ML20207K335
| ML20207K335 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/23/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8607290396 | |
| Download: ML20207K335 (67) | |
Text
ORICINRI.
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Briefina on Near i
Term Operating Licenses (NTOL'S)
(Public Meeting)
>k 1
.9 Docket No.
q
,cl
\\
4
_..;?$
^
'.. 2
..t;;(
.t.:4 l
'(
f Location: Washington, D. C.
Y Date: Wednesday, July 23, 1986 Pages:
1 32
's 4',
'l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters I
(Q 1625 I St., N.W.
~/
Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 8607290396 860723 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
1 D 1 SCLA I MER 2
3 4
i 5
6 This is an unofficial transeript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regu l a t ory Coneni ss i on he l d on e
7/23/86 In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
N.W..
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observatlon.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Conen i s s l on 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
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 Briefing on Near Term Operating Licenses (NTOL'S) 5 l
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, Northwest 11 Washington, D.C.
12 13 Wednesday, July 23, 1986 14 15 The Commission met in public session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 2:05 p.m., the Honorable LANDO W.
ZECH, JR.,
17 Chairman of the commission, presiding.
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
19 LANDO W.
ZECH, JR., Chairman of the Commission 20 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 21 JAMES K. ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission
[
22 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 23 24 25
i l
2 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT' COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3
S.
CHILK 4
W. PARLER 5
V.
STELLO 6
R. VOLLMER s
7 H. DENTON 8
R.
BERNERO 9
T. NOVAK 10 11 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
12 13 M. MALSCH 14 A. ROSENTHAL 15 P. COTTER 16 17 18 19 J
20 a'
21 22 23 24 25
1 P R O'C E E D I N G S 1
2
[2:05 p.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
Commissioner Asselstine will be joining us 5
shortly.
6 This is a periodic briefing of the Commission on the 4
7 status of near-term operating licenses.
This is not a vote 8
meeting; it is a discussion and information meeting.
I have 9
to leave at 3:30.
I have an appointment which I have to 10 keep.
I hope we can finish by then.
If not, I will turn the 11 gavel over to Mr. Roberts and ask him to finish up, but I 12 would hope that we could perhaps finish by then.
13 These are important sessions, as far as I am 14 concerned.
They have been very useful to me, and I think my 15 fellow commissioners would agree.
16 I presume at the end of this meeting, I don't know 17 if we have anything from OI and OIA that we would adjourn the 18 meeting and go into closed session.
Do we have anything from 19 them today or not?
5 20 MR. CHILK:
Yes, we do.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We do have?
We will plan to do 22 that, then, when we finish, and again, I would hope we could 23 conclude that part of it also by 3:30 so I could 24 participate. So maybe we should finish this up by 3:15 or so 25 if possible so we could do the other, too.
I am just setting n,-
,,mn.~-+gm w e-a
,w
-w--,,,, -
--w,,n,-,,r,
,-,-,,r,,g_4m, y-
--y
,.--mr-e----m-g.
--o--
w,-
e
4 1
that as a goal.
If we have to run over, I will ask 2
Commissioner Roberts to take over for me.
3 Do my fellow commissioners have any opening 4
comments?
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I just want to make one 6
sentence.
I spy Joe Fouchard sitting over at a relatively 7
empty table there, so I am going to say something publicly 8
that I told Joe many times privately.
Maybe we just ought to 9
make an attempt to make sure the media understand that we have 10 been having these meetings for two years or close to it on 11 near-term operating licenses.
I'm sorry, I don't just mean 12 that, but generally NTOLs and/or regional administrators' 13 meetings, and there isn't any secret about most of these 14 things, and if they want to come and find out, they ought to 15 keep an eye a little better on the schedule for this type of 16 meeting and it doesn't all come as a big surprise, then, on 17 Capitol Hill.
That's all I have to say.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very much.
19 Mr. Roberts, anything?
20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Stello, would you proceed, 22 please?
i j
23
[ Slide]
24 MR. STELLO:
In light of the schedule, I will be 25 very brief.
We are here to give you the status and have
5 1
selected a number of plants for that purpose to highlight this 2
particular briefing, and we wish to do our best to make you 3
understand where we could conceivably have problems.
In a 4
number of them the problems are obvious.
5 I won't spend a great deal of time and will turn 6
directly to Mr. Vollmer, who will give you a brief overview, 7
and that will be followed by a briefing from Mr. Bernero -- we 8
hope Mr. Bernero will be brief -- and Mr. Novak.
9 MR. VOLLMER:
Thank you.
10 Mr. Chairman, as Vic indicated, we just plan on 11 hitting the highlights and any changes from the last NTOL 12 briefing on certain selected plants.
13 If we could have the next slide just to give you an 14 idea what is left.
15
[ Slide]
16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Would you quickly identify 17 the five inactive ones?
18 MR. VOLLMER:
Yes, sir, I sure will.
I was going to 19 do that.
The five inactive are Seabrook 2, Grand Gulf 2, 20 Perry 2, WNP 1 and WNP 3.
Those are the five inactive 21 plants. The 20 active plants are those which you will see on 22 the next slide.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Would you say them one more time, 24 please?
25 MR. VOLLMER:
Sure.
Seabrook 2, Grand Gulf 2, Perry
6 1
2, and WNP 1 and 3 are the five inactive plants.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
3 MR. VOLLMER:
As you know, the Midland units were 4
taken off the list about a month or so ago.
5 MR. DENTON:
These are the so-called deferred 6
plants, and they are usually being held in sort of a moth ball 7
status while it is decided what to do about them.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
9
[ Slide]
j 10 MR. VOLLMER:
In addition to the plants that are on 11 the slide that is currently up there, of the 20 active plants 12 that do not show up on this briefing package are Bellefonte 1 13 and 2 and the second units of Limerick, Watts Bar, Vogtle, 14 Braidwood, South Texas and Comanche Peak.
So a number of the 15 second units.plus Bellefonte 1 and 2 did not show up on this 16 particular briefing package although they are part of the 20 17 active plants that are still under active review.
f 18 Now, with respect to the slide that is currently up 1
19 there, Shoreham and Perry currently have low power license. We l
met with you on Monday concerning the Hope Creek full power 20 21 license, so that will not be discussed today.
i 22 I might indicate what we do plan on discussing are 23 the plants on the list down through Braidwood 1, which takes 24 us through December 1986 schedule for low power license this 1
j 25 calendar year, and also Comanche Peak 1 down on the bottom two i
i
-,,-,-----.,_..,n---,-_._,__..
,,,,, _, -. - - - -, - - - - -, -,, _.,.. ~ -
7 1
there, which we feel you were interested in, but we are 2
prepared to discuss any of the other plants listed there if 3
you wish.
4 Bob Bernero will discuss Shoreham, Perry, Nine Mile 5
and Clinton, which are the boilers, and then Tom Novak will 6
discuss Seabrook, Harris, Braidwood and Comanche Peak.
7 Bob.
j 8
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
I 9
[ Slide]
10 MR. BERNERO:
If you would put up the Shoreham 11 slide, page 1.
12 (Slide) 13 The Shoreham case, as you well know, consideration 14 for full power license is held up because of emergency i
15 planning litigation, and it is very extensive.
You yourselves 16 are involved.
I don't intend to go into it.
However, in the I
17 slides, we did give you information about the development in 18 New York State at the Long Island Power Authority.
19 To our knowledge, just as a status report for you, 20 that legislation is not yet signed but is expected to be 21 signed at the end of this week in the state, so the bills are
)
22 developed and apparently ready for signature.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
What does that have to do 24 with us?
{
25 MR. BERNERO:
Not too clear.
I really don't know i
8 1
what the outcome will be if those bills are signed and what 2
ensues after that.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I assume one issue is if 4
there is still an applicant.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Indeed, but as long as LILCO 6
is an entity and there is an applicant, then whether or not 7
there is that additional entity is immaterial, is it not?
8 MR. MALSCH:
You do have a motion before you which 9
was just recently filed asking the Commission, I believe, to 10 terminate the proceeding on the ground there is -- because of 11 the legislation, which was filed a few days ago.
So it is at 12 least relevant to how the Commission disposes of that motion.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
All right.
I guess I 14 probably shouldn't go any further.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
On Shoreham, is that it?
16 MR. BERNERO:
Yes, that's all I intended to say 17 on Shoreham because we are going to get into difficulties of 18 conversation.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
On each of these I would like Judge 20 Cotter and Judge Rosenthal, if the have anything to add, to 21 please come to the microphone and say something.
If I don't 22 see you coming, I will presume you have nothing to say.
That 23 is an invitation.
Will you please accept it?
Thank you.
24 MR. BERNERO:
Would you turn to the first slide for 25 Perry Unit 1.
i
9 1
[ Slide) 2 The Perry plant, as you know, received its low power 3
license on March 18th.
The big issue was the North Coast 4
earthquake of January 31st of this year.
