ML20197C242
| ML20197C242 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/29/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8611060016 | |
| Download: ML20197C242 (74) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
Briefing on Near Term Operating Licenses (NTOLs)
(, Portion OPEN)
PUBLIC 11EETING Docket No.
Location:
Washington, D.C.
1 - 40 Date:
Pages:
Wednesday, October 29, 1986 1
8611060016 861029 PDR 100FR PT9.7 PDR i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters 1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 i
n n-
s 1
D I SCLA I MER 2
3
'4 5
6 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 8
in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, Wed., Oct.29, 1986 9
'i4. tJ., (Jash i ng t on,
D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccurscles.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorize.
22
^
23 24 25
s 1
UNITED STATES OF f.MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRIEFIN3 DN NEAR TEFM OPERATING LICENSES PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130 1717 "H"
- Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, October 29, 1986 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 o' clock p.m.,
LANDO W.
ZECH, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
CONI 11SSIONERS PRESENT:
LANDO W.
ZECH, Chairman of the Commission fHCMAS M.
ROBERTS, Member of the Commission JAMES K.
ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission FREDERICK M.
BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission KENNETH M.
CARR, Member of the Commission
s i
n STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TAELE:
S.
Chilk W.
Parler V.
Stello H.
Denton R.
Bernero T.
Novak S.
B1atk AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
B.
Cotter A.
Rosenthal E.
Jordon i
s i
~,
~
FROCEED I MG5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and i
gentlemen.
The purpose of today's meeting is to hear from the
,7
/
staff regarding our periodic briefing on the status of near:
term operating licenses.
The meeting provides the staff and the Commission the opportunity.to exchange views and to be i
updated on these plants.
There will be no vote associated with today's meeting.
At the end of the meeting which I would anticipate will take about an hour, we will adjcurn the open meeting and go into closed session to hear from the Office of Inspector and Auditor on matters that might involve these plants.
In addition to the speakers at the table today, I appreciate Judge Cotter and Judge Rosenthal's appearance in aeing with us.
What I would like to do is to ask Judge Cctter and Judge Posenthal as each plant is called upon, at the end of the discussion period or during the discussion period, if you have something you wish to contribute, if you would stand up and I will recognize you.
If you don't stand up, I will assume that you don't have anything to contribute.
I understand that copies are available in the back of the room of the slides and I presume that those of you who are interested have those available.
Are there any opening remarks by any of my fellow Commissioners?
CNo response.]
l l
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Ali right.
Mr. Stello, would you proceed.
MR. STELLO:
fhank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will have Mr. Denton give you some brief statistics and an overview of where we ere in the process.and that will be followed by briefings from Mr. Novak and Mr. Bernero on the plants under their cognizance.
At the end, there is one recent development on a plant that I want to spend some time on.
We met yesterday just about all day with representatives from Governor Celeste's staff.
I think it would be appropriate to at least brief the Commission and tell you what we did and what we discussed and what the issues are.
We will do that --
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
On the Perry plant?
MR. STELLO:
Yes, sir.
'l CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Fine.
MR. STELLO:
We will cover that later.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
MR. STELLO:
Then I will just ask Mr. Denton to start and we will just go right through the rest of the briefing.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you very much.
CSLIDE.]
MR. DENTON:
I would like to make a few observations, first, Mr. Chairman, about the overall trends i
t 5
in licensing and then we will go into some specifics.
First'off, increasing state involvement is evident.
States have always been involved in our process to some extent as long as I can remember but at the moment, it seems that is cuite a bit more interest than ever.
We have at least three states who are very active in the emergency planning arena.
One state, Illinois, has a Whole department of nuclear power plant safety and seems to be moving from a monitoring to a regulatory type role.
I think in two states, the state hau accompanied the staff on inspections.
So I think this t; scmething to keep in mind about the trends.
Another point I wanted to make is that plants are more complete than ever.
You will recall right after TMI, we used to bring downl plants and we would have to talk about fire protection and how many items were outstanding and EQ was outstanding and generic.i'ssues.
Most of that ib a thing of the past now.
These plants are complete in-those regards and we just don't have l
those kinds of overhanging issues any more.
ii The utilities are not as green as they once were.
t At one time, we had utilities coming in who had never operated plants and they had trouble staffing up to six shifts and that sort of thing.
l i
r
b I think you will find frcm here on cut that that is Just not the case.
Most of the plants that remain on our book are plants being built by experienced utilities.
Even a few that are not experienced have simulators and will have no difficulty having large numbers or fully qualified people.
So with those sorts of observations, let me go to page two just as a big overview.
ESLIDE.]
MR. DENTON:
There are 104 plants presently licensed at fuel load or higher power and that leaves 21 still under review.
Sixteen of these 21 are under what I would call active review and five of them have constructicn halted.
COMMISSIGNER ROBERTS:
Would you identify those Five?
MR. DENTON:
Yes, sir.
Susan, do you want to identify those?
MS. BLACK:
There are two GE plants, Grand Gulf-2.
and Perry-2, one Combustion Engineering, WNP-3, one B&.W, WNP-1 and one Westinghouse, Seabrook-2.
MR. DENTON:
As you see, the bulk of the plants that i
remain to be completed are Westinghouse plants.
I recently just issued a low power license for Shearon Harris so this one moves up on page three from being a plant expected to be issued a low power license to one that has been.
4 1
7 Commissioner Bernthal. You often ask, "Is this going to be a banner year compared to other years?"
We have gone back and looked at it since TMI and in 1984, we issued nine licenses, in 1985, seven and we are proj ecting issuing ten this year if the remaining three plants are completed as expected.
So in that sense, it would be the most we have issued since TMI.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Is that a calendar year?
MR. DENTON:
YEs, sir.
[ SLIDE.3 MR. DENTON:
On page four are the five plants that we wanted to focus on.
These are plants with either low power or zero power licenses and I wanted to have Tom Novak begin and talk about the plants in his division and then have Bob Bernero talk about his and we will come to Perry last.
We also have back-up material on several plants, Nine Mile, Harris, Byron, Vogtle and Comanche Peak but absent any special questicns in those areas, I would propose we would spend the time on the five that are here.
With that. Tom, why don't you begin and just briefly summarine the status and any issues you want to bring up on Braidwood or Seabrook.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Just before we do that, Harold, maybe I would like to ask you one question about the increasing state interest and involvement.
J
o 8
Do you get a sense for why the states are interested in being much more involved i n the process and also whether we are satisfying the expectations of the states in terms of our-willingness to work with them and satisfy their questions and concc ns and do you see a trend in this state involvement in terms of how effectively we are dealing with the states?
MR. DENTON:
I think this issue of federalism has been around for as long as I remember.
I remember Minnesota at one time was quito interested in setting limits for routine l
operation.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
MR. DENTON:
Going back to the early days of the creation of this Agency, I think Congress debated the role of the states versus the role of the federal government and settled it to their satisfaction.
It seems to re-surface every now and then.
The State of Illinois was certainly enterested before Chernobyl.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
MR. DENTON:
The State of New York certainly began to be.
Certainly, Chernobyl has had an impact, I_think, with d
regard to emergency plann ng and I notice the most active areas of state participo ion is in the emergency planning area.
I don't know whether we are satisfying them or not.
i s
e m--r yw e
wpmyr
=
4 9
I would imagine not since we have quite a number of pleadings 4
that are before the Commission from the states.
One area I would call your attention to is the so-called Appendix E requirement that an emergency drill be conducted one year prior to licensing.
I think there are now three utilities that have requests'pending for exemption in that area and at least one state, the State of North Carolina, objects to the granting of that exemption.
I think we have granted 12 or so in the past and I think there is a proposed rule that is right now before the Commission that deals with that issue.
It seems to me that that is an issue that comes up a lot.
j I don't think I can answer the larger question you have posed.
Maybe Vic has a view or someone else here.
11R. STELLO:
I think it is answereo very simply.
The increase in emergency planning that evolved with Appendix E,
FEMA and interactions just clearly generated a great deal of involvement by the states and they had to put in organizations and structures within the state governments that did not exist before.
Some of these are relatively small and others have gotten very large.
The State of Illinois, I think, they have more people in their department than we have in the regional office.
I think it began with that and each state has responded somewhat differently.
D 10 I don't see anything other than the issue of emergency preparedness that seems to have driven it that way.
CCMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Thank you.
MR. DENTON:
Tom, do you want to begin.
MR. NOVAK:
May I have the Graidwood slide, please?
[ SLIDE.]
