ML20211D923

Responds to 951020 Postcard,Requesting Transcript of 951018 Public Meeting in Buchanan,Ny.Meeting Was Not Transcribed. Copy of Presentation by NYPA at Meeting Encl

ML20211D923
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/07/1995
From:	Cowgill C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Dolan D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20211D362	List: ML20211D356 ML20211D419 ML20211D906 ML20211D923 ML20211E954 ML20211E992 ML20211F016 ML20211F044 ML20211F126
References
FOIA-97-252 NUDOCS 9709290289
Download: ML20211D923 (2)

Text

__

g....g '

,,, UNtitD ST Af tS 8 ) -( 3 NUCLEAR RdGULATOHY COMMISSION

• %,,***** Kino or ni$sI tun LvANSA tuoeLiais November 7, 1995 Ms. Debbie Dolan 35 Sprout Branch Road Cortlandt Manor, NY 10566

Dear Ms. Dolan:

This letter is in response to your postcard to me dated October 20, 1995, in which you requested a transcript of the October 18, 1995, public meeting in Buchanan, New York. We did not transcribe the meeting. However, I am providing you with a copy of the )resentation by the New York Power Authority at that meeting. .In addition, ! 1 ave also enclosed a sunniary of the April 27, 1995, public meeting held in Buchanan regarding the restart of Indian Point 3.

I want to thank you for your interest in this matter and attendance at the first half of the October 18 meeting. I trust this infomation is hel >ful to you. Please feel free to contact me collect at (610) 337-5233 if you inve any further questions.

Sincerely, .

C Cur s J. 1111, Chief Pro ects tran th No. 2 Division of% actor Projects

Enclosures:

1. October 12, 1995, Letter to Mr. Cahill Regarding the Summary of the April 27, 1995, Meeting Concerning Indian Point 3

2. New York Power Authority presentation at the October 18, 1995 Public Hetting **

i 9709290289 970923 PDR FOIA O'MEALI97-252 PDR [

F #" W / - -

- "I' .

. . _ . _ _ . . . . . . ___ _ ____ _ _o

a 4

Debbie Dolan 2 Distribution w/encis:

D. Lew, DRP J. Joyner, DNMS J. Harold, NRR t

M f

1

I

,, g>a nag,q

[' h y' NUCLEAR RE TH COMMISSION ,

% usoorra$sN. w tvANSA inasi416 ,

Nr. William J. Cahill, Jr.

October 12, 1995 ,

Chief Nuclear Officer New York Power Authority .

123 Main Street '

White Plains, New York 10601 .

SUBJECT:

SUN 4ARY OF THE APRIL 27, 1995 MEETING CONCERNING INDIAN POINT 3

Dear Mr. Cahill:

On April 27, 1995, a public meeting concerning the Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant was held at the Commun'ty Center in Peekskill, New York. The first part which wasof open the meeting, held for public between the observation, was NRC and Newthe to discuss York Power results of AuthorityI the NRC s Restart Assessment Team Inspection. The second part of the meeting was held between the NRC and members of the public to answer their questions concerning relevant topics associated with Indian Point 3. . -

Enclosure 1 contains questions asked by members of the public that were not fully addressed during the meeting, and answers to these questions. Enclosure 2 contains a transcript of the meeting. ,

No rep to this letter is required.

NRC's gulos of Practice ' a copy ofInthis accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the letter and. Its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Curtis J. Cowgill at (610) 337-5233. . .

Sincerely, 1

Curti J. C il l III, Chief

. Projects Bran 10. 1 Division of Reactor Projects ".

Docket No. 50-286

Enclosure:

As stated 4

4 m

-t p jo 8 6 u @ RW

• e 4

. i Will,iam J. Cahill, Jr. 2 cc w/ enc 1 1 only:

R. Schoenberger, President and Chief Dperating Officer i L. Hill, Jr., Site Executive Officer W. Josiger, Vice President - Enstneering and Project Management J. Kelly, Vice President - Regulatory Affairs and Special Projects T. Dougherty, Vice President - Nuclear Engineering R. Deasy, Vice President Appraisal and Compilance Services R. Patch, Director - Quality Assurance G. Wilverding, Director - Independent Oversight G. Goldstein, Assistant General Counsel C. Falson, Director, Nuclear Licensing A. Donahue, Mayor, Village of Buchanan .