At the time the low 5
power license was issued, we had staff safety evaluation 6
supported by the ACRS making a finding that it was okay, but 7
the confirmatory actions related to the seismic activity or 1
8 seismic analysis looked like the critical path to readiness 9
for a full power license.
1 j
10 There has been some modest slippage, as indicated in 11 the second paragraph of the slide, in the schedule of Licensee 1
1 12 submittals and in our safety evaluation because we needed 13 those submittals, but that is no longer the critical path.
We 14 expect to publish that SER very shortly, and the critical path 15 now is actually plant readiness.
16 The most important event of recent weeks was there 1
17 was a fire in the offgas system charcoal, and after it was 18 smothered, there was some attempt to purge.
It rekindled, and 19 the Licensee finally decided to tear all the charcoal out, 30 20 tons of it, and use the complement of charcoal that had been 21 purchased for Unit 2.
They have got a root cause analysis, i
22 they are verifying it and they are getting into the tanks and 23 looking at it very carefully.
24 Just recently in agenda planning we slipped the full i
25 power by one full month.
The meeting with you is now i
l 10 1
scheduled for the first week of September, and as I say, the 2
critical path is plant readiness, it is not the seismic issue 3
now.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is this the pacing factor, 5
replacing the charcoal?
6 MR. BERNERO:
It is that and a collection of other 7
things.
They have got problems with a personnel hatch going 8
into and out of containment and a number of small items 9
besides that, but the charcoal is certainly a major impact,on 10 their schedule.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is the charcoal still 12 there or have they pulled it out at this-point?
13 MR. BERNERO:
The last report I had was most of it 14 was out but it wasn't complete. I saw some photographs of much 15 of it in the. process of being removed, and we have people out 16 there monitoring it and satisfying ourselves that they have an 17 adequate root cause analysis and so on.
18 As Dick said, we won't talk about Hope Creek because 19 we --
+
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Judge Rosenthal, do you have a 21 comment?
Will you take the microphone, please?
Thank you.
f 22 JUDGE ROSENTHAL:
On the Perry case, the Appeal 23 Board's decision is imminent.
They will have that well in 24 advance of the Commission's own immediate effectiveness 25 determination, particularly if, as I now hear, that has been
11 s
1 put off till the beginning of September.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
3 MR. BERNERO:
We won't discuss Hope Creek.
Turn to 4
Clinton, please, the Clinton plant.
5
[ Slide]
6 The Applicant recently revised his fuel load date to 7
early August.
We were at the plant just a little over a week 8
ago.
One thing you should understand is the plant is 9
complete, if any of you have been out there recently.
It is 10 done, the construction work, the scaffolding is gone, the 11 floors are clean, and so forth.
The critical path now is 12 plant readiness in the sense of final surveillance tests or 13 checkouts of systems and system turnover and declaration of 14 operability.
15 The productivity in that activity is, for a new 16 reactor and a new utility, is the important thing.
Their 17 present schedule would have them ready about August 6th. We 18 think it is probably a couple of weeks optimistic, but it 19 appears to be clear that, barring some unforeseen circumstance, sometime between the beginning of August and the 20 21 latter part of September they are certainly going to be ready.
22 Everything else appears to be in good order, and I 23 won't add to what is on the slides here.
l 24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
25 MR. BERNERO:
Nine Mile Point 2.
12 1
[ Slide]
2 You may recall that Nine Mile Point 2 has been a 3
matter of controversy for some time about when will the plant 4
be complete, and the issue here is construction completion and 5
has been for a long time.
We have had a hot contest with the 6
owner about that issue.
7 We are scheduled to visit the site on August lith 8
and 12th.
Their projected fuel load date of July, of course, 9
is virtually gone without readiness, and we will get a fresh 10 reappraisal of the matter on August lith and 12th to see where 11 we think we stand.
Past experience being a guide, I think we 12 are at least a couple of months farther down the line before 13 readiness.
14 There appears to be nothing on the critical path now 15 other than the simple physical readiness of the plant.
There 16 are no issues outstanding now or controversies that we know of i
17
^ that would stand in the way.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
19 MR. BERNERO:
That is it for those.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I take it the exemption 21 request is still an open issue?
22 MR. BERNERO:
For the structure?
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
24 MR. BERNERO:
No.
I think we've completed our 25 finding that it's justified for the -- well, the schedular
. - - _ _ _. _. _ _ ~ _
13 1
exemption of analyzing and verifying the downcomer braces 2
and/or engineering downcomer braces for installation at the 3
first refueling outage.
We consider that issue --
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
You've completed your 5
review?
6 MR. BERNERO:
Yes, we have completed our review, and 7
I believe it's --
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Have you documented it?
9 MR. BERNERO:
Oh, yes.
I'm quite sure of that.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
Why don't you send 11 it down, if you've got it done.
That would be interesting to 12 look at.
13 MR. BERNERO:
Certainly.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I'm sorry.
What exactly are 15 they going to do at the outage?
16 MR. BERNERO:
The issue is, we looked at the 17 downcomers and --
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I remember the issue.
I 19 just want to know exactly what they're planning to do.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Finish the analysis.
21 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
The analysis that they presented 22 after even the second iteration was for the seismic LOCA 23 combination load -- marginal, not unacceptable, but marginal 24
-- and we were not willing to grant an unencumbered license on 25 that basis.
14 1
There was a debate, and they requested a schedular 2
exemption to weigh two courses of action and accomplish both 3
courses of action during the first fuel cycle.
4 The one course of action is, if the facts merit it, 5
to prove analytically that the present design is acceptable 6
and has sufficient margin.
7 The other course of action is to design, engineer, 8
and procure braces, you know, cross-ties, that would then be 9
available for installation during the first outage, so that 10 now --
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Why not just go ahead and do 12 it?
13 MR. BERNERO:
Well, even to go ahead and do it would 14 be a very substantial delay in doing the engineering.
If you 15 look at a sister plant, Shoreham, which has the very same 16 containment, same AE, the braces are massive.
They are very 17 complicated, very hard to install, lots of welding and 18 inspection and stuff like that.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, but -- I don't want 20 to take a lot of time on this, and we can talk more about it.
21 But we're talking about the difference here between something 22 very complicated and massive, and one wonders if there isn't a 23 90 percent solution here that would make a lot of sense and 24 not be terribly complicated and not terrible expensive.
l 25 MR. BERNERO:
There probably is, but no one has
{
15 1
designed it and analyzed it.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Why can't they at least do 3
the engineering analysis, the first part?
4 MR. BERNERO:
They've done it twice.
In less than 5
twelve months, they have done it twice, but it was rejected 6
twice, and they have gone in -- in that analysis, they have 7
gone into actual material properties and the usual margins 8
that are left unharvested.
4 9
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And I take it, your 10 analysis spells out why you are comfortable with letting them 11 run the plant, even though twico now they've done an 12 inadequate analysis of the issues?
13 MR. BERNERO:
Of that issue, yes.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
I'd like to see 15 that..
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You know, I have to say, I 17 quess everybody remembers here-that this is these long 18 downcomers that are waving in the breeze, so to speak, and 19
.this is in an area that is undergoing continued study and 20 revision on seismic susceptibility, for one thing, and I just 21 see us headed down a path here that is uncertain.
And if I
[
22 were the Licensee, I'd take a little caution now to obtain the 23 certainty,-it seems to me.
24 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
I would like to remind you of --
'i 25 I can't remember the previous NTOL briefing in which we
16 1
discussed this, but we had this very dialogue with the 2
utility.
3 Now again, it's colored by their rather rosy 4
expectaticns of when they're truly ready for a low-power 5
license.
But this not only would become the critical path; it 6
would be a very substantial period of time in order to 7
develop, implement, procure, and actually install these 8
things.
9 And I would just remind you that one of the 10 significant factors that we did consider is that in the what I 11 would call " expected conditions of severe behavior," whether 12 LOCA or severe accident issues, the issue is not there.
It is 13 containment condensing performance under the combination of j
14 large LOCA and earthquake.
And it was significant to us that 15 it's not clearly unacceptable; it's marginal.
16 In my letter to the utility, I said, "It's marginal, 17 and I can't just walk away from it."
So, you know, the 18 required strength, the ratio of required strength to actual 19 strength, came out, by one analysis, to be 1.03 and by 20 another, something like 1.1, and, you know, it just was too 21 close a call.
We said, "No, that's not consistent with usual 22 civil engineering practice and standards that we apply," but 23 it is just for that one defaulted condition.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But you are satisfied that in the absence of an earthquake, the dynamics and the loading 25
4 17 1
that would be placed on those --
2 MR. BERNERO:
They have the margin for that.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I have to go by what is 4
purely intuitive here, the dynamics being what happens to your 5
hose pipe, right?
6 MR. BERNERO:
Yeah, yeah, the chugging and the 7
fluffing and the bellringing, whatever you would call that 8
motion.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You are satisfied with that?
10 MR. BERNERO:
Under LOCA, we're satisfied.
Under 11 earthquake, we're satisfied.
Under large LOCA and earthquake, 12 it's marginal.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
At the same time.