MR. NOVAK:
As this slide indicates, we did issue a fuel load license only to the Braidwood facility on October 17, 1986.
On Saturday of last week, they began to fuel load and they are about 20 percent through loading of the core.
Of interest, they do currently have 44 licensed operators.
They have an additional 25 scheduled to take their exams in December of this year so approximately 70 licensed personnel will be available for the operation of the Braidwood station.
In fact, since it is a two unit plant that is probably one of the reasons for that number but that is a eubstanti al number of licensed operators.
Of interest, the plant, when we did issue its fuel load license only, what we did was require that the reactor vessel be filled with barated water.
It required that there be a 2,000 ppm concentration of baron.
All valves which could dilute that concentration are locked and they are monitored end in that way there is no possibility of a criticality.
That same environment also applies tc th; C;;' crc;L
11 station which was also granted a fuel load license.
l Of interest on the Braidwood station is at the hearing process.
As I have noted on the slide, the Board i
expects to issue their initial decision by late December.
Of 1
interest here, Commenwealth Edison for the Braidwood station has set out a very deliberate fuel loading scheme.
They have actually extended the nominal fuel loading scheme by about a month and a half.
If everything goes according to their schedule, they would be ready for initial criticality about the first of February.
So in terms of their planning, they expect a decision from the Board more or less on that date and there may be some interactions between the Byron station because unit two is also about a week away or so from a readiness for 4
a lower power license.
We have had that discussion with the Braidwood people.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Tom, are they doing that because of the on-going hearing process simply because they have the time?
MR. NOVAK:
Yes, sir.
When we visited the station, they clearly made the point that they wanted to have sort of an ever free start-up.
They have the time and they think that if they take that attitude towards it, they can come up with a very clean loading and they are intending to pr' ogress that
s 12 wav.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good.
MR. NOVAK:
That was all I intended to say on Braidwood, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIFMAN ZECH:
Judge Cotter, please.
MR. COTTER:
Just one minor correction and that is that the initial deci si on at this point is not expected in i
late December but rather in late January.
i j
Under the present schedule with the estimate of additional hearing days, they would expect to finish the hearing sometime between November 14 and November 20 and tnen there is a period of time required for the filing of findings which would not be complete until towards the end of December.
So the Board would expect to then gets its decision out as quickly as i t can.
One of the things that we have done to try to expedite that is we have captured the entire transcript which is probably going to run about 12,000 to 14,000 pages on a computer so that it can be full text searched by the Board in writing their decision which substantially reduces the decision writing time.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
I know you have had a large task on that, Judge Cotter, I know you are proceeding and needless to say, I presume you are going to do the best you can to properly and carefully review it but to get your
13 decisicn when you can, too.
MR. COTTER:
Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
Any other comments?
4 ENo response.]
MR. NOVAK:
May I have the Seabrook slide, please?
CSLIDE.]
MR. NOVAK:
As the slide indicates, we did also issue a fuel load license only to Seabrook on the 17th.
They have completed fuel loading today so they have loaded the complete core and they are going to begin their precritical start-up testing.
It is expected that that testing will run through j
the middla of December.
Typical things they will be doing is i
to tension the reactor vessel.
They will do rod drop times.
They will heat up the secondary side and more or less do a hat functional on the secondary side.
That testing nominally will run through the middle of December.
With regard to the hearings on Seabrook, those dealings with safety matters were closed on October 3.
Our expectation of when a Board decision might be expected is in the middle of January so that would suggest there is about a one month period from the time of completing the precritical testing to when a decision might be expected on safety matters.
1
4 14 Also on this slide, of course, is the discussion regarding emergency planning.
There is really nothing very new with regard to the material within the hearing boards.
We have noted, however, the position of the governor of the State of Massachusott s when he issued his announcement on 1
September 20th wherein he does not intend to submit any plans for the State of Massachusetts.
1 Those were the key items I thought I would bring up on the Seabrook station at this time.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Yes, Judge Rosenthal.
MR. ROSENTHAL:
The Appeal Board has pending bef, ore it the appeal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the licensing board's authorization of the fuel loading and precriticality testing license.
As indicated on the slide, a motion for a stay.
pending the outcome of that appeal was denied by the appeal board.
The board, however, has expedited the appeal and it will be heard orally this Friday morning and it will be disposed of as quickly as possible thereafter.
So that issue remains open even though as 1 say a stay was denied and as a consequence of that as you heard fuel loading has proceeded and precriticality testing is about to start.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you.
Any 1
Commissioner comments?
4 15 CNo response.]
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Proceed. please.
MR. DENTON:
Bob.
MR. BERNERO:
If you go to the plants in question, I
as we sa.d earlier, we would like to take them slightly after order, taking Shoreham first, then Clinton and then Perry.
May I have the slide on Shoreham, please?
i
[ SLIDE.]
MR. BERNERO:
The Shoreham slide or set that you j
have includes some e::tonsive descriptions of the current status of that ratner complicated hearing process.
There a
- i is one point that I think warrants singling out for attention.
The information is contained in the second page there about the radio station WALK ano the Nassau County Red 1
Cross withdrawing their commitments to participate.
Even as the hearing process proceeds, there seems to be a regular process of dismantling commitments for the emergency plan. emergency preparations and Long Island Lighting Company undertaking replacements thereof. different ways to communicate by radio, different emergency centers.
1 If you can't use th't field hous'e, they have just recently a
i i
per aosed using three different Long Island Lighting Company l
f ;ilities.
The Commission should be aware that that is going 1
on.
The thing is rather fluid while the hearing process l
4 I
4
16 continues, i
CCMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
You would expect to see more of those?
MR. BERNERO:
I would think so.
We have been tracking things like there is a good deal of correspondence on a re-dredging permit.
They have an intake channel that requires periodic dredging and the state authorities associated with dredging have raised new requirements, environmental impact statements, maj or documentation to warrant re-dredging.
It is something of a guerilla war going on there and so the Commission should be sensitive to that.
As you know, we discussed last time that there was the Long Island Power Authority was founded or chartered by the state legislature.
There is no further development in that regard that we can report.
We do have that fact spelled out for your convenience.
Now I would like to Clinton, please, unless there is something the Boards would like to add.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I see no indication of that.
Please proceed.
Any other comments from Commissioners?
ENo response.]
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
MR. BERNERO:
May I have the slide on Clinton?
ESLIDE.1 i
. _ _ _. ~..
17 MR. GERNERO:
The Clinten plant is under low power license now and I can add that they have just completed loading all the fuel elements.
They have had a fair share of difficulties in their first weeks here of doing the low power license activi ties which are principally loading the fuel and that included a couple of mishandled fuel assemblies, that is quality control errors in which fuel assembly goes in which l
hole.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
How does that square with Harcld's earlier cominen ts about how inuch better prepared these liceneees are than what we have seen in the past?
It struck me that those were not very impressive performances?
MR. DENTON:
Let me try.
I reali:e that any time I generalice, there is an enception.
I was trying to give a trend in performance and not say that everybody met all those trends.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right.
MR. EERNERO:
Let me put it this way.
The region and we here at headquarters are watching very intently.
Clinton is a new utility, that is, this is their first and only nuclear plant.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
MR. BERNERO:
It is a large BWR and I might add, one of the mechanical difficulties they had was the fuel transfer tube and that mechanism got them a little bit out of balance
?
1 18 or out of phase in where the fuel was at the time they got the l
license.
They had double transfers but we have been watching them closely anc the region in particular has been on their backs about making sure that operator qual i ty, surveillance, finding out what they are doing is kept in good order.
I would like to see better performance out of them f
than we have seen.
They are getting a lot of close attention.
Now they as well as all of the other late model boiling water reactor owners have been encouraged to form a special owners group because we are seeing the same errcrs or the same start-up problems at River Bend and at Perry and at Clinton and things that we saw at LaSalle or other places.
i The River Bend management actually acted as the sponsor, INPO is being it, they have formed a sort of ad hoc owners group for lessons learned in early life of late model boiling water reactors.
They are having a session during the l
first week in December in Chicago and Jim Keppler and I will I
speak to them.
But basically we are trying to encourage them at j
plant management level to learn from each other better than they have in the past because we can almost give them blank j
LER's with the details filled in because they are going to do 1
it from one station to the next.'
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
4 MR. STELLO:
While we are on that point if I may 4
~.
19 intarrupt, I signed off a letter and I have notified the Commission asking NUMARC to look into this question.
