ML20147E099
| ML20147E099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/24/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8803040269 | |
| Download: ML20147E099 (81) | |
Text
- . -- - - _. . _ _ - - -
O R' G;N A l I
^
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !
r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
i i
l l
l
?
Title. Briefing n the Status of Near Term !
Operating Licenses (NTOLS) l l
i Location: washington, c. c. l Date: February 24, 1988 l
Pages: 1 - 60 i
l l
l i
- i i l
- t Ann Riley & Associates 0 Court Reporters 16251 Street, N.W., Suite 921 .,
] Washington, D.C. 20006 1
(202) 293-3950 i
{ 0803040269 080224 i
- PDR HISC !
l PDR
4 -
g .
D l 'S C L A I MER 2
S 4
5 .
6 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7 United States Nuclear Regulatory Cmealssion held on 3 2/24/88 .. In the Commission's offlee at 1717 H Street, 9 'N.W., Washington, D.C. The meeting was open to public
. i 10 attendance and observation. This transcript has not been 1
11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain '
, 12 inaccuracles.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general I
14 Informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, It is i l
} 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the l
l l
1 16 matters discussed. l Expressions of opinion in this, transcript l l
17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No i 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 !
2 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may . l 21 autherl=e.
l 23 i 24 i
25 il
1
- r f3 '
l t 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t E
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 e a e l
l 4 BRIEFING ON THE STATUS OF NEAR TERM ;
5 OPERATING LICENSES (NTOLS) 6 * *
- i 7 PUBLIC MEETING 8 * * * ,
s 9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130
. 10 1717 H Street, Northwest ,
Washington, D.C. '
11 i 12 February 24, 1988 l'3 14 7 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice at 10:00 a.m., the Honorable LANDO W. "ECH, JR.,
17 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
19 LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 20 THOMAS H. ROBERTS, Commissioner !
(
21 FREDERICK H. BERNTHAL, Commissioner !
i 22 KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner l t
t 23 KENNETH M. CARR, Commissioner .j 24 25 i i.
l i
_. .~ , . - - -. . . _
2
,. . i j 1
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT TABLE: ;
2 S. CHILK - Secretary !
l t 3 D. CRUTCHFIELD P
f 1 4 -
S. VARGA '
5 C. GRIMES l t
- 6 V. STELLO - EDO 7 F. MIRAGLIA .
h 1
8 A. ROSENTHAL P
e
! 9 P. COTTER i j
10 W. PARLER - OGC f i 11 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS: ;
- t 12 J. . SCINTO -
l i
13 i 14 ;
15 ?
I i t I 16 ;
3 :
! 17 !
18 t
i 19 i e i 1
1 20 ;
\
- 21 '
t I
1 22 1 23 -
'4 5 i 25 W
i 7
. - - - , , . _ - _ . _ _ . _ _ . . m.. - . - _ . - . _ . , _ . _ . _ . . _ _ . , . , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ - . _ . _ _____. _ . _ _ _ _
O 3
o .
(s 3 1 s .
1 P RO C E ED I NG S 2 CHARIMAN ZECH: Good morning ladies,.and 3 gentlemen. I understand before we begin this morning we 4 need a vote.from my fellow-Commissioners to hol'd this 5 meeting on less than one week's notice.
6 May I have such a vote, please.
7 (A chorus of ayes.]
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The Commissioners are meeting 9 today to be briefed on the status of near term operating 10 licenses. We will hear from the Executive Director for
~
11 Operations, Mr. Victor Stello, and the Director of the 12 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Mr. Frank Miraglia, 13 and others on the status of near term operating license 14 plants.
15 Additionally, we will hear from the Atomic Safety 16 and Licensing Board Chairman, Judge Paul Cotter, and the 17 Appeal Board Panel Chairman, Judge Alan Rosenthal, on the 18 status of near term operating license cases pending before 19 their boards.
20 I must emphasize that since some of these cases 21 are now in adjudication before the NRC, our separation of
, 22 function considerations preclude discussion with the 23 Co'mmission on the merits and the substance of the issues -
24 which are in litigation.
25 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have opening
A
. l x
1 remarks before we begin?
'2 [No response.]
3 If not, Mr. Stello, will-you begin.
4 MR. STELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We~will'.
5 give you a very brief overview of the status of all of the 6 plants. We've selected, as indicated in our slides, five 7 particular plants that-we think warrant special emphasis.
8 We o'1 course are prepared to discuss any of the-plants as 9 you.wish in their overall status.
10 Mr. Frank Miraglia will begin with a brief 11 overview and summary, and then we will have various other 12 members of the staff describe for you the status of the 13 five plants that I mentioned earlier. Frank.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine.
15 MR. MIRAGLIA: Thank you, Vic. May I have the 16 next slide, please. The current stacus of the NTOLs is as 17 follows: We currently have three plants with a low power 18 license, one plant with a O power license, and there are 19 14 plants with OL applications that have been docketed. 9 20 of those 14 are active reviews; 5 are inactive status.
21 May I have the next slide. The next slide 22 outlines the plants in those categories. With respect to 23 the low power license plants, they are Shorehan, South -
24 Texas, and Braidwood 2. The O power license is Seabrook, 25 and the South Texas and Vogtle 2 are expected to be
- e , . . , - , . . , -
9 -
5
(~~
4 1 licensed within the next year.
2 In addition, the remaining active plants would be 3 Comanche Peak 1.and 2, Watts Bar 1 and 2, Limerick 2, and 4 Bellefonte 1 and 2.
5 We have chosen to discuss with the Commission in 6 detail five of'these plants. They are listed on the next 7 slide. Shoreham and Seabrook will be discussed by Mr.
8 Steve Varga, the Division Director for Regions I and II 9 who is on my immediate left; South Texas and Braidwood 10 will be discussed by Mr. Dennis Crutchfield, the Division 11 Director for Regions III, IV and V plants; and the last 12 plant, Comanche Peak, will be discussed by Mr. Chris 13 Grimes, the Division Director for Comanche Peak in the 14 Office of Special Projects.
15 With that we can go right into the discussions 16 with each' plant. Steve.
17 MR. VARGA: Good morning. My name is Steve 18 Varga. I'm the Division Director for Regions.I and II 19 plants. I'm going to start out with Shoreham. May I have l
20 the first slide, please. j 21 I'd like to give just a very quick review of 1 22 where the Shoreham plant is today physically in terms of 23 its licensing activities.
.I 24 As you know, we gave a criticality fuel load 25 license in December of '84; we gave a May '85 5 percent
,r r y ,_ -
.. l I
. 6 l l
1 license, j 2 They have had a very extensive low power testing 3 program. They have started up three separate times-4 exercising various systems.
5 On the last start-up which ended in July of '87, 6 they synchronized to the grid for a short period of time.
7 This plant is presently in a stand-by status.
8 For the full power, where we are on full power.as 9 far as the safety issues go, we are completed. The Staff 10 has completed their review of all safety issues, it has 11 issued its findings.
12 Hearings have been held. The Hearing Board'has 13, issued a favorable finding; all of those safety matters 14 have been disposed of except of course now for the only 15 remaining issue for full power emergency planning.
16 I'll just briefly summarize where we are on 17 emergency planning in order to put scmo perspective 18 overall summary of where we are in th.s rather complex 19 issue. I'm sure Counsel and the Appeal Board and the 20 Licensing Board will amplify, but I'd like to summarize 21 where I think we are.
22 CHAIRMAli ZECH: Fine. We appreciate hearing 23 that. -
-s ,
24 MR. VARGA: All of the issues that we have, the 25 emergency planning issues --
in summary, however, I would
. 7 4
\
1 like to give.you an. idea of where the Staff thinks we-are 2 going to end up. I'll discuss some of the. details in just 3 a moment.
4 Overall,-the Staff presently is developing and is 5 working on a plan that includes the review of.the utility 6 plan, a complete review; includes a subsequent exercise, 7 full-scale exercise; and ir.cludes the litigation of all of 8 those issues that may arise as a result of.that, ending up 9 in a licensing decision we are scheduling for the Spring 10 of '89. That's what the Staff is presently working on.
11 In the meantime, we are of course following the j 12 normal inspections of the plant in its present status.
13 Let me just briefly summarize the hearing status. .
14 As I've said, this is a very complex issue, it's a very 15 dynamic issue. There was an order by the Board on Monday, 16 there are other orders by the Board that are at issue to 17 be issued imminently as I understand it, but as you recall 18 there are two boards: One board had to do with evaluating
~
19 the exercise itself, the so-called Frye Board as I 20 understand it, then there was the board adjudicating the 21 issues or litigating the issues on emergency planning.
22 As regar'ds to the Exercise Board, they have i
23 completed their findings. They made findings on the scope -
24 of the exercise which was unfavorable as well as the fact i
25 that the emergency plan implementation itself contained
8 I' 1 fundamental flaws.
2 The Licensee is appealing both of these. We are 3 preparin'g responses to those Motions for Appeal, I think, 4 scheduled for like March for the scope response and 5 sometime yet in the future on the fundamen'tal flaws of the 6 exercise.
7 , In addition, on Friday the Staff has filed. with 8 the Board a recommendation that since the Exercise Board 9 has essentially completed its mandate, it should now no 10 longer retain jurisdiction on whatever corrective actions 11' LILCO might take as'a result of those. findings.
12' Now regarding'the Emergency Planning Board:
4 13 There are a number of issues outstanding. It's on that 14 slide; one is not included on there. The Emergency 15 Broadcast System is an issue that has to do with whether i
l 16 or'not the Emergency Broadcast System is adequate for
)
i 17 notifying the public; the hospital evacuation, whether or l
I 18 not the time estimatos for the hospital evacuation are 19 correct or realistic; and then the school bus driver issue l l
20 which has to do with whether or not the school bus drivers i 21 will act in accordance with the plans 22 CHAIRMAli ZECH: I think you need the next slide.
23 Thank you. .
24 . MR . VARGA: Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good.
l
9
- r 1 MR. VARGA: There is another issue of course on 2 there_which is a significant one left off which has to do 3 with the legal authority issue, the realism argument that 4 is included in those issues still beforu the Board.
5 On~ Monday, the Licensing Board of the emergency 6 planning issues issued a decision and an order which 7 significantly --
perhaps significant is an incorrect term __
8 and Counsel will be able to amplify that --
but I think 9 somewhat narrowed the issues I've just mentioned. Some
~
10 were disposed of, some were denied, others were granted, 11 but somewhat narrowed the issues.