C. Jackson, Nuclear Safety and Licensing Manager Con Ed)

C. Donaldson, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General (, New York Department of-Law Chaf twan, Standing Committee on Energy, NYS Assembly Chairman, Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation, NYS Assembly E. Nullet Executive Chair, Four County Nuclear Safety Committee Chairman, Committee on Corporations Authorities, and Commissions Robert D. Pollard, Union of Concerned Scientists The Honorable Sandra Galef, NYS Assembly Director, Energy & Water Division, Department of Public Service, State of New York A. Song, Assistant Secretary to the Governor -

F. Valentino, President, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

• 4 e

l

• e  !!

l l

l 9

I e

William J Cahill, Jr. 3 Distribution w/ enc 1 1 only:

T. Martin, RA C. Hehl, DNMS J. Wiggins, DRS D. Screnci, PA0 NuclearSafetyInformationCenter(NSic)

NRC Resident Ins actor .

Region! Docket,toon(withconcurrences)  ;

Distribution w/ enc 1 1 only: (VIA E-MAIL)

W. Dean, 0E00 (640)

L. Marsh, NRR .

C. E. Carpenter, NRR -

J. Harold, NRR -

Distribution w/encis: . .

PU8LIC 4

9 h

l

I 4

Enclosure 1

. QUESTIONS FROM THE APRIL 27, 1996 MEETING What is the basis that the NRC uses to decide how noch noney is adequate to set aside for the cost of decoamissioning a nuclear power plant! What is the cost of nuclear power pmduced by Indian Point because if the plant hks to mn at 85 percent of its capacity (lt never has its best year was 50 percent) local citizens worry that our dealth and safety are affected because it is, poing to be pushed to the limit in enter to make it cost effective and eenpetitive with other fems of energyt

. The requirements to estabitsh a decommissioning fund and provide reasonable assurance that funds will be available for decommissioning are described 10 CFR 50.75. Reporting and Recordkeeping for Decommissioning. The amount in the decommissioning fund.is based on the cost of placing the facility into a decommissioned state. Decommission means to remove (as a facility) safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level unrestricted use and term,that inationpomits release of Itcense. Thisof the doesproperty for the not include cost of removal and disposal of s>ent fuel or of nonradioactive i structures and materials beyond tiat necessary to teminate the license.

For a pressurized water reactor facility such as Indian Point 3 the minimum amount required for decommissioni is5105millionCIE dollars). Thatfigureisadjustedannuall based on regional data provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, au of Lcbor Statistics.

There is no requirement for licensees:to submit annually the amount of funds ata11able for decommissioning. The most recent data-provided for .

-Ip3 was 135 million in 1990. However 50.75 i at er about 5 years prior to the proje,cted en(f) mquires each licenseed 'of operation to su preliminary decommissionin j decommissioning and an up g plan containing a cost estimate forto-date assessment of th i factors that could affett planning for decommissioning.

~

The cost of nuclear power and nuclear power plant capacity factors are-not regulated by the NRC. Plant safety does not decrease as its capacity factor increases. If a plant is allowed to operate, as is Indian Point 3, the NRC considers it safe no matter what its capacity factor or power costs. Additionally, an increased capacity factor can indicate tiat plant equipment is operating well and is being well maintained. ,

local officials have told ne that the containment done is tested once or twice '

a year at a pressure of 42 to 50 pounds per square inch and that it night withstand two or two and a half times that' level, perhaps its pounds per square inch. Would a maxinua conceivable nelt down accident or terrorist attack cause (referred to as a class 9 lacident) that limit to be exceeded, thus releasing a massive radioactive cloud stellar to the Che moby1 catastmphe contaminating several counties with deadly radiation 1 Indian Point 3 was designed to sustain a design basis accident and contain the postulated radioactive releases within the original siting requirement specified in 10 CFR Part 100. A class g accident is defined as a severe accident that would result in a loss of containment integrity and possibly a radioactive release in excess of the 10 CFR 100 4

