85 NOT SCHEDULED PLANTS EXPECTED TO BE l!CEN5En FOR L0v! POWER IHROUGH UECEMBER 19ho PALn VERDE 2 12/85

, PERRY I 12/85 CATAWBA 2 01/86 1 CLINTON 02/86 HOPE CREEK 02/86 NINE MILE POINT 2 02/86 l HAPRIS 1 03/86 1

SEABROOK 1 06/86 BRAIDWOOD 1 09/86 BYRON 2 10/86 i V0GTLE 1 12/86 .

COMANCHE PEAK 1 NOT SCHEDULED 4

WATTS BAR 1 NOT SCHEDULED i

i I

l i

1

-, - . _ , . - , - - . - ~ _ - . . . - - - _ - - - - - - - --

MILLSTONE UNIT 3 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDULE LOW POWER LICENSE ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 25, 1985. LICENSEE EXPECTS TO BE READY TO EXCEED 5% POWEP. BY JANUARY 8, 1986,

2. FULL POWER LICENSE ISSUES REMAINING ISSUES INCLUDE: COMPLETE EQUIPMENT OllALIFICATION FOR STEAM LINE BREAKS: COMPLETE SEISMIC INTERACTION PROGRAM TO MEET GDC-2, EXEMPTION GRANTED THROUGH.5% POWER.

3, INSPECTIONS NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S FUEL LOADING AND TESTING OPERATIONS IS CONTINUING.

4. HEARINGS t

MILLSTONE 3 PROCEEDING UNCONTESTED.

5. ALLEGATIONS EIGHTEEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.

6. 01 NO ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS, 7, OTHER r

PRA STUDY WAS PERFORMED, SEISMIC DESIGN MARGINS; STATION BLACK 0llT,

SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDULE i

AN OPERATING LICENSE (PERMITTING FUEL LOADING AND 0FEhAllGh l TO 24 KWT) WAS ISSUED ON DECEFEEE 7, 1584. COLD CRITICAlllY TESTih6 hAS C0hPLETED Oh FEBkUARY 17, 19F.5. FIVE PERCENT LICEhSE WAS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 1985. L0h POWER TESilkG IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE.

2. FULL POWER LICENSE ISSUES REMAINING ISSUE CONCERNS EhEhGENCY PLAkNING; USlhG ThE LICENSEE'S PLAN kEQUIRES RESOLUTION OF LEGAL AUTHCRITY

, QUESTIONS AhD COMFLETION OF AN EXERCISE.

l i

3. INSPECTIONS NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S OPERATIONS IS CONTINUlh6.

l 4. HEARINGS i ON SEPTEPIER 21, 1983 THE LICENSING BOARD ISSLEL A FAhll AL i

lhlTIAL DECISION ON ALL.lSSUES EXCEPT F0E THOSE RELATING TO OFF-SITE EhERGENCY PLAhNihG AND ThE TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, ll.C.

! (TDI) EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATORS. Oh JUNE 14, 1585, THE i

BOARD ISSUED A FAV0hAblE LECISIOk ON THE DlESEL GEhEFATCP ISSUES. THIS DECISich WAS APPEALED T0, AND AFFIRMED TY, ThE ASLAE Ch hCVEVEER 21, 1985.

1 i

i L

j

SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)

ON APPRIL 17 AND AUGUST 26, 1985, THE LICENSING BOARD ISSUED ITS DECISION 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) LILCO'S LACK OF 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 LILCO'S PLAN COULD BE EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED, THE LICENSING BOARD ORDERED THAT AN OPERATING LICENSE SHALL NOT BE ISSUED TO LILCO. THESE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN APPEALED TO THE APPEAL BOARD, WHICH UPHELD THE LEGAL AUTHORITY ASPECTS OF DECISIONS ON OCTOBER 18, 1985. LILC0 HAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPEALED TO THE COMMISSION.

5. ALLEGATIONS i

NINE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.