14 MR. BERNERO:
Yes, simultaneous, large LOCA and 15 earthquake.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, that seems like a low 17 probability event.
18 MR. BERNERO:
That's exactly the basis.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Unless the earthquake 20 causes the LOCA.
21 MR. BERNERO:
A large LOCA.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, in any case, what you have to i
23 be convinced of is that the plant is safe to operate under 24 these conditions, and that's what is important.
25 MR. BERNERO:
It certainly is.
l
i 18 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You've got to be able to tell us 2
that you're satisfied.
I guess that's what you're telling us 3
now.
4 MR. BERNERO:
Yes, satisfied that it is, you know --
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
My concern -- and I'll shut 6
up about this -- is that we not go down to the wire here two 7
months from now or three months from now and find ourselves 8
embroiled in a controversy that they then have to start 9
dealing with when they could be dealing with it today.
10 MR. BERNERO:
Yes.
We confronted this issue late 11 last year, met with them in December of last year, and read 12 the riot act that, you know, this has to be resolved.
And 13 then there was some substantial discussion of it with you 14 during one of the briefings, and then one of the evolutions in 15 it was, I wrote a letter to them with a finding.
16 I promised them a technical safety finding, and they 17 got that finding on January 31st as pledged, and that led to 18 this request for exemption and so forth.
19 So I don't consider that the critical path, you 20 know.
I think we've made that decision, and that decision is 1
21 not changed by whether they were ready on March 17th or June 22 2nd or August 31st to load fuel.
J l
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Let's proceed.
24 MR. NOVAK:
May I have the Seabrook slide, please?
25
[ Slide.]
4 19 1
The Seabrook plant, as we know, it is essentially 2
complete.
In discussions with the Region, they would agree 3
that all of the activities necessary to support fuel load have 4
been accomplished.
There are some activities going on onsite, 5
but nothing that would preclude an issuance or the readiness 6
of the plant for fuel load.
7 Of interest, of course, is the hearing situation.
8 On Seabrook, there are two Boards active, one Board dealing 9
with the remaining safety-related issues.
As we informed you 10 last time, there were a few remaining safety-related issues 11 that we had to respond to the Board.
We did so on June lith, 12 and the Board is considering those.
13 There was an additional Contention that was filed 14 originally by the State of New Hampshire, having to do with 15 control room. design.
It was then supported by another 16 intervening party, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League.
17 Subsequently, the State of New Hampshire requested that they 18 no longer wished to pursue that Contention.
The Seacoast 19 Anti-Pollution League was supportive of it, and it's my 20 understanding now, the Board has ruled that the Contention is 21 legitimate, and someone from the Hearing Board may have more 22 to add to that.
23 As noted, there have been a number of letters 24 written to the Board requesting or suggesting that no 25 low-power license be issued.
The town of Hampton, New
t c
20 1
Hampshire, for example, as well as the Massachusetts Attorney 2
General's Office.
I 3
With regard to the emergency planning, of interest 4
is the remaining work yet to be done on New Hampshire plans.
5 It had been scheduled that hearings would start August the 6
4th.
Based on deficiencies in the New Hampshire plan, plus 7
work being done on it, FEMA requested an extension until 8
October.
It is my understanding now that the Board has agreed 9
not to start hearings early August and will issue a new i
10 schedule for the start of hearings related to the State of New 11 Hampshire plans.
12 As our slide indicated, there is nothing new to 13 report with regard to the Massachusetts plans.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Judge Cotter, do you have anything 15 to add to that?
)
16 JUDGE COTTER:
I don't think so, Commissioner Zech.
17 I would point out, I guess, maybe two things.
It 18 seems to me that the position the State of Massachusetts 19 presents in connection with this plan is the same kind of 20 situation that developed as a result of Suffolk County's 21 position in relation to Shoreham, and I think the Commission 22 ought to be focused' on that.
23 I understand that there is a bit of a problem with 24 staffing at FEMA and their ability to complete work on time 25 and completely, and that might become an element in the
s 21 1
proceeding.
2 Otherwise, I have nothing.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
4 Yes, Harold?
5 MR. DENTON:
It would be the Staff's intent to issue 6
a low-power license when they are able to make a finding that 7
all of the low-power requirements were met.
This was the Commission's decision in the Shoreham case, even though there 8
9 were obstacles to issuing a full-power license, and I wanted 10 to bring that to the Commission's attention.
If you would 11 desire that we act differently here, I guess we would be so 12 informed.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, that would be my intention.
I 14 don't know if the Commissioners want to comment or not.
I 15 presume the Staff is asking for guidance, if they want to do 16 anything different than we've done before.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
For myself, I had a 18 problem with that for Shoreham.
I would need to take a look i
19 at the facts of this case to see whether the same kind of 20 situation existed here.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, fine.
22 MR. STELLO:
I never like to walk away from this
~
23 table not being sure what I've heard.
24
[Lhughter.]
25 MR. STELLO:
Unless we hear differently and events i
-,. ~ _.
,1,..,,-...
22 1
unfold, we would take the action that Harold described.
~
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, Office of General Counsel, do 3
you have any comment on that?
Are we offbase in this 4
discussion?
5 MR. PARLER:
It's difficult to answer a question 6
like that.
It all depends.
It all depends on what papers, 7
motions are filed with this Commission as the prime 8
administrative decision-makers.
9 Obviously, at least obvious to me, if such motions 10 are pending before the Commission, I would think that it would 11 be premature now to give guidance to the Staff on what course 12 of action is to be followed.
We have to look at the situation 13 as it unfolds, and then give the guidance then.d 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, the Staff, I presume, is 15 asking for guidance, and maybe you're saying we shouldn't give 16 it to them, but whatever, we need to know.
17 Go ahead, Dick.
18 MR. STELLO:
If those kinds of issues arose, clearly 19 we would reflect and come to the Commission, if you had i
20 something pending before you, before we did anything.
But I'm 1
21 suggesting if there is nothing else to do, we are satisfied l
22 that everything else is finished, and we're ready then and 23 don't have an objection from the safety point of view, we 24 would then go ahead and issue the license.
25 It's a pelicy issue at that point and only policy, l
t
23 1
forgetting any petitions or whatever that might be in front of 2
you.
It's a matter of policy.
3 MR. DENTON:
And the pros and cons were discussed 4
with you in this previous case.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right.
6 MR. DENTON:
I have been looking upon that as the 7
precedent.
That's why we called it to your attention, and we 8
will follow that precedent.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It looks like Judge 10 Rosenthal might have something to say, 11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:. Yes, Judge Rosenthal?
12 JUDGE ROSENTHAL:
I just wish to remind the 13 Commission that the low-power license issuance question cannot 14 arise until such time as the Licensing Board hands down its 15 decision.
As I understand it, as matters are today, there is 16 no way of knowing when that Licensing Board decision is going 17 to come down.
So it would seem to me offhand, with due 18 respect, that it's a little premature to be talking about what 19 you might do in terms of issuing a low-power license at some 20 uncertain future date when you have a Licensing Board 21 decision.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right, but my assumption was that 23 the Staff is telling us that they're not going to presume to 24 issue the license until they are satisfied, but if that's the 25 case, I think they are saying that when they are satisfied,
24 1
would it be appropriate to go ahead.
~
2 But your point is well taken, and it sounds like 3
it's a bit premature.
Perhaps this has been helpful.
4 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Is this the control room 5
design issue?
6 MR. STELLO:
No, there are several issues.
7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Several issues.
8 MR. STELLO:
And all that information is in front of 9
the Board.
The Board has it all now and is deliberating.
The 10 question was asked from a purely policy point of view.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right.
12 MR. STELLO:
It was assuming all of that was 13 finished.
It was assuming the Board did, in fact, issue its 14 decision, and it was assuming that there were no other issues 15 before us, save the emergency planning issue, which clearly 16 would not be finished, and then it's a clear policy issue, and 17 all Harold, I think, was trying to make was the point that we i
18 were going to rely on the precedent in the case that we had 19 before in which the circumstances were essentially the same, 20 and then use the guidance that the Commission gave us as 21 policy to move forward.
1 22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But let me just comment --
23 MR. PARLER:
Well, we don't know that the j
24 circumstances would be the same -- excuse me -- it would all 25 depend on what papers are or may be filed before the
25 1
Commission.
The circumstances that the parties may allege may 2
be different.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, it sounds to me like it's not 4
appropriate to make any assumptions at this time.
Let's wait 3
5 until we hear from the Licensing Board.
We might be in a 6
better position at that time to make any kind of assumption.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's all true on a 8
case-specific basis, but we've got a locomotive headed at us 9
here, and whether it's next month or this month or September 10 or October, we're going to have a tough decision to make, and 11 it might not hurt for either the Commission itself or our 12 designees to start thinking about how we're going to handle 13 it, because I have a suspicion that ultimately Congress is 14 going to have to decide whether or not it is going to do 15 anything.
16 It now appears that all bets are off in this first 17 case.
That may well be.