___--___.-----i

v. l I

.* 2 ,

i limits. Indian Point 3 and other licensees have prepared Individual

Plant Examinations (IPCs) to evaluate additional plant specific  ;

vulnerabilities that were not assessed during the original licensing i certification process. The IPE provides insights into specific accident sequences and the probability of their occurrence. There are accident sequences described in the Indian Point 3 IPE that may result in containment done pressure exceeding design pressure thereby causing a loss of containment integrity. Therefore, it is conceivable to lose containment integrity, but the probability of such accidents occurring )

is 1 in 1.1 million.

Additionally, the NRC's defense-in-depth approach ensures-adequate protection of public health and safety. Briefly stated, this safety construction, and philosophy operation of(1) requires nuclear highplants power qualitytoinreduce the designkelihood the li of equipment recognizes that equipment can fail and operators can malfunction; make mistakes, (2)herefore t requiring safety systems to reduce the chances '

that malfunctions will lead to accidents that result in the release of fission products from the fuel, and (3) recognizes that in spite of  ;

these precautions, serious fuel damage accidents can happen, therefore -

requiring containment structures and other safety features to prevent the release of fission products off site. The feature of ememency r

^

planning added to the defense-in-depth philosophy provides that even in the unilkely event of an offsite fission-pmduct release, reasonable assurance exists =that emergency protective actions can be taken to- 'l protect the population around nuclear power plants. Detailed planning is in place for the Emergency Plannihg Zone frotectiveactionsintheeventofaradiolog(EPZ)tof ndian Point site. .

' ical emergency at the- '

Will all safety issues be resolved before restart? If all the safety issues ,

can't be resolved before restart, why do they need to be resolved at all?

All issues that affect the safe operation of the Indian Point 3 facility

.have been resolved. However, there are other issues that the NRC must ,

address on a generic basis that are detailed in NUltEG-0g33. NYPA has I reviewed and assessed each item listed in NUREG-OH3 to determine if any additional safety enhancements need to be made at Indian Point 3. This review effort was voluntary on the part of NYPA. At this time, NYPA concluded that no actions were necessary. The importance of resolving these issues is to detemine if there are corrective actions that would have a significant potential to reduce risk. The NRC is continuing to evaluate,these issues.

What kinds of consideration for downrating a nuclear power plant have been l nade to reduce stress on components!

5 There are instances in which NRC licensed facilities may reduce power to  :

maintain operations within safety limits, for example pressurized water reactor' facilities may downrate their electrical output because of the number of steam generator tubes that are plugged. In addition, the  :

operating life of a plant may be shortened due to concerns with

)  !

i . l

[ . .a I..

l t

j 3 l susceptibility to a pressurized thermal shock event. At this time, j there are no factors that would require downrating Indian Point 3.

l What is the estinated cost and damage to a geographic ares in the worse case accidenti l

l In September of 1957 the Price-Anderson Act became law. The law

! was enacted by congress to ensure adequate funds would be availablei t

to satisfy Itability claims from members of the public in the unlikely j event of a catastrophic nuclear accident. The Act provides private

insurance for the nuclear industry and has assets in excess of.$9 i billion. The US nuclear industry's major accident occurred at Three I

~

! Nile Island Unit 2 in 1979 that accident resulted in minimal damage.

! There'has not been a recent study to'detemine the cost or damage to a geographical area.

1 .