6; OL ONE ONG0ING INVESTIGATION, 7, OTHER NRC HAS REQUESTED THAT FEMA SCHEDULE AN EMERGENCY 2

PLANNING DRILL. A FULL PARTICIPATION DRILL WOULD BE HELD WITH DRILL MONITORS ACTING IN PLACE OF STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, STARTUP SOURCES WERE REPLACED DURING THE CURRENT OUTAGE SCHEDULED TO END LATE DECEMBER 1985.

w

- ---.,.r

I 1

PALD VERDE UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDULE LOW POWER LICENSE EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED WEEK OF DECEMBER 9, 1985,

2. FSAR REVIEW

. REVIEW FOR LOW POWER COMPLETE, FOR FULL POWER APS MUST COMPLETE MODIFICATIONS TO IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF PRESSURIZER AUXILIARY SPRAY SYSTEM:

ENHANCED VOLUME CONTROL TANK (VCT) LEVEL INSTRUMENTATION, PROVIDE CLASS 1E POWER TO OUTLET VALVE OF VCT AND TO VALVE WHICH ALLOWS GRAVITY FEED FROM REFUELING WATER STORAGE TANK (RWST) TO CHARGING PUMPS, ENHANCED AUTOMATIC REALIGNMENT FROM THE RWST TO CHARGING PUMPS, 3, INSPECTION NORMAL INSPECTION OF CONSTRUCTION AND PREOPERATIONAL TESTING COMPLETE.

4. HEARINGS ALL HEARINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED: NO APPEALS ARE PENDING,

5. At. LEGATIONS ELEVEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW,

i PALO VERDE UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)

6. 01 ONE ONGOING INVESTIGATION.

7. OTHER

• l ACRS LETTER ON PALO VERDE UNIT 2 PENDING.

J REQUEST FOR SALE AND LEASEBACK OF PART OWNERSHIP APPLIES TO PALO VERDE UNIT 1 ONLY.

PALO VERDE UNIT 1 CURRENTLY AT 80% PLATEAU OF POWER ASCENSION. COMMERCIAL OPERATION PROJECTED FOR LATE DECEMBEP 1985.

APS COMMITTED TO COMPLETE POWER ASCENSION TESTING, EXCEPT FOR NATURAL CIRCULATION C00LDOWN TEST, ON UNIT 1 PRIOR TO G0ING CRITICAL ON UNIT 2.

APS COMMITTED TO PERFORM NATURAL CIRCULATION

, C00LDOWN TEST ON UNIT 1 PRIOR TO EXCEEDING 5% POWER ON UNIT 2.

I

PERRY UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION AND PREOPERATIONAL TESTING ARE ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE. APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS DECEMBER 16, 1985,

2. FSAR REVIEW NO MAJOR OPEN ISSUES REMAIN, 4

3. INSPECTIONS j INSPECTION PROGRAM IS PROGRESSING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPLETION OF PLANT ACTIVITIES,

4. HEARINGS ASLB HEARINGS ON ALL ISSUANCES ARE COMPLETE AND A DECISION FAVORABLE TO LICENSE ISSUANCE ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1985.

DECISION HAS BEEN APPEALED. ORAL ARGUMENTS SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 19, 1985.

5. ALLEGATIONS EIGHT ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6, 01 TWO ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS,

PERRY UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)

7. OTHER AN EXEMPTION WILL 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 CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 28, 1984

) AND THE NEXT IS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 1986. AN APPLICANT-0NLY EXECCISE, WITH LIMITED COUNTY / STATE INVOLVEMENT, WAS HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1985.

t s

! e I \

E 1

4 i 6

}

CATAWBA UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSlJES

1. SCHEDULE APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS JANUARY 15, 1986.

2. FSAR REVIEW UNIT 1 REVIEW APPLICABLE TO UNIT 2. HYDROGE,N CONTROL UNDER REVIEW, RECENT BEARING FAILURE ON TDI ENGINE.

3. INSPECTIONS REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND PREOPERATIONAL TESTING INSPECTION PROGRAMS ARE ON SCHEDULE,

4. HEARINGS THE ASLB DECISION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE APPEAL BOARD,

5. ALLEGATIONS l

ONE ALLEGATION UNDER REVIEW.