And we've got these two others that 18 I'm aware of that appear to be developing certain similarities 19 to that first case, and I think Congress is going to have to 20 speak, and I think we may have to think about asking them to 21 do that.
3 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Before we go any further on this, I 23 think we should wait for the facts and wait for the Licensing 24 Board to take their actions and try to conduct our business 25 orderly and routinely.
I suggest we move on.
26
, COMMISSIONER A'SSELSTINE:
Good.
2
[ Slide.]
3 MR. NOVAK:
Can we move on to Harris, please.
4 The Harris plant had been projecting a readiness for 5
fuel load in late July.
Recently, they informed us their 6
schedule for being ready has slipped to late Augdst or early 7
September.
We believe this is an achievable date for 8
completing the plant.
9 Again, the only issue here : remaining is the 4
10 completion of the plant.
All of the safety related matters 11 have been litigated.
A decision by the Hearing Board on April 12 28th authorized the Director of NRR to issue an operating 13 license.
As noted, there are certain issues dealing with the 14 Hearing Board that can be spoke to by Judge Rosenthal.
15 Of interest is on the second page of the slide, 16 dealing with -emergency preparedness.
17
[ Slide.]
18 MR. NOVAK:
Back on May 27th, Chatham County, 19 through a vote of five to nothing had rescinded its support in 20 support of the emergency planning for the Harris station.
As 21 noted in the slide, during a subsequent meeting earlier this 22 month, they voted to continue to support the plan and it was 23 again a five to zero decision.
24 There is an exemption request pending, since the 25 last full scale exercise has not been performed within the
-.1
27 1
period of one year.
They do plan a limited drill for October 2
of this year and then a full scale exercise that is scheduled 3
for February of 1987.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
When was the last exercise 5
of full scale?
6 MR. NOVAK:
May of 1985.
May I have the Braidwood 7
slide, please, unless there are comments from the Hearing 8
Board.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Judge Rosenthal?
10 JUDGE ROSENTHAL:
I would just state that the Appeal 11 Board anticipates handing down its decisions in August on the 12 second and third partial initial decisions, in terms of the 13 final partial initial decision, that is still in briefing and 14 oral arguments will be held on it presumably in September.
In 15 any event, nothing that the Appeal Board has before it at the 16 moment is on the critical path.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
18
[ Slide.]
19 MR. NOVAK:
As indicated here, the utility is 20 expecting it would physically complete the plant in late 21 September.
The Region believes that is certainly a very close 22 date and they would expect if nothing more, by October, the 23 plant would be ready for fuel load.
It was licensed under the 24 Commission's standardization plan.
A number of the safety 25 reviews, in fact, all of the nuclear system reviews, were done
28 1
as part of the Byron station and that has been completed.
2 With regard to this station, again, of interest is 3
probably the hearings.
We will ask the Board to speak to 4
that.
The staff has indicated its assessment of the progress 5
of the hearings, simply looking at the number of witnesses yet 6
to go before the Board, it would be the staff's view that 7
there is the potential for a licensing impact, that an initial 8
decision by the Board would not be available before the end of 9
September.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Perhaps Judge Cotter could give us a 11 status report and any projection of a completion date.
12 JUDGE COTTER:
I believe the best estimate that we 13 have at this point is another 20 days of hearing, but the 14 Board hopes to issue its decision by the end of September or 15 the beginning of October at this point.
Although there has r
16-been a mass of information compiled, the issue is relatively 17 narrow.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
By the end of September, first of 19 October?
20 JUDGE COTTER:
The end of September, first of 21 October.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
23 MR. STELLO:
Let me just make a comment.
There is a 24 concern, the hearing has required a great deal of resources as 25 we have indicated in one of our earlier briefings.
29 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
~
2 MR. STELLO:
We are concerned that if the Board does 3
issue a decision probably in late September, early October, 4
there is not an impact on the plant.
Based on our experience, 5
if it takes on the order of 90 days from the date of the 6
hearing record being closed, that could be easily at the end 7
of October, and then the impact, as we understand it today, 8
the licensee is suggesting he will be ready sometime at the 9
end of September.
There is a potential for that impact.
10 We don't know, but it really depends on when the 1
11 hearing does finish and when the decision comes out.
We want i
12 to make sure it is clear that our view at the moment is there 13 could be an impact.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That is the point you are making on l
15 the slide, I presume.
16 MR. STELLO:
Yes.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
j 18 (Slide.]
19 MR. NOVAK:
The last plant I wanted to mention is 20 Comanche Peak.
Since the last time we met, we have issued the 21 safety evaluation assessing the applicant's re-verification 22 program plan.
That was a major effort on behalf of the 23 applicant to propose that program and the staff's review has 24 been completed.
25 Where we are today on the Comanche Peak situation is
~
v-w, s.
u m,u-ew--
---y 7
- e-y,,
m er
,--.-.,,r,m3,.-,-mg---w, w.
,-w
,w---,--r-.-y,.--e-
-.,w-..
- -., - - - - - - - - - + - - - -,
30 1
really trying to establish a hearing schedule.
As noted in 2
the slide, we are now waiting for applicant's proposal for a 3
hearing schedule, to identify in what order certain issues can 4
be litigated.
He expects to do that by the end of this month 5
and then the staff will comment on the intervenor's approach 6
as well as the applicant's approach within a week.
7 We would expect there will be an extended period for 8
hearing.
As we informed the Commission earlier, the utility 9
has publicly identified the fact that they do not now expect 10 to have commercial operation for the Summer 1988 peak.
That 11 would suggest they recognize substantial work is yet to be 12 done and for the hearing to pursue.
13 At this point in time, it is up to the utility to 14 come forward with its program and the work effort involved in 15 support of the hearing.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Judge Cotter, any comment?
17 JUDGE COTTER:
I have no comment.
Thank you.
18 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
What is the status of the 19 completion?
20 MR. NOVAK:
I guess you could say it has been 21 completed once.
They are going back now and doing substantial 22 modifications.
Unit II is very close to being complete.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
110 percent.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
25 MR. NOVAK:
Those are all the comments I intended to
31 1
make.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It is not really completed.
They 3
thought it was completed, I presume you are saying, and now 4
they think it is not complete and they have a ways to go.
5 MR. NOVAK:
It looks like they have longer to go 6
with time.
That remains to be seen.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right.
8 MR. DENTON:
This completes our presentation.
We 9
often talk about the end of licensing, but you will notice 10 here it is almost a plant a month for low power licenses 11 between here and the end of the year.
It is going to be a 12 very busy year in the licensing arena.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That would be by some 14 margin, if it happened, be the largest number of plants ever 15 licensed in one year anywhere.
Isn't that true?
16 MR. DENTON:
I haven't checked to see if it is a 17 record.
18 MR. STELLO:
If you add them up for the whole year, 19 I think the answer is yes.
20 MR. DENTON:
We have licensed four so far and there 21 would be the potential for five here.
i 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
It is an important observation and 23 shows that things are going on and it also should make us all l
24 reflect that we have a lot of important business in front of 25 us.
- ~ '
l 32 1
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
For Comanche Peak, and I am 2
reading through your notes, the Appeal Board certified to the 3
Commission the question of whether the admitted contention is 4
foreclosed from litigation as a matter of law by the 5
Commission's decision and so forth, where does that stand in 6
certification to the Commission?
Will it be coming to us 7
shortly?
8 MR. NOVAK:
Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Is there anything else from staff?
10 MR. STELLO:
We lived up to our part of the bargain.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You did a good job.
My fellow 12 Commissioners, any further questions?
13
[No response.]
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We will close this session.
15
[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m.,
the open session of the 16 Commission meeting was adjourned.]
17
[ Slide.]
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
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 (NTOL'S)
(Public Meeting) 8 PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, July 23, 1986 10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken 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 16 foregoing events.
17 18 4:36_
d_____
a ynn a
ns 19 20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 24 25
-,y--
,_-y
,___.,,--.9 g..-
,-.,,__,_,....-_,,g,__.,p,
,-,,,,_,_.-g-
,y.,
i a
1 A
BRIEFIllG OUTLIflE
.i l
3 OVERVIEW
SUMMARY
OF PLAf1TS WITHIN f! EXT YEAR 4
SELECTED PLAllTS FOR DISCUSSI0l1 4
BACKGR00fiD IliFORMATION FOR OTHER PLAl4TS l
I i
~
4 9
s OVERVIEW 25 PLAfiTS WITH OL APPLICATION DOCKETED 20 UllDER ACTIVE REVIEW 5 C0flSTRUCTION HALTED PLAllTS BY VENDOR 20 ACTIVE 5 INACTIVE 14 W PWR 1 W PWR 3 GE BWR 2 GE BWR 2 B8W PWR 1 B&W PWR 1 CE PWR 1 CE PWR I
=
eu 7-v* - - - - *
- -F--V*-*--"-r-*
't'7'-
w'N t7g.-
"W-
' "C'P N
V=N
K'"
- Y-#e "Y
W* ' ~ * *^T-"'NN-
- 9
-'dY7+7"**'" ' ' "'***
- N'^7N
t PLAllTS WITH LOW POWER LICENSE FACILITY DATE ISSUED FULL POWER (EST)
SHOREHAM 7/03/85 NOT SCHEDULED PERRY 1 3/18/86 8/86 HOPE CREEK 4/11/86 7/86 PLAflTS EXPECTED TO BE LICENSED FOR LOW POWER WITHIll flEXT YEAR PLANTS APPL, DATE NIllE MILE P0lflT 2 7/86 SEABROOK 1 7/86 CLIllTON 8/86 HARRIS 1 8/86 BRAIDWOOD 1 9/86 BYR0fl 2 10/86 V0GTLE 1 12/86 PALO VERDE 3 3/87 BEAVER VALLEY 2 4/87 SOUTH TEXAS 1 6/87 COMAflCHE PEAK 1 NOT SCHEDULED WATTS BAR 1 fl0T SCHEDULED
PLAtlTS WITH LOW POWER LICEllSES SHOREHAM
- LITIGATION Of4 EMERGEllCY PLAfifilllG
- FORMATI0ft 0F LIPA PERRY 1
- EARTHOUAKE ISSUES.