! Will Indian Point 3 be in compliance with all NRC R lations including the General Design Criteria specified by 10 CFR $0 Appe fx A prior to restarti

! The NRC staff has conducted thorough and extensive inspection activities i during the Indian hint 3 shutdown. Based on this inspectio'n effort, j the NRC has concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the -

i licensee-is in compliance will all of its requirements, which includes

! NRc Regulations. Exemptions have been requested and approved for those ,

a areas of non-compliance where a sound safety basis for issui the 3

exemption existed. However, as with operation of.any facili , if an issue of non-compliance is detected at any time during ' ra on, the

issue will be addressed commensurate with its safety s ificance in i accordance with the NRC's enforcement policy. Indian int-3 is a plant l whose construction permit was issued prior to 1971; As such the plant '

I j is not required to comply with the General Design Criteria ( )as i specified in 10 CFR Part 50. However, Indian Point 3 has rev owed its

! design. basis, as compared to the GDC, and has justified how the GDC is i in fact met. Once again, based on the extensive inspection effort l

! conducted, the NRC has concluded that there is reasonable assuran~ce that l l the plant meets its design basis.

(

! Have all generic safety issues identified in MilREG 0933 been addrwssed in accordance with the requireeents of Technical Specifications and Generic letter 91-181 Have operability determinations been performed for all identified deficiencies in accortlance with the requirenents of MRC Generic

letter 91-18? Has the outcone of these operability' determinations

conclusively demonstrated that structures, systens and conpenents will be

! capable of preforming their designated functions under all postulated accident i conditions with these identified deficienciest Have these operability i

are they available for review deterninstions by neebers of the general public? These operabi been reviewed by the NRC? If so,lity issues include: 1) Motor i

i Operated Valvest 2) Potential Spent fuel Pool loss of Water During Refuelingi

3) Operability of Condensate Pots for Stean Generators and Pressurizert 4) 4 Environmental Qualification of Cablest 5) Rosenount Transmitters (loss of-Oll, i Hydrogen Penetration, 011 Crystallization)

6) Thernolag Fire Barrierst 7)

Station Blackoutt 8) Selsnic and Environmental Qualification of Electrical b

-.--o--- . - _ - . . . - - - - , - - . ~ - - - - m.v.-c-r,._ -- .-.--w.e----,-m.,m-..re,.m..-wwm,rm -mn-~-v'~ve --r*- v-wwivr+

o ,.

u~ k w.

18- , g *

~. , , ,

4 .

rtanttoSaf.etyt10)SecurttyThreats .'

Equipagnt 9) flooding of Equipnent W -

• • 'to Serw Re; Water intake Structure and ;*Hasr30u the pd

'Iity11)f!&

o Q%* ' Westinghouse Reacdor. Coolant Punp % accidents resulting (ma" these ided blusteda -

detemined to be acceptable with no *. undue risk

• to the public! Are the -

pmbability calculations available for pubite review? '

The NRC protects public health and safety by assessing licensee cogliance $th regulatory re.quirggents. This is accomplished, in part, pr~ - by?the Jnspectice. process, which .audWra A4consee's. operation'.in order to determine whether there is 4capliance with:41RC m quirements and whether there are any conditions that might undemine reasonable assurance of the protection of the public. health and safety. In .

o ction process.detectsa weakness .in the. area beingM.

expandetFedehilfeliendtgispatFennM asseM5d to.

Y ~ ? #generHFif audited the-a t iw 4,u , pipper17ditermine whether there is cwliance with aplicable

- - requirements,* or to take enforcement-aciton if a licens'ee is found to be .

- in noncompliance with NRC requi .._ _

t of.Th ie o of Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, are part

• ofithe NRC-issued operating licenses, and require Therethat systems and/or ts, however, no NRC ,

components im>ortant to safety be operable.rability determinations per se.' .N requirement tiat licensees perform o .besis by Itceasses, usi.no

. operability is eyaluated on ago 24y-to-dayoperations, plant various appropriate methods 4 hat .

observations 1from the: control room, surveillances, test programs, tours,her and ot similar activities.. As a practical matter,-if operability of a system or component comes into question, a licensee is required to- l ensure that the system can perform its specified safety function.

• The relationship of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 8 ' Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear power Plants and fuel Reprocessing plants,' to Specifically, Criterion

' equipment operability also deserves comment.XVI of Appendix 8 r Criterion M I..does not, per se be promptly identified and corrected.

require l>erfomance of operability determinations for any oculpment or .

system wien a condition adverse to quality is identified., Powever, performance of an operability determination may be one appropriate In addition, response to a particular condition adverse to quality.