12 In addition, the order said that they would be 13 issuing an order this morning on the legal authority issue 14 and that sometime this morning, or perhaps even earlier --
15 but I haven't seen it, they will be issuing an order on 16 the 25 percent power issue because LILCO has come in for a 17 25 percent power request.
18 In summary, those are going on and perhaps 19 additional information has come in in the last day or so, 20 but putting all of that together again, I want to 21 emphasize that we are presently working on a schedule 22 which will include all of those items: A complete ~ review 23 of the plan, and we are working with FEMA on this; a -
24 full-scale exercise, whatever comes out of that full-scale 25 exercise; and the litigation for a Licensing Board
=. 10 f*'
A., 1 decision in.the Spring of '89.
2 There are several other things underway. Next 3 slide, please.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Before you move off that --
'S MR. VARGA: Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: --
you've mentioned your schedule 7 for the-Spring of '89. .Could you elaborate just a little 8 bit on'that and tell us how you arrived at that date?
9 MR. VARGA: Okay. The revised plan is presently 10 under rev'iew by FEMA. We are anticipating that 60 ' days --
11 they initiated their review like February the 1st. We are 12 anticipating that in about 60 days they will be 13 essentially completed with their review of the plan, at 14 least to the point where they have identified other 15 information they may need.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: FEMA?
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Right.
19 MR. VARGA: Then we will -- then another 60 days 20 will be taken to clarify or to correct whatever 21 deficiencies may have been discovered in that plan which 22 leads us to about early June for an exercise presently 23 planned for mid-June. -
24 Then after that exercise like in mid-June, there 25 will be a 60 day period for evaluation of the exercise, 4
, 11 1 the FEMA report, and the conclusions r'esulting from that, 2 at which then litigation like in August, first part of l
3 September, litigation could begin which then~would ' lead to 4 a fairly expedited schedule, but I think a doable one, S which leads us to like~ Spring of '89.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Perhaps Judge Cotter 7 could comment on that when the opportuni,ty presents 8 itself.
9 JUDGE COTTER: I could do that now if you want?
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Why don't you do that now.
11 JUDGE COTTER: I was n'o t aware of the Staff, 12 schedule for proceeding to a new exercise and a new report 13 evaluation of that exercise. Assuming that that-process 14 is finished, if I understood correctly, by the end of 15 August or the beginning of September, and then the 16 opportunity to litigate the adequacy of the plan arises at 17 that point, my own instinct is that it's unlikely that t 18 that litigation could be completed in six to seven months.
19- I think it would take longer. How much longer I have no 20 way of estimating.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. So you're saying the 22 Spring of '89 is --
23 JUDGE COTTER: Optimistic. -
~
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: --
optimistic. .All right. j 25 MR. VARGA: There are two other items that again ,
l I
l
s i . 12 i
i 1 Counsel may amplify because they are rather complicated 2 ' issues, but you will recall _that in July of '86 the'New 3 York State Legislature -- may I'have the next_ slide. The 4 New York State Legislature had -- they passed a bill and-5 then the governor signed, creating the Long Island Power 6 Authority, where it was instructed in the legislation to 7 take over, a friendly takeover of LILCO.
8 Included in that' legislation as indicated in the 9 slide, it prohibits the agency from constructing or 10 operating a nuclear power plant in the service area.
11 LILCO filed suit in the District Court 'o f Appeals 12 and on August of last year the Court ruled ' t hat the Long 13 Island Power Authority Bill did not violate the 14 Constitution.
15 I think that we are following those events, but I 16 don't believe that we have any particular direct 17 participation in what is going on.
18 MR. PARLER: That's correct.
19 MR. VARGA: Again in February of this year, 20 February 17th, the New York Court of Appeals issued e 1
22 opinion on the lower court's decision about the lack of 22 legal a u tito ri t y for the LILCO lacking legal authority.
23 The Court of Appeals, as indicated in the slide, -
24 indicated that the issue was outside of the subject matter 25 and jurisdiction of the Court, and dismissed the complain't
,__ ~-_- .- . , .
, 13 s
i 1 and the impact of this decision is presently under our 2 review.
3 COMMISSIONER'BERNTHAL: Well, would you care to 4 comment a little bit more than that and venture some-5 thoughts on whether that means'anything or not?
6 MR. VARGA: Well, I'll venture some thoughts.
7 MR. PARLER: Are you talking about the latter 8 decision?
- 9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes.
10 MR. PARLER: I think that perhaps if it's all 11' right, Mr. Chairman, I should respond to that.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Please do.
13 MR. PARLER: I have read the decision, I have 14 studied the d9 cision to some extent and if the decision 15 has any major impact on the state of affairs that Mr.
16 Varga and others have described here this morning, they 17 are not at this time apparent to me.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you.
20 MR. VARGA: Finally, there are three allegations 21 under review of some standing. They are not specifically 22 safety issues. One bcs to do with seismic qualifications 23 reports, the other has to do with warehouse conditions and -
24 the condition of safety related equipment and non-safety 25 related parts.
1-
14
, ~* ,
l- The third one had to-do.with' training of the 2 radio chemistry technicians and the fourth one has to do 3 with symmetric falsifications and we.are in the process of 4 bleeding those out.
5 .That concludes my discussions on Shoreham unless 6 there are other questions.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let's move along and we'll come 8 back to you if we need to proceed with further questions.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I would prefer, Mr.
10 Chairman, to ask. questions on a plant by plant basis since 11 we are discussing this'one, anyway, and I have just one 12 question that I would like to --
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Go r'ight ahead.
14 COMMISSIONER ~BERNTHAL: --
offer that fortunately {
t 15 is on a rather different subject and one'that I believe we '
16 can discuss. Counsel will stop me, I'm sure, if that's no '
17 the case. t 18 Some time back, the LILCO organization suggested i
19 that it was considering or might consider the installation r
20 of a filtered vent on this plant at Shoreham. In fact, it 21 was even contemplating I believe the Cadillac-version of a i
22 filtered vent, the so-called Barsebeck style filtered 23 vent, similar to the one installed by the Swedes at the .
24 plant by that name. i 25 I don't know what's going on there. Has there f
l
. 15 I 1 been any further progress on that? Has the l'icensee 2 considered further the. possibility of doing that or 3- perhaps alternatively considered the less expensive 4 version, the design currently being -- I guess more than 5 considered -- currently planned for installation at all 6 Swedish power plants? Whatois happening there?
7 If Staff is permitted to_do so, I would be 8 interested in any technical views that you might be able 9 to offer on that.
10 MR. PARLER: You'll get a response.
11 , COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It's no problem, right?
12 MR. PARLER: There is no problem in me 13 responding.
14 MR. VARGA: We have had I think at least.two 15 discussions with LILCO on their filtered vented 16 containment, the silo containment.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Right.
18 MR. VARGA: We have given comments on it, we have 19 not formally provided a safety evaluation, but in minutes 20 of a meeting we have given co,mments on our perception of l 21 the --
and more in a peneric sense rather than a specific 22 detailed failure analysis or a safety evaluation. j 23 LILCO has taken those comments, and the present -
d 24 status, as far as my understanding is, is that they are in l 1
25 the process of considering the comments that.we have made. ;
e 16 4
- i. .
!. 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Would you give me a 25 2 word summary or so of the comments that you offered.
3 MR. VARGA: I think that the comments were about 4 the -- the ma.ior thrust of the comments I believe weren't 5 specifically on the capability of the design but rather on 6 the negative aspects of the design. Whether or not there 7 would be some downside to inadvertent untilization of the 8 filter or bypassing the fil-ter or some scenarios. That's 9 about the extent of my understanding.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Has the Staff identified 11 downsides that the Swedes have not identified?
12 MR. VARGA: I don't believe so. I do not know.
13 I don't know the answer to that.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. So when do you 15 expect a reply from the Licensee on that matter?
16 MR. VARGA: I don't know the answer to that, but 17 I can find out.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Is the Licensee now the 19 one that is being required to identify any conceivable i 20 downsides to this proposed installation already approved 21 by the Swedes for --
22 MR. VARGA: ,No, we haven't asked them 23 specifically to identify downsides; but just indicated -
24 some of the concerns. I don't believe we have embarked 25 upon a formal review of the proposal.
-8 17 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Because they have not.yet 2 submitted a formal proposal?
3 MR. VARGA: That's right.
4 MR. STELLO: A more direct. answer to the question 5' is, I think the answer is yes.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The answer to what?
7 MR. STELLO: Your question, would we require them 8 to evaluate the downsides, the answer would be.yes. If 9 they are going to propose to add a system to the plant 10 which is going to perform a safety function, we expect 11 them to do a complete safety evaluation which would be 12 the advantages of having the system and the benefits of 13 it, and the maloperation of the system in terms of what it 14 can do to aggravate accidents.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Are we going to be 16 prepared on the part of the Staff with some thoughts on 17 that subject? In other words, I trust that this isn't 18 going to be similar to one case that we are going through 19 right now where even though the Licensee has carried out 20 an evaluation, we have asked them to go back and think of 21 any possible conceivable scenario even though we have not 22 offered any.
23 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think the utility is doing an -
24 evaluation and asking itself that kind of question. I 25 think it has some question in its own mind and they
O
. 18 0
1 haven't completed their evaluation.
2 We haven't gotten a formal application from the 3 utility. They are considering it, they are evaluating it, 4 they gave us their thoughts as to where they were and the 5 kinds of evaluations they were doing, and that evaluation 5 included the questions of: Do we fully understand how it 7 would be used and how~it would be implemented. So I think 8 it's that kind of dialog. I don't have any feel for when
~
9 they might make a decision or a formal application..
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So the focus is on the 11 procedural questions of utilization; is that what you are 12 saying?
13 Mk. STELLO: As well as equipment, maloperation 14 of the equipment --
components, valves. If they fail, 15 whether they fail.
16 . COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So when are the likely --
17 COMMISSIONER CARR: Mr. Chairman, this is a 18 subject for another briefing. I suggest we get on with 19 the subject for this one. -
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Maybe we can wind it up briefly.
21 COMMISSIONER BERHTHAL: Well, let's see. I think 22 it is a very important subject. I'm sorry that Mr. Carr 23 doesn't have and interest in it. So currently the status -
24 is --
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I'm not sure that's fair to say
- 19
/ m. .
1 that he doesn't have interest'in this. He-just thought it 2 would be a subject for another briefing and maybe that's 3 not a bad suggestion, but I do think it's important and we 4 all think it's important, and so please continue; but I 5 would like to move along.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I wanted'to clarify the 7 point of exactly wh'at the status was-then with the 8 Licensee.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Sure, let's try to do that 10 briefly.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The Licensee has not yet 12 presented a proposal; is that correct?