We-are concerned that the number of plants that start up, their j
start-ups are difficult, their performance is not good and i
there is a need for the industry to look at that experience and find out what it is that is causing the problem, what can I
a j
they do to preclude it from happening in future plants and 1
what can they do indeed to improve the start-up at those i
I,.
plants that are now in that first year of operation.
I haven't heard back from them.
I believe they are meeting i n today.
They are going to be looking at my request in responding, I guess, in the next couple of days.
I think their meeting is today.
That is a particularly troubling i
area.
1 think the industry can and should do better and they i
need to find a way to do that.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
[ agree.
I think that is a very worthwhile initiative and I too noted in your daily staff note of 24 October that did refer to the Clinton power station's fuel loading procedural errors and I think that lessons j
learned are very important.
i That does not mean that we shouldn't expect some problems with the new plants starting up.
On the other hand, we should be getting better all the time and we should learn l
from past experience and I appreciate the fact that you will be spending a good extra perhaps monitoring time with Clinton I
s 1
+- -
-e--,-~
,,w--
r a~*~t------v-
-~w'="----
-v---*-=v=
'---*r-
-t-
m
+
i-t 20 but we should learn frem lessons of the past and not repeat them.
So I think it is a good thing for NUMARC to take on and take on with some degree of vigor.
Perhaps they could put out some kind of a collection of lessons learned item, such a format, the varicus stages of operation that might be useful, f
I don't know, but I do think asking them to take that on is important.
By the same token though, I think the staff should also be mindful of these things and pointing out areas that j
perhaps we can encourage new f acilities, new utilities to learn from the lessons of the past.
I So I would like us to take a look at it as well as the utilities to see what we can do.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I agree with that, Lando.
I think that would be very useful.
In fact, it might be a good idea to try and take say a six month back or a year back look, plants that have gone into operation over the'past year 1
j or year and half, why have some done quite well including some one plant first time utilities and why have others not done well.
I Clinton, I guess, bothered me a bit because some of i
those errors seemed to be pretty basic.
I mean, not getting i
J the fuel in the right spot struck me as not a terribly i
sophisticated thing and if they can't do that right, it raises l
3
21 real questions about how they are going to do over the next few weeks.
1 But putting that aside, it would be good to try and learn when you look back why it is that some have done well and why others haven't because we have been fooled on a number when we look al the front end and say, "Well, this is an outfit we think is going to do an excellent job" and then they don't for some reason.
t1R. DENTON:
We have recently taken a look back.
I think the AEOD recently published a report that looked back and that area is receiving a lot of attention.
It is i
difficult to pinpoint the cause but some utilities go into
{
initial operation and succeed and others seem to have difficulty.
J COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
i MR. DENTON:
We have that area under consideration although it is hard to pinpoint exactly what the difficulty j
is.
Before we go to Perry, Vic, since you were there i
yesterday for part of that meeting, do,ou want to bring up their concerns first and then we will move into the details of Perry?
1 MR. STELLO:
All right.
I guess we want to talk
)
about the meeting yesterday first.
j COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
One last question on j
t
J 22 d
}
Clinton if I could, what kind af added inspection coverage is Region III going to apply to Clinton?
MR. EERNERO:
Let me just add, starting with River Bend, we began to work with the regions affected and with our own IE colleagues here to provide a more closely coupled surveillance of what the mistakes are and what problems they are having.
We formed little overview groups or oversight groups to take performance parameters and analyze them promptly and get a real time impressicn.
l We have such oversight groups drawn up for each of the late model boiling water reactors and the priority we are following was River Bend was first, Perry second, Clinton third.
l The region is trying to get additional people in i
there and we are in particular using our Human Factors division as well as our own people to provide additional j
j oversight on the operator training and procedural controls.
1 That appears to be a significant thing with Clinton richt new.
So we are trying to tailor this additional oversight ~not only to be prompt but to be specific to what the perceived weaknesses are in the individual plant.
I Now they, Clinton, the Illinois Power Company is in l
strong support of this activity on their part where plant i
management level lessons learned cooperation is being sought l
I i
1 l
t 23 i
i from their side of the fence as well.
d COMMIESIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right.
Good.
l CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Proceed.
MR. STELLO:
I went over to meet with the task group that Governor Celeste had asked to look into the question of emergency planning.
I went to hear what their views were and how helpful we have been and I will let others describe what went on during the meeting.
When I got there, however, I got a request from the Chairman of the group who indicated that he was speaking for the Governor who wanted to make it known that the Governor would prefer that the Commission not have a vote on Perry at this time.
I explained to the task force that the Commission's sote on Perry did not, in fact, authorize the plant to go up in power, that that would not occur until after Mr. Denton and Mr. Keppler who was at the meeting also was satisfied that 4
everything would be done that needed to be done.
Based on our understanding right now i t appears that the plant would probably not be ready until some time toward 1
j the end of November, middle to end o-f November, as best as I understand it and that the expectation of power ascension is l
i such that they probably would not exceed significant power levels for another month or so, i
I suggested that that might indeed be consistent 4
t 4
e~,g----enn-r e
n aae e
-w---sm-,--,v.
m,
-n,.--
-e,
,-w-m,
-ew-.
---m, w
c-g,---
-v,
24 with the schedule that the task force is now following to complete their work and if they indeed found that there were particular issues that we needed to discuss before either licensing the plant if their schedule, in fact, indicated they might be ready or certainly before the plant went up in power level that we would be more than delighted to sit down with them and find cut what it is that they wanted to talk about or whatever deficiencies or problems they saw and what would be required to solve them.
I don't know whether that is agreeable to the Governer or not but it would seem at least that it went to the very issue of the plant not, in fact, operating first before the committee was essentially finished which will be about another six or seven weeks.
The report, as I understand it, they probably won't have done until the end of December and based on the current schedule, the plant would not be at an appreciable power level until that time.
Whether this is satisfactory or not to the Governor, I don't know.
I did indicate, however, that I would carry the mail and bring that message to the Commission that that was their desire but it doesn't appear from what the schedule looks like now for them doing their work that it would be necessary for us to do anything at the moment because it appears that the movement of the plant beyond five percent
i 25 probably won't occur until very near the time they are finished and if they have something, we would certainly want to know that before we license the plant.
But in all cases, it won't be at any significant power level until some time clearly when they would have had enough time as we understand it to finish.
So I wanted to make sure that I delivered that message and we are prepared to sit down with them if they choose.
i COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Why is it, Vic, that they won't be exceeding five percent for some time?
MR. STELLO:
Because they aren't ready.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Why aren't they ready?
MR. BERNERO:
I can explain with the charts.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right.
1 MR. STELLO:
He is going to enplain what remains to be done.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Great.
MR. STELLO:
We are not going to issue the license until they are ready and as best as we can understand it, that 4
is mid to the end of November.
1 MR. BERNERO:
We have some additional charts that are more up to date than the ones sent down in the ordinary time' scale.
They are headed, the small set, " Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Plant Status" is the first one and.you should have a set in front of you there.
]
I 26 i
CSLICE.]
3 I
r MR. BERNERO:
Let me just review.
These are the upecifics.
This is as up-to-date as you can make it.
The l ow power testing was completed just last week on the 22nd and they went into this outage that is expected to extend into November.
If you will notice the second bullet there, the ex,act schedule of the outage runs until November 15th which is the end of the second full week of November.
t That is the scheduled activities they have.
Now 1
that outage i nc l uderi maintenance, surveillance, some final l
equipment checks and I find it very heartening that it L
includes things that you see on that page down at the lower i
end, system modifications.
1 This licensee has had his dif ficulties and he has s
j learned that certain systems could be improved this way or l
that way and they are incorporating those improvements now.
1 They are taking the time to put them in.
That is one of the i
reasons why they have this length of time between completing the lower power testing and readiness for the full power i
license.
So their scheduled activity takes them to November l
1"th.
If one uses a bit of skepticism about success paths on i
that schedule, I would not be at'all surprised if it takes them longer than that.
Based on past experience I would say 1
late November is the likely readiness.
i
1 27 So there is softness in there.
They have an ambitious schedule of activity.
It is stuff that we are qui te pleased to see them do and therefore, they wouldn't even have j
the work done until late in November and it is only then that we can conclude, yes, you are ready and assuming the I
Commi ssi on has so authorized grant the license.
CSLIDE.]
i MR. BERNERO:
Now if you will turn to the second
{
sheet en that set, that is slide B-2, the operating
)
performance, keep in mind that it is very difficult to judge operating performance in the very short period of activity between the low power license and completion of five percent 1
q power testing because if a licensee really does a bad job, you can see the negative.
