IA-84-470, Sixth Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Licensing Delays & Expedited Hearings.Forwards App a Documents. Documents Also in Pdr.Portions of Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 7)

Sixth Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Licensing Delays & Expedited Hearings.Forwards App a Documents. Documents Also in Pdr.Portions of Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 7)

ML20127F663
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/16/1985
From:	Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Bell N NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCE SERVICE
References
FOIA-84-470 NUDOCS 8506250221
Download: ML20127F663 (3)

Text

-

• 8[ ,  %,

r, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION \

h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 0

..... E 10 E Ms. Nina Bell Nuclear Inforrration and Resource Service 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N'r' IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20036 TO F0lA-84-470

Dear Ms. Bell:

This is a sixth response to your letter deted June 1, 1984, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freederr of Information Act (FOI A), copies of all documents prepared or utilized by, in the possession of, or routed through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) related to:

1. The March 20, 1984, memorandum from Chairman Palladino to the Commissioners re: Licensing Delays, including, but in no way limited to, the " briefing sheets" alluded to in paracraph two of the memo; ard P. The leoel tothorit", ar c jut ti"'cition for, npodim hrnrin5! h id by A' tor ic we.tr a re l icensire Pr er rk. A+rrir saf oty am' Licersinc Errr Eis F"'rf' r nd 9.c 4 ' M 5 i" -

Tte e r von deco r r;t e ! i c + r r' r - tk cralr-rd Enrr-di- I a r.' h<i- r D red 4- "<

ral.- '. y . - trrtt v. . 6 ., -rr-, . .i. , , . -

• r: &sontino e crrv of H i' V irr tt tb 7 etr#' <- bs reco" o f 014 '

F0 % PI- 'T ur e:e > w r m .

Per+ ons of decurert( l.9 tr o a r e be ine v i t hb. f 4lor re! sc ( d e c i rm i

. . m . <

inferr;+ir , cccic tr, + w e ta i? - inn st a rt 'ed to ir m R- scae ci m tion, anc focus of iru stigato s e f fort r, . c r c t hus cou' r pr s sibl; allow ther to take action to shield retential wrongdoina or r siciation of HEC requirortents from investigators.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.15 of the Com-ission's regulations, it has been determined that the ardorrration withheld is e>errpt fron production o

d'sclosure and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The person responsible for this denial is Mr. Ben B. Hayes, Director, Office of Investig7tions.

8506250221 850416 PDR FOIA BELL 94-470 PDR

Re: F0lA-84-470 (6th rosponse)

APPEf! DIX A

• l. 03/10/84 Femn for Pobert A. Purple from Roger Fortuna re: STATUS OF O!

It'VfSTICATIONS w/ attached Status of Of Investigations (3 pages)

• 2. Undated Draft document, "Licensinc Status for Grand Gulf 1" (6 pages)

• 3. Undated Draft document "Waterford Unit .'" (4 pages) 4 Ur. dated Draf t documents Pyron I and 2; Callaway Status; Catawba 1; Commanche Peak; Diablo Canyor Hearing Status; Fermi 2: Grand Gulf; Limerick Pearing Status; Midler/ P Hearing Status; Status Report for Palo Verde Unit 1; Perry I and 2; River Bend 1; Shoreham Hearing Status; Susquehanna 1 and 2; Waterford; Watts Bar 1 and 2; and Wold Creek (17 Pages)

5. Undated Emeroency Freparedness Status (4 paaes)

6. Undater Draf t doctu rit listing vi,rinus plir.it s tart mc v'/Pator4.rr, 2 ft reces) 7 lf t:6e ted Lit e r.< ire S t ?

• u! for f/idi;r r /5 p]ror'

- ;, 4 ,., . >. . c. , , ,

r, , ,

a i

O s-This denial may be appealed to the Contrission within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. Any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Secretary of the Conmission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on tho envolcro and'in the letter that it is er "Appeel f ron, an Initia l F01 A Decision."

The staff is continuina to review documents sub,iect to your request. We will notify you upon completien of the review.

Since ly,

'M n,.

, ' [M Felton, Director Division of Fules and Records Office of Administration

Enclosures:

As stated

4

- u..iiDs 1.115 fc . r- ' >

(**' . ,u ; NUC L E AR RE GUL .*.i OP v COT.**11SSION >

l ,

2, ., . ,) e v. ;.e . . t, n; . :. c : . m

'se I

• * .~ { ,} , .

e l . * . '

l l 1 l

N -:P 16. 19f*

J

• : ; * . ,:' ."* C ;. :

Rooer: A. Furple, De:u;. 2 rc: .cr ,

Divisier of L1:ensir.:

e,0" of - r

.u-ie=-- r-- N' ic .: - ::;u;c-icr.

% -- ~ L D - TLC

[. r0 : Lei,L'.f c ci,.

r..- RtpeY ire: or Gifice'of investice: 1ons .

~

..:.:..: S _e i n. _ u s. r O. :0. ... .. .. :. . . :. .. .. .u. .. .. .. ,.:. .

. ..e.-.

,..-e...,

-, .a 7 g.., .. ... .

. . .,. .,, .. . r ...

. . . n. . ..

l

e.  ;

6// . ./-

5 p~

75C a .

G e

(NIG)

O .m. l f ^ ~ ^ ^ ' O g p o fp _* " , y

' t ' _' ,/ h o,A )'Que elt a w cr es

, a *8 1

i

, WARNING--This information may not be released outside the NRC without the permission of the ~;irector. 01. Internal access and disseminction must be on a need and right-to-know b3 sis.

_STAitiS Of 01 INVESTIGATIONS BYRON: At present there is one (1) ongoing 01 investigation at Byron which relates to alleged falsification of quality control documentation in the electrical hanger area.

' ' # wg. .