13 MR. MIRAGLIA: 'He's indicated that he's 14 considering that and he's evaluated it. We've had one or 15 two meetings where we've discussed his evaluation process 16 and what concerns might we have and he's in that process.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: What I would like to do is to
.19 ' continue. I think what we've done in the past is to go to ,
20 the Licensing Board and the A'ppeal Board for their )
21 comments on the same plant and then we will shift to the 1 22 other plants. After the Licensing Board and Apper.1 Board 23 Chairmen have given their thoughts, then I'll ask for -
24 comments from my fellow commissioners before we proceed to 25 the next --
an entirely different plant.
, 30 1 So perhaps, Judge cotter, now you could give us 2 your views on the Shoreham situation and where it stands 3 as far as the Licensing Boards are concerned.
4 JUDGE COTTER: I concur with what has been said 5 so far. I would add to my comment that the completion of.
6 litigation on the -- on any new exercise that might take 7 place is optimistic. My object there is to sound a note 8 of caution. I don't know at this point how long it would 9 take. I don't know exactly what's going to be involved.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Coul,d take less time?
11 JUDGE COTTER: Yes, could take less time.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Could take more.
13 JUDGE COTTER: Yes, i
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. I 15 JUDGE COTTER: With respect to what is on the i
16 plate at the moment and with respect to the off-site .
17 proceeding chaired by Judge Gleason, I also understand 18 that a decision on the legal authority issues, of which l I
19 there are 8, should issue today, and the Board hopes to 20 issue today some kind of a decision on the 25 percent, on 21 how to proceed in dealing with the 25 percent power 22 request.
23 The Board has also directed the parties to give -
24 them a schedule by Friday for completing the issues, aside 25 from 25 percent power, that it has before it.
e 6 -21 l
,~.,
( 1 It's conceivable that all of those issues could 2 be resolved in.a decision issued by the end of August.- I 3 think that's all I have to add.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Judge Rosenthal, for 5 the-Appeal Board.
6 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, the Shoreham 7 Appeal Board has before it, as indicated by the Staff, 8 appeals from the two decisions of the Board chaired by 9 Jud'e g Frye concerned with the exercise.
10 Both of those d'ecisions have been appealed by the 11 Long Island Lighting Company. The first appeal should be 12 fully briefed on or about March the 6th; the second appeal 13 which is. proceeding behind the first one, because it's ,
14 from a decision that was just rendered in the beginning of 15 February, will be fully briefed absent any extensions some 16 time in' April, 17 I do not know yet whether the Appeal Board will 18 consolidate the two appeals for the purpose of oral 19 argument or will hear them r,eparately. That's the 20 decision the Board will probably make within the next tuo l 21 weeks after the briefing of the first appeal has been 22 completed. ;
23 Beyond that, the Appeal Board has before it in -
24 Shoreham a motion filed by the intervenor governments i
l 25 seeking interlocutory review of an order that the j
l
22 1 Licensing Board had ente' red in connection with the 25 2 percent power aspect of the case.
3 What the Appeal Board must decide in that 4 instance is whether the established c'riteria for taking
~
5 review of this issue on an interlocutory basis have been 6 met. I anticipate that the Appeal Board's decision in 7 that matter will be rendered by no.later than the end.of 8 the first week of March.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Okay. .
10 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: That's all that we have at the 11 moment in Shoreham.-
12 CHAIRMA!! ZECH: All right. So to summarize as 13 far as licensing boards, how many licensing boards do we 14 have now? .
15 JUDGE COTTER: Two.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We have two licensing boards and 17 they are looking --
18 JUDGE COTTER: I'm sorry. Actually, there is one <
19 active and one which has issued a decision which is now 20 under review by the Appeal Board.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And what are those licensing 22 boards looking at again? l l
23 JUDGE COTTER: The active licensing board is -
.. 24 looking at four groups of issues: One is a hospital 25 evacuation time estimate, the school bus driver
23
/~h .
,' 1 availability --
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All to do with emergency 3 planning?.
JUDGE COTTER:
4 Yes, all emergency planning.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
6 JUDGE COTTER: And the Radio Emergency Broadcast 7 System and eight legal authority issues.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And what is your schedule for 9 that Board or what is their schedules' completion?
10 JUDGE COTTER: They think they can complete those 11 issues, assuming no unanticipated developments' 'some time 12 by the of August.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: By the end of August?
14 JUDGE COTTER: End of August, beginning of 15 September.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. And the other 17 licensing boards activities?
18 JUDGE COTTER: None at the moment. It depends ~on 19 how the appeal turns out on the exercise and whether the 20 Staff plans to go forward to rewind the clock and start 21 the exercise cycling new --
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. And the Appeal Board, 23 Judge Rosenthal, could you summarize again what --
24 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: Yes, the Appeal Board has 25 before it again the two appeals with respect to the
. 24
- .~.
1 1 exercise. I would anticipate that those appeals will b e.
.2 decided by the end of June, if not earlier. '
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
4 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: Because as I said, the question 5 of the interlocutory review of this ruling in connection
'6 with the 25 percent power issue, the Appeal Board will 7 decide within the next two weeks or so whether to 8 undertake an interlocutory review or not.
9 CHAIRMAN'ZECH: Within the next.two weeks to make 10 a decision on.that?
11 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: Well, we'll decide whether the 12 issue warrants an interlocutory review.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Right.
14 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: If it decides it does not, 15 that's the end of it at this point. If it decides that it 16 does, then they'll be down for briefing and possibly oral 17 argument.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much. ;
19 MR. VARGA: I might just mention that the Staff 20 is well along on the safety review on the 25 percent 21 request.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Now before we move 23 from Shoreham then, let me ask my fellow commissioners if -
24 they have other questions they'd like to ask. Commissioner l
25 Roberts?
eo 1 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner-Bernthal?
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No, sir.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Carr?
5 COMMISSIONER CARR: No.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Rogers?
7 COMMISSIONER SOGERS: No.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Let's move alon,g then 9 to Seabrook.
10 MR. VARGA: May I have the next slide, please.
11 As indicated,' fuel load and precritical test license was
/ 12 issued on October of '86 and many of the preoperational 13 tests have .bsen completed; however, there are some tests, J ' 7 14 precritical tests, which are better performed on the 15 increase to power rather than performing the test in 16 cooling down.
17 So there are some tests awaiting the licensing 18 schedule, but the other precritical tests have been j i
19 completed.
20 Specifically discussing low power, the Licensing 21 Board, as the viewgraph says, the Licensing Board's 22 decision is required for the following issues. I might 23 point out that the environmental qualification of coaxial -
24 cable may be, as were the other two items under full 25 power, the steam generator tube and the biofiling, they l
,. 26 f ~ %.
x _' 1 may be designated by the Board as full power issues. So 2 that decision has not yet been rendered, but we have 3 included it for the moment under low-power issues.
4 The other issue is having to do with emergency 5 notification in the Massachusetts communities within the
~
6 EPZ.
7 As you recall, this is where the Massachusetts 8 communities have requested or ordered that the sirens 9 within their localities be taken out and dismantled. So 10 their Licensee is presently working on an alternate scheme
^
11 for emergency notifica' tion.
12 As regards full power, the issues there are again 13 highly emergency plan-oriented. Let me speak first to the 14 State of New' Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response 15 Plan. -
16 There have been a total of about eight weeks of 17 hearings, the last hearing --
the last week just concluded 18 I think in the first part of February. The Board has 19 closed the record on all of the issues except for the 20 sheltering issue.
21 The sheltering issue I think is scheduled for May 22 2nd. The hearing on the sheltering issue is scheduled for 23 May 2nd, 1988. -
24 Regarding the Seabrook plan for the Massachusetts 25 communities, this is the utility plan, the Licensing Board
~
I '
6' 27 1 has not yet established a hearing schedule on the Seabrook 2 plan for the Massachusetts co,mmunites, but they have 3 indicated.that or directed that contentions be filed by 4 April 1st of this year.
5 The'Seabrook plan that I just spoke to is 6 presently under review by FEMA and we are working to 7 support a May 23rd, 1988 graded exercise,-full-scale 8 exercise. -
9 There are two other issues that are indicated 10 under the full power. This is the' steam generator tube 11' integrity, and the biofouling and'sa'ety f related cooling i 12 systems.
13 The steam generator tube integrity is essentially '
l 14 a question that has been ra'ised by'the Intervenors about 15 the adequacy of our criteria for inspection to assure i ,
16 stuam generator tube integrity.
17 Biofouling essentially arose from the Asiatic 18 clam concern sometime back and biofouling --
whether 19 monitors are in place to prevent biofouling of some of 20- the --
particularly the service water systems.
21 Finally, for the full power, of course, the ACRS 22 has provided us a letter for low power operation, and we 1 l
23 still need an ACRS letter of recommendation for full !
l 24 power.
25 CHAIRMAli ZECH: Could you elaborate just a little 9
.i -
b
. l
. 28
~!
r (h '
1 bit on those Items 3 and 4, those technical issues on 2 steam generator tube integrity and the biofouling of 3 safety related cooling systems?
4 MR. VARGA: S u r e'.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Those are technical issues.
6 Could you elaborate just a little bit on-those and give us 7 your thoughts on the schedule as far as when you think 8 those might be resolved.
.9 MR. VARGA: I believe that the issues are 10 straightforward. The concern on the steam generator tube 11 integrity issue is principally the requi.rements that we l 12 have in place for periodic inspection of steam generator i
13 tubes where we have certain criteria for -- during eddy 14 current testing, in-service testing, where if a tube has 15 reached a certain wall thickness degradation, then so many 16 have to be plugged; and also looking at whether how many 17 cold legs have to be done versus how many hot legs.
18 That entire criteria -- Regulatory Guide 1.83 19 essentially.
20 MR. STELLO: Steve.
21 MR. VARGA: Yes.
22 MR. STELLO: You're getting too detailed.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It doesn't have to go into the -
1 24 detail. What I'm really concerned about is I prosume 25 your -- the Licensing Board decision is pending on this
, 29 1 and the Staff is. going before the Board to explain these 2 issues.
3 MR. VARGA: Right'.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Perhaps we can ask the Licensing-5 Board as to when they think they will be resolved, but I 6 think you've told us what we need to know.
7 Does somebody else --
go ahead.
8 MR. SCINTO: Joe Scinto, Deputy Assistant. General 9 Counsel for Hearing.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: .Please identify yourself again.