HOPE CREEK e
e
SH0REHAM SIGflIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE AN OPERATING LICEllSE (PERMITTIllG FUEL LOADIflG AND OPERATION TO 24 KWT) WAS ISSUED ON DECEMBER 7, 1984.
COLD CRITICALITY TESTING WAS COMPLETED ON FEBRUARY 17, 1985.
FIVE PERCEllT LICENSE WAS ISSUED Oft JULY 3, 1985.
LOW POWER TESTIl1G IS ESSEllTIALLY COMPLETE.
2.
FULL POWER LICEllSE ISSUES REMAlfilNG ISSUE CONCERNS EMERGENCY PLANNING: USING THE LICEllSEE'S PLAN REQUIRES RESOLUTI0fl 0F LEGAL AUTHORITY QUESTI0flS AND LITIGATION OF THE EXERCISE.
3.
IllSPECTIONS NORMAL IllSPECTI0f10F LICEllSEE'S OPERATI0flS IS CONTIllull1G.
4.
HEARIflGS THE ONLY REMAINING ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED RELATE TO OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING.
Ofi APRIL 17 AllD AUGUST 2G, 1985, THE LICENSIf1G BOARD ISSUED DECISIONS ON OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLAllf1ING ISSUES, HOLDIfiG THAT LILCO HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT ADEQUATE PROTECTIVE MEASURES CAN AND WILL BE TAKEN Ill THE EVENT OF A RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY, FOR TWO FUllDAMENTAL REAS0liS:
(1) LILC0'S LACK OF LEGAL AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT ITS OFF-SITE PLAll, Af1D (2) THE STATE AND COUNTY'S OPPOSITION TO THE PLAll RENDERS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER LILCO'S PLAfi COULD BE EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED; THE LICEllSIf1G BOARD
' ORDERED THAT Afl OPERATING LICENSE SHALL fl0T BE ISSUED TO e
n 7--
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 OUESTION, ON MARCH 26, 1986, THE APPEAL BOARD ISSUED A DECISI0li GENERALLY AFFIRMING THE LICENSING BOARD'S DETERMINATION THAT THE LILCO PLAN WAS TECHNICALLY ADEQUATE (ALAB-832), HOWEVER, THE BOARD REMAllDED FOUR ISSUES TO THE LICENSING BOARD INVOLVING THE SIZE OF THE PLUME EXPOSURE PATHWAY EPZ, SCH00LBUS DRIVER ROLE CONFLICT, PLANllING FOR HOSPITALS, AND THE ADEQUACY OF THE RELOCATION FACILITY.
THE APPEAL BOARD INSTRUCTED THE ASLB TO TAKE 110 ACTION ON THE REMAND PEllDING NOTIFICATION BY THE COMMISS10fl.
Oil jut lE 6,1986, THE COMMISSION ISSUED All ORDER IN WHICH IT STATED:
(1) THAT IT WOULD S00ll RULE UPON THE " REALISM" AND " IMMATERIALITY" ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD Ill THE APPEAL 0F ALAB-818, BUT WOULD DELAY RULIllG ON THE PREEMPTI0li AllD LEGAL AUTHORITY ISSUES: (2) THAT IT WOULD SHORTLY C0l1 SIDER THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALAB-832, BUT THAT THE HEARING Oli THE REMAf1DED ISSUES SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE DEFERRED:
AND THAT (3) A HEARING ON THE EMERGENCY PLANNING EXERCISE SHOULD BE STARTED.
A C0liFERENCE TO PLAN FOR THAT HEARING WAS HELD ON JULY 8, 1986.
5, ALLEGATIONS SEVEN ALLEGATI0llS UNDER REVIEW, 6,
01 THREE MATTERS Ul4 DER REVIEW.
7, OTHER Oil JULY 3,1986 THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A BILL CREATIflG THE L0 fig ISLAllD POWER AUTHORITY, THE flew AGENCY IS INSTRUCTED TO BEGIN llEGOTIATI0flS WITH THE LONG ISLAl1D.
SHOREHAM SIGl!IFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)
LIGHTING COMPAflY C0llCERNIl4G A FRIENDLY TAKE0VER OF LILC0 AT A PRICE OF UP TO $18/ SHARE OF LILC0 STOCK.
IF LILCO DOES NOT ACCEPT THE OFFER, THE flew POWER AUTHORITY IS IllSTRUCTED BY THE LEGISLATI0l1 TO INSTIGATE CONDEMf1ATION PROCEEDIi4GS, THE LEGISLATION PROHIBITS THE AGENCY FROM CONSTRUCTING OR OPERATING A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Ill ITS SERVICE AREA.
IT ALSO PROHIBITS LILC0 FROM RECOVERING Ally OF THE COST OF SHOREHAM FROM THE RATEPAYERS IF THE PLAllT IS NOT IN COMMERCIAL OPERATI0l1 BY DECENBER 1, 1988.
GOVERl10R CUOMO HAS INDICATED THAT HE WILL SIGli THE LEGISLATI0fl.
~
m-,
--v gn -,
O PERRY Uf1IT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE LOW POWER OPERATIllG LICENSE ISSUED MARCH 18, 1986.
ISSUANCE OF FULL POWER LICEflSE PENDING COMPLETION OF CONFIRMATORY WORK RELATIVE TO THE 1/31/86 EARTHQUAKE, FULL POWER LICENSE ISSUANCE IS SCHEDULED F0.R EARLY AUGUST, 1986.
STAFF FINDINGS ON EARTHQUAKE DOCUMENTED IN SSER HO. 9 AND COMMEllTED ON FAVORABLY BY ACRS IN LETTER TO CHAIRMAri DATED 3/17/86.
2.
FULL POWER LICENSE ISSUES C0llFIRMATORY WORK RELATING TO THE EARTHOUAKE AllD OTHER LICENSE C0flDITIONS SPECIFIED.IN THE LOW POWER LICENSE MUST BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO FULL POWER LICENSIi1G, LICENSEE REPORTS DN THE C0flFIRMATORY WORK RECEIVED BY JUNE 24, 1986.
STAF.c REVIEWS ARE Ill PROGRESS WITH FIllDINGS TO BE DOCUMENTED IN SSER NO, 10 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE FULL POWER LICENSE, 3.
INSPECTI0flS NORMAL INSPECTI0ll 0F LICEflSEE'S FUEL LOADiflG AND TESTIflG IS CONTIflUING; INCLUDING DEFERRED ITEMS LISTED IN ATTACHMENT 1 TO THE LICEllSE.
4.
HEARINGS ASLB HEARIf1GS Oil ALL ISSUES (EMERGENCY PLANS, TDI/DG RELIABILITY 8 HYDROGEN C0flTROL) ARE COMPLETE AND A FAVORABLE BOARD DECISION ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1985.
THE LICENSIflG BOARD'S DECISION WAS APPEALED Af1D IS CURREllTLY PENDIl1G BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD,
PERRY UtilT 1 SIGilIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 5.
ALLEGATI0lls FIVE ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
ALL REGIONAL FIELD WORK COMPLETED - l10 SAFETY MATTERS FOUllD.
6.
Q1 THREE MATTERS UllDER REVIEW.
7.
-0THER FULL PARTICIPATION EMERGENCY PLAll EXERCISE CONDUCTED Oil APRIL 15, 1986.
NO DEFICIEllCIES FOUtlD.
RECEl4T FIRE IN OFFGAS SYSTEM MAY IMPACT SCHEDULE.
HOPE CREEK SIGt11FICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE LOW POWER OPERATIflG LICENSE ISSUED APRIL 11, 1986.
IfilTIAL CRITICALITY hAS ACHIEVED Of1 JUNE 28, 1986.
FULL POWER LICENSE ISSUAllCE IS SCHEDULED FOR LATE JULY 1986, 2.