COMANCHE PEAK: , , g . . _ f,,, y . ,

4 2-

_ c m-ka '%t" W W #

DIABLO CANYON: The one (1) ongoing investigation concerns the alleged falsification of background investigations of contract security ruards. Additionally, there are six (6) pending inquiries variously pertaining to the alleged intimidation of QC personne?, falsification of records, deficient pipe supports and pipe stress designs, the passing of contraband into a security area, and a possible material false statement.

GRAND GULF: y..

.o... .

s .' . -

h fhf' l&hh : 2

.~ I ' LO .

.);?.:,

LIMERICK: Presently there are no 01 investigations involving the

.- idgetick facility. . --

MARBLE HILL: ( 3,5-

,h aw , .y. ;c g 4, v - Q j r f[fg ,.g. . g .. .

- ,. ,i% .

3

)

I. 'Q1}. .

MIDLAND: Presently there are no 01 investigations involving the Midland facility.

PALO VERDE: There are two (2) pending investigations and three (3) pending inquiries variously addressing alleged I deficiencies in a piping system, improper testing, omissions in documents by APS data processing, falsification of records, rod intimidation of QC personnel.

l l

w

%e *

- 2 WARNING--This infonnation may not be released outside the NRC without the permission of the Director. 01. Internal access and dissemination must be on a need and right-to-know basis, SHOREHAM: Presently there are no 01 investigations involving the Shoreham facility.

THI-1: At present there is one (1) ongoing 01 investigation involving THI, Unit 1, which pertains to possible violations of leak rate test procedures,  %

WATERFORD: . -a, , - . - ..

a . >.,;

. , . ~

-.. i..,a

.~ m hn,.:~s.;;; ..

... r.s  :.

,x.c 2 m m . ..,.,.

,g e n n

.w

-' ** 4 -

ZIMMER-' -

, a

, . Jr.n:5,%.k.W . E!:421kW.%M'. - lCt

~.s=. .,.

' a x .:. . . ~ , -:

. , . -e m.v ~.-.. .~ < , . s - . . .; c , .. -

h...

w ..T y .. c.m

- n .y , m ng .w;nPJmte.. .1.JW ~-Tddf.N.4,ag%.pym h M C N E.2.U.Ii N [

_- 73 ,-

+n r.

.C . W

..a gssy:=fw. : 4 ,.. ' ,

. - . . t.4....wv9*-_N. M ,,,M..3A Q i.r d

. . . . . ~ - .+,-. ,.y . m!.9*.3,tPJ.4,Wf.n.t..i..

.e -

. @. : f2:c,a :;.ny:,:

.s  ;.~.n.,,2*.xC'w.

s - .. .h, psjtl%. .si.p3

. .%,p my, k'40tP:.*et,:J,E.*259Q.,

- - .G.

., 1?;9p;_y. '

~ g+43:.n ._m w s,gocou ym _ * ? - og.

l l

l I

L

. ..?_

e=~

s V ,

LICENSIN"> STATUS F0E GRAND GULF 1 Grand Gulf Unit I was issued a low power (51) license or ,1une IE, 19B?. Fuel loading was carried out in ,luly th-ough ea*1y-Aucust 19E? and the plant achieved initial criticality on August IE, 19E?. Tne licensee undertool an extended outage fror D:tober 195? until Septerber 1953 upon discovery of inadeauate drywell cooling following non-nuclear heat up. Activities that were completec during this outage included installation of additional drywell cooling capacity, resolution of deficiencies in surveillance procedures and technical specifica-tions, modifications tc a number of plant systems oriainally on a schedule for completion during the first refueling outace, and recovery from a fire in the Division I diesel generator room.

Unit I returned to criticality on September 25, loS3 to resume low power testing which was comcleted up to St power on November 8, 1983. At the conclusion of low power testing, the licensee began a recertification program for the licensed ocerators. This progran resulted fror a Fegior 11 insoection as a follow-up on reperted -iscrepan:ies ir. the c:f rater cM'ification ca-ds. The prograr was ccepleted in late February ISE4 anc or: the basis o' a follow-up insce: tier.,

Pegion'll has approved the status o' licensed operatoes (with some specific exceptionsl. Tnere are now sufficiert apceoved li;er. sed :peraters to surrert five (5) shift operation FSAR Review (Full Power Licensing)

1) TDI Diesel Generators Grand Gulf has standby emergency diesel generators canuf actured by Transamerica Delaval Incorporated (TDI). As a result of a trankshaft failure in a TDI unit at Shoreham in August 1983, the staff performed an in-depth evaluation of the manufacturing and performance history of the TDI units at nuclear and non-nuclear facilities.

A large number of operational probiers were identified and quality assur-ance deficiencies were noted at the ranuf acturinc plant. Taken together, these problers sicnificantis recu:ec the staff's level of co-Jidente in the reliability c' all TDI 'diesei generators.

Tne licensee is a rsuinc resolution o' this issue in two ways. First, they have ioined a TM %r.er's Grout , and .icintiv are encacec in a prograr te address the prob'.er. areas needing resolution to restore confidence in the I! diesels. The Etaf' was ;-cvided the details c' the Daner's Group p"o-ca o- Fenroarv N, IM ' P i a r.

• specif1: cetails will be proviced afte-the staff ha ar? oved the Daner's Serup prog-ar. Se:ond, the licer+see has undertais' ar en".an:er.e.i r .;ra- te imp-ove ;*.e reliah iity of the ensite/o#fsite r:we sv*.ie at *u 'a:ili". while awaitinq eesclutinr c' the II' i: sue. %e sta *: rer. c- St S i's o' t v e.%ncf ent nr' rr Q

Licensing Status for Grand Gulf -?-

in a submittal dated February 26, 1984. Staff concerns about the program were discussed with the licensee on April 5, 1984 and are expected to be

, subm.itted by letter on April 13, 1984 The resolution of these ' issues is e>:ected to be conpleted by mic-May 1904

2) Te:hnical Specifications On March 9, 1984, the licensee met with the staff to discuss their current crograt to perform a complete review of the Technical Specifications. This review resulted from the re-review of the Te:hnical Specifications by the staff and the licensee. Significant discrepancies were discovered which required resolution prior to proceeding with full power licensing. The results of the current program were presented to the staff on April 4,1984.