Criterion XVI does not.transfom the guidance of generic letters, NURE6s, regulatory guides, or other documents into regulatory requirements. .

In particular, the NRC issued GL gl-18, "Information to Licensees Regarding Two NRC Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of Degraded in order to inform and Nonconforming Conditions and on Operability,'C review of licensee licensees of NRC internal guidance used during NR operability determinations and of licensee resolutions of degraded and nonconfoming conditions. The guidance provided by GL 91-18 imposes no requirement upon NRC licensees, but merely provides information that may

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

i

)

.;. . +4 m  ;

• M1, ..

. ' a L .% 0" "' Q ... ._ 3

. *-r .- .s AM. . .' . ' . . .p ..-

l

, ,,. 4

e. ,.

+ . .

, t.

7 Aw. v.. .

! be'useful to licensees in their efforts to comply with regulatory .

! requirements. Furthemore, Criterion Xh doeamot impose 1 4 requirementuponlicenseestoevaluate1 heir 4erations'u '

,% i g, n . y9> ~ >

Nost of the 11 listed items abovd have been addmssed via W Indian Point 3 Individual Plant Examination (IPE that was subettted to the NRC on June 30, Igg 4, and is available to the)public for Mview.The IPE is ,

j an integrated systematic examination of each r plant looki for -

. e risk contributors that migh 1 ific and mi

%e M

~

' ~ - sat"a1 systematic sengeb... . ~

j ' s '. 3 developing an appreciation of IWers accident behavior, unde .

ing 4 the most likely severe accident sequences that could occur at the plant, j gaining a more quantitative rstanding of the overall bilities '

i of core damage and fissi.on p. and reducing. vera .

4- **

probabilities of.,edpe' damage l and. . '

t.rmleans apt m

! modifications as needed. With the exception of the spent fuel pdolgg y "

! ... issue, accidents resulting from a11 2f the above-mentioned deficienc h l have been addressed, in part, in the IPE. , , ___

1 Additionally, as part of the restart.pmcessatJndian Point 3, .theWtc . ,

. perfomed team inspections in the ' areas of motor operated valves (MOV) i and fire protection. The MOV inspection found that significant progress

! had been made in the Generic Letter 89-10 MOV proqram. All MOVs in the j program were demonstrated to be operable for star;up. The fire ,

protection. inspection found that corrective actions. addressed fire i' i pmtection-related issues to allow restart. Finally, Indian Point 3_

1 i does not use Thomolag. .

l hilREG 1353 discusses the cons ences of spent fuel 1 accidents. Mas this

? document been reviewed in accortlance with NYPA's Qua y Assurance pngran and

bounds AU. potential accidentk with nspect to the followingt

(

- Populattondose(8mi11lonperson-ren)

- Population density (860 residents per square alle)

.- P nperty damage ($20 Bf1Ilon nexlaun) t Effect The effect on' communities located.downstrean upon water supplies for New YorkofCity the and plant,Westchester County i

Have the consequences of these and all other identified potential.failums and i identified deficiencies been analped in accortlance with the requirenents of' j Mew York Power Authority's Quality Assurance p ngreat Do tlk Nsults of this analysis demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 100 for all accidents? Are doses to the Genetal pubitc within those specified by 10 CFR 2001 ,

s

! The staff nas analyzed the radiological consequences of various s>ent .

l fuel pool accidents and made the results publicly available in MULEG-i 2 1353,

• Beyon d. Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools',' April 1989." Regu

NUREG-1353, the staff presents the detailed assum>tions and scenarios

! for which the values quoted above are germane. T'.e spent fuel pool

' accident described in NUREG-1353 involves a Zircalloy cladding fire i after an event that has led to a complete loss of spent fuel pool I

i i

L,.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m _ _ _.~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

l 1 .