6. QL NO ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS, J 7. OTHER UNIT ] COMPLETED STARTUP TESTING APRIL 1985 AND DECLARED g CQNMERCIALJUNE1985, t

CLINTON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDULE APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS FEBRUARY / MARCH 1986,

2. FSAR REVIEW MINOR OPEN ISSUES REMAIN,

3. INSPECTIONS CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM AND PREOPERATIONAL TEST INSPECTION ARE CURRENT WITH APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES,

4. HEARINGS ALL HEARING CONTENTIONS WERE SETTLED BY NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE PARTIES AND SETTLEMENTS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD,

5. ALLEGATIONS THIRTY-FIVE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW,

6. QI FIVE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS,

7. OTHER FULL PARTICIPATION EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 4, 1985,

HOPE CREEK SIGNIFICANT ISSilES ,

1. SCHEDULE APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS FEBRUARY 1986.

2. FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE E0tlIPMENT QUALIFICATION, AND MANAGEMENT STAFFING.

3. INSPECTIONS CONSTRUCTION AND PREOPERATIONAL TEST INSPECTION PROGRAM IS CURRENT WITH APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES. AN IDVP WAS RECENTLY COMPLETED IN SEPTEMBER 1985. STAFF ASSESSMENT WILL BE AVAILABLE IN MID-DECEMBER 1985.

4. HEARINGS ALL HEARING CONTENTIONS WERE SETTLED BY NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE PARTIES AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD.

5. ALLEGATIONS THREE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.

6. QI NO ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS.

NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 92 PERCENT COMPLETE.

APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS FEBRUARY 1986.

AN NRR MANAGEMENT VISIT WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 6, 1985 TO ASSESS PLANT STATUS.

2. FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION, CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS ISSUES, IN-SERVICE INSPECTION AND TESTING, AND PRE 0PERATIONAL AND STARTUP TESTING.

1 SCHEDULE FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW.

3, INSPECTIONS -

CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM AND PREOPERATIONAL TEST INSPECTION ARE CURRENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES.

STONE a WEBSTER IS PERFORMING AN ENGINEERING ASSURANCE PROGRAM IN LIEU OF AN IDVP OR IDI. THE RESULTS FROM THIS PROGRAM WERE SUBMITTED IN OCTOBER 1985.

4. HEARINGS NMP-2 PROCEEDING UNCONTESTED.

5. ALLEGATIONS SEVEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.

l 6. Of TWO ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS.

SHEARON HARRIS UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 93 PERCENT COMPLETE. APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS MARCH 1986.

2. FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE TDI DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY, FIRE PROTECTION AND EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION.

A PUMP AND VALVE OPERABILITY REVIEW TEAM AND SEISMIC QUALIFICATION REVIEW TEAM AUDITS ARE SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 1985.

3. INSPECTIONS AN IDI REPORT WAS ISSUED IN APRIL 1985. CAT REPORT WAS ISSUED IN DECEMBER 1984. ONE IDI DEFICIENCY WAS IDENTIFIED (CONTAINMENT SUMP DESIGN),

4. 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 ARE CURRENTLY PENDING ON APPEAL. HEARING ON DRUG ISSUE WAS COMPLETED ON NOVEMBER 12, 1985. ADDITIONAL HEAPINGS MAY BE HELD ON TWO REMAINING OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ISSUES.

5. ALLEGATIONS SIXTEEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.

SHEARON HARRIS llNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)

6. 01 ONE ONG0ING INVESTIGATION.

7. OTHER A FAVORABLE FEMA FINDING ON OFFSITE EMERGENCY PREPARDNESS WAS RECEIVED ON AUGUST 14, 1985.

l 3

SEABROOK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 94 PERCENT COMPLETE.

APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS JilNE 1986.

2. FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE FIRE PROTECTION, EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION, CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW, AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.

3. INSPECTIONS REGIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM IS PROGRESSING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPLETION OF PLANT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

4. HEARINGS THE MAJOR ISSUE 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 MARCH 1986.

5. ALLEGATIONS l

FIVE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.