Approximately 350 problea areas have beer identified. The staff is meeting on an almost daily schedule with the licensee to assist in the r,esolution of these problems. Since the licensee has yet to subT.it the bulk of the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications, an anticipated completion time for resolution is not possible te oredict at this tirie.

Fe a -i ne s The Grand Gulf OL proceeding was uncontestec. A low power license for Unit I was issued in June 19B?. Five weeks later, a siegle petition to interver.e by the State c# Lcuisiana was filec seen in:: to raisc issues rega-cir.c the environ-mental impact of the nuclear fuel cycle. The petition was denied by the licensino Board and affirmed by the Apoeal Board.

In addition, there is an OL amendment proceeding Dending. The amendment involves chances to Technical Specifications on operability range for high pressure core spray, automatic tripping of RHF jockey pumps and one time exceptions to ADS tric system surveillance recuirements and scram discha ge volume surveillance recuirements to allow startup testino. The amendment was issued 9/23/83 after the staf f made a final no significant hazards consideration finding. A petition to intervene on the amendment was filed by Jacksonians United for Livable Energy l Policies. Contentions were filed on 2/15/84 with a prehearinc conference held or. 2/29/84. There has been no determination on whether intervention will be permitted and a hearing held.

Ee-cency Preparedness There are no outstanding emeroency preparedness issues for license issuance.

9.e annual emergency drill was conducted or. April 10-17, 1984 CAT Inspection Tre e are no CAT inspections planned for this plant. This type of inspection wat ir.itiated by the staff subsecuent to the issuan:e o' the Grand Gulf license.

" Licensing Status on Grand Gulf -

NRC Inspections Tht preoperational and power ascensior. irspe: tion pro;ra- has beer irpierented and is current at Grand Gulf. In addition to the norr.al Inspectior Program, special inspections to assess the effectiveness of adnerence to pro:edures, the utilization of consultants and advisors, and the level of compliante with regulatory reovirements and license conditions have beer. conductec to assess the operational readiness of the facility for full power licensing. These have included: (1) Low Power Test Results; (2) Surveillance Frocedures/ Technical Specifications; (3) Licensed Operator Oualifications; and (a) Facility Perfor-m.ance. The results are summarized below:

1. Low Power Test Results Preoperational and acceptance test results have heer reviewer 5 on-site inspection. Only four tests have not been closed by the iD5Dection staff.

One test, "Isophase Rus Ventilation Heat load" cannot be comcleted until the plant achieves 100 power, in that the test recuires full electrical output to demonstrate acceptability. One test, " Balance of Piant ricing Expansier. Monitoring" has beer judger sufficiently complete #c perceedtr:

te operation above Si power. Twc tests, " Balance of Pian Pip n; Vit ratior Monitoring" and " Transient Test Ecuipment Verification" w'11 be reviewed after the licensee has cer?leted their evaluatior. c' the results.

2. Surveillance Procedures / Technical Specifications Corrective actions have been initiated by MP&L and the NRC staff to correct specific and generic problems associated with the Technical Specifications and surveillance testing which the staf f identified during the period of October 1982 to December 1983. NRC staff members have me: with w? A'.

management on numerous occasions to ensure that corrective actions taken by MP&L were commensurate with the magnitude of the related problems and that such actions are implemented in a time frame that will minimize their impact on the public.

Although errors were identified during the review conducted by the licensee consultants and the NRC, none o' the errors (in the judgment o' the NRC staff) are of a level of safety signi#icance which need to be cc-eettec prior to reactor restart. All identified errors will be corre:ted en a schedule commensurate with their need (a) prior te issuance c' a #ul' onwar license, (b', during power escalation, or (c) by the 1st refuel'n; outhge.

On-site inspections of surveillance procedures have been completec. T r.t procedures are considered to be acequate.

2. L1_ censed Operator Quali#ications The program te recertify licensec ODerators included ar. extensi .e e> 5 'na-tion and evaluatior by the uti'ity of all licensed coerators and tra'rinc ir the areas of icer.ti#ie wea*ne:-ses. This specifi: :-ng a Dett' ir

Licensing Status for Grand Gulf .

November 1983, and was completed in February 1984 The recertification pro-gram included an individual walk-through oral examination of each licensed ODerator on each of 78 systers listed or. the Grand Gulf licensed operator qualification card. These e>aminaticns we-e monitered by P.ississippi Power and Light, representatives of two other utilities, the Nuclear Steam Supply operator on each of 78 systems listed on the Granc Gulf licensed operator qualification card. These examinations were monitored by Pississippi Power

~

and Light, representatives of two other utilities, the Nuclear Stear Supply vendor (General Electric), and tre NDC. At ths ccmpletion of this e> erina-tion process, the records of the licensed operators were reviewed by a Grand Gulf recertification board consistinc of plant management. The board examined operator training records and the results of the examinations, and orally examined operators as necessary.,

Upon completier of licensee recertification process , the NRC independently reexamined all licensed operators. Twenty-three o' the twer.ty-s'ix opera-tors examined by NRC passed. The :went)-three operators provide sufficiant staff for full power operation. The three c.nerators who failed have beer removed from licensed duties as confirmed by ??.C letters dated February 7c and P. arch 23,19F4.