P . ,

j 6 .

i coolant inventory. NUREG-1353 discusses the potential causes of a complete inventory loss, loss of spent fuel pool cooling and beyond design basis earthquakes. However the NUREG is careful not to convey the impression that any leak or inferruption of fuel pool cooling .

i necessarily leads to the best estimate offsite ' consequences. Instead, i

the NUREG presents a well developed discussion on the estimated 1 i

i frequer.cy of fuel pool accidents that places the best estimate consequences in appropriate context. The NUREG presents a table of  !

worst case consequences based on shorter spent fuel decay time and a '

1 Main 2

high surrounding population density. conduct however, NYPA a review has and assessme  !

evaluated various spent fuel' pool scenarios and determined that no undue

~

risks exist from these scenarios. The agency is currently reviewing j .

spent fuel pool questions associated with 10 CFR Part 100..

j .

i 4

l .

) .

r - . t ,

4 s

9 4

' ~ '

, - - - - , - . . . , . . - - , - . . - - - , - - - . - - , - - , , - - , - a, ,--, ,- .,, . , ---' ^ ' '

h

~^

NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY INDIAN POINT 3 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ASSESSMENT OF STATION PERFORMANCE DURING FULL POWER OPERATION NYPA - NRC PUBLIC MEETING OCTOBER 18,1995 1

~.

~ - -

NYPA - NRC PUBLIC MEETING ASSESSMENT DURING FULL POWER OPERATION AGENDA

1. NYPA OPENING REMARKS II. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW lll. OPERATIONS IV. MAINTENANCE V. ENGINEERING VI. INDEPENDENT OVERVIEW

- Independent Safety Engineering 1

- Quality Assurance Vll.

SUMMARY

l

l IiillI

~

E n V s o I

T a i A e r

t a

R )t -

a c T n i

o n S e w u

N tm I

t m e c

r n n I

M a m

p i

o e D e g c r e

AD i n d h .

D s f f n d -

N n t a a .

a -

A to i

s k r

e r

L a e o u E e r s w d a e N p e m ..

c N O r

c a o O( n e r S I T P R * .

• E P

,ll!

~ ~

PLANT PERFORMANCE

. Overall dependable performance

. Improving trends in key indicators l

~

. Equipment issues are being addressed 4

lt ;i .! l.

r _

l e _

o .

o , _

c e g _

t n a n e g t _

u e

m o r o s p _

e d d .

r i u y n N l u q h t

e O

i a e r o x .

e I

T f e f I

D t

n d i 4 t o -

N e s- 1 n

y r O m p r e o ~

C i u d a b

. i i

s pe. _

L q n m co _

A e o t e ec _

I R c p ds E w e e ek T f e s S vr o io A y t

n. '. t aw M l e s w v v r o rd e n d

snpa i i t

a a t p u l

e e h o x R R S Ce u

~

m

ll! , < l 4l i ;i l 2 !i!I lll; - ! $I!!i

.il!! l l

. I d

e s

- E t

n s V e e

- I d s T s i _

_ A )t c a .

R n c k g .

T e a s n S m e i r i l

_ I t m s u

~

N r i d I

a t i

e e

_ M D

p e

t s l u

h c

D o g

_ A e

l a

e s n d e d s

_ D c u i

n h n

- N n t u i c -

a A a d a s o

r n n -

t k g Le h t a e r n E t i s c o i n

N n i

w e n : w n N a s r u a k a O (M y n e ~

l p

S a d e t e e d c n kr R

E 0 o i a

W - o 0 r 2 P 4 P M 1 W

;l;l!l l;  ;

PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE (Engineering Department)

• Relocation of White Plains staff

. System Engineering and Design Engineering merged

. Responsihe to emergent operational issues e

e T

. x

ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES

• Current workload

- Engineering assurance

• Long-term programs l

8

INDEPENDENT SAFETY ENGINEERING GROUP

. OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT RESULTS STRENGTHS:

• Major plant equipment performed weII

• Conservative decision-making by station management .