6. 01 TWO ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS.

SEABROOK UNIT 1 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 HAS AGREED TO EVALUATE THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THIS APPROACH, 4

l 1

+

9

o BRAIDWOOD UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 90 PERCENT COMPLETE, APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS SEPTEMBER 1986, 2, FSAR REVIEW ISSUES REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED INCLUDE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANS AND THE FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM, AN EMERGENCY PREPARED-NESS EXERCISE WAS CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 6, 1985; NO MAJOR DEFICIENCIES WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE NRC OR FEMA, A SUPPLEMENTAL INTERIM FEMA FINDING IS EXPECTED IN MARCH 1986, 3, INSPECTIONS CECn HAS UNDERTAKEN A SERIES OF INSPECTIONS [BRAIDWOOD CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (BCAP)] TO ENSURE OVERALL QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION AT BRAIDWOOD, THE FINAL PRESENTATION TO THE NRC CONCERNING BCAP WAS CONDUCTED ON OCTOBER 15, 1985, AND THE FINAL BCAP REPORT WAS' ISSUED BY CECO ON NOVEMBER 14, 1985. A CAT INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED DURING DECEMBER 1984 AND JANUARY 1985; NO MAJOR DESIGN ISSUES WERE IDENTIFIED.

THE APPLICABLE BYRON 1 IDI AND IDR FINDINGS, AS WELL AS THE APPLICABLE CLINTON 1 IDR FINDINGS, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED FOR BYRON 2 AND BRAIDWOOD 1 AND 2; THE NRC IS CURRENTLY VERIFYING THE PROPEP IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE ACTIVITIES, REGION III HAS PLACED SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ATTENTION ON BRAIDWOOD SIMILAR TO THAT MAINTAINED ON BYRON, T

, -.- . ,-,_ --,.,,r - , , , - - , - - : -,w-,

BRAIDWOOD UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)

4. HEARINGS THE ISSUES WHICH REMAIN TO BE LITIGATED IN THIS PROCEEDING INVOLVE OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING AND THE ADEQUACY OF THE APPLICANT'S QA PROGRAM. A PETITION IS CURRENTLY PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION SEEKING REVIEW 0F THE LICENSING BOARD'S DECISION TO ADMIT THE QA CONTENTION,

5. ALLEGATIONS EIGHTEEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW,

6. Q1 SIX ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS, l

. l BYRON UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHED:JLE CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 80 PERCENT COMPLETE.

APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS OCTOBER 1986. l

2. FSAR REV!EW UNIT 1 REVIEW APPLICABLE TO UNIT 2.

3. INSPECTIONS A CAT INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1985. NONE OF THE TEAM'S FINDINGS ARE EXPECTED TO IMPACT LICENSING.

I

4. HEARINGS HEARINGS WERE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LICENSING 0F UNIT 1,

5. ALLEGATIONS TWO ALLEGATIONS tlNDER REVIEW,

6. 01 NO ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS.

7. OTHER UNIT 1 COMPLETED STARTUP TEST PROGRAM IN SEPTEMBER 1985.

. o V0GTLE UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDilLE ,

UNIT 1 CONSTRUCTION IS APPR0XIMATELY 85 PERCENT COMPLETE.

APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS DECEMBER 1986.

2. FSAR REVIEW TEN OPEN ITEMS REMAIN INCLUDING PROTECTION OF CONTROL ROOM OPERATORS FROM T0XIC GAS, SALEM ATWS REVIEW AND THE DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW.

3. INSPECTIONS IE WILL CONDUCT AN INSPECTION IN MID-DECEMBER ON THE INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PORTION OF THE V0GTLE READINESS

REVIEW.

4. HEARINGS HEARINGS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN FEBRUARY 1986. ISSUES REGARDING GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AND EMERGENCY PLANNING HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THE REMAINING ISSUES HAVE EITHER BEEN DISMISSED OP ARE PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD ON MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION.