11 I'm not so sure the reporter got --
12 MR. SCINTO: Joe Scinto.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Joe Scinto.
14 MR. SCINTO: Deputy Assistant Genera'l Counsel for 15 Hearing. The two issues were raised in connection with 16 the low power operating proceeding. Motions were filed to 17 --
summary disposition motions were filed to dismiss them 18 entirely, but part of the argument also included an 19 argument that they were not really relevant for low power 20 operation. If there was any relevancy, it would be for 21 long-term plant operation.
22 The Licensing Board agreed that they were not 23 really relevant for low power operation, but they were -
24 more relevant --
if they are significant, their relevance 25 is for long-term operation.
O
. 30 1 The Board has decided that they are not relevant 2 for low-power operation and they need to be finally 3 determined in connection with the full-power operation.
4 These are the kinds of things that are very 5 susceptible to summary disposition motions.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Fine. Thank you very 7 much. Let's move along.
8 MR. VARGA: .The next veiwgraph, please. As 9 indicated, the FSAR review is complete. We do need an i 10 amendment from the Licensee of the alternate system for 11 emergency notification in the Massachusetts portion of the 12 EPZ.
13 On Item 5, we have delineated rather extensively 14 the inspection activities that have taken place. I won't 15 bother to read it, but it's a rather thorough and 16 extensive inspection including an IDI, IDI being an 17 integrated design inspection where we take a vertical cut 18 through a safety system from the criteria through the 19 implementation and actual installation.
20 A construction appraisal team inspection was also 21 performed. There were a number of special inspections 22 perf.ormed as a result of allegations that have arisen.
23 We indicated in the slide as new concerns, and ,
24 these inspections were performed in October and November '
25 while evaluations of several new concarns are in progress.
A
_, 31 t
- '% 1
, 1 They are concerns that arose as a result of looking into 2 the allegations themselves. They are not of a significant 3 safety issue, they concern cracking in the. concrete of 4 some of the fuel handling systems.
5 I've discussed already hearings --
I might 6 mention that the market. report that you all saw, the 7 market report that has been submitted, we have right now 8 under review and is in the concurrence chain.
9 I've already mentioned the sheltering issue for
~
10 the New Hampshire plan. The Licensing Board, as I've 11 indicated -- next slide, please -- has yet to establish a 12 hearing. All of the contentions are to be filed, and we 13*are working toward a graded exercise, a full-scale 14 exercise, for May 23rd, 1988.
15 There are four allegations under review. None of r 16 a specific safety significance.
17 Indicated under Section 8, is, as you recall, 18 there was a bankruptcy petition filed --
appeal was filed 19 but was dismissed because it was speculative. Well, the 20 Board now has granted the Intervenors 30 days to amend l 21 their original petition which seeks to allow financial ;
1 22 qualification considerations.
' l l
l 23 That concludes Seabrook. '
' ~
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
25 Judge Cotter, could you give us a Licensing Board status l
. 32 1 report, please.
2 JUDGE COTTER: There are two Seabrook boards and 3 let me take the on-site board first that has before it the 4 three issues that have been described.
t 5 First is the cable env'ironmental qualification.
6 The Board is in the posture of responding to the Appeal
~
7 Board in ALAP 882 and expects to have its response'to the 8 Appeal Board's directions out by early next week.
9 The second issue is the combined steam generator 10 tube integrity and the blockage of coolant flow,.and as 11 Mr. Scinto said, that is.not an issue which bears on low 12 power as the Board so held on the February 17th decision.
13 That issue, if resolved by summary disposition 14 motions would be complete in approximately three months.
15 If it has to go to hearing it would be complete and -
16 resolved in six to seven months.
17 The third issue is the most significant and i
18 that's the public notification issue. The Board is at a l
, 19 dead stop on that because the applicant has appealed the 20 Appeal Board's decision, ALAP 883 to the Commission last 21 week, February 18. So the Board must await the 1
22 Comnission's action.
23 Of course, if the commission were to uphold the -l
, i 24 applicant's appeal, then that would eliminate the l 25 Licensing Board's need to perform any further work on the i
i 33 l
\
L .
. s %
i -
1 matter. If it did not, then that would again rewind the j l
2 clock and the Licensing Board would be in a position of l 3 starting the hearing process from the beginning with the ,
4 filing ~of contentions and running through the whole 5 hearing cycle. I don't know that I can add anything more 6 to that.
7 With respect to the Off-site Board, which is ,
8 chaired by Judge Ivan Smith, they have completed with 9 respect to the New Hampshire portion of the plan, they 10 have completed everything except the beach population or- ,
11 sheltering issue, and they expect to begin hearing May 12 2nd, and the hearing should be completed in approximately 13 two weeks.
14 The issue that is going.to become the 15 determinative one in terms of time is the plan as it l 16 applies to the Massachusetts communities. Contentions on l l
17 that portion of the plan are due April 1.
18 I would estimate, looking at the entire cycle, 19 assuming that the Licensing Board doesn't get any more 20 remands, that it could complete that portion of the case 21 which would complete the Seabrook off-site issues by 22 January of next year. ,
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Judge Rosenth'al. -
24 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: The only matter that the Appeal :
2S Board has before it on status in Seabrook is the petition 1
I
)
. 34 1 of Intervenors seeking a waiverlof the rule that financial 2 qualifications are not inquired into at the operating 3 license level.
4 As the Staff briefing indicated, we have before 5 us an appeal from a Licensing Board decision to the effect 6 that the Intervenors had not made out a prima facia case 7 for the proposition that the rule does not serve its 8 purpose in this instance.
9 In the wake of the Public Service of !!ew 10 Hampshire's, bankruptcy or in the filing of a petition for il bankruptcy under Chapter 11, the Appeal Board considered 12 it necessary to provide the parties with an opportunity to 13 amend, that is the Intervenors, to amend-their petitions 14 for waiver or to file new petitions for waiver, taking 15 into account this new development which at the time of the 16 Licensing Board decision is simply specu'lative.
17 Any party taking advantage of that opportunity ,
i 18 should have its papers on file very shortly. The Appeal l 19 Board has then given a 30 day period for responses and 20 when all of those papers are all on file, the Board will 21 proceed to decide the matter. l 22 I will want to stress that the only question 23 before the Appeal Board is whether a prima facia case has -
~ 24 been made for the waiver.
l 25 If the Appeal Board decides that such a case has
\
. .I
,. 35 1 been made, then it sends the matter up to the Commission 2 which has the ultimate determination as to whether a
. 3 waiver should in fact be granted with the consequence that 4 a financial qualification inquiry would be made.
5 How long will it- take the Appeal Board to resolve 6 this matter, after all the papers are in? .I would say 7 certainly no more than 60 days.
8 I think it's going to be a fairly straightforward 9 issue considering the narrow scope of the question that is 10 before the Board.
11 I would just add one thing to what Judge Cotter 12 had to say with respect to our remand on the sirens. I 13 don't think myself that -- what will hold up Licensing 14 Board action will be the pendency of the petition for 15 Commission review of our decision because under Commission 4
16 jurisprudence, the filing of a petition for Commission 17 review does not have the effect of staying the Appeal 18 Board's decision. So the Appeal Board's decision is fully 19 operative today.
20 I think what will probably hold up the Licensing 21 Board is the fact that the Public Service of tiew Hampshire 22 obviously at this point has to como up with a substitute 23 plan for the sirens that have been erected on the poles in -
24 Massachusetts, which as of now the Staff indicated has 25 been dismantled.
5
. 36 7% ,.
- 1 Obviously until such time as that plan 2 surfaces --
and I haven't.seen it yet --
there isn't very 3 much, it seems to me, that the Licensing Board will be 4 able to do about i t .' I think the issue before the 5 Licensing Board ultimately'is going to be whether the 6 alternative arrangements, whatever they may be, that are 7 submitted by the.Public Service of New Hampshire, fulfill 8 the Commission's requirements in terms of emergency 9 notification. .
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Just sidestepping any 11 questions or arguments as to adequacy or qualitative 12 judgments, .I would like to ask a factual question. It was 13 my understanding, I'm not sure from reading th,e opinion, 14 of the Appeal Board or from a summary of that opinion that 15 there had been compensating measures offered, i.e. --
I'm 16 very vague on this --
something to do with helicopter or 17 other notification. Is that the case or not?
18 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: That as well. They have 19 indicated that that's what they have in mind. The 20 papers that were filed --
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I see. I see.
4 22 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: -- with the Appeal Board j i
23 indicated that they had in mind helicopters with sirens -
t '
24 mounted on them with backup of trucks with mounted sirens I 25 which would serve in the event that weather conditions l
l
. 37 (3
( 1 precluded the helicopters bromflying; however, as of at 2 least the last paper filed with us or that I have seen 3 filed with anybody, that arrangement or proposed 4 arrangement has not taken the form of an actual submitted 5 plan.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. Thanks. The 7 General Counsel looks like he's getting-nervous here.
8 MR. PARLER: I always look that way.
. 9 (Laughter.)
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Well, op Seabrook 11 then, any questions, my fello'w Commissioners?
12 Commissioner Roberts?
13 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Bernthal?
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: -Lot's go ahead, I had one 16 but it's disappeared for the moment. Maybe I'll think of 17 it.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Commissioner Carr?
19 COMMISSIONER CARR: No.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Rogers?
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Let's move along 23 then. .
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'm sorry. I know what I i 25 wanted to ask and it may be evident from a summary here,
w 4 38 1 but just to recap here: It is not a fair statement then 2 at this point certainly that the only thing standing in 3 the way of Seabrook and either a low power or full power 4 license is the emr.rgency planning issue?
5 I mean, I see -- well one, two, three,;at least 6 here, three items of technical issues as well. Is that a 7 fair statement? -
8 MR. STELLO: The low power license, I think~it's 9 only the low.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: One is low power, yes. I 11 said low or full power.
12 MR. STELLO: The environmental qualifications 13 issue in --
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: On low power.
15 MR. STELLO: --
the sirens --
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's correct. Okay.
17 Right. I guess that is a hardware issue in a sense as 18 well.
19 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: I think, though, it ought to be 20 emphasized, as Mr. Varga indicated, that nobody has 1
21 decided as of yet that the environmental qualification 22 issue is a low power issue.
23 The Appeal Board did not reach that question. It '
- i. .
24 told the Licensing Board to reach it if necessary. A s 'o'f I 25 this point, it has not become necessary.
3 -
39 f^x . .
( . . ,
1 COMMISSIONER.BERNTHAL: Right.
2 JUDGE ROSENTHAL:. So we don't know whether that 3 is appropriately under 2 or belongs with that list of 4 issues under 3 as full-power issues.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Fine. Before we move 6 away from these two, Mr. Stello, do you have any other 7 comments you would like to make from the Staff's 8 standpoint?