• Excellent staff response to recent events

• Heighten $d awareness of design bases and operating requirements following operation at reduced pressure l

~

l

\

INDEPENDENT SAFETY ENGINEERING GROUP l OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT RESULTS 4

i CHALLENGES:

1

)

• Resolve some long-term equipment problems

~

j l

• Tim 91 y issue resolution and ~ informal j decision-making i

i +

10

- -- .~ ,

w ~ ~ - - - - _ - - - _ _ -

j!!

~

d e

_ e c v n s e

o r e d _

n s

r e p h a a

- W m d b

's E d i

a n e~

I V e e r e g idc n e i

r a

i

_ R f u s c E

i t

s e e V n e d

e d iu e g c c cd -

O d n o f

o i

f e

_ E i

i t

r er

- y i

r r

c a p e ds C l t u r g i N n c p e d m 's A e e v e od

_ R t s r k r .or l w o r n e o u U i s p o ~

_ S n r

a w m k n

l oo r r S o s y i t a n

_ A c m

t e

r e n okr e o Y

T r

a l e f a

s h

t r

i t

a

' co o w I b u f L s o l a f t

s r A m r

p i r o d ro

- U e t t n et Q l e s d a bar b

o m u e p me

- P r

S o d I

n N e

E x up N 'o

- * * . * *

• u

~

-  ;  ; , j!

). l:lli d

S n N yt os pe O t n sg i

a I

S l

i l bp en re t

n U a e l e

L dh t ola m C et e hc e N t a n l v O bl o C

r t a i

aan r p

stn s ni io m W oa n i

t s i E mm orae eu d

e I

V e i t

apss u R d dn zoi n ~

E sa i n

i .

V a gl a t

n O hnu a gi nc i o

c T

f r f

ay run N tl onh i r

o sef l t c ~.

E D t a l

a ne rot f

d.

N n a s ecd v o n e

e E

Pt o l

P Ot a N E

D * *

• N I

_  : ;jll I  ; l

l.  ;; g e,. m + w--..--- - -

.5 1

l

' % g._ ,

l 9

WI$fEABMMMJEa3NN$gs

.e. .

e%i bk n 1 -

.,u

1. rout Gr. Sf.si ": , --g

r. .

cm a- n& m >

I

h. O b b b ' Q % ,- ~

thf.'ph*'Spe:Ow,u 5 Awm v.w.4%W.ip,t.. . / ' . . . , . e,

,3e i.

NY*f?

j , , 7W Nih! ?.h[ ,t' i, ,

l 66s u,5. N R C J. Cmfit ua  ;

1 l i

g ., )\ y e.,a~t e R l

% cf Tw s s >N04 i i N. ti,itilitiiili iiiiiiilliiiiillit itiiklilitail Rike G - Nt"9t #

%k l ..

l i , .2 ft e

.t GIriI. $ 't , . . , .,,t -

a

., '.d M -JO:N j .

I l

1 4

?

ff /' .

j iV I

i i

i

-,_..._..w., m.~_ . . . ..,..,,,,r.,r..,...w, _.m......._..._..--,.....,-,,-...._.-.#,,,-....,_,,7

. . . . - , . - _ . , ..w,,,., _.-.,-,.,,.-.,-,ev--w--*

l WM. ,, . WS2?'e

. ,i '

i 0'

4. g

,,1

w . c. .

. .  ::. . e . ,, . . . . : ~.

. .v, ^, hA -

i,'

,. .:e... ' e t

& CweWs ,

/O(2.o V

?rl

)aMuuGAtb pacm L y OcmsJ

& A/4.C r Nj PA N-$ 4 //> 3 l lo h.... k{hh~hy$?b:hi$h.? .

Ab d4isy' W f & avtdu S w- @/tTlW. $. ) m w cas%- cyAj n - -

w unc + AiyPAfl

& A in t cum fwd. !

A m m,

' M. /Ddw -

1J e

?

. . .,g

.t

.V ([  %

.". '.k'e d(.

s . ; . E g'f gI.