FULL POWER LICEfiSE ISSUES ISSUE REMAlfilflG TO BE RESOLVED IS RELIABILITY TESTIflG OF SOLID STATE LOGIC MODULES.
3.
If!SPECT10flS NORMAL IllSPECTI0fl 0F LICENSEE'S TESTIf1G IS CONTIfiUING.
4.
HEARINGS ALL HEARING C0fiTEliTI0lls WERE SETTLED BY HEGOTIATI0f1S AM0f1G THE PARTIES Af1D ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD.
5.
ALLEGATIO!!S SIX ALLEGATI0fiS UllDER REVIEW.
G.
01 fl0 Of1G0lf1G IllVESTIGATI0f1S,
e SELECTED PLANTS CLIllT0f1 HINE MILE POIllT 2 SEABROOK HARRIS BRAIDWOOD COMANCHE PEAK
CLINTON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE APPLICANT RECENTLY REVISED FUEL LOAD DATE TO EARLY AUGUST 1986, 2.
FSAR REVIEW MINOR OPEN ISSUES REMAIN.
3.
INSPECTIONS CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM AND PREOPERATIONAL TEST INSPECTIONS ARE CURRENT WITH APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES.
4.
HEARINGS ALL HEARING CONTENTIONS WERE SETTLED BY NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE PARTIES AND SETTLEMENTS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD.
5.
ALLEGATIONS THIRTY-TWO ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW.
6.
01 SIX MATTERS UhEER REVIEW.
HINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 SIGNIFICAflT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE C0flSTRUCTI0fi IS APPR0XIMATELY 98 PERCENT COMPLETE.
APPLICAflT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS JULY, 1986, THE STAFF BELIEVES THIS IS OPTIMISTIC BY 1-2 MONTHS, 2.
FSAR REVIEW IlMP-2 IS THE ONLY BWR OF THIS DESIGN (MARK II CONTAINMEtlT)
THAT DOES NOT HAVE LATERAL SUPPORTS Oil THE DOWNCOMERS.
THE 1
APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED AN EXEMPTI0f1 TO GDC 2 UllTIL THE FIRST REFUELIllG OUTAGE TO PERFORM ADDITI0flAL AllALYSES AflD Ally fiEEDED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANT.
THE STAFF IS PRESENTLY REVIEWING THAT EXEMPTION REQUEST, ABOUT 12 C0flFIRMATORY OR OPEN ISSUES REMAIN TO BE RESOLVED, 3.
IllSPECTIONS C0flSTRUCTI0fl INSPECTION PROGRAM AND PREOPERATIONAL TEST INSPECTIONS ARE CURRENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES, STONE & WEBSTER HAS PERFORMED All ENGINEERIflG ASSURAllCE PROGRAM Ill LIEU OF All IDVP OR IDI, THE RESULTS FROM THIS PROGRAM WERE SUBMITTED Ill OCTOBER 1985 AND FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE STAFF.
ON MARCH 13, 1986, A LETTER WAS ISSUED STATIl1G THAT TWO 0F THREE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDER RESULTIllG FROM j
CAT INSPECTION HAD BEEN SATISFIED, THE STAFF DETERMIllED THAT THE REMAINING REQUIREMENT FOR AN Il1 DEPENDENT APPRAISAL OF THE SITE MANAGEMEllT ORGANIZATION WAS fl0 LONGER WARRAllTED.
THE BASIS FOR THIS DETERMIl1ATION WAS THE REGION I ASSESSMEllT OF UllIT 1 ORGAf11ZATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF THE UNIT 2 TRAtlSITION TEAM AND OF UIIIT 2 READIllESS FOR OPERATI0fl ACTIVITIES.
ABOUT FIVE OPEN ITEMS REMAIN FROM THE AUGMEf1TED INSPECTI0ll PROGRAM INITIATED IN RESP 0llSE TO THE CAT AUDIT, REGI0ll I EXPECTS TO BE ABLE TO CLOSE OUT THESE ISSUES SHORTLY,
s IllflE MILE'P0 lilt UillT 2 SIGNIFICAllT ISSUES (CONT'D) 4.
HEARIllGS limp-2 PROCEEDING UNCONTESTED.
5.
ALLEGATIONS SIX ALLEGATI0lls UNDER REVIEW.
6.
OJI.
THREE MATTERS Ul4 DER REVIEW.
l I
i f
i
s SEABROOK UtilT 1 SIGNIFICAllT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE C0flSTRUCTI0fl IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE.
THE APPLICAllT STATES THAT THE PLAlli IS READY FOR FUEL LOAD.
2.
FSAR REVIEW MAJOR ISSUE REMAlllIllG TO BE RESOLVED FOR FULL POWER LICEllSIl!G IS EMERGEllCY PREPAREDNESS.
3.
INSPECTI0llS REGI0llAL INSPECTI0il PROGRAM IS PROGRESSIllG C0f1SISTEllT WITH THE COMPLETI0f4 0F PLAllT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
4.
HEARIllGS THE ADDITI0f1AL SAFETY If1 FORMATION REQUESTED BY THE BOARD C0liCERilING ENVIRONMEllTAL QUALIFICATI0l10F EQUIPMENT AND ONSITE EMERGENCY PLAI1NING WAS FILED ON JUNE 11, 1986.
A SCHEDULE HAS HOT BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR ISSUANCE OF A DECISION Oil THESE ISSUES.
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTROL ROOM DESIGN ISSUE IS ALSO PENDING.
RECEliTLY IliTERVENORS/IflTERESTED PARTIES HAVE FILED A SERIES OF PETITI0f1S WITH THE ASLB OPPOSIllG THE ISSUANCE OF Afi OPERATIfiG LICENSE AUTHORIZING LOW POWER OPERATI0llS.
A MAJOR ISSUE REMAINIl1G TO BE LITIGATED IS OFF-SITE EMERGEilCY PLANillllG.
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED i
IN DECEMBER 1985 AllD FEBRUARY Af1D JUNE 1986.
MASSACHUSETTS HAS fl0T FORMALLY SUBMITTED ITS EMERGENCY PREPAREDflESS PLANS TO FEMA FOR REVIEW; HOWEVER, FEMA HAS PROVIDED COMMENTS Oli THE STATE'S DRAFT PLANS.
THE MASSACHUSETTS PLAtlS REPRESENT l
SEABROOK Uf1IT 1 SIGilIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D)
THE CRITICAL PATH TO FULL POWER LICEilSIflG.
AN EXERCISE IllVOLVING THE APPLICANT AND THE STATE OF flew HAMPSHIRE WAS C0fiDUCTED Oll FEBRUARY 26, 1986.
A flUMBER OF DEFICIEllCIES OF THE TYPE REQUIRING A REMEDIAL EXERCISE WERE IDENTIFIED.
HEARIllGS Oli THE 11EW HAMPSHIRE PLANS ARE SCHEDULED TO START Oi! AUGUST 4, 1986.
BECAUSE THE LATEST REVISION OF THE liEW HAMPSHIRE PLAliS WAS JUST ISSUED (JUNE 1986), FEMA HAS FILED A MOTI0fi WITH THE OFF-SITE EMERGEflCY PLANNIllG BOARD REQUESTIf1G A CHAllGE OF THE HEARIl1G COMMENCEMENT DATE OF AUGUST 1986 TO OCTOBER 1986.
FEMA STATES THAT THE DELAY IS A RESULT OF THE TIME ilECESSARY TO COMPLETE THEIR REVIEW 0F THE MOST RECEt!TLY SUBMITTED REVISED NEW HAMPSHIRE PLAll. A SCHEDULE FOR LITIGATIflG THE MASSACHUSETTS PLAtlS HAS YET TO BE ESTABLISHED.
5.
ALLEGATIONS TilREE ALLEGATI0f!S UNDER REVIEW.
6.
01 Ol1E MATTER UllDER REVIEW.
7.
OTHER THE APPLICAtlT HAS DEVELOPED A SEABROOK STATION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATI0f1 IMPROVEMEliT PROGRAM.
THIS PROGRAM, PROPOSING CHAf'GES TO THE STANDARD TECHilICAL SPECIFICATIONS PREDICATED UPON RISK AllALYSES AND ENGINEERING JUDGMEilT, HAS BEEll PROPOSED TO THE STAFF.
THE STAFF BELIEVES THIS IS A VALUABLE APPROACH Af1D C0f1SISTENT WITH THE NEW STYLE TECH SPECS,
6 SHEARON HARRIS UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION IS NEARLY COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS LATE AUGUST /EARLY SEPTEMBER 1986, 2.
FSAR REVIEW NO MAJOR OPEN ISSUES REMAIN.
3.
INSPECTIONS CONSTRUCTION, PREOPERATIONAL TEST, AND STARTUP INSPECTIONS ARE CURRENT WITH APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES, 4.