9 MR. STELLO: I think only one comment with ,
10 respect to Seabrook. I think the siren issue is not in 11 essence a Board d.ecision, it's really.a Commission '
12 decision.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Right now I guess it's 14 before the Commission. '
15 HR. STELLO: No. Originally that decision, I
. 16 think, is a decision made by the. commission.
17 MR. PARLER: Those are details that I don't think 18 would be appropriate to get into. There are so many
, l 19 papers filed in these proceedings, I just can't address 20 things like that. The purpose of this meeting is to have ,
i l
j 21 an update on the issues and the procedural' status of the '
I 22 issues, i
23 MR. STELLO: And with respect to the emergency -
24 planning issues for both of those, we have had meetings 25 with FEMA to work out schedules and resources and those i
--_ _ J
o 40 -
1 are being developed now and the attorneys will be filing 2 the appropriate papers with the Boards to detail the 3 nature and full scope of our schedule for emergency 4 planning.
5 Based on our judgment, everything 6 notwithstanding,-our schedules ~are uncertain. It is our 7 view that we would be able to, barring any unforeseen 8 issues, complete the emergency planning reviews in these 9- plants, including adjudication, as Mr. Cotter indicated, 10 for Seabrook early next year or late Spring for sure.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL': Let's see. So it's not 12 clear that environmental qualification is a low power 13 issue, as Judge Rosenthal has just pointed out, and 14 therefore the only issue at this point with respect to low i 15 power operation is the question of the sirens?
16 MR. STELLO: Correct.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's not true?
18 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: Not necessarily true. The 19 financial qualifications may or may not be --
I 20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. That's a separate j 21 one. ;
22 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: --
because they are asking for 23 as a financial qualification -- -
. \_ ,
24 MR. MIRAGLIA: The chart' reflects a current
, 25 status and where decisions are pending and what may impact
. b
W
. 41 1 those decisions.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Okay.
4 MR. SCINTO: I'm Joe Scinto again. With respect 5 to the coaxial cable.that is a low power issue before the 6 Staff. The' Staff could not issue a low power license 7 until the issue before the Board is decided. That's why 8 it is on the list _for low power licensing.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Fine. Before we move 10 off of these two facilities -- of course, it's clear to 11 everyone that this is a unique situation for the Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission due to the fact that the State of 13 New York and the State of Massachusetts have chosen to not 14 cooperate in the emergency planning issue.
15 It's a challenge for the Commission and I think 16 it's important for all of us to recognize that and to be 17 mindful of all of our responsibilities for public health 18 and safety as we talk about scheduling and all the other 19 things that are so important to this Agency, but public 20 health and safety is our primary job and I want to 21 emphasize that as we move into other plants that we'll 22 discuss today. All right. Let's move along.
23 !!R . MIRAGLIA: Mr. Chairman, the next two plants , -
(_. -
24 South Texas and Braidwood, are scheduled to come before 25 the Commission within the next few weeks for full-power
. 42 1 consideration in a detailed briefing.
2 South Texas being currently scheduled for the 3 10th of March and Braidwood being-scheduled for the 17th 4 of March.
5 Mr. Crutchfield is here and prepared to discuss 6 those. In the interest of time, we can go through those 7 hurriedly or just take Commission questions.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, I would like to discuss it l 9 briefly and just give a brief status report. I think we ,
i 10 can do that. Let's proceed. j i
11 MR. CRUTCHFIELD: Certainly. The first South 12 Texas slide, please. The low power license for South 13 Texas was issued last August. They have had some 14 difficulties during their start-up program. They've had I
15 some feedwater vibration problems, there was an event at a '
i 16 foreign reactor with instrument tube thimbles, vibration 17 problems,.and failure problems, and they've looked into 18 those.
19 Those issues technically are relatively j l
20 straightforward and resolved as far as the Staff is j l
21 concerned, and our supplemental safety evaluation will bo l 22 addressing those also.
23 As Mr. Miraglia indicated, we will be briefing -
l 24 you on the loth of March with a more detailed discussion.
25 Inspection activity is going on as should be for
]
- . 43 r
1 a plant in its status. There has been supplemental 2 activity for fuel loading. -
3 There are currently no-hearings associated with 4 South Texas.
5 May I have the next slide, please. As you 6 recall, we have been working with the Government 7 Accountability Project for over a year to try to get a ,
8 series of allegations that they have had.
9 Late last year, we finally got access to the :
10 allegations and to the allegers and we will be reporting .
~ '
11 to you in detail at the full-power briefing.
i 12 Right now from what we see, we see no basis to 13 delay that full-power meeting, however.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: You think you'll have sufficient 15 time to review those allegations? '
16 MR. CRUTCHFIELD: Yes, sir.
P 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you.
18 MR. PARLER: I believe, Mr. Chairman, there are 19 also --
there is also at least one 2.206 petition pending 20 before the Commission.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes, I think that's correct, too. ,
22 MR. CRUTCHFIELD: With that, if there are no 23 further questions on South Texas, I'll go on to Braidwood -
s 24 then. -
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let me see if there are -- I kn6w
c
. 44 s .
1 there are no hearings here, but any questions, my fellow 2 Commissioners? If not, you may proceed.
3 MR. CRUTCHFIELD: May I have the first Braidwood -
4 slide, please.
5 Braidwood'is the second unit, this is Unit 2 at 6 the Braidwood site. As you are aware, they are almost 7 identical to the Byron units of Commonwealth Edison, so i
8 I've had a lot of experience with this particular design.
9 They got their low power license in early 10 December. They have proceeded on a relatively
, i i 11 straightforward start-up program. Things are going 12 relatively smothly and their expected criticality date is 13 the 29th. As Mr. Miraglia i n d i'c a t e d , we have a full power 14 briefing set for the 17th of March.
15 FSAR review was straightforward and complete.
16 The regional inspection activity is ongoing. We just did 17 an operational readiness inspection there that was 18 successful. There is a couple of issues that are being i 19 worked between.the region staff and utility.
20 There is one ongoing hearing matter. It's a 21 harassment issue. My understanding is that it is 1
22 currently before the Appeal Board.
I 23 May I have the next slide, please. !
\~
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Are there any questions before we ;
25 move along off of Braidwood, my fellow Commissioners? All I
, 45 1 right. Proceed, please.
2 MR. CRUTCHFIELD: There are ten allegations 3 associated with the Braidwood review to date. There 4 appears to be no real safety significance that would 5 impact us coming before you.
6 So for both South Texas and the Braidwood units I 7 think the staff and the utility are just about ready to 8 go.
9 May I have the next slide, please.
10 ' CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Again, are there any 11 questions?
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let's go back to South 13 Texas, since we are all gathered together here, anyway. ,
14 Could you just give us a little flavor for let's say the 15 couple or so most serious allegations? It doesn't mean
' 16 they are show stoppers, perhaps, but what are we talking 17 about here? What are you having to put to bed at this i
18 point?
19 MR. CRUTCHFIELD: A number of the allegations 4 20 were raised, and they were appropriate, for the time that 21 the individual was working at the utility. One question
'l 22 came up about the steam generators being out of plumb.
23 Indeed they were not completely vertical, they were out by -
24 11 inches or so. -
I .
25 The utility had Westinghouse perform an analysis.
t
, 46
~ '
(M V 1 Bechtel came onto the site and they also did a reanalysis, 2 so those issues are currently being resolved.
3 There.is quite a few of them dealing with status 4 of paper at the site, whether they had appropriate records 5 and documents and things like that.
6 The most serious hardware one appears to be the 7 one associated with the plumbness of the steam generators.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: And that's under analysis 9 right now?
10 MR. CRUTCHFIELD: Yes, it is.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: And that issue was raised 12 by?
13 MR. CRUTCHFIELD: Was raised by an alleger. At 14 the time he was at the site, he raised the issue unaware 15 that the utility and Westinghouse and Bechtel were working 16 on the issue and doing the analysis on it.
17 He was an inspector, a QA individual there, and l
18 he went in and said yes, the thing is not vertical.
l 19 Colu1ISSIONER BERNTHAL: Were we already aware of 20 it at that time or --
l 21 MR. CRUTCHFIELD: My understanding is that the 22 regional folks were aware of what was going on at the 23 time, yes, sir. j 24 COMMISSIONER'BERNTHAL: Okay.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. You may proceed.
, e 47 4
+
- 1 MR. CRUTCHFIELD: That's all I have.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
3 MR. MIRAGLIA: Mr. Grimes is prepared to talk to 4 the status of Comanche Peak.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine. You may proceed, Mr.
6 Grimes, 7 MR. GRIMES: May I have the first Comanche Peak 8 slide, please.
9 The first item on Comanche Peak concerning 10 schedule, your slide reflects the utility's latest 11 official position concerning a completion of Comanche 12 Peak. It's described in terms of commercial operation.
13 It is a position that was submitted to the SCC.
14 Our current review schedule is based on 15 construction completion in the fall of this year.
16 We've also noted here that the Texas Utilities 17 Board of Directors, the parent company of TU Electric, met 18 on February 19th to review the status of the plant and 19 from that meeting. we expect to get a detailed update of 20 the rework in construction completion schedule for 21 Comanche Peak. Based on that we will revise our review 22 plans accordingly.
23 At the present time, comanche Peak has scheduled -
l 24 to begin hot functional testing in late December of '38. l l
25 With respect to the Staff's review of the FSAR, i i
48
~
1 the corrective action program that the utility has 2 implemented to correct design and construction 3 deficiencies has resulted in a substantial numbers of 4 changes to the FSAR. Those have been submitted over'the 5 last few months -- in the past few months, and we believe 6 at this point we've got the bulk of the FSAR changes and 7 they are being reviewed in parallel or in conjunction with 8 our review of the utility's corrective action program.
9 We expect, however, that we will continue to get
, 10 some relatively minor SFAR changes as they continue to 11 implement the corrective action program and complete the j 12 rework on construction activities.
13 With respect to inspections, I have noted on the 14 slide that in a Staff evaluation dated January 22nd, 1988 15 we have presented a basis for our conclusions relative to 16 the approaches of the' third party review under the 17 Comanche Peak Response Team and the scope and methodology 18 for the corrective action program.
19 Our inspection activities are now following those ,
20 actions and we have a large contingent of inspectors that ,
l l
21 work for me directly at this site and they are issuing 22 monthly inspection reports that will also contribute to 1
23 the Staff's evaluation of the corrective action, program. -
24 May I have the next slide, please. With respect i 25 to the hearings, the utility's decision to implement a
~
e 49 :
i 1 corrective action program caused Intervenor to reconsider 2 the filing of summary disposition motions.