But it is very hard to see enough to
- say,
",M y goodness, that is SALP I."
It is just too short an operating base.
]
The word we choose here is we say that their performance has been adequate.
We have kept in very close
)
touch with the region on this.
The utility, this again is a l
first time utility, big plant, First plant and they.have made j
their plants.
1 j
They have made about as many mistakes, the back sheet there if you wish to look at them, is a listing, the I
numbers and the time.
You can see how many mistakes they have made and reportable equipment problems, procedure deficiencies
i i
28 and personnel errors.
It is not as low a number as you would like to see, i
but at the same time we have seen experience like this before with people who did get the bugs out and operate properly.
4 So we are able to say that this performance has
}
}
been adequate but certainly not something that we would speak in glowing terms about.
4 l
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Any specific root causes 1
for some of those particularly like the personnel errors?
MR. BERNERO:
No3 nothing that we can point to or that the licensee has discovered but there is one thing that i
the senior resident inspector, the management in Region III
{
and our people have all said to me personally is, "It is heartening that the licensee has improved, has shown real 4
improvement in the investigation of things in seeking root causes, in developing better or deeper analysis and in acting on it."
l So we haven't identified any single pattern of i
deficiencies like a weak management one area or weak operator training that stands out.
But what we have seen and are pleased by is this responsiveness to it, this more probing attitude and once again, I think it is reflected.
Their management approach, they are a strong supporter of that owners group I spoke of.
T' hey are anxious i
~
to participate in that and they are anxious to improve their i
l i
1 29 plant when they discover that the SRV air system cculd be improved or whatever it is.
j But we don't have anything that stands out as a safety significant deficiency.
+
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
In terms of the 4
i modifications that they are making, how many of those things are the result of systems in the plant not being designed in a i
way that accommodates successful operation of the plant and how many of those could have been anticipated in the design process or should have been anticipated in the design precess an opposed to waiting for the plant to go into operation to find out whether there are impediments to successful operation of the plant?
MR. BERNERO:
That is hard to say.
The fourth item, the modification of the drywell cooling system that is mentioned on that first page, if there is one thing that has t
shown up in lots and lots of boiling water reactors, it is steamy hot drywell and that is generally a difficulty in boiling water reactors and with the MARK III, I think people e:< pec t ed larger drywell cooler ambient.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Grand Gulf found that, didn't they, three years ago or something?
j i
MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
Even before then :he smaller drywells were even worse.
I think that could clearly have l
I been foresee in the design proceso and shame on them they i
j i
a
2 4
30 didn't, but they are acting on it.
On some of the others, they are running into reliability difficulties with system components that they have that suggest that if you stay with the design or the component question, you ere just committing the plant in its first years to an unreliable tcmponent and why do that, let's get it out of there.
The safety related instrument air system going from a high pressure system to a low pressure system, I am not sure that that could have been foreseen but at this stage with the test data, the operating data behind it, I think the decision l
is a very sound one to get rid of it or make the modification.
So it is hard to say.
I don't think I can make any 4
generalization that they could have been foreseen.
So their operating performance in this time frame, we think, has been edequate.
Obviously, we have the concern about a large power plant, first time, first time utility and therefore, we and the region are providing extra curveillance on this plant as we are on Clinton and the other plants of this class.
The third sheet touches on emergency preparedness.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
One other question on operating performance.
Is this difficulty more pronounced for the new large boilers than for the PWR's?
/
MR. BERNERO:
You are asking the question I have b
b q..
\\
.L f
i 31
' I s.- t h ea< }$ s o m e t h i n g a b o u ta BWR-5 or SWR-e that makes aukod.
, whole lot b'arder ' to' operate.
Welookedverkhar\\
it !
d at the
, i'h ver Send per f ormance and I came awfully close to that
\\
conclusion.
I think others have, too, but you just can'.t makd\\
i
!~
the case.
You;;ust can't prove it because so much of what),cu find, at River Bend the feedwater sy'ptem was yeally a great s
[
source of problem.
Thattis not unique to a BWR-5 or B W R - 6,.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's true.
MR. BER6tERO:
ThAt is a separate thing. {
y
/
+
q COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
You can thrua LaSalle into r'
l that pot, too.
l MH. BERNERO:
Yes.
We have challenged)the people.
If you'look at, and we go slightly earlier than BWR-5's and 6's, if you look at Limerjck which is a BWR-4 or look at
)
s LaSalle County which 18 a BWR-M. you find that Limerick had i
early problem and yet out of them rr.ther smoothly.
J COMMIS'3IONER AS$ELSTINE:
Right.
MR..BERNERO:
towas stabilized nicely.
LaSalle t,
~- :
t County had real griof for the.first fuel cycle basically.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's true.
MR. BERNERO:
Now, fingers crossed, we think LaSalle i
I.
s i
Count y ; ne,ry be cominqi out of the woods.
Wnat is it?
What'jare i
the recurring problems that we see so much, they spread out through the plant?
I don't know if one can fairly say that the BWR-5 and FWR-6 is a more difficult plant to,cperate.
1
,i)
(?
t-
^
.w i;
i
,ir I
(
F
4 T2 Coinmonweal th Edison which owns four older boilers, I
their people often say, " Boy, that LaSalle County plant is a lot more complicated" but so is any new plant.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
MR. DENTON:
We are going to talk performance i
indicators, I think later this week and that is a chauce to 3
I coinpare all the plants together.
COMMISSIONEP ASSELSTINE:
Good.
But certainly when f
you look at plants like Wolf Creek, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, the start-ups seem to have been more successful and less difficult certainly than when you look at some of the large j
boilers.
I MR. PERNERO:
That in why we have those oversight l
groups.
That is why that extra scrutiny is going there and we have discussed that with the EDO.
MR. STELLO:
Susquehanna would be contrary.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
They stand out as the exception.
r MR. BERNERO:
Yes, but Susquehanna looked pretty good.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
MR. STELLO:
Part of the reason that I have asked industry to look at that, I haven't heard anybody give answers or explanations bu': I think it needs to be looked at and as part of-our look ag. all we can conclude is there ought to be I
b i
4 l
I I
i 13 9
something that can be done, let's find out what those lessons
- ~
are and lets learn them as best we know how to learn them and there cught to be a way to preclude this from continuing to i'
happen.-
What we need to do is to get a commitment to have it turned on.
I haven't dropped the other shoe that if the industry suggests that they don't want to do it, if they i
j don't. we will be going at it ourselves.
I think it would be better because they clearly understand this better than we do.
Would you like to continue, Bob?
MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
I would like to go to the emergency preparedness slide ~that brings up yesterday meeting.
ESLIDE.]
t MR. BERNERO:
As yeau probably know, that meeting that 'Vic Stello ' spoke of just a bit earlier, the State of Ohio's EERT, Emergency Evacuation Review Team, I think it is called, they wanted to hold a meeting and in order to have assured access to the right people at the NRC, they held their meeting on our ground up there in Bethesda.
Jim Keppler, my6 elf, Dr. Speis from DSRO in our t
office and Ed Jordon reviewed at great length what do we know l
I about these reactor designs.
There are four reactors of interest to Ohio, obviously Davis-Bessie and Perry but also the Beaver Valley' and Fermi-2 reactors which are just over the line.
34 We reviewed everythinq we know about reacter design, a
reactor risk, core melt accidents, Chernobyl implications and emergency preparedness.
We had Mr. Wilkerson from FEMA there.
As far as a technical understanding of why one L
f 4
estimates reactor safety to be what it is and why one has a basis for emergency plano or preparedness as we do, I think there was a full exposition of our thinking and within the time constraints of a one-day meeting and they seemed to appreciate it.
They were very attentive and had a lot of good questions.
These people were very well focused on the subject.
But the crux of the matter is that they are doing this review as Vic Stallo said that is scheduled to be ccmpleted the end of this year, approximately December 31st is what they said, and they are looking for stand-by until that is done.
The formal requirements for emergency preparedness as the slide indicates are satisfied unless Ed Jordon has something to add.
i MR. STEL'_O :
No.
I think we had better let Ed speak to that.
He has some information that is 45 minutes old that changes what is on that slide.
MR. JORDON:
The exercise as called a full J
participation exercise in April has been termed by FEMA to be a partial exercise.
Their previous full participation.was in I
i
35 November of 1984 so they fall within the realm of plants that require an exemption for that one year within full power licensing.
j That April exercise, we understood previously, was i
full participation.