4 Facility Ferformance Ine level of NRC inspection activity at Grand Gulf continues to be approx-imately 200; of previously budaeted hours. The inspections have concentra-ted in those functional areas rated as Category 3 durinc the last SALP period, September 1, 1982 - Septem5er 30, 1983. Our special assessment of the performance since that time is sumnarized below:

a. Plant Operations - The period of actual operation at criticality or up to Si power has been limited to the conduct of the 10 power test program, which began on September 25, 1983, and terminated on November 7, 1983. Low power operation and testing continued through-out October 1983 and was witnessed by various Region 11 inspectors.

I In the judoment of Region 11, these operations were conducted in a j safe, deliberate and professional manner, and were very successful.

Only three unplanned scrams, of minor sionificance, occurred during this period. That number is less than typical for facilities in this phase of startup.

MPL has taken significant actior.s, which are responsive to correctior-i nf areas of concerns that were identified in the SALT report. So'e o#

the actions taker are:

(1) Completed a major cpera.or rece-tificaticr. progra and 23 of ?E liter. sed operators su: cess'uily Dassed the subsequer. hR: recca'i-l fica tice exar.ir.ation. The recerti'ication procrar is described

! in Fecicn 11 r eetino su- .ary oated November 22, 1983, whict j docu ents N't'.'s hose 'er 18. ! oft, cretenta* ion o' the p-ocre-l to Regic'. I'. .

l i

Licensing Status for Grand Gulf -

5- ,

(2) Implemented an extensive Operational Enhancement Program, which among many other iters re:uired sensitization o' operators to meticulously comply with regulatory requirements, includine procedures. This program is described in the March 11, 19E3, letter AECM-83/0177 from MP&L to Region.11.

(3) Conducted system and simulator training of Shift Advisors and Shif t Technical Advisors. These advisors underwent writter.

examination and review of their performance and experience by the plants' Operator Training Evaluation Board.

(4) Completed a comprehensive review of Technical Spec ifications with identification and planned resolution of all knc.. discrepancies.

The program is described in FFF.L letter AECP-84'0lR3"tc N00 (5) Management plant personnel changes involved replacements of both the Plant Manager and the Assistant Plant Manager for Operations with individuais having previous nuclear commercial operating experience. The r? art orgarizaticr. has been restru: ured to incorporate three assistant Flant l'anagers #or tetter manaptment control.

b. Maintenance - Management meetings have been conductec with thc highest level of corporate executives to relate NRC concerns for the control of maintenance activities. Licensee activities have included pro-viding specialized training to maintenance personnel in the areas of diesel generators, control rod drive mechanism, and instrumentation and control. During recent weeks the staf' has noted increased actions on the part of both plant and corporate management to effect corrective actions. The staff expects significant improvements in this area.

Nevertheless, current elevated levels of inspection effort will con-tinue.

c. Surveillance Procedures - As stated in paragraph 2 above, there has been significant improvement in this area.

d. Quality Assurance The Grand Gulf QA program is considered better than average, but due to lack of effectiveness, as evidencec by the larae number of p-oblems identified at Grand Gulf, the SALF rating in this area was Categorv 2.

The deficiencies identified in the last SALP report have been addressed by MPL Management. The licensee has stated that activities are in progress for ima-ovement. An NEC tear inspectior, is in progress during the week of April 9,1904, and the results will be available bv April 13, 1954. Increased direct observations of field activities are in evidence.

' Licensing Status for Grand Gulf ,

1 Allegations I

in addition to the above issues there are presently two allegation. files open for the Grand Gulf facility. These allegations were referred to the Office of Investigations by Recion 11. One of the investigations has been completed yd is currently under review bv the technical staff, a'nd involves possible A (rd[A)l w

. 01 Investigations

(' ,

T , , . ~ csiN,ctW W2eik25/, ,l

- - ' _ y- .

I k%r,NING-- This information may not be released outside the NRC withot.1 the permission cf the Director, 01. Internal access and dissemination trust be {

on a need and riant-tc.-L nnw basis. )

9

r.,~

) 0 ()tA

&x u.

3, CU tr. '

'N

~

4y (..

v ha .erf nrf I'r.it ?

1.2 <. ' arc ( c-- Electric eta'.in . 'r4- } sit #ir p" s' arcs c#' the ' :n - :

r e vi es. . tr u c iana Prwr" a .d Lip

i

.Pr-  ?-- te-fired i s 2--licctic #c p-f.v.

p .... . e '. i e. n. n e. c. ' r. . *. er . n. e '. . .. r 'p.

10 :

. . 'e.... r r .r ,. .,. ., e. c 3 u eg g.:,,,,,,

. 3 . c. . .

r c. t. e r g.,3 c < e. c.. o. - g .'; g

..o s. . g ,. 4. 7 t h. e. i g ..e. c. . .c c.: g...),,..,4 4..., c u e. 4 r. -r

. . . '. O M. .

u..., ,: . . . . ,

. . . .- u. . . .,

v. , . .. . . . - .

c...,. p ...

. . .t.

,2...

. . . ... .,c......

. .t. . .e.... . ....... .

F S *. Ecriev The sta'f F5*:. licensing rc'zies- is erse-.ially co--ic'e erv 'hc r-incipai '.te s ir. the ste." Sucole er,tal SEP. tha+ rned resnit:iic are:

3 . . .

i:- e:u'c;t** cua.'- catinr.,

D' safety review corr.ittee corr.positior, and function.

Hearincs There are several con:erts related to facility canstructior- cuali'.v tha + have been icentified, mainly fror the hearinc orocess. Many concerns relatt te tha i

4.rtc 3 3+, r# t. b r. v. r 2 . t. r e t

a.. i 1. 4 ' , k. s c. c . g k e. r.g. - L e. e. - - I t L :. e a. . (..... ( 1 \ aer. ;pr.