3 As a result of that, the Atomic Safety and 4 Licensing Board held a prehearing conference on November l
5 2nd and 3rd to address the matter of scheduling the 6 hearing and they issued a memorandum and order that lays I
7 out a process for scheduling the hearings for Comanche 8 Peak. That process is dependent on project status reports 9 being issued by the utility, and the Staff issuing their l 10 evaluations of those project status reports, and also on :
f 11 the applicant's issuance of the third party review report, t i
- 12 the collective significance report by the Comanche Peak !
13 Response Team and the Staff's evaluation-of that document.
14 The utility has submitted all of their project 15 status reports. The last one was received approximately i
16 ten days ago. We are still awaiting a collective 17 significance report.
18 The first Staff evaluation will be issued either 19 late this week or early next week. My expeetation is that 20 it will probably sometime next week; and therefore, the i
21 earliest date that hearings could begin would be 120 days 1
22 from that date, presuming that the Board decides to 23, litigate issues in groups. If not, it will be 120 days -1 24 from the issuance of the last Staff evaluation.
25 Since we only just received the last project l
l .
.> 50 i
! 1 status report and have yet not received the collective 2 significance report, I can only estimate that that would 3 be sometime in early fall.
4 There is also a hearing pending concerning a 5 construction permit amendment. As noted on the slide, the 6- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admitted an' amended 7 contention from Intervenor. May I have the next s 1'i d e ,
8 please. l 9 Applicants appealed the admission of that-10 contention and the ae peal Board affirmed the Board's 11 ruling. Applicant then appealed to the Commission, the 12 Commission declined review and the admission of the 13 contention became a final agency action on October 6th, 4
14 1987 - ,
i 15 At the present time, I think we are waiting for 16 Intervenor to make a submission to.begin that review 17 process, but I'll let Judge Cotter or Judge Rotenthal 18 comment on that.
19 The last item I have concerns allegationa. Last 1
20 night, we received another allegation so the 13 on the 21 slide is now 14. I will forward the allegation that I 22 received from GAP to our allegation review committee 23 tomorrow. So we now have 14 allegations under active -
I' 24 review.
l 25 We've also noted that there are 27 allegations
' ' 51 1 pending from the NRC's-technical review team which we l
2 believe are complete, but we have to make sure that the 3 records are all complete and we've followed up with the 4 allegers before we can conclude those.
5 Are there any questions? ,
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: -All right. Are there any 7 questions before we go to the Licensing Board and Appeal 8 Board? '
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Again I would like to 10 have a litt,le bit more substantive summary of what you see ;
11 as being the principal issues at this point. I guess in 12 your case, particularly hardware issues. !
13 Could you pinpoint two or three of those for us i l 14 so we can get a better flavor for what our problems are.
15 J!R . GRIMES: It's difficult for me to do that by.
16 virtue of the contention that's pending before the Board, 17 this design and construction adequacy. ,
18 COMMISSIONER.BERNTHAL: Yes.
19 MR. GRIMES: And other than to say that we are 20 reviewing redesign, we are inspecting rework and l 21 reconstruction and repair of the plant, I don't know what 22 detail I could get into without treading in ex parte.
23 MR. PARLER: You can't get into any detail with ~
s 24 the merits of the issues. I thought all the Commissioner-25 asked you was to state what the issue is and where are the
o -
, 52 _
/x '
x 1 major issues without commenting on their pluses or 2 minuses. You can't' do that.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Right. Right.
4 MR. STELLO: Let me try to give an example 5 without getting into the design of construction supports 2
6 and pipe hangers. It entailed a major rework of pipe i
7 hangers as well as reevaluation and redesign.
8 So it became a design and construction, actual 9 hardware, and the numbers were very large. That's the 10 first CER that we intend to get out, and that would be the 11 example of the first issue that would be ripe and, ready 12 for the Hearing Board.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: And that CER is expected?
14 MR. GRIMES: Probably next week.
I 15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So, you're essentially --
3 16 your staff is essentially finished?
1 17 MR. GRIMES: We've completed the review.
18 MR. STELLO: Do you remember the nun.ber of 19 hangers that has to be modified to give a feel for the
! 20 scope of that problem?
) 21 MR. GRIMES: Not the specific number, but it was
]
22 in the thousands.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. -
24 MR. STELLO: Okay. -
l 25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Is there any other item 1
r r . 53 4
l (O .
h_ 1 in that category? You'll need to make qualitative --
l 2 MR. GRIMES: Well, the easiest way to do it would 3 be to describe the project status reports, because they.
4 group the issues.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay.
6 MR. GRIMES: The first two reports were piping
. 7 and pipe supports. There are two reports on conduit 8- supports, there is a report on cable tray hangers, there 9 is a report on equipment qualification, and then there is i
10 a report in each of the major design disciplines:
11 , Mechanical, civil structural, electrical, instrumentation 12 and control. I omitted -- there is a separate report on 13 heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: And presently the status 15 of each of those is?
16 MR. GRIMES: The utility has submitted a report ,
1 17 describing the redesign and reinspection activities that l 18 they have either completed or are planning, and the Staff 19 is reviewing the methodology associated with that because 1
20 it impacts the design as presented in the FSAR.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: .Are there any outstanding !
22 things that are --
it's hard to cut through the procedural 23 stuff here -- but are there any generic or specific -
- - 24 hardware issues that you would point to right now that are i
25 principal in your mind? l
, 54 i
1 HR. GRIMES: No. As I described the nature of 2 the review -- the principal issues evolve around the 3 design and construction.of the supports in general. All 4 of those things have been clearly designed. The issues 5 are well-known. Some of th'em have already been litigated 6 to a certain extent, anyhou, and we are in the process now j
7 of reviewing the corrective action efforts that are going 8 to rectify those problems. -
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you. Judge 11 Cotter.
12 JUDGE COTTER: I think the critical thing for the i 13 Commissioners to keep in mind is with respect to the i s
l 14 litigation on Comanche Peak, the contentions that'will be i 15 litigated will arise out of the SSERs that have yet to be 16 issued.
1 17 If I understand what the Staff has said j i
18 correctly, that means over some period of time there are j l
19 going to be four or five SSERs issued and each one of a
20 those would give rise to the opportunity to file 21 contentions.
22 I understand that the Board has the feelin'g that
- 23 there is a certain degree of good will on each side and .
24 there is some interest of resolving as many of the 25 technical issues.without trial as they can, but I don't
- 55 i s 1 know how to evaluate or quantify that.
I 2 With respect to the construction permit '
l 1
3 proceeding, I think that is sort of being held on standby 4 by all parties while they address their attention to the 5 massive report issuances from the Project Status Reports 6 and from the~SSER's own board.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. l 8 ,
JUDGE ROSENTHAL: We have nothing before us at -
i l 9 Comanche Peak.
l 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Are there any -
11 questions, my-fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Roberts? ;
l 12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No. i 13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Bernthal? .
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I guess not. I ;
15 can't say that there is a very good feeling --
I get a .
i 16 sense of perhaps too much problem worrying about-stepping i I
17 over the line of ex parte here. I wish we could get a '
l 18 little better view of the details of some of these.
19 Let me try one last' time here. With respect to 20 current allegations, could you tell us whether any of !
21 those* involved hardware specific things that you have yet [
(
22 to check out or is the answer zero? None of them do? !
23 MR. GRIMES: My recollection is that all of the
-[ ;
. 24 pending allegations deal with design deficiencies. If l
25 there are any construction related allegations, they are
7
.s )
a , 56-
'l
(N . 1 associated with matters that were previously looked at by
- 2 the Staff and the Technical Review Team inspections.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. With respect to l
- '4 the design deficiencies, are there any allegations-in that l
! 5 area that you.have to yet check out? Anything new .there- '
6 that'you have not already dealt with before? !
4
. 7 MR. GRIMES: No, sir. Not even the most recent i 1
5 t
8 allegation deals in a new area,. It's a twist on a i i 9 previous issue. ;
l 10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. So is it a fair j 11 summat:y then that you are now in the process primarily of l 12 report writing and collating data information and i l
i 13 preparing final reports? :
2 i
~
14 MR. GRIMES: That's correct. The effort that we N i 15 have before us -- I believe between now and this summer or l l
t 16 early next fall is condensing all of the material that i
! 17 that has amassed over the last --
at least since 1983. l 18 At the present time, it all seems to be funneling 19 down towards corrective action efforts and as Judge Cotter !
- 20 pointed out, the utility is working directly with i
I f
1 21 Intervenor to try and explain the resolution of issues, l'
22 There is a cooperative spirit to try and bring this !
] i 1 '
23 information together, but it is a tremendous amount of -
2 24 material --
the utility has got a tremendous amount of
, f l 25 on-going work. !
4 !
2 .
- 57 .
1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Are there any specific ,
2 allegations yet unresolved, not checked out, that involve 4
3 personnel problemsoor management? Of course I don't want ,
4 you to get into details of them, but just --
5 HR. GRIMES: There are some pending allegations
~
6 concerning intimidation and harassment, but they are in my 1
7 view spin offs from previous allegations of intimidation 1
8 and harassment that was looked at by a special panel that 9 Mr. Stello convened. I don't view those as new issues ;
10 either. l 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Carr?
13 COMMISSIONER CARR: Only on Braidwood where there 14 was an appeal that's under review. Could you tell us what -
15 the schedule looks like on that one?
16 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: The appeal?
17 COMMISSIONER CARR: Yes.
18 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: As I've indicated in my recent !
19 monthly status reports, we have assigned a relatively low I 20 priority to Braidwood in light of the fact there was no l
l 21 stay granted or indeed even sought. We had what seemed to j i
22 us to be more pressing matters in others, such as l
23 particularly Seabrook and Shoreham. ,
N 24 Hy current estimate would be that the decision of
~
. I 25 the Appeal Board will be out in April. I
[
58 >
s .
1 COMMISSIONER CARR: Okay. !
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Rogers.
3 COMMISSIONER-ROGERS: No. .
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, let me just ask the-Staff
-5 end the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board,'i.s there l l 6 anything that the Commission should be doing to assist you 1 !
. 7 in addressing these issues that we've talked about this l
8 morning? !
9 (No response.)
i.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Is there"anything that you can j i
11 think of.that we could be assisting with, to assist you in 12 any way? !
13 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: 'Well, I would think the' system ) :
14 would be served if the commission were to act with maximum l 15 amount of possible expedition in the pending appeal from (
16 our siren decision. l:
17 As I indicated, our siren decision has not been l
18 stayed, but unless the Commission were to order'it j 19 stayed -- but I think that would be probably desirable. I l
i 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That sounds like a sound I l
21 recommendation. We'll take that aboard.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: What is the status of j 23 that right now? Are we waiting for a paper or where are - l t .