The evaluation by FEMA identified it as partial because of the pre positioning of the people at the i
state EOC and.the simulation of some of the state personnel at i
that EOC.
So it was an evaluated exercise by FEMA and the NRC but was terned not to be a full participation.
I have appealed that view and have not been successful in overturning a
it.
4 I
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Why did that happen?
I Obvicusly we knca that we have a roquirement that says there has to be a full scale exercise within a year of issuing a license.
FEMA knows that.
Why was it that a full exercise wasn't done particularly when an exercise was done within a year of licensing?
MR. JORDON:
I believe that it will be news to the licensee at the same time it was news to us, that it was not a full exercise.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You mean the one in April of 19867 MR. JORDON:
That is correct.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
But you say right here, it was held in April of 1986 on the slide.
i 36 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But apparently what was wrong was that it wasn't full participation.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I understand that, but I have the same question.
Why are we finding out today that it was not full participation?
Apparently yesterday, at least, or before ycu thought it was full participation.
MR. JORDON:
Yes.
I can attempt to explain
- r. hat.
The report called it a partial exercise.
We communicated with FEMA, had a verbal agreement backed up with a memorandum j
l indicating that we understood it was, in fact, full with respect to the NRC regulations and that FEMA would not disagree or did not disagree.
Just before this meeting they said they did disagree.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Just before the meeting today?
MR. JORDON:
Just before this meeting today, yes, sir.
MR. STELLO:
All of what Ed has said is all oral.
We have not gotten any communication in writing from them.
That is where we are which is as I said information 45 minutes i
]
old.
If it is true that that is the case, then this is another plant that falls within this same, I guess we have three or four others -- how many exemptions have we issued so far?
MR. DENTON:
We have issued about a dozen, I think,
37 in the past of exemptions of not doing an exercise within a year of licensing.
MR. STELLO:
We hase suggested that there is a need for a change in the rule because this process is one that continues to create a problem.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But the usual case for the exemptions is where you hold a full scale exercise anticipating that the plant is going to get its operating license within a year and then for some reason the plant slips a month or two months or three months.
This seems to be a different situation.
This is where everybody knew when the plant was e
going to get licensed and an exercise was held and somebody screwed up and it wasn't a full scale exercise or at least the understandings weren't.
t1R. JORDON:
The results of the exercise have been I
termed to be a partial exercise by FEMA.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
but we don't know why, is that i
right?
MR. JORDON:
That is correct.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right now, we don't'know why.
j MR. JfiDON:
The understanding at this time is that it was because af the pre-positioning by state personnel and-the lack of full participation of state personnel, that i s, some of the people's positicos were simulated and for full
,r------.
-. _ ~
J
?
3G participation exercises, we always have some positions that were simulated.
So it is a degree.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
So what they are saying is it sounds like is there wasn't enough state participation to 4
judge it a full scale exercise, is that right?
MR. JORDON:
That is my understanding.
MR. STELLO:
Well. I think we need to wait until we get something in writing as to what their reasons are.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are they going to send us 1
a letter?
COMMISSIGNER BERNTHAL:
Soon?
MR. JORDON:
Yes.
We will fcrmally request and I am sure they will respond.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It seems to me that we have to get their letter so we can review it carefully and to see exactly what it is that they are concerned about and then we need to j
have the staff review it and give us y'our recommendations and this ought to be done expeditiously.
q The Commission, I am sure, wants to be informed on this matter and satisfied.
Any other comments from my fellcw Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER SERNTHAL:
I guess the only question then s whether that raises a new issue about our scheduled meeting, when is it?
f COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It is tomorrow.
I
=. _-
t o
39 I
l l
CHA IFt1 AN ZECH:
Thin week, I know.
i SECRETARY CHILK:
Tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Tomorrow, is it?
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I think we need to look at that.
I don't know whether that has a direct impact.
MR. PARLER:
That is something that we will have to look at.
I think that is in our area and not necessarily theirs.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Fine.
We will ask the Genera Counsel then to please look at that expeditiously for us and inform the Commission as promptl y as you can.
MR. STELLO:
It clearly is something that we will have to have resolved before license can issue.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That's right.
That is why it is important we look at it expeditiously but we need to resolve it.
I am sure the Commissionera want to be satisfied with this issue before we proceed.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Any other questions, comments, suggestions?
[No response.]
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Judge Cotter or Judge Rosenthal, anything further at all?
[No response.]
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Anybody else?
t o
i 40 Cho response.]
CHAIRMAM ZECH:
All right.
The meeting is adjourned.
LWhereupon, the open session of the Commission a.eeting was adjourned at 3:25 o' clock p.m.,
to reconvene at the Call of the Chair.]
i 1
i f
l l
-~> -
e
-e e=
w
,+
n e-- - - -,,-,
-s-. _,
--r-.
m--
m
\\
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 Near Term Operating Licenses PUBLIC MEETING 8
PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING:
Wednesday, October 29, 1986 10
~
11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original l
12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken
{'
13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by i
14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17 18 t./.2.
I._
f,f 19 MARILYNN M. NATIONS 20 21 i
22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 24 25
P BRIEFING OUTLINE OVERVIEW
SUMMARY
OF PLANTS WITHIN NEXT YEAR SELECTED PLANTS FOR DISCUSSION
OVERVIEW 22 PLANTS WITH OL APPLICATION DOCKETED 17 UNDER ACTIVE REVIEW 5 CONSTRUCTION HALTED PLANTS BY VENDOR 17 ACTIVE 5 INACTIVE 12 W PWR 1 W PWR 2 GE BWR 2 GE BWR 2 B&W PWR 1 B&W PWR 1 CE PWR 1 CE PWR 4
l
s 4
PLANTS WITH LOW POWER LICENSE FACILITY DATE ISSUED FULL POWER (EST)
SHOREHAM 7/03/85 NOT SCHEDULED PERRY 1 3/18/86 10/86 CLINTON 9/29/86 12/86 PLANTS WITH ZERO POWER LICENSE FACILITY DATED ISSUED LOW POWER (EST)
BRAIDWOOD 1 10/17/86 12/06 SEABROOK 1 10/17/86 11/86 PLANTS EXPECTED TO BE LICENSED FOR LOW POWER WITHIN NEXT YEAR PLANTS APPL, DATE NINE MILE POINT 2 10/86 HARRIS 1 10/86 BYRON 2 10/86 V0GTLE 1 12/86 PALO VERDE 3 3/87 BEAVER VALLEY 2 4/87 SOUTH TEXAS 1 6/87 COMANCHE PEAK 1 NOT SCHEDULED WATTS BAR 1 NOT SCHEDULED e
PLANTS WITH LOW OR ZERO POWER LICENSES SHOREHAM
- LITIGATION ON EMERGENCY PLANNING
- FORMATION OF LIPA PERRY 1
- EARTHQUAKE ISSUES CLINTON BRAIDh00D
- LITIGATION ON QUALITY ASSURANCE SEABROOK
- EMERGENCY PLANNING
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 REMAINING ISSUE CONCERNS EMERGENCY PLANNING; USING THE LICENSEE'S PLAN REQUIRES RESOLUTION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY CUESTIONS AND LITIGATION OF THE EXERCISE.
3.
INSPECTIONS NORMAL INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S OPERATIONS IS CONTINUING.
4.
HEARINGS THE ONLY REMAINING ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED RELATE TO 0FF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING.
ON APRIL 17 AND AUGUST 26, 1985, THE LICENSING BOARD ISSUED DECISIONS ON OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING (EP) ISSUES, HOLDING THAT LILC0 HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT ADECUATE PROTECTIVE MEASURES CAN AND WILL BE TAKEN IN THE EVENT OF A RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY, FOR TWO FUNDAMENTAL l
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 LILC0'S' PLAN COULD BE EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED; THE LICENSING BOARD ORDERED THAT AN OPERATING LICENSE SHALL NOT BE ISSUED TO l
l
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)
LILCO.
THESE DECISIONS WERE APPEALED TO THE APPEAL BOARD, WHICH RENDERED A DECISION ON OCTOBER 18, 1985 (ALAB 818)
UPHOLDING THE LICENSING BOARD ON THE LEGAL AUTHORITY QUESTION.
ON MARCH 26, 1986, THE APPEAL BOARD ISSUED A DECISION GENERALLY AFFIRMING THE LICENSING BOARD'S DETERMINATION THAT THE LILCO
'l PLAN WAS TECHNICALLY ADEQUATE (ALAB-832).