1 s < g r. , . . ., . 4. .

. , 7. e

. . . ..,..;.g:,

+ s. e r;'.- --ir- ' c ' ' r - s - - ,r, y, '.

.  : .- h u .- c Fililailt J

• U,*de-( ' roc- i nt ar rTr- USc. 'b?* it ris #r- #- ;p **p#*, , , , ,

.* ? y rr.> w* - . .~. . .p( c. # '. i r.. e

+. t- tt'e a c c . i e. p

..s.

.o ? -r' Js . os, . u .% W6/ 7}',,, as n',M y & * - : *_;*,r,s ,

l There is currentiv 2 rotic". before int A;'r-71 f ha-r. to reopen hear # res or tne 5U'40 * *. r# 'br pp. cLArv t # th( cc - sr # a "- d s.

• 4 a - ' p 3 t .: ' p' l.f a t err r rd p -i c i r.

.. - ' ..  :..e C........'

- . ..f..:, .

. .: n.

...- s. ,, p::;.. .;

. .; e.. :: r

._. t.. g. - e 7. 4 , . . .. .,.

,. e , 5.. .(. : ,...g. ,e

. s ,,t.. . ... , , ,..,,t 7 3.v. .....g. r ..._,,.,...

L.  ;.,q, -. r r ,. 4,-

- d. r . .:. . . . - . e -

• 3. 2 ) #.'*..~,,. . r ,ei-

! e Crint alIF h;403 "CViOUS. IhE .L ~LI.i has roCue!

• c f a status rC T 0."t # rr - I

by t 'e r.. r. a. - r e .:. . c. .

1

.?. .

1r. addition, a motion for an extensior of tine te re#ile a netion to reenor the Ec:-i-ci c. CA/O w?5 #41ed by tbt "r:te-ve o s c- Marr6 30. I,cF'. TF: -

• Lec m .G . oril-6,1 54 wTerr- r r er - -ic .- , v-- - m C' irsrettint , . .

c- uic.. av enos i=k:a s c e n d u c t e d d e - i n e:c.rs n'~ .: ' .y =c:e. . ;:-r carv and P.erch and er.d r r-e-2.iu.

I ci f Tnc CIC inspectior, reports a-e usually issued abou* LE cays afic- completira 19F'.

of the inspectior.. The results o' this inspectiot. will likels recuire follewu:

ar.d resolution by the staf f.

.:... i r.s oet t i ons

_u r .

ir. re are a'er P rtmbe- c# the r.cr a' ir e re:ticr. iter.s tha ree: 4 r *.c re :: : '. ed.

rercer.. cc .

'e-irr fcr each iter is includer'.

- ac-5uilt verifica:ior. (SD"I e.

e ..

.r-4...,

ire... ... 5-. ( - c. s t:c a-,

- -r ..:ce es !:-

.  ;-. .. . .e. .-

- evaluation o,. test results . :.-.)

- serification the: tes; resui ! ere reviaved by the lire see (80*'

- #i re protection (C'r '

cer.tainner.t leal rate test result! raview (O'}

Testire r# r. ire succorts a ' -e5 * . 'ets I?Ct '

. i 2.

A. ;. c. .. . f e r. s. o. .- +. . (, e. .

r, e e. t' C. ? " '.

racwaste (c0#-)

- radiochemistry (97%)

- environmental monitoring (97f)

- erercercy plannino (80!3

- security (60?)

L: : t.< -rcsc * 'ine, the sta'# 'c t v a l o'.' '. r r re s cu -caf s #c- t'r e s e i-t rr>:--t

-v.~.,--

c c-

..e .. ygz . k. e. m - - - , . . .

c .- u r. -

.. ..u e. . h n. . . ._ a s,-

.e

-. . e - . . i r e.;

ir'C C a .s .

'b e are a rurter o# c:he- crer ins r.ec tior, i tent . These a e:

1.Cn-Strur+ic and Frerperatier.a' Testirr

.a s.,.>....... .,. .,..

c= . . ,.

. . . . . . . , . 2 . .

r t.- isclvec ittre t.h a t rrmr 's. .- be ci-sof. innse v

re:L're a sicr.i#icar.t irspectior effort 4r the actrecate but e k u '. ' r.

' de li-it ir.c #r 'hc a. icir-.r' 'ur1 1rs.c.

f 4

l

2. Radiation Protection and Radweste Doer. itens in this area that rust be closed prior to fuel Ir.ad involve: ine post-accident sanpline systrr (syster, co .reletion, resian review: or the svstt-layw., picinc inteority, anc sa .:linc capability); AL Ar.' reviews foe tN racwaste systems; and instaliatior. and calibration o' scot instrur'e r.ta .ior . A ihr present tire , it aptcars that these iters will bc closed ot '. c-ior to 'nel load.

3. Energency Preparedness (Onsite)

The emergency preparedness follovtuo aporaisel. vrs conducted at Waterford tir.it 3 durinc .1anua-v 30 throuch er b orry 10. loM. Trece were nirt s i c ' - " ' dc' icier.rv Prers ids "ied which irclu ef '.i sicaifica t i: cr.s . irt r.1 r e s # :r " r r a ro!

corristec ci: or. site emerre*:y e-car.irttion re-sc.ane'* a c c c ur tti i- . t ercor7.tc and sitt e e ge icy olrr arc' r o:edures; ccronications; er.ercarcs- rou'r-=- :

r.etecrci rgv; traininc: public ir'orr.atior. and notificctier.: and c##so lah rr-invies .

v

,?.r- T he s'cr .=  ; t c r.s .. c c a 5 s c r r c c - - - - -

. .. .. .....::;.... ..::... _7

.;.-\ ~ ,.J.