I 24 we? l 1
l 25 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: No. The appeal has just been !
l l
1
( 59 e' j 1 taken and.the responses to the appeal --
I didn't mean to 2 suggest that this was susceptible to commission decision
~
3 within the next week or two.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, we haven't received it yet.
5 You're just alerting us to the fact.
6 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: Yes. 'We are just letting you 7 have the fact. Our decision did hold that low power c o sil.d 8 not commence while the siren issue was pending.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes.
l 10' JUDGE ROSENTHAL: And you may or may not agree 11 with that conclusion. It just seems to me, however, that 12 as rapid as the Commission --
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes. Well, you are alerting us 14 to the fact that that is going to come before us soon, and 15 we appreciate that.
16 MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, may I raire a comment.
17 I think the petition has been received. Normally under 18 our rules, we wait for the other affected parties in the 19 proceeding to file their position on the petition, or any 20 similar petitions; then your judicatory advisors -- and 21 I'm responsible for some of them --
put the advice p a c k a g c-22 together and send it up to you.
23 He will do that with all of the expedition that -
24 we can muster after tra p'eople have had their opportunity ,
25 to express their views.
I 4
( 60
. . ~ .
1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All richt.
2 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: I was not suggesting that that 3 be shortcut nor was I suggesting that the General Counsel 4 would-be anything le'ss than diligent in getting the matter 5 before the Commission. I was just hopeful that when it 6 does get reported to the Commission --
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you. You've 8 made your point. Thank you very much.
9 Well, let me just thank all of you for the 10 briefing this morning. I think that the NRC Staff of 11 course, the Licensing Board, the Appeal Board are all 12
~
really primary bodies that are applying the Commission 13 policies anc regulations to the individual licensing cases 14 that we've discussed here this morning.
15 It is by completely and fairly and thoroughly 16 carrying out those policies that we serve the American 17 people in carrying out the status by which we abide.
- 1. 8 It's important business of our country and I 19 thank you very much for your presentation this morning.
20 If there are no fu'rther questions, we will stand 21 adjourned. Thank you very much.
22 [Whereupon at 11:20 a.m., the hearing was 23 adjourned.) -
s 24 25
l l
r
~
1 -
2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE .
3 4
This is to certify that the attached events of a 5 meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 7 TITLE OF MEETING: Briefing on the Status of Near Term Operating Licenses (NTOLS) 8 PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: February .!4, 1988 10
- s- .-
l i
11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of.the Commission taken f 13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the I 16 foregoing events.
17 n
18 *" ~~~~
'N '* D 5' Mario RodrYgued 19 20 21 ' ,
22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 24
-1
- l 25
1 1
BRIEFING OUTLINE OVERVIEW
SUMMARY
OF PLANTS VITHIN NEXT YEAR l
)
SELECTED PLANTS FOR DISCUSSION 1
1 1
i e
, OVERVIEW 3 PLANTS WITH. LOW POWER LICENSE 4
1 PLANT WITH ZERO POWER LICENSE 14 PLANTS WITH OL APPLICATION DOCKETED (9 ACTIVE; 5 INACTIVE) 1 i
4 1
- 1. .-
PLANTS WITH LOW POWER LICENSE PLANTS DATE ISSUED FULL POWER (EST)-
, SHOREHAM 7/03/85 NOT SCHEDULED SOUTH TEXAS 1 8/21/87 3/88 BRAIDWOOD 2 12/18/87 3/88 PLANTS WITH ZERO POWER LICENSE PLANTS DATE ISSUED LOW POWER (EST)
SEABROOK 1 10/17/86 NOT SCHEDULED PLANTS EXPECTED TO BE LICENSED FOR LOW POWER WITHIN NEXT YEAR PLANTS APPL, DATE SOUTH TEXAS 2 ' 12/88 V0GTLE 2 2/89 REMAINING PLANTS ACTIVE INACTIVE COMANCHE PEAK 1 AND 2 SEABROOK 2 WATTS BAR 1 AND 2 PERRY 2 LIMERICK 2 GRAND GULF 2 BELLEFONTE 1 AND 2 WNP-1 WNP-3 O
e
.~ ._ _
SELECTED NTOL PLANTS-FOR DISCUSSION Sil0REHAM SEABROOK 1 SOUTH TEXAS 1 4
BRAIDWOOD 2 COMANCHE PEAK .
9 w
4 e
6
~
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. ~ SCHEDULE AN OPERATING LICENSE (PERMITTING FUEL LOADING AND OPERATION TO 24 KWT) WAS ISSUED ON DECEMBER 7, 1984. COLD CRITICALITY TESTING WAS COMPLETED ON FEBRUARY 17, 1985. FIVE PERCENT LICENSE WAS-ISSUED ON JULY 3, 1985. LOW POWER TESTING IS COMPLETE, 2, FULL POWER LICENSE ISSUES l
THE STAFF HAS COMPLETED REVIEW 0F ALL SAFETY ISSUES AND CONCLUDED THAT THE FACILITY CAN BE OPERATED SAFELY, THE HEARING ON ALL ISSUES EXCEPT THE EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES l l
HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE LICENSING BOARD HAS FOUND IN FAVOR OF LILCO, ALL APPEALS ON THESE ISSUES ARE COMPLETED.
THE ONLY ISSUES REMAINING ARE THOSE RELATING TO 0FFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING.
THE REVISED UTILITY PLAN IS CURRENTLY UNDER FEMA REVIEW AND THE STAFF IS WORKING WITH FEMA ON A SCHEDULE FOR A FULL SCALE EXERCISE OF THAT PLAN, THE STAFF IS DEVELOPING AND WILL PROPOSE A SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW OF THE PLAN, THE SUBSEQUENT FULL
{
SCALE EXERCISE AND LITIGATION OF ISSUES TO RESULT IN A LICENSING BOARD DECISION IN SPRING 1989, 1
3, INSPECTIONS I NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S OPERATIONS IS CONTINUING,
e
' ~
~
SHOREHAM.SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 2 (CONTINUED)
- 4. HEARINGS .
CURRENT STATUS OPEN ISSUES CONCERNING-THE ADEQUACY OF THE LILC0 EMERGENCY PLAN WillCH WERE REMANDED BY THE APPEAL BOARD OR WHICH AROSE SINCE HEARING ON THE PLAN INVOLVE: THE EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM; HOSPITAL EVACUATION AND SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS, IN ADDITION, HEARINGS ON THE EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISE FOUND FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN LILCO'S ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT ITS PLAN.
IN THIS REGARD LILC0 HAS FILED TWO APPEALS OF EXERCISE BOARD'S FINDINGS: THAT THE EXERCISE SCOPE WAS INADEQUATE; THAT THE EMERGENCY PLAN CONTAINED FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS, LICENSING BOARD ALSO CONSIDERING LILCO'S APPLICATION F,0R 25%
POWER LICENSE, .
PROPOSED STAFF APPROACH ,
1 THE STAFF IS DEVELOPING AND WILL SHORTLY PROPOSE A SCHEDULE FOR THE REVIEW 0F THE REVISED UTILITY PLAN, A FULL SCALE-EXERCISE OF THAT PLAN AND LITIGATION OF ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES TO RESULT IN A LICENSING BOARD DECISION IN SPRING 1989. l l
4 l
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT. ISSUES 3 (CONTINUED)
- 5. ALLEGATIONS THREE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW,
- 6. OTHER Otl JULY 3, 198G, THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A BILL, WHICH GOVERN 0R CU0F0 LATER SIGNED, CREATING THE LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, THE NEW AGENCY IS INSTRUCTED TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY CONCERNING A FRIENDLY TAKE0VER OF LILCO. IF LILC0 DOES NOT ACCEPT THE OFFER, THE NEW POWER AUTHORITY IS INSTRUCTED BY THE LEGISLATION TO INSTIGATE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, THE LEGISLATION PR0HIBITS THE AGENCY FROM CONSTRUCTING OR OPERATING A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN ITS SERVICE AREA, IT ALSO PR0HIBITS LILC0 FROM REC 0VERING ANY OF THE COST OF ;
SHOREHAM FROM THE RATEPAYERS IF THE PLANT IS NOT IN !
C0fiMERCI AL OPERATION BY DECEMBER 1,1988. LILC0 FILED SUIT IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT ON JANUARY 14, 1987, TO HAVE THE LIPA )
BILL DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ON AUGUST 4, 1987, THE COURT RULED THAT THE LIPA BILL DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, ON FEBRUARY 17, 1988, THE STATE OF NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT, ISSUED AN OPINION IN THE MARIO e
4
o P
~
SHORE 4AM "IGNIFICANT ISSUES 4 (CONTINUED)
CUOM0, ET AL,,.V LILCO, THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THAT Tile LOWER COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER WHETliER LILC0 LACKED LEGAL AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT ITS EMERGENCY ,
PLAN FOR SHOREHAM, IN THE APPEALS COURT'S OPINION, THE COMPLAINT WilICH REQUESTED AN ADVISORY OPINION ON,THE LEGAL AUTHORITY ISSUE.WAS OUTSIDE TflE SUBJECT MATTER ,
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT,
. THE IMPACT OF THIS DECISICN IS UNDER REVIEW BY THE STAFF, p
6 0
t f
e
-SEABROOK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. SCHEDULE A FUEL LOAD AND PRECRITICAL TEST LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 17, 1986, PRECRITICAL TESTING COMPLETION HAS-BEEN FOLLOWING LICENSING SCHEDULE,
- 2. LOW POWER -
A LICENSING BOARD DECISION IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
- 1) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF C0 AXIAL CABLE,
- 2) EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION IN THE MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EPZ, 2
- 3. FULL POWER A LICENSING BOARD DECISION IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
- 1) STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPCNSE PLAN,
- 2) SEAPR00K PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES,
- 3) STEAM GENERATOR TUBE INTEGRITY,
- 4) BIOF0VLING IN SAFETY RELATED COOLING SYSTEMS, ACRS MEETING AND LETTER OF RECOMt'ENDATION, '
o .