HOWEVER, THE BOARD REMANDED FOUR ISSUES TO THE LICENSING BOARD INVOLVING THE SIZE OF THE PLUME EXPOSURE PATHWAY EPZ, SCH00LBUS DRIVER ROLE CONFLICT, PLANNING FOR HOSPITALS, AND THE ADEQUACY OF THE RELOCATION FACILITY, THE APPEAL BOARD INSTRUCTED THE ASLB TO TAKE N0 ACTION ON THE REMAND PENDING NOTIFICATION BY THE COMMISSION.
ON JUNE 6, 1986, THE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER FOR ASLB TO BEGIN HEARINGS ON THE EMERGENCY PLANNING EXERCISE HELD ON FEBRUARY 13, 1986.. THE INTERVENORS SUBMITTED 50 CONTENTIONS ON AUGUST 1, 1986.
BY ORDER OF OCTOBER 3, 1986, THE LICENSING BOARD ADMITTED 14 CONTENTIONS IN WHOLE OR IN PART.
HEARINGS ARE SCHEDULED TO START THE WEEK OF FEBRbARY 2, 1987.
ON JULY 24, 1986, THE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER (CLI-86-13) CONCERNING THE APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO ALAB-818.
THE COMMISSION REMANDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE LICENSING BOARD THE ADEGUACY OF THE EP, ASSUMING THAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WILL PARTICIPATE AND ADOPT THE LILCO PLAN IN THE EVENT OF A SHOREHAM EMERGENCY, I.E. THE " REALISM" ARGUMENT.
ON SEPTEMBER.19, 1986, THE COMMISSION DECIDED TO REVIEW THE ISSUES RELATED TO EPZ SIZE AND EVACUATION OF j
HOSPITALS AND LIFTED THE STAY OF OTHER REMAND PROCEEDINGS OF
~
ALAB-832.
ON REVIEW 0F LILC0's APPEAL ON THE THREE ISSUES HELD IN ABEYANCE BY ALAB-832, THE APPEALS BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1986, (ALAB-847) REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE ASLE TWO 0F THE ISSUES, WHILE RULING ON THE THIRD ISSUE IN LILCO's FAVOR.
~
IN ADDITION, NASSAU COUNTY, RADIO STATION WALK AND THE NASSAU COUNTY RED CROSS RECENTLY WITHDREW THEIR COMMITMENTS TO PARTICIPATE AS PART OF THE SHOREHAM EMERGENCY PLAN.
SHOREHAM SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 5.
ALLEGATIONS SEVEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
6.
01 THREE MATTERS UNDER REVIEW.
7.
OTHER ON JULY 3, 1986 THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A BILL, WHICH GOVERNOR CUOMO 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 PROHIBITS THE AGENCY FROM CONSTRUCTING OR OPERATING A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN ITS SERVICE AREA.
IT ALSO PROHIBITS LILC0 FROM RECOVERING ANi 0F THE COST OF SHOREHAM FROM THE RATEPAYERS IF THE PLANT IS NOT IN COMMERCIAL OPERATION BY DECEMEER 1, 1988.
i l
PERRY UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE LOW POWER OPERATING LICENSE ISSUED MARCH 18, 1986.
COMPLETION OF LOW POWER STARTUP TESTS SCHEDULED FOR l
OCTOBER 24, 1986, ON OCTOBER 14, 1986, THE COURT OF APPEALS i
(6TH CIRCUIT) LIFTED ITS STAY ORDER, REGARDING THE FULL POWER LICENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR PERRY.
A COMMISSION V0TE IS SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 30.
THE NRC STAFF WILL THEN' CONSIDER ISSUANCE OF THE FULL POWER LICENSE DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE V0TE.
2.
FULL POWER LICENSE ISSUES SSER NO, 10 (ISSUED SEPTEMBER 10, 1986) DOCUMENTS l
SATISFACTORY RESOLUTION OF ALL ISSUES AND LICENSE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR FULL POWER OPERATION, INCLUDING CONFIRMATORY WORK RESULTS RELATED TO THE JANUARY 31, 1986 OHIO EARTHQUAKE.
3.
INSPECTIONS REGION PERFORMING AUGMENTED INSPECTIONS OF PLANT OPERATION PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE TO ASSESS CAPABILITY TO OPERATE AB0VE 5% POWER, REPORTABLE EVENTS CONTINUE TO OCCUR AT RATE COMPARABLE TO OTHER RECENTLY LICENSED BWRs AT SAME STAGE OF STARTUP TESTING,
PERSONNEL ERRORS REMAIN HIGH, HOWEVER, EVENTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PERSONNEL ERRORS HAVE NOT DISCLOSED SYSTEMATIC WEAKNESSES IN OPERATOR TRAINING AND/0R QUALIFICATION, INSTEAD PERSONNEL ERRORS ARE REFLECTIVE OF THE GENERALLY LIMITED EXPERIENCE GAINED TO DATE IN OPERATING THE PERRY PLANT,
);
PERRY UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 4.
HEARINGS ALL HEARING ISSUES SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED FOR FULL POWER LICENSING.
5.
ALLEGATIONS THREE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
ALL REGIONAL FIELD WORK COMPLETED - NO SAFETY MATTERS FOUND.
6.
QL THREE MATTERS UNDER REVIEW.
D CLINTON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE LOW POWER OPERATING LICENSE ISSUED SEPTEMBER 29, 1986.
INITIAL CRITICALITY SCHEDULED FOR MID-NOVEMBER, 1986.
FULL POWER LICENSE SCHEDULED FOR MID-DECEMBER, 1986.
2.
FULL POWER ISSUES THE ONLY OPEN ISSUES ARE THOSE IDENTIFIED IN THE LOW POWER LICENSE AND COMMITMENTS MADE BY THE LICENSEE IDENTIFIED IN THE SER AND SER SUPPLEMENTS ON CERTAIN MINOR OPEN ISSUES THAT WOULD BE COMPLETED AFTER FUEL LOAD.
3.
INSPECTIONS INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S FUEL LOADING IS CONTINUING.
4.
HEARINGS ALL HEARING CONTENTIONS WERE SETTLED BY hEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE PARTIES AND SETTLEMENTS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD.
5.
ALLEGATIONS FOURTEEN ALLEGATIONS ARE UNDER REVIEW, 6.
01 SEVEN MATTERS ARE UNDER REVIEW.
CLINTON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 7.
OTHER THE LICENSEE HAS FILED A REQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTION TO THE APPENDIX E REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM A FULL SCALE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE WITHIN A YEAR OF FULL POWER LICENSING.
THE LAST EXERCISE WAS HELD ON DECEMBER I4,1985.
4 l
C i
BRAIDWOOD UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE A FUEL LOAD AND PRECRITICAL TEST LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 17, 1986, 2.
LOW AND FULL POWER ISSUES A FAVORABLE LICENSING BOARD DECISION IS REQUIRED FOR LOW POWER LICENSING.
3.
INSPECTIONS INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S FUEL LOADING IS UNDERWAY.
4.
HEARINGS HEARINGS ON THE OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION WERE COMPLETED ON MARCH 12, 1986; THIS MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE ASLB FOR DECISION.
ON APRIL 23, 1986, THE COMMISSION DISMISSED THE QUALITY ASSURANCE CONTENTION EXCEPT FOR THE ISSUE CONCERNING HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, RETALIATION AND OTHER DISCRIMINATION.
HEARINGS ON THIS ISSUE WERE INITIATED
{
ON MAY 6, 1986.
AS OF OCTOBER 10, 1986,. THERE HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY 75 DAYS OF HEARINGS. TEN WITNESSES REMAIN, WITH 20 ADDITIONAL HEARING DAYS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED.
THE ASLB EXPECTS TO ISSUE THEIR INITIAL DECISION BY LATE DECEMBER.
ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1986, THE ASLB GRANTED ~ APPLICANT'S MOTION REQUESTING ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE AUTHORIZING FUEL LOAD AND l
PRECRITICAL TESTING.
FURTHER LICENSING AUTHORITY MAY BE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT IF COMPLETION OF PRECRITICAL TESTING OCCURS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE INITIAL DECISION.
i i
BRAIDWOOD UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 5.
ALLEGATIONS SIXTEEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
ALL ALLEGATIONS AFFECTING FUEL LOAD WERE SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED PRIOR TO LICENSE ISSUANCE.
6.
01 FIVE MATTERS UNDER REVIEW.
7.