4 Security Three iters rer.ain to bE CCTrie'ef' in this areP orio" to # Del loF(; i Die -enIP' int o' detectior, aids; traininc c' security personnel tc rperate certr71 cla -

s*7t'er and secerrarv alar- statin *, ecu'r e;*: and c c ri c .' c- c' -: '-= t r -

'ightin; sys'er.. Thest ite .s shculd net inrart 'uel icac.

1 Alleoations In addition to the above issues, there are presently 'ifteen open l

elleoetion files f or Water # erd t!r.it 3. There are rany inr'ividual alleoations withir. each file. Virtually all of these allecations were cdc by contract cor.stro:tinr. 0A iaspectors aar' rr+ cenerali; i trvd ir sccpe. Srvera' o' rc eliect'.iore invrive bu crets c-r.a ces c.' /-- -ntet it ' . Thase allegatier.s car. nanere'1' te .

cividet int- the 'olln. in; creas :

-- O' F.reakdct:r N (g)

. : pt-ly risrrsitic r: ;.- c cr i r --: : r- W r:s

- C:. V e-*.-5 i.e vi eae rs '.- u' "i r r O]

i

. . 4 ,

a f

/

i

( W,h I

1 y.....-.......-..-.. ..

- ~ ~ ~ -

-A

- 1rproper Vender Oa. Procra r-~

Lack of Traceability of Safety-Related Hardware Tr.s abnve PM eca:icr.s intiude restitie falsi#ic:-it . r=t? c -' t e r'

?r?

1r?rt.per. U ?Ut hCrizef chances 10 rFrorns. Severa' rd * '. c e r p'ic. ,; es i t '. td i/ E irdiviOUPis statiered Wide 1 \ Pter*Ss ihr C C : ' -'. . frr #

• i'est ir.Civi/Uals nave recuested a- Pro vri*v. . ?r addi!'Or . f Prv r# c 4 s 5 *o 95 S gir boe- repoeted ir ? 10 a' woct ' . re s ?pr- I c ' " F ' ' .

,. . . . ,~

- .~ . -; .. . .e.. . .. . . . . .. . ... , . , , .. .. .

's ass 1cr.ing aog.itirr , s

.E 'r.a .er'r -t p-o er -

w-., ... then, _ine qta- -- -

c expedite the evalc?tio- c.f these aliegr'ir's.

Ir. a lette- da'ed f; arch 12, 1084. the Executive Dirrete- fr- nrerrt' ors dire:'er t.RF. to rianace all ne:essary I;P. actions leading it tr e pre--' l # ce n s ir.g ce:i !.in- e or L'at erf ord 3. D. Eis e-hut has is.sioned P. Cru+ ch eld .es r- s'r " 'r- 'E4e '

cc ivity. Currer*iv P- * ' tear is v'is# 1 r- the e ;c 4 c res; r # r si:c1. 4 r: ' ' :'  :

i.'.iegations, that neef tc be cor.pieted prior tr t. '.icerse de:isier.. int tear will be at the site April 2-13, 2984.

O! Investications Tne Of' ice of Investigations has severai investigatier.s unden,a.. re arrvinr, the katerforc' 'ecility. I'F.'ie the str " is actively rursui-r ' bate t'1c ?t'crs, t r! evel :? t tier., a .f a- r ubsenurr- recui ;d tr-- #:=' c; - l u E - ' : . , c- u

[7 Ert# ally ir'.;ac* t' e" DrE scr1 lite sino cerisire #

6tr.

t

n-; i Byron I & 2 This is a contested OL proceeding which involves issues on quality assurance, ALARA, emergency planning, Class 9 accidents, steam generators and seismology. On January 13, 1984, the Licensing Board issued an initial decision (LBP-84-2) denying an operating license on the basis of inadequacies in the quality assurance performance of the Applicant and its construction contractors. Applicant Comonwealth Edison Company appealed, urging that the Licensing Board be reversed. On March 30, 1984, the Staff filed its brief on appeal. The Staff took the position that the Licensing Board erred in denying the application for an operating license, but that rather than reversing the Licensing Board, the Appeal Board should vacate the adverse result of the Licensing Board, modify the initial decision appropriately, and reopen the record to receive evidence on the recently-concluded Byron reinspe.gtion program.

(Intervenors also appealed the Licensing Board's rejection of the issues of financial qualifications and, need for power / alternative energy sources, and the Board's resolution of the seismology contention. The Staff has opposed those aspects of the appeal.) Oral argument before the Appeal Board has been scheduled for April 19, 1984.

_ llhile some open items remain to be resolved, the plant may be ready to-load fuel in June 1984. Issuance of an OL, however, is of course, wholly dependent upon the outcome of the pending appeal. Should the Licensing Board's decision be vacated on appeal, it is likely that further, possibly extensive hearings will be required on quality assurance issues. In addition, a member of allegations of inadequate quality assurance have been raised recently and will require resolution. Finally, although emergency planning contentions were resolved by stipulation, the Licensing Board retained jurisdiction over emergency planning matters and intervenors will have the opportunity to seek further hearings on those issues if they are dissatisfied with the Applicant's implementation of its commitments to resolve emergency planning issues.

&p. g 9 -

CALLAWAY STATUS ,

The Commission on March 16, 1984 announced that it has declined to review the various Apoeal Board decisions (ALA9s-740, 750, 750A, 754) in the Callaway proceeding. These decisions resolved all tne contentions in the proceeding; there are nn remaining contested issues at any level. 1 l

L

Catawba 1 This is a contested OL proceeding which involves issues on the safety and cuality of plant construction, reactor embrittlement, spent fuel storage, emergency planning, the environmental consecuences of severe accidents, and the reliability of the TDI emergency d.iesel generators.