HEARINGS HEARINGS ON ALL ISSUES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, THE LICENSING BOARD HAS ISSUED FOUR PARTIAL INITIAL DECISIONS, THE LAST DECISION ISSUED ON APRIL 28, 19E6 WAS DESIGNATED AS THE FINAL DECISION AND AUTHORIZED THE DIRECTOR, NRR TO ISSUE AN OPERATING LICENSE.
THE FOUR DECISIONS HAVE BEEN APPEALED.
THE APPEAL BOARD HAS ISSUED ONE DECISION AFFIRMING THE FIRST PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, 5.
ALLEGATIONS SIXTEEN ALLEGATIONS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
01 THREE MATTERS UNDER REVIEW,
4 SHEAR 0fl HARRIS UllIT 1 SIGilIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 7.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ON JULY 7, 1986, CHATHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V0TED 5-0 TO C0flTINUE THE COUNTY'S SUPPORT OF THE SHEARON HARRIS EMERGENCY RESP 0llSE PLAll.
THIS SUPPORT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY RESCINDED.
THE APPLICAtlT HAS FILED A REQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTI0fl TO THE APPEflDIX E REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM A FULL SCALE EMERGEllCY PREPAREDl1ESS EXERCISE WITHIN A YEAR OF FULL POWER LICENSIllG.
9
)
+
+44 BRAIDWOOD UtilT 1 SIGf11FICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE C0flSTRUCTI0fl IS APPR0XIMATELY 96 PERCEllT COMPLETE.
APPLICAliT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS SEPTEMBER 1986.
2.
FSAR REVIEW THE MAJOR ISSUE REMAINIf1G TO BE RESOLVED IS THE FIRE PROTECTI0li PROGRAM.
THE STAFF FIRE PROTECTION SITE INSPECTI0f1S ARE SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 1986.
THE APPLICAf1T SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCTED A FULL PARTICIPATI0l1 EMERGENCY PREPAREDf1ESS EXERCISE ON fl0VEMBER 6,1985.
3.
INSPECTI0f1S CECO HAS Uf1DERTAKEN A SERIES OF INSPECTIONS TO ENSURE OVERALL QUALITY OF C0flSTRUCTI0f1 AT BRAIDWOOD.
THE If1SPECTI0f1 REPORT WAS ISSUED BY REGION III Oil JUNE 9,1986, 4.
HEARIf1GS HEARIf1GS Of1 THE OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNIf1G C0f1TENTION WERE C0fiPLETED ON MARCH 12, 1986.
ON APRIL 23, 1986, THE COMMISSI0f1 DISMISSED THE QUALITY ASSURANCE CONTENTI0f1 EXCEPT FOR THE ISSUE CONCERf1ING HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, RETALIATION AND OTHER DISCRIMIf1ATION.
HEARINGS ON THIS ISSUE WERE If1ITIATED Ol1 MAY 6, 1986.
AS OF JULY 14, 1986, THERE HAVE BEEF 1 38 DAYS OF HEARINGS, AND 20 WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED.
TWENTY-FOUR WITNESSES REMAIN, WITH 24 ADDITI0f1AL HEARING DAYS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED, AS A RESULT, HEARINGS COULD P0TENTIALLY IMPACT THE CURRENT SCHEDULE FOR ISSUANCE OF THE LOW POWER LICENSE.
5.
ALLEGATIONS SIXTEEll ALLEGATI0f1S Uf1 DER REVIEW.
o BRAIDWOOD UllIT 1 SIGilIFICAllT ISSUES (C0flT'D) 6.
01 FIVE MATTERS UflDER REVIEW.
e 7
COMAllCHE PEAK Uf11T 1 SIGNIFICAllT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE A DETAILED REVERIFICATION OF DESIGN AND REINSPECTI0ft 0F C0flSTRUCTION EFFORT IS PRESENTLY UNDERWAY, THIS EFFORT HAS RESULTED Ill PLANT MODIFICATIONS, TEXAS UTILITIES HAS fiOT PROVIDED A SCHEDULE FOR LICENSING, 2.
FSAR REVIEW STAFF FSAR REVIEW FOR THOSE ISSUES NOT RELATED TO THE COMAllCHE PEAK REVIEW TEAM (CPRT) IS NEARIllG COMPLETI0fl, 3.
I ll S P E C T I 0 flS -
THE STAFF ISSUED SSER 13 WHICH PROVIDED ITS EVALUATION AtlD APPROVAL OF APPLICANTS' REVERIFICATION PROGRAM PLAN, STAFF AUDITS AllD If1SPECTI0flS ARE UNDERWAY.
4.
HEARIfiGS OL THE BOARD REJECTED THE HEARIllG SCHEDULE PROPOSED BY APPLICAllTS AllD STAFF.
THE BOARD ORDERED THE INTERVENOR, CASE, TO PROVIDE ITS PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR HEARIllGS, CASE'S PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR HEARINGS IS TO LITIGATE, IN ORDER, 1) DESIGft ISSUES, 2) THE ADEQUACY OF APPLICANTS' PROGRAM PLAfi, 3) PROGRAM PLAT 1 RESULTS, 4) ULTIMATE CONCLUSI0fi AflD GENERIC IMPLICATI0flS.
THE APPLICAtlTS' RESP 0flSE TO IllTERVENOR SCHEDULE IS DUE THE EllD OF JULY, STAFF RESPONSE IS DUE EARLY AUGUST, SCHEDULE OF HEARIllGS IS C0flTIf1 GENT UPON APPLICANTS' SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF CORRECTIVE ACTI0fl PROGRAM,
COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (C0llT'D)
CP THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT HAS DENIED THE INTERVENORS REQUEST FOR A STAY OF THE COMMISSION'S MEMORANDUM AllD ORDER, DATED MARCH 13, 1986, REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR COMANCHE PEAK UllIT NO 1.
ON JULY 2, 1986, THE APPEAL BOARD ISSUED A DECISION REGARDIlG THE STAFF'S AND APPLICANTS' APPEALS OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S MAY 2, 1986 ORDER ADMITTIllG INTERVENORS' CASE /MEDDIE GREGORY C0llTENTI0ll 1.
THE APPEAL BOARD CERTIFIED TO THE COMMISS10l1 THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE ADMITTED CONTEllTI0li IS FORECLOSED FROM LITIGATI0ll AS A MATTER OF LAW BY THE COMMISSION'S DECISION Ill WPPSS, CLI-82-29.
THE APPEAL BOARD STAYED FURTHER DISCOVERY UllTIL THE COMMISSION HAS RULED.
5.
ALLEGATIONS APPR0XIMATELY 200 ALLEGATIONS UllDER REVIEW, 6.
01 OllE MATTER UllDER REVIEW,
l 1
t BACKGROUllD ON REMAINING PLAf1TS
BYR0fl UtilT 2 SIGIIIFICAllT ISSUES 4
1.
SCHEDULE
~
CONSTRUCTI0fl IS APPROXIMATELY 95 PERCEllT COMPLETE.
APPLICAllT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS OCTOBER 1986.
2.
FSAR REVIEW i
UllIT 1 REVIEW APPLICABLE TO UNIT 2.
4 3.
If1SPECTI0f1S A CAT IllSPECTI0fl WAS COMPLETED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1985.
4.
HEARIf1GS HEARIllGS WERE HELD Ill C0f4JullCTI0tl WITH THE LICENSING OF UllIT 1.
5.
ALLEGATIONS FIVE ALLEGATI0flS UllDER REVIEW.
6.
01 Of1E OllG0 LNG INVESTIGATI0fl.
REPORT WRITTEll AflD UllDER REVIEW.
k i
V0GTLE UillT 1 SIGNIFICAtlT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE
~
UNIT 1 CONSTRUCTI0!l IS APPR0XIMATELY 95 PERCEllT COMPLETE, APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS DECEMBER 1986, 2.
FSAR REVIEW FSAR REVIEW IS flEARIflG COMPLETI0fl WITH TWELVE OPEN ITEMS REMAllilNG TO BE RESOLVED, 3.
INSPECTIONS REGI0llAL READIllESS REVIEW IllSPECTIONS C014TINUE, THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IMPLEMEllTATION APPRAISAL WAS COMPLETED Oil f; ARCH 21, 1986 AllD THE FULL PARTICIPATION EMERGEllCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE WAS COMPLETED Oil APRIL 30, 1986.
PRE 0PERATIONAL TEST IllSPECTI0llS ARE CURRENT WITH APPLICAllT'S ACTIVITIES, 4.
HEARIllGS HEARIl!GS Oft SAFETY AllD El4VIR0llMENTAL ISSUES (GROUllDWATER C0llTAhlllATI0ft AllD EQUIPMEl4T QUALIFICATI0ll) WERE C0f1CLUDED IN MARCH 1986 AND A DECISI0ll IS PENDING.
THE REMAlllIllG ISSUES Il4VOLVIllG 0FFSITE EMERGENCY PLAllNING HAVE BEEN, WITH A FEW MINOR EXCEPTI0lls, DISMISSED, 5.
ALLEGATI0llS FORTY-ONE ALLEGATI0flS UllDER REVIEW, 6.