OTHER THE APPLICANT HAS FILED A REQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTION TO THE APPENDIX E RECUIREMENT TO PERFORM A FULL PARTICIPATION EXERCISE WITHIN A YEAR OF FULL POWER LICENSING.
THE LAST EXERCISE WAS HELD IN NOVEMBER 1985.
N
SEABROOK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE A FUEL LOAD AND PRECRITICAL TEST LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 17, 1986.
2.
LOW AND FULL POWER ISSUES A FAVORABLE LICENSING BOARD DECISION IS REQUIRED FOR LOW POWER LICENSING.
MAJOR ISSUE REMAINING TO BE RESOLVED FOR FULL POWER LICENSING IS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.
3.
INSPECTIONS INSPECTION OF FUEL LOADING ACTIVITIES IS UNDERWAY, 4.
HEARINGS HEARINGS TO RECEIVE SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON THREE CONTENTIONS (ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, EMERGENCY CLASSlFICATION AND ACTION LEVELS, CONTROL ROOM DESIGN) WERE HELD THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1986.
THE HEARING RECORD WAS CLOSED ON OCTOBER 3, 1986.
THE LICENSING BOARD EXPECTS TO ISSUE A DECISION BY MID-JANUARY 1987.
RECENTLY INTERVENORS/ INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE FILED A SERIES OF PETITIONS WITH THE ASLB OPPOSING THE ISSUANCE OF AN OPERATING LICENSE AUTHORIZING LOW POWER OPERATIONS, ON OCTOBER 7, 1986, THE ASLB ISSUED AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF NRR TO ISSUE A FUEL LOAD AND PRECRITICAL TEST LICENSE.
THE LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 17, 1986.
A
SEABROOK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)
REQUEST FOR A STAY BY MASSACHUSETTS WAS DENIED BY THE APPEAL BOARD; HOWEVER, A RELATED APPEAL IS PENDING.
A MAJOR ISSUE REMAINING TO BE LITIGATED IS OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING.
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER 1985 AND FEBRUARY AND JUNE 1986.
A REVISION TO THESE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED IN SEPTEMBER, 1986, MASSACHUSETTS HAS NOT FORMALLY SUBMITTED ITS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANS TO FEMA FOR REVIEW; FURTHERMORE, ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1986, THE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS ANN 0UNCED HIS DECISION THAT HE DOES NOT INTEND TO SUBMIT ANY SUCH PLANS.
AN EXERCISE INVOLVING THE APPLICANT AND THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WAS CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 26, 1986.
A NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES OF THE TYPE REQUIRING A REMEDIAL EXERCISE WERE IDENTIFIED, HEARINGS ON THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PLANS WERE SCHEDULED TO START ON AUGUST 4, 1986, BUT WERE DEFERRED PENDING THE SUBMITTAL OF REVISED PLANS, HEARINGS ON THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PLANS HAVE NOT YET BEEN RESCHEDULED, 5.
ALLEGATIONS THREE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
QI ONE MATTER UNDER REVIEW, i
l
0 SEABROOK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 7.
OTHER THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A PROBABILISTIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT UPDATE FOR STAFF REVIEW, DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A CHANGE TO THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN PROCESS FOR SEABROOK STATION, THE STAFF EXPECTS TO MAKE A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF THE TECHNICAL ADEQUACY IN MID-NOVEMBER, 1986.
1
w 9.
SELECTED PLANTS NINE MILE POINT 2 HARRIS BYRON 2 V0GTLE 1 COMANCHE PEAK
- r
- 1, i
s NINE MIL'E POINT UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS ESSENTIALLY,r0MPLETE. APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS OCTOBER'26,1986, THE STAFF BELIEVES THIS MAY BE 0PTIMISTIC; N0VEMBE'; 1986 IS MORE LIKELY k '
~,
4.'
2 '.
FSAR REVIEW 1
NMP-2'USES BALL VALVES FOR THEIR MAIN STEAM ISOLATION VALVES 1FSIVsl.
NMP-2 IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC BWR WITH THIS DESIGN AND THESE'V'LVES HAVE LIMITED OPERATING EXPERIENCE.
- THESE, A
VALVES HAVE EXPERIENCED A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS.
THE MOST RECENT PROBLEMS INCLUDE"?ROBLEMS WITH THE MSIV ACTUATORS WHICH f',AKE CLOSURE UNRELIABLE AND WHICH CAUSE THE VALVES TO-VIOLATE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CLGSURE TIMES WHEN THEY DO CLOSE;ANDPROBLEMSWITHINTHEVALVESWHICHCAUSELTHQVALVES TO EXCEED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION LEAKAGE LIMITS.
- THE, APPLICANT IS PRESENTLY WORKING TO CORRECT THESE PROBLEMS.
BY LETTERS DATED OCTOBER 2 AND 10,'1986, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED AN EXEMPTION TO GDC 54 AND 55 TO ALLOW OPERATION IN MODES 4 AND 5 UP TO CRITICALITY WHILE COMPLETING MODIFICATIONS TO THE VALVES AND THEIR ACTUATORS.
THE STAFF IS CURRENTLY
.iVALUATING THAT REQUEST.
3.
-INSP CTIONS f
THE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM IS COMPLETE AND THE PRE 0PERATIONAL TEST INSPECTIONS ARE NEARLY COMPLETE.
s
.i 4.
EhRINGS
)
y NMP-2 PROCEEDIhG' UNCONTESTED.
t q
s s,
a) l NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 5.
ALLEGATIONS SIX ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, t
6.
QI
~
THREE MATTERS UNDER REVIEW, i
l 1-I
/
s.
e g
.J' a
Y
- i p
.s
a SHEARON HARRIS UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE.
THE PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS LATE OCTOBER 1986, 2.
FSAR REVIEW N0 MAJOR OPEN ISSUES REMAIN, 3.
INSPECTIONS CONSTRUCTION, PREOPERATIONAL TEST, AND STARTUP INSPECTIONS ARE CURRENT WITH APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES, 4.
HEARINGS
'THE INTERVENORS FILED A MOTION BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD TO REOPEN THE HEARING ON ALLEGED DEFICIENCIES IN CP8L'S PERSONNEL RADIATION RECORD KEEPING AND THE INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM, ON OCTOBER 16, 1986 THE APPEAL BOARD DENIED THE MOTION TO PEOPEN, 5.
ALLEGATIONS EIGHT ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
Q1 TWO MATTERS UNCtR REVIEW,
SHEARON HARRIS UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 7.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS THE APPLICANT HAS FILED A REQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTION TO THE APPENDIX E REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM A FULL SCALE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE WITHIN A YEAR OF FULL POWER LICENSING.
THE LAST EXERCISE WAS HELD IN MAY 1985. THE REQUEST FOR HEARING ON THE EXEMPTION REQUEST IS PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 15, 1986, THE DIRECTOR OF NRR HAS DENIED A 2.206 FILED BY C0ALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO SHEARON HARRIS (CASH).
ON OCTOBER 17, 1986, CASH FILED ANOTHER 2.206.
THE STAFF IS REVIEWING THIS 2.206 TO DETERMINE ITS EFFECT ON LOW-POWER LICENSING.
i
BYRON UNIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS OCTOBER 31, 1986.
2.
FSAR REVIEW UNIT 1 REVIEW APPLICABLE TO UNIT 2, 3.
INSPECTIONS NORhAL INSPECTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AND PREOPERATIONAL TESTING ARE IN PROGRESS.
i 4.
HEARINGS HEARINGS WERE HELD IN CONJUNCTION-WITH THE LICENSING OF UNIT 1.
l l
5.
ALLEGATIONS FIVE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
6.
QI ONE ONGOING INVESTIGATION.
V0GTLE UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE UNIT 1 CONSTRUCTION IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS DECEMBER 15, 1986.
2.
FSAR REVIEW FSAR REVIEW IS NEARING COMPLETION.
SSER 4 IS TO BE ISSUED IN NOVEMBER.
3.
INSPECTIONS REGIONAL READINESS REVIEW INSPECTIONS CONTINUE, CONSTRUCTION AND PRE 0PERATIONAL TEST INSPECTIONS ARE CURRENT WITH APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES.
4.
HEARINGS A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION REGARDING GROUNDWATER 8 CABLES WAS ISSUED ON AUGUST 27, 1986.
THIS DECISION IS NOW BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD.