SEABROOK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 2 (CONTINUED)
- 4. FSAR REVIEli ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE EXCEPT FOR THE REMAINING ISSUE OF EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION OF COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE MASSACHUSETTS PORTION OF EPZ,
- 5. INSPECTIONS NORMAL INSPECTION OF PRECRITICAL TESTING AND OPERATION ACTIVITIES IS IN PROGRESS, AN IDI INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED DURING NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 1983, ALL IDI INSPECTION ITEMS HAVE BEEN CLOSED, A CAT INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED DURING APRIL AND MAY 1984. ALL CAT INSPECTION ITEMS HAVE BEEN CLOSED, OTHER SPECIAL INSPECTIONS PERFORMED WERE AS A RESULT OF FOLLOW-UPS TO ALLEGATIONS RAISED REGARDING CONSTRUCTION QUALITY AND THE AS-BUILT CONDITIONS OF THE PLANT, THESE INSPECTIONS :
WERE PERFORMED IN OCTOBER 1986, NOVEMBER 1986 AND APRIL 1987.
WHILE EVALUATION OF SEVERAL NEW CONCERNS IS IN PROGRESS, N0 VIOLATIONS WERE IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF TliESE INSPECTIONS, A MARKEY REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION ADE00ACY IS CURRENTLY UNDER I STAFF REVIEW, l l
l 6, HEARINGS THE 8TH WEEK OF HEARINGS ON THE NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN WAS COMPLETED ON FEBRUARY 10, 1988, .
THE LICENSING BOARD DIRECTED THAT THE LITIGATION RECORD ON ALL ISSUES BE CLOSED EXCEPT FOR THE SHELTERING OF THE BEACll POPULATION ISSUE, HEARING ON THE SHELTERING' ISSUE IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 2, 1988,
l o
'. SEABROOK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 3 (CONTINUED)
THE LICENSING BOARD HAS YET TO ESTABLISH THE HEARING SCHEDULE ON THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES, CONTENTIONS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED TO BE FILED ON APRIL 1,-
1988, SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES IS UNDER REVIEW AND FEMA AND NRC ARE WORKING TO SUPPORT A UTILITY PROPOSED MAY 23, 1988 GRADED EXERCISE, i
- 7. ALLEGATIONS i
FOUP ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, I
i 8, OTHER BECAUSE PSNH RECENTLY FILED FCP BANKRUPTCY, THE APPEAL l BOARD HAS GRANTED THE INTERVENORS 30 DAYS TO AMEND !
THEIR ORIGINAL PETITION WHICH SEEKS TO ALLOW FINANCIAL CUALIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO LOW POWER OPERATION,
o.
SOUTH TEXAS UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1, SCHEDULE A LOW POWER LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON AUGUST 21, 1987. THE LICENSEE IIAS BEEN UNABLE TO MEET THEIR SCHEDULE FOR ACHIEVING INITIAL CRITICALITY, WHICH IS NOW SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 24, 1988, THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER FULL POWER LICENSING AFTER SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE IS DEMONSTRATED IN POST-CRITICALITY OPERATIONS,
- 3. INSPECTIONS ROUND-TiiE-CLOCK INSPECTION COVERAGE WAS APPLIED DURING FUEL LQADING, EXTRA INSPECTION HAS BEEN EMPLOYED DURING IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE PRE-0PERATIONAL TESTING PROGRAM, TWO TEAM INSPECTIONS HAVE ASSESSED OPERATIONAL READINESS, 4, HEARINGS THERE ARE N0 HEARING-RELATED ACTIVITIES ON THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, 4
_ . ,- , --y -
SOUTH TEXAS UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 2 s (CONTINUED)
- 5. ALLEGATIONS ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT ARE BEING REVIEWED, A FINAL REPORT IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION MEETING ON FULL POWER, l
l l
e
9 BRAIDWOOD UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
- 1. SCHEDULE A LOW POWER LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON DECEMBER 18, 1987, APPLICANT'S PROJECTED CRITICALITY DATE IS FEBRUARY 29, 1988, OPERATION AT GREATER THAN 5% POWER COULD BEGIN ON ABOUT MARCH 21,
- 2. FSAR REVIEW UNIT 1 REVIEW APPLICABLE TO UNIT. ALSO BRAIDWOOD DUPLICATES BYRON,
- 3. INSPECTIONS REGIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM IS PROGRESSING CONSISTENT WITH I
PLANT ACTIVITIES.
- 4. HEARINGS THE ASLB ISSUED ITS INITIAL DECISION ON EMERGENCY PLANNING ON MAY 13, 1987 AND ON HARASSMENT ON MAY 19, 1987. AN APPEAL ON HARASSMENT ISSUE WAS FILED JULY 1, 1987. HEARING WAS HELD ON OCTOBER 21, 1987. APPEAL STILL UNDER REVIEW, ;
4 I e
,... ,. . . . - . . . . -- __ . . .. .. ~ . . . . . . . .
BRAIDWOOD UNIT-2 2
' SIGNIFICANT--ISSUES ' (CONTINUED).
'l C
.5.- ALLEGATIONS-TEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, r
i .
I a
A
' l l
l l 1
i e
use 4
0 i
,I '
i ,
4
_.--,....-..-....-._,.,-~~-_.._-___-,..,_,-_,-m.,-,
,,..,-.-,-,__.-_r-_.....,-._,..m.--,-..,_,. . . . . . ~ - - - - ,
COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1, SCHEDULE APPLICANTS' CURRENT PROJECTED DATE FOR. COMMERCIAL OPERATION IS SOME TIME AFTER THE PEAK SUMMER LOAD OF 1989. THIS ,
ESTIMATE IS BASED ON.THE APPLICANTS' PROJECTION OF THE HEARING SCHEDULE AND CONSIDERATION OF-THE SCHEDULE'FOR COMPLETION OF REPORTS ON WHICH THE HEARINGS WILL BE BASED. THE SCHEDULE, 1 INCLUDING INTERMEDIATE MILESTONES-PRIOR TO COMMERCIAL OPERA-TIONS, IS UNDER REVIEW BY THE UTILITY AND WAS DISCUSSED AT TU ELECTRIC'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON FEBRUARY-19, 1988, :
2, FSAR REVIEW ;
l THE APPLICANTS' CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CAP) HAS RESULTED 1 IN A NUMBER OF FSAR AMENDMENTS REQUIRING STAFF REVIEW AND l PREPARATION OF SSER'S, THIS IS EXPECTED TO CONTINUE UNTIL COMPLET!0N OF THE CAP, ,
- 3. INSPECTIONS l
DEFICIENCIES DISCOVERED THROUGH THE UTILITIES' ACTIVITIES i ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM (CPRT) l PROGRAM PLAN LEAD TO THE COMPREHENSIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM (CAP) AT THE PLANT THAT INCLUDES REANALYSIS, REVISION, !
OR UPDATING 0F EXISTING DESIGN CALCULATIONS, PHYSICAL RE-INSPECTION-0F AS-BUILT HARDWARE, AND ACTUAL PHYSICAL HARD-WARE CHANGES AND RECONSTRUCTION. ON JANUARY 22, 1988, OSP -
ISSUED CORRESPONDENCE APPROVING THE CPRT AND CAP PLANS. OSP IS CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS AND. AUDITS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE PLANS,
COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 1 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONTINUED)
- 4. HEARINGS OL BECAUSE OF QUESTIONS RAISED BY INTERVENORS REGARDING THE EXPANDED SCOPE IN THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM AND RELATED ACTIVITIES, THE INTERVENORS AND THE APPLICANTS AGREED TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY FILING
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION MOTIONS ON THE CONCEPTUAL ADEQUACY OF THE CPRT PROGRAM PLAN, MATTERS BEFORE THE BOARD HAVE EXPANDED AND THE BOARD NOW QUESTIONS THE APPLICANTS' QA/QC PROGRAM'S ABILITY TO IDENTIFY', CORRECT,
~
AND PREVENT RECURRING DEFICIENCIES IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLANT, APPLICANTS' CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAMS ARE NOW THE FOCUS OF THE HEARING, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASLB CONDUCTED A PREHEARING CONFERENCE ON NOVEMBER 2-3, 1987 TO DISCUSS MATTERS THAT REMAIN TO DE LITIGATED AND A SCHEDULE FOR RESTART OF HEARINGS. THE BOARD ISSUED AN ORDER ON NOVEMBER 18, 1987 ESTABLISHING A LITIGATION SCHEDULE ORGANIZED AROUND THE APPLICANTS' PROJECT STATUS REPORTS (PSR'S), THEIR COLLECTIVE EVALUATION AND THEIR COLLECTIVE SIGNIFICANCE REPORT. THE EARLIEST DATE FOR START OF HEARINGS WOULD BE 120 DAYS AFTER THE STAFF ~ ISSUES ITS FIRST EVALUATICN ON ANY OF THESE REPORTS. THE FIRST EVALU-ATION, ON THE LARGE AND SMALL BORE PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS PSR'S, IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED IN MARCH 1988.
CE ON OCTOBER 30, 1986, THE ASLB ISSUED AN ORDER ADMITTING ONE AMENDED CONTENTION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR HEARING BY THE
~~~1[{
b COMANCHE PEAK. UNIT 1 3 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONTINUED)
CITIZEN'S ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY ON THE UNIT 1 CON-STRUCTION' PERMIT EXTENSION, ON JUNE 30, 1987, THE ASLAB AFFIRMED THE ASLB'S ORDER, ON JULY 17, 1987, THE APPLICANTS PETITIONED THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEW 0F THE ASLAB DECISION, THE COMMISSION DECLINED AND THE DECISION BECAME FINAL AGENCY ACTION ON OCTOBER 6, 1987.
- 5. ALLEGATIONS THIRTEEN ALLEGATIONS REMAIN UNDER REVIEW, TWENTY-SEVEN ALLEGATION FILES ASSOCIATED WITH NRC'S SPECIAL TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM (TRT) ACTIVITIES IN 1984-1985 ARE BEING PEVIEWED BY OSP TO ENSURE NRC INVESTIGATION / FOLLOWUP HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
a w
N N O M U N E U % % % % % % % % %'WQ(% % % % % % % % % % ty(y W;yg(f f f f ftgy g g g (g gr g g i
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips )
TPAHSMITTAL T0: ' )
11 ADVANCED COPY T0: The Public Document Rocm i,
b DATE: JM 6 /8
- j FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch
['
Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting '
i document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and i placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or hl
- required.
Meeting
Title:
/ dd .e Am MA Mih> /v )W W na.s 0M
(/
E Meeting Date: 2/a V-/# f Open X Closed E
Item Description *: Copies ,
Advanced DCS G s to POR Copy '3 6E l
fg 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 1 h W
(AlAN"9WL&] V
- 2. --
G iii 3
I $l 6
4.
k l a
3 a l
$ s. -
6.
g
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper. '
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachtrents, withcut SECY ::
papers.
muinamenwaymvavanmmwaymenyhed i