11M-[i,t",

~

. M

.,d$.g

. 1 +

1. • 4..,. . -. i e *

. , ,g - 'h ' *

.".J M ' O bl6?'-

4

\

e

' g'.,4 g, ....:s*

, ,-t; e i a 8-

h g-

!h

• 1 l

Il

MAY 6 1994 1

/ U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION No. 94-62 RFAION I NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT MELT N Licensee: New York Power Authority Facility: Indian Point Unit 3 Docket No.: 50-286 Time and Date: 10:00 a.m., May 26,1994 Location: Hill Training Center, Indian Point 3 Buchanan, New York Purpose Manage:nent Meeting to Discuss IndLan Point 3 Restart Plan NRC Attendees: W. Inning, Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP)

C. Cowgill, Chief, Projects Branch 1, DRP J. Joyner, Chief, Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards Branch, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards (DRSS)

G. Meyer, Chief, BWR and PWR Section, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS)

N. Conicella, NPF Project Manager O. Tracy, Senior Resident Inspector Licensee Attendees: W. Josiger, Acting Executive VP of Nuclear Genemtion P. Borer,1P of Nuclear Engineering A. Bellis, VP of Nuclear Business Operations J. Kelly, Acting VP of Nuclear Op: rations and Maintenance K. Chapple,' Director of Nuclear Operations i L. Hill, Resident Manager ,

E. Fogarty, General Manager, Support Services J. DeRoy, General Manager, Maintenance J. Comiotes, Acting General Manager, Operations W. Cahill

~

MAY 6i l

r 2

{ h 3)

This meeting is open to the public for observation. Attendance by NRC A NOTE:

personnel at th!s meeting should be made known by May 24,1994 via telephone call to Pete ILelgroth, Region 1, at FTS 8-215-337 5234. Handicapped persons requiring assistance to attend or participate bi the meeting shall make their requests known to Pete Eselgroth, USNRC, Region I,475 Allendale Rd., King of Prussia, PA 19406, (215) 337-5234, no later than two business da s prior to the meeting.

-[

Prepared by: 's y Peter W. Esel , Chief Reactor Proj Sectica No. IB Distribution (Via E-Mall):

J. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations (EDO)

J. Milhoan, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Opentions and Research (DEDR)

H. Thompson, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Matenal Safety, Safeguards

- and Operations Support (DEDS)

B. Grimes, Director, Div% ion of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards, NRR J. Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement S. I.cwis, Office of the Genmal Counsel (OGC)

W. Russell. Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation A. Thadani, Amiate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment, NRR L. Reyes, Associate Dir~ent for Projects, NRR S. Varga, Director, Olvriu of P,eactor Projects - I/II, NRR J. Calvo, Assistant bWar te.' Region I Reactors, NRR 3

, R. Capra, Director, Project Directorate I-1, NRR N. Conicella, Project Manager, NRR l -

S. Bajwa, RPEB/NRR N. Given, L., Policy Development and Technical Support Branch V. McCrpe, Regional Coordinator, OEDO '-

NRC Resident Inspectov Region I Branch ChieE .

Region I Section Chiefs K. Abmham, Public Affairs Officer, RI D. Serenci, Field Public Affairs Officer, R1 M. Miller, State Liaison Officer, RI

= C. Gordon, State Agreements Officer, RI K. Smith, Regional Attorney, RI D. Holody, Enforcement Officer, RI B. Letts, Office of Investigations, Region I Field Office J. I;mning, DRP, RI P. Jefferson, DRMA, RI s

MAY 6 004 i

3 I

d Distribution:

Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

W. Josiger, Acting Executive Vice Pmsident - Nuclear Generation P. Eddy, New York State Public Service Department State of New York ,

Chairman, Standing Committee on Energy, NYS Assembly Chairman, Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation, NYS Assembly Executive Chair, Four County Nuclear Safety Committee Robert D. Pollard, Union of Concerned Scientists Regional Administrator Secretary, RI DRP Division Secretary, RI DRS Division Secretary, RI DRSS Division Secretary, RI DRMA Division Secretary, RI Region I Receptionist J

)

+

e d

i i

5 9