Litigation is complete on all issues except those involving reliability of the diesel generators and the emergency planning contentions.

(In camera hearings were held on QA.) A partial initial decision on tEose issues which have been litigated is expected in May 1984.

Discovery is in progress on diesel generators. The Licensing Board rejected certain diesel generator contentions, but referred the rejection to the Appeal Board which has not yet ruled on the referral. At this point, a hearing on the diesel generator issues has not been scheduled, and the timing for resolution of diesel generator concerns is unknown. The Applicant has indicated that it will file a motion for a fuel load and low power license pursuant to 10 CFR s50.57 and will attempt to demonstrate that such license may be authorized despite the pendency of the diesel generator problems.

_ A separate Licensing Board was established to consider emergency ~

planning issues in a hearing which is scheduled to commence on May 1,

~

1984. The hearing on emergency planning issues is estimated to be completed in early June 1984, with an initial decision sometime in August '.984.

The latest estimate for a fuel load date is late May,1984 and for readiness to exceed 5% power is mid-August 1984.

l l

l l

i

COMANCHE PEAK Comanche Peak has been in a heavily contested hearing for over two years.

All but one contention have been dismissed. The remaining contention questions the ability of the applicant's Quality Assurance / Quality Control Program to prevent deficiencies in the design and construction of the plant. The Licensing Board has admitted many allegat. ions of design and construction deficiencies into the hearing as relevant to this conten-tion.

The contention regarding QA/QC includes concerns regarding inadequacies in the design of pipe supports and overall design and quality assurance items. The ASLB suggested (by December 1983 Memorandum and Order) that an independent design review be conducted. The Applicant has proposed a partially "in-house" effort with a limited independent effort. He has submitted such a plan to the ASLB, who, in turn, requested commenfs from the parties, including the sta'f.

The ASLB also recently issued its " Memorandum (Adequacy of Record:

DeLaval Diesel Generators)" requesting the applicant and staff to submit information concerning (1) the adecuacy of the quality assurance program -

at Comanche Peak to detect design or construction problems in tne DeLaval diesel generators. (2) the frequency and sericusness of problems with these generators at Comanche Peak, and (3) whether the generators are adequate to ensure the public safety.

Other principal issues on which testimony remain to be heard before the Board are:

(1) conformance to welding procedures, (2) the independent assessment program performed by Cygna Energy Services, (3) investigations of alleged discouragement / intimidation of quality control inspectors and craftsmen, (4) protective coatings inside containment, (5) the Applicant's Plan to Respond to Memorandum and Order (0uality Assurance for Design), and (6) the results of NRC inspections of rooms and systems turned over to the station operating group as completed and being ready for Unit 1 operation.

April 9, 1984 DIABLO CANYON HEAP.ING STATUS Licensing Board decision authorizing issuance of full power operating licenses was issued August 31, 1982; appeal is currently pending before Appeal Board. .

In April 1983, the Appeal Board reopened the record on issues related to design quality assurance. Following a hearing in November 1983, a favorable decision was issued by the Appeal Board in March 1984. The Appeal Board has retained jurisdiction over the Motion to Augment or in the Alternative Reopen the Record based on recent allegations of design quality assurance problems. ,

In December 1983, the Appeal Board issued a decision denying motio"ns to reopen the record on construction quality assurance issues. This decision is pending before the Commission. Joint Intervenors have filed a new motion with the Appeal Board to reopen the record on construction -

quality assurance and licensee character and competence, again based on recently filed allegations. (The allegations raised in the motion are drawn from those raised in a petition filed by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) under 10 C.F.R. Q 2.206 in February and (as supplemented in March 1984.) The Staff's reply wili be filed on April 11, 1984.

The authority to load fuel and conduct low power testing for Diablo Canyon Unit I was suspended by the Commission in November 1981. In November 1983, following completion of the required Independent Design Verification Program (and related activities), the Comission reinstated the licensee's authority to load fuel and conduct cold system testing. In January 1984, the Commission reinstated the licensee's authority to conduct hot system testing. All activities authorized to date are pre-critical in nature. Comission action on criticality and low power testing (up to 5% of rated power), which would complete reinstatement of all previously suspended activities, is expected on April 13,1984.

l

f Fermi 2 This was a contested OL proceeding which has been completed. The issues involved quality of construction and evacuation. An Initial Decision favorable to issuance of an OL was issued on 0ctober 29, 1982 and was affirmed by the Appeal Board in ALAB-730 on June 2,1983. The

'Comission declined to review the Appeal Board's decision, which became final agency action on October 17, 1983.

f -G

• e e

e I

P p

4

,,cy ,

Grand Gulf ,

The Grand Gulf OL proceeding was uncontested. A low power license for Unit I was issued in June 1982. Five weeks later, a single petition to intervene by the State of Louisiana was filed seeking to raise issues regarding the environmental impact of the nuclear fuel cycle.

The petition was denied by the Licensing Board and affirmed by the Appeal Board. The Licensee is currently engaged in a comprehensive review of its Technical Specification after substantial numbers of the Technical Specifications were found to be in error. Revisions to the Technical Specifications will be required before full power licensing. In addition, problems with the TDI diesel generators must be satisfactorily resolved. .

Also, there is an OL amendment proceeding pending. The amendment involves changes to Technical Specifications on operability range for high pressure core spray, automatic tripping of RHR jockey pumps and one time exceptions to ADS trip system surveillance requirements and scram discharge volume surveillance requirements to allow startup testing. -

The amendment was issued 9/23/83 after Staff made a final no sigr.ificant hazards consideration finding. A petition to intervene on the amendment was filed by Jacksonians United for Livable Energy Policies.

Contentions were filed on 2/15/84 with a prehearing conference held on 2/29/84. There has been no determination on whether intervention will be permitted and a hearing held.