A LICENSING BOARD DECISION ADDRESSING THE ASCO VALVE ISSUE IS EXPECTED SHORTLY.
5.
ALLEGATIONS FORTY-ONE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
6.
01 N0.0NGOING INVESTIGATIONS.
V0GTLE UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 7.
READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM STAFF REVIEW OF THIS PROGRAM WILL BE COMPLETED AND EVALUATION LETTERS WILL BE ISSUED ON A SCHEDULE CONSISTENT WITH LOW-POWER LICENSING, 4
i 1
--w y
g
COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE A DETAILED REVERIFICATION OF DESIGN AND REINSPECTION OF CONSTRUCTION EFFORT IS PRESENTLY UNDERWAY.
THIS EFFORT HAS RESULTED IN PLANT MODIFICATIONS.
TEXAS UTILITIES HAS INDICATED THAT THE LAST REVIEW EFFORT WOULD BE COMPLETE BY AUGUST 1987.
CORRECTIVE ACTION MAY EXTEND BEYOND THAT DATE.
2.
FSAR REVIEW STAFF FSAR REVIEW FOR THOSE ISSUES NOT RELATED TO THE COMANCHE PEAK REVIEW TEAM (CPRT) IS NEARING COMPLETION.
3.
INSPECTIONS THE STAFF ISSUED SSER 13 WHICH PROVIDED ITS EVALUATION AND APPROVAL OF APPLICANTS' REVERIFICATION PROGRAM PLAN.
STAFF AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS ARE UNDERWAY.
4.
HEARINGS OL IN AN ORAL ORDER PROVIDED AT THE PREHEARING CONFERENCE ON AUGUST 19, 1986, THE ASLB ACCEPTED IN PART THE INTERVENOR'S PROPOSAL TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE CPRT PROGRAM PLAN PROCESS AND THAT THE INTERVENOR FILES
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION MOTIONS AND/0R SPECIFICATION OF ISSUES T0 CONTEST IN HEARING.
THEREAFTER, THE ASLB WILL RULE ON t
WHETHER TO HEAR THE CPRT PROGRAM PLAN ADEQUACY SEPARATELY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM PLAN.
IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE BOARD IS FAVORABLY DISPOSED TO LITIGATING THE CPRT RESULTS REPORTS BY GROUPINGS OR 1
" DISCIPLINES".
1
_~
l COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)
SCHEDULE OF HEARING ON CPRT PROGRAM PLAN ADEQUACY CAN BE SET WHEN DISCOVERY IS COMPLETED AND ISSUES TO BE CONTESTED ARE IDENTIFIED.
HEARINGS ON IMPLEMENTATION ARE CONTINGENT UPON APPLICANTS' SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
- PROGRAM, CP DN SEPTEMBER 19, 1986, THE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER, CLI-86-15, RESPONDING TO THE APPEAL BOARD'S REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE REGARDING THE ADhlSSIBILITY CF THE CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION OF INTERVENORS.
THE COMMISSION DIRECTED THE APPEAL BOARD TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CONSOLIDATED CONTENTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S GUIDANCE.
THE APPEAL BOARD Ih Ah ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 1986, PROVIDED THE PARTIES WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE COMMISSION'S RESPONSE.
ALL PARTIES SUBMITTED BRIEFS TO THE APPEAL BOARD.
HOWEVER, THE APPEAL BOARD DEFERRED A DECISION UNTIL THE LICENSING BOARD HAS ACTED ON INTERVENORS' SEPTEMBER 30, 1986, MOTION TO EITHER AMEND THEIR CONTENTION OR RECONSIDER PREVIOUSLY EXCLUDED CONTENTIONS.
5.
ALLEGATIONS APPR0XIMATELY 200 ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
6.
01 ONE MATTER UNDER REVIEW,
PERR, NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 PLANT STATUS i
LOW POWER TESTING WAS COMPLETED AND A CONTROLLED SHUTDOWN-COMMENCED AT 2:40 P.M. ON OCTOBER 22, 1986, a
THE LICENSEE EXPECTS THE UNIT TO BE READY FOR OPERATION C*-
AB0VE 5 PERCENT POWER ON NOVEMBER.15, 1986.
DURING THIS OUTAGE, A LARGE NUMBER OF MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, FINAL EQUIPMENT CHECKS, AND SURVEILLANCES WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED.
MODIFICATIONS TO BE COMPLETED DURING T!1E OUTAGF INCLUDE:
1.
CONVERSION OF THE SAFETY-RELATED INSTRUMENT AIR SYSTEM ib.
FROM HIGH PRESSURE TO LOW PRESSURE.-
'L 2.
RELOCATION OF A FLOW ELE?iENT IN THE REACTOR WATER CLEANUP SYSTEM TO ACHIEVE MORE STABLE FLOW CONDITIONS.
3.
INSTALLATION OF A HEAT EXCHANGER BYPASS IN THE EMERGENCY SERVICE WATER SYSTEM TO ELIMINATE OVERC00 LING DURING WINTER CONDITIONS.
4.
MODIFICATION OF THE DRYWELL COOLING SYSTEM TO IMPROVE AIR CIRCULATION AND REDUCE ITS AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.
O PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 t
OPERATING PERFORMANCE OVERALL PERFORMANCE DURING THE PAST TWO MONTHS HAS BEEN ADEQUATE.
THE FREQUENCY OF LERs DURING SEPTEMBER WAS COMPARABLE TO THE PREVIOUS 4 MONTHS.
HOWEVER, SOME REDUCTION WAS EVIDENT IN OCTOBER.
NONE OF THE REPORTED EVENTS, TAKEN BY THEMSELVES, HERE SAFETY SIGNIFICANT.
A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF THE EVENTS WAS CAUSED BY RWCU ISOLATIONS, CONTAINMENT OR DRYWELL VACUUM BREAKER ACTUATIONS, AND RCIC ISOLATIONS.
TO RESOLVE THESE PROBLEMS, DESIGN 11.
CHANGES ARE BEING MADE DURING THIS OUTAGE.
THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL TRAINING, IMPROVED EQUIPMENT TAGGING, CHANGES IN PROCEDURES, REVIEW 0F COMMUNICATIONS AND INTERFACES, CLARIFICATION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, S
e
O PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FEMA's FINDING 0F MARCH 1, 1984 STATED THAT THE STATE AND LOCAL OFFSITE PLANS ARE ADE0UATE AND CAPABLE OF BEING IMPLEMENTED, A FULL PARTICIPATION EXERCISE WAS HELD ON APRIL 15, 1986 AND NO DEFICIENCIES WERE FOUND IN OFFSITE PREPAREDNESS.
ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1986, FEMA REPORTED THAT THE PERRY ALERT AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM HAS MET FEDERAL CRITERIA.
AT THE REQUEST OF THE STATE OF OHIO, A MEETING WAS HELD ON ii.
OCTOBER 28, 1986 WITH GOVERNOR CELESTE'S COMMITTEE
--INVESTIGATING THE ADEQUACY OF EVACUATION PLANS FOR NUCLEAR
~
PLANT SITES.
I i-,
l PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 CAUSES FOR EVENTS REPORTED 2
DURING MARCH-SEPTEMBER, 1986 EQUIPMENT PROCEDURE PERSONNEL INDETERMINATE PROBLEM DEFICIENCY ERROR TOTAL MARCH 0
2 0
0 2
APRIL 0
3 0
3 6
MAY 0
5 0
6 11 JUNE O
4 2
6 12 JULY 0
5 2
3 10 AUGUST 0
3 4
4 11 2
SEPTEMBER 1
3 4
4 12 l
TOTAL 1
25 12 26 64 5.
, v,,l o
y.
MAWfVfV6W6WGVWGV6WGkWWGVfVftWGVtVG(WcttVgVg(TV(VgV;Vg(ghgygygg h
a TRAt!SMITTAt T0:
Y Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips g
l ADVANCED COPY T0:
The Public Document Room
/l b
DATE:
/I SECY Correspondence & Records Branch FROM:
Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting 4
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or l
l required.
New I 9 ( rn Ch4 n o Meeting
Title:
C\\e on l
j
/
L, c -e s f
Meeting Date:
i o 09 I 8 G Open /
Closed U
ll Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS l
's to PDR Cg 3,
n I
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 1
l l
w / U bruks l
l l
)
I 2.
g
=5:
4-f j
5.
l 6.
- >G
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY papers.
N N k k h N b k k h b N h h b N blf k hh h MIYI N M M M M MIYlY MlfihlYlylYl NMMMINh ;}