5. ALLEGATIONS TWENTY-TWO ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.

6. 91 NO ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS: HOWEVER, ONE INQUIRY IS IN PROGRESS.

7. READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PACE OF REVIEW FALLING BEHIND ORIGINAL SCHEDULE.

COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDULE REVISED SCHEDULE ESTIMATES WERE ANN 0UNCED BY TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY ON NOVEMBER 18, 1985. A DETAILED REANALYSIS AND REINSPECTION EFFORT IS PRESENTLY UNDERWAY, THIS EFFORT, AND ALL RELATED PLANT MODIFICATIONS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY, ARE NOW ESTIMATED TO BE COMPLETED IN TIME TO SUPPORT COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF UNIT 1 IN MID-1987, APPLICANT'S HAVE NOT PRO-VIDED A FUEL LOAD DATE.

2. FSAR REVIEW STAFF FSAR REVIEW IS NEARING COMPLETION, ON OCTOBER 24, 1985, THE STAFF ISSUED SSER N0, 12 WHICH RESOLVED MANY

, OUTSTANDING LICENSING ISSUES SUCH AS THE FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM, INCLUDING ALTERNATE SAFE SHUTDOWNS CAPABILITY, AT LEAST ONE MORE SSER WILL BE ISSUED TO RESOLVE ROUTINE LICENSING ISSUES.

THE APPLICANTS' HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO JUSTIFY AND EXPLAIN THEIR PROGRAM FOR USE OF SHIFT ADVISORS BEYOND THE COMMIS-SION'S CUT-0FF DATE OF MARCH 30, 1985. BY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 1985, THE APPLICANT RESPONDED. THIS IS CURRENTLY UNDER STAFF REVIEW,

3. INSPECTIONS IN RESPONSE TO NUMEROUS CONCERNS RAISED IN BOTH DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLANT, APPLICANTS HAVE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED THE " COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM PROGRAM PLAN AND ISSUE SPECIFIC ACTION PLANS" WHICH ENCOMPASSES AND DELINEATES ACTIVITIES WHICH WILL BE UNDERTAKEN BY l

COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)

TEXAS UTILITIES REGARDING COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES). THE STAFF HAS COMPLETED ITS INITIAL REVIEW 0F THE PROGRAM PLAN AND PROVIDED THE APPLICANT WITH COMMENTS. FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF PLAN MODIFICATIONS RESPONSIVE TO STAFF COMMENTS AND REVIEW 0F COMMENTS FROM THE INTERVENOR, THE STAFF WILL FINALIZE ITS EVALUATION AND FINDINGS IN AN SSER.

THE REGION IS PARTICIPATING IN FOLLOWUP INSPECTIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPLICANTS' PROGRAM PLAN.

4. HEARINGS ASLB HAS DEFERRED SCHEDULING FURTHER HEARINGS AT THE REQUEST OF BOTH APPLICANTS AND STAFF. THE BOARD HAS STATED THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO FORECAST WHEN HEARINGS IN THE CASE WILL BE CONCLUDED, 5 ." ALLEGATIONS APPR0XIMATELY 200 ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW. FIVE SSERs WERE ISSUED RESOLVING APPR0XIMATELY 800 ALLEGATIONS.

6. QI TWO ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS.

. .. a WATTS BAR UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

1. SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE, PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING IN SUPPORT OF FUEL LOADING IS COMPLETE, THE STAFF IS AWAITING TVA'S WATTS BAR-SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1985, 10 CFR 50,54(F) LETTER (EXPECTED JANUARY 1986) PRIOR TO SCHEDULING Tt!E ANTICIPATED WATTS BAR LOW POWER LICENSING DATE.

2, FSAR REVIEW SEVERAL ISSUES, INCLUDING EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION, QUALITY ASSURANCE, SECURITY PLAN, AND CORPORATE AND SITE ORGANIZATION REMAIN TO BE RESOLVED.