. I l

1 April 9,1924 l

LIMERICK HEAP.ING STATUS 4

Hearings with respect to four areas of concern are eitner completed or in p rog res s . These include: (1) supplemental cooling water system (cending before the Appeal Soard); (2) aircraft carburetor icing due to the effect of the cooling tower plume (proposed findings submitted to the Licensing Board);

(3) the effects of the leakage of offsite oil and gas pipelines on the safety of the plant; and (4) the safety aspects of the applicant's program for environmental qualifications of electric equipment. -

With respect to three additional areas of concern hearings should ta'ke place over the next several months. ~These include: (1) onsite emergency planning (scheduled to start April 23,1984);(2) offsite emergency planning (no schecule has been established); and (3) environmental aspects of severe accident risks (scheduled _for the weeks of flay 29 and June 19). It is

_ ar.ticipated that the Licensing Board will have issuec all of its decisions concerning these matters by January 1985.

t e

- - - --.-.. . - - _ - ..,c ,

.- ,- . , . , , .,-m- , , _

/.pril 9, 1984 MIDLAND 2 HEARING STATUS Since July 1981 we have conducted extensive evidentiary hearines addressing the Orcer ftodifying Construction Fermits issuec by the Staff on December 6, 1979. The Staff's findings with ' respect to this record are due on fiay 11, 1984. It is expected that the Board's decision will issue in July or August. Two pending motions to reopen the record are addressed below.

One of the motions to reopen the record that is now pending before the Licensing Board involves the structural adeguacy of the diesel generator building. The Board is presently waitinc to hear the Staff's posi., tion with respect to that issue. ~It ,is likely that the hearing will be recpened on this issue. There is also pending before the Board a motion to reopen the record on the issue of whether Consumers Po;er Company lied to the Staff and to the Board with respect to the schedule for construction '

_ completion. The Staff supported Intervenor in this motion. The Soard is expected to rule within a month.

~

The Staff is using September 1986 as its date for expected completion for tne licensing review process. Assuming that cate to be accurate, there is sufficient time to litigate the seventeen contentions that have been accepted by the Licensing Board in the operating license hearing which have not yet been litigated.

L

STATUS REPORT FOR PALO VERDE Uf;IT 1 ,

~

The record for Unit I was closed on December 30, 1982. Sincdtnat time several organizations (the Government Accountability Proiect (GAP) and the Palo Verde Intervention Fund) have threatened to file contentions and request a reopening of the record as a result of various alleged problems at the unit. One such potential problem are~a concerns charges of construction deficiencies by four former Palo Verde workers. Ongoing investigations of these charges, which include alleged welding, electrical i and quality assurance deficiencies, have been conducted by 01 and Region V during the past several years and it is expected that it will take several more months before they are all concluded and their results made public.

The Palo Verde Licensing Board, at its reguest, is being kept informed of this investigational progress. The second area of concern is the discovery i in mid-July 1983 of damage to Unit 1 caused during hot, functional; testing.

(Damages at that time included broken thermowells, loose and broken parts to the reactor coolant pumps, loose thermal sleeves and cracked shrouds on the CEA upoer support structure.) The Applicant and the vendor are presently conducting tests tn determine their cause and are making necessary recairs. A final report of the incident is expected te be filed by the Applicant in August 1984.

GAP and the Palo Veroe Intervention Fund have indicated on varicus I occasions that they will file contentions and attempt to reopen the record for Unit 1 after the final reports regarding the whistle blowers' allegations and the results of the damages caused during hot functional

! testing are made available. If they are successful, then the fuel load

! date for Unit 1, which is presently scheduled for the first quarter of 1985, may be adversely impacted.

i l

a 4

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

=

• Pr ry 1 & 2 - '

This is a contested O'. proceeding concerning emergency planning, QA, hydrogen control, in-core thermocouples, steam erosion of components, diesel generators, and ATWS. A hearing on QA was concluded in May,1983.

A partial initial decision on QA favorable to Applicant was issued on December 12, 1983, and appealed by Sunflower Alliance. The appeal is pending with the Appeal Board. Hearings on the remaining issues have not yet been scheduled. Hearing completion probably will be controlled by resolution of the TDI diesel generator concerns and pending rulemaking regarding hydrogen control and ATW5. L3 test Applicant estimates for fuel loading is late 1985 for Unit I and Marchs .1988 for Unit 2.

I A f

~ _ _ _. _ _ __ . .

4 RIVER BEND 1 ,

Two safety contentions raised by Joint Intervenors and by the State of Louisiana have already been acmitted by the ASLB in this proceeding.

One issue concerns a potential failure of the Old River Control Structure

- on the Mississippi River, and the other concerns infestation of intakes by Asiatic clams. A schedule for hearing on these two issues will be

. established at a prehearing conference to be held in Baton Rouge on

April 18, 1984. The hearing date will probably be later this year,

depending upon the Staff's issuance of the SER and DES.

A second phase of the proceeding will involve offsite emergency planning. The Joint Intervennes have proposed twelve contentions. The Staff has opposed admission of many of thdse. Admission of these proposed emergency planning contentions, as well as a hearing schydule, will be discussed at the April 18 prehearing conference'.

4 t-9 t

i 4

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

e -- - , , - , ,-, ,, . , , - , - , . , - . , , . - . _ . , - . , ,

SHOREHAM HEARING STATUS The Shoreham hearing has been concluded on all issues except offsite emergency planning and onsite emergency electric diesels. Further, the aoplicant has filed a motion for a low pcwer license absent such emergency diesel generators. This proposal is being reviewed by the NRC staff, anc a hearing has been scheduled for the period April 24-May 5,198? to consider this proposal.

Issues involving offsite emergency planning are currently being litigated, it is expected that these hearings will extend into