01 N0 OllG0lflG IllVESTIGATI0flS.
i
V0GTLE UtilT 1 SIGilIFICANT ISSUES (C0flT'D) 7.
READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM REVIEW 0F THIS VOLUllTARY PROGRAM BY THE STAFF HAS BEEN IMPACTED BY RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE STAFF RESOURCE LIMITATIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS PROGRAM AND TO ENSURE THAT THE PROGP,AM REVIEW IS CONSISTEllT WITH THE LICENSING PROJECTI0fl ARE UNDERWAY.
1 e
i e
i i
O PALO VERDE UNIT 3 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE C0llSTRUCTI0fl IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE.
PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING IS UllDERWAY.
APPLICANT PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS MARCH 1987, 2.
FSAR REVIEW UNIT 1/2 REVIEW APPLICABLE TO UllIT 3.
REMAINIllG UNIT 3 ISSUES ARE PRE-SERVICE INSPECTION AND SHIFT STAFFING.
PRIOR TO LICEllSIllG APS MUST COMPLETE MODIFICATIONS TO IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF PRESSURIZER AUXILIARY SPRAY SYSTEM.
3.
INSPECTI0fl NORMAL IllSPECTI0ll 0F CONSTRUCTION AND PRE 0PERATI0llAL TESTIllG ACTIVITIES IS IN PROGRESS.
A CAT IflSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED DURING JANUARY AllD FEBRUARY 1986.
AN OPEN ISSUE RESULTING FROM FIllDINGS IllVOLVES ADEQUACY OF MASONRY WALLS.
4.
HEARINGS ALL HEARIllGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED; fl0 APPEALS ARE PEllDIllG.
5.
ALLEGATI0flS SEVEN ALLEGAT10flS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
01 THREE MATTERS UNDER REVIEW,
. 4
EEAVER VALLEY UllIT 2 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE APPLICAllT ESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION TO BE 95 PERCENT COMPLETE.
APPLICANT'S PROJECTED FUEL LOAD DATE IS MAY 1, 1987, 2.
FSAR REVIEW OPEN ISSUES INCLUDE PRESERVICE AND Il4 SERVICE TESTING,
'C0l1 TROL ROOM DESIGli REVIEW AND INITI AL TEST PROGRAM.
3.
IllSPECTIONS CONSTRUCTI0ll AND PREOPERATIONAL TEST INSPECTIONS ARE CURRENT hlTH APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES, AN ENGINEERING ASSURANCE PROGRAM (Ill PLACE OF IDI OR IDVP) IS ONGOING, 4.
HEARIf1GS BEAVER VALLEY 2 PROCEEDIl1G WAS Ul1 CONTESTED, 5.
ALLEGATI0flS
[10 ALLEGATI0llS UNDER REVIEW, 6.
01 NO Ol4G0 LNG IllVESTIGATIONS.
d SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE APPLICAllT ESTIMATES CONSTRUCTION AT 90 PERCENT COMPLETE.
APPLICAf1T'S FUEL LOAD DATE IS JUNE, 1987, 2.
FSAR REVIEW THE SER WAS ISSUED Ill MARCH 1986 WITH 17 OPEN ITEMS AND 34 CONFIRMATORY ITEMS, Off JUNE 10, 1986, ACRS ISSUED A LETTER SUPPORTIf1G ISSUAflCE OF A FULL POWER LICENSE, 3.
INSPECTIONS REGI0flAL IllSPECTION PROGRAM IS PROGRESSING CONSISTENT WITH t
PLAllT CONSTRUCTI0fi ACTIVITIES, A CAT INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED IN NOVEMBER 1985 AllD AN INSPECTION REPORT ISSUED IN FEBRUARY 1986.
AN ENGIllEERIllG ASSURAflCE PROGRAM (IH LIEU OF AN IDI OR IDVP) IS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED Ill THIRD-QUARTER 1986, 4.
HEARINGS A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISI0fl ON PHASES II AND III 0F THE HEARINGS WAS ISSUED Ofl JUflE 13, 1986.
THE RULIllG WAS FAVORABLE TO THE APPLICAllT ON THE QUESTION OF ITS CHARACTER AllD COMPETENCE, Of1LY All ADDITIONAL MINOR ISSUE MAY BE LITIGATED Of1 THE ISSUE OF THE EFFECTS OF HURRICANE MISSILES ON THE C0flTAlflMENT, 5.
ALLEGATI0flS TWEllTY-THREE ALLEGATI0flS OPEN.
6.
QI FIVE MATTERS UNDER REVIEW,
a WATTS BAR UillT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1.
SCHEDULE AS A RESULT OF bESIGil CHANGES AllD MODIFICATIONS, UNIT 1 WILL REGUIRE ADDITIONAL PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTIliG TO SUPPORT FUEL LOADIllG.
TVA HAS fl0T ESTABLISHED A SCHEDULE FOR UllIT 1 LOW POWER LICEf1 SING.
HOWEVER, THE STAFF MET WITH TVA Off JUf1E 4, 1986 TO DISCUSS TVA'S PRELIMINARY SCHEDULES FOR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES AT WATTS BAR. TVA INDICATED THE FACILITY WILL NOT BE READY FOR FUEL LOAD BEFORE MAY 1987, STAFF IS AWAITIllG TVA'S WATTS BAR-SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1985, 10 CFR 50.54(F) LETTER, 2.
FSAR REVIEW SEVERAL ISSUES, If1CLUDIf1G EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION, QUALITY ASSURAllCE, WELDIllG, SECURITY PLAll, AND CORPORATE AND SITE ORGAllIZATI0ft, REMAlli TO BE RESOLVED, 3.
IllSPECTIONS ADDITI0liAL If1SPECTI0fiS WILL BE C0l1 DUCTED Ill RESP 0l4SE TO A flUMBER OF ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, If4VOLVIllG DESIGil C0llTROL, EMPLOYEE CONCERiiS, WELDIl4G, QUALITY ASSURAllCE AflD EQUIPMEf1T QUALIFICATI0fi, 4.
HEARINGS WATTS BAR PROCEEDIl1G WAS Uf1 CONTESTED, 5.
ALLEGATIONS OrlE HUl1 DRED THIRTY-SEVEfi ALLEGATIONS UtlDER REVIEW.
0-WATTS BAR UNIT 1 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (CONT'D) 6.
01 NINEMdTTERSUNDERREVIEW.
7.
OTHER THE STAFF HAS HEARLY COMPLETED EXPURGATING THE QTC FILES OF THE NAMES OF THE TVA EMPLOYEES WHO FORWARDED THE CONCERUS TO CTC.
ALL (APPROXIMATELY 600) FILES FOR WHICH TVA REQUESTED PRIORITY HAVE BEEN EXPURGATED AND FORWARDED TO TVA'S INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR A SECOND REVIEW BEFORE ISSUANCE TO TVA FOR RESOLUTION.
THE REMAINDER OF THE FILES WILL BE FORWARDED TO TVA'S INSPECTOR GENERAL AS EXPURGATION IS COMPLETED.
TVA HAS ESTABLISHED THE EMPLOYEE CONCERN TASK GROUP (ECTG)
TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESOLUTION OF EMPLOYEE CONCERNS.
THESE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN PLACED INTO filNE CATEGORIES AND 127 SUBCATEGORIES.
NO ECTG REPORTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND ISSUED TO THE NRC.
BASED ON SITE INSPECTION OF SEVERAL DRAFT REPORTS, THE STAFF REMAINS CONCERNED ABOUT THE DETAILS AND DEPTH OF THE TVA INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS.
TVA CONTINUES TO REIUSPECT WELDS AT WATTS BAR.
ALTHOUGH THE DOCKETED PROGRAM APPEARS SOUND, THE STAFF BELIEVES DEFICIENCIES EXIST INVOLVING SAMPLE SIZE AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA, APPLICABILITY OF PORTIONS OF THE ASME CODE, CERTAIN QA ASPECTS RELATED TO WELDING, AND DETAILED PROCEDURES.
QA ISSUES WILL REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL STAFF REVIEW. NSRS AND EMPLOYEE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RAISED REGARDING QA; QTC HAS ALSO RAISED NUMEROUS ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING QA.
GN OfhhhhhhGh_hhS((MQghghg([g)gg 9
TRAtlSMITTAL T0:
Y Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips f
ADVANCED COPY T0:
The Public Document Room DATE:
3 lb hp FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch l
Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting 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 required.
l a
Meeting
Title:
3 < t *- k o n N E.w ~T Le m O E
I bim%
( M T o L'd Meeting Date:
7\\ Mktg Open V
Closed Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS
'8 to PDR Copy
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 l
w/viJ y 4 s e
2.
c:>=K 4.
h 4
s.
6.
E
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Bronch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY p
papers.
d b
d/R6 fM030T@@0307@@@@dW@@@0W@@@@@@@N@@@@MM&@@@@@lE@@@@_MVMdW@@@&&di$