3. INSPECTIONS REGIONAL INSPECTION PROGPAM IS PROGRESSING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPLETION OF PLANT ACTIVITIES, ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS TO CLOSE QUALITY ASSURANCE CONCERNS WILL BE CONDUCTED. 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 SEVENTY-SEVEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW,

.e. e WATTS BAR UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)

6. 01 TWO ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS. ADDITIONALLY, SEVERAL INOUIRIES WILL LIKELY BE UPGRADED TO INVESTIGATIONS,

7. OTHER

, BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 7, 1985, THE STAFF RECEIVED THE FIRST 0F SEVERAL SUBMITTALS OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORTS RESULTING FROM THE EMPLOYEE RESPONSE TEAM INTERVIEW PROGRAM. THE STAFF IS RECEIVING UPDATES TO THESE DOCUMENTS WEEKLY, t

I 1

_.a.._ . _ . . _.,_,-,__,__,r -

,, ,,,_,,,. , -,_. . _. -._ -----,. _ ... , v. - - - . . - . . . - _ . ~ _ m._,

,.y . ,_ ,-.-

( (h(h (h(h(h(h(hh(hhhhh(hh(hghqhh(h(hghphghghghphghp __

9/35 2-TRANSMITIAL 'IO: /X / Document Cbntrol Desk, 016 Phillips h ADVANCED COPY 'IO: / / 'Ihe Public Document Bocra DATE: G\ b cc: C&R tta

$ N:

m ON3 BRM papers)

Attached are copies of a Ctrmission meeting transcript (s) aM relatM meeting document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placment in the Public Document Pom. No other distribution is requested or regtured. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual documents whereve.r known.

n Meeting

Title:

fS t .b .b (

• e o v. NT DL(e i

Meeting Date: ' '!in k % Open [ Closed DCS Copies Item

Description:

(1 of each checked) g Copies W Advanced Original May Duplicate To PDR , Documnt be Dup

• Copy *

1. TPASSCRIPT 1 1

.. When checked, DCS should send a ,

copy of this trarscript to the .

LPDR for: ,

s, \ l > un c Q, {

2. ,

3.

l

=

m i

g R

(PDR is advanced one copy of each docurrent,

• Verify if in DCS, and h two of each SELY paper.) Change to "PDR Available."

e ne m m aw a m a m m a a rrr a m arrran e

i l

WATTS BAR UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) o

6. 01  ;

TWO ONG0ING INVESTIGATIONS. ADDITIONALLY, SEVERAL INQUIRIES WILL LIKELY BE UPGRADED TO INVESTIGATIONS,

7. OTHER BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 7, 1985, THE STAFF RECEltED THE FIRST OF SEVERAL SUBMITTALS OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORTS RESULTING i

FROM THE EMPLOYEE RESPONSE TEAM INTERVIEW PROGRAM. THE STAFF j IS RECEIVING UPDATES TO THESE DOCUMENTS WEEKLY, i

)

brYY kkkkkkkh hYkkkkhhkhht Qhkkkkkg0h)g0khghghgQgQhf)p(h&)}&hky]g

@ 9/35 TRANSMITIAL 'IO: X/ hmt Cbntrol Desk, 016 Phillips a

@ ADVANCED COPY 'IO: / / 'Ihe Public Document Rxra DATE: \ G 3 cc: C&R FBOM: SECY OPS BPANCH tt .

papers)

Attached are copies of a Ctrmission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting docment(s) . 'Ihey are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and plamt in the Public Docment Rxra. No other distribution is requested or regtured. Existing DCS identification nm bers are listed on the individual docments wheremr knava.

Meeting

Title:

1du $( . :. o T. NTOL C

\

Meeting Date:  !

2 fIo b% Open N Closed DCS Copies (1 of each checked)

Item

Description:

Copies Advanced Original May Duplicate To PDR , [bcment be Dup

• Copy *

1. TPANSCRIPT 1 1

.. When checked, DCS should send a .

copy of this trarscript to the .

LPDR for: ,

oaf \/:suncu4.c. [

2.

3. [

4. )

(PDR is advanced one copy of each docment,

• Verify if in DCS, and i two of each SECY paper.)

• Change to "PDR Available."

e b $h kh k I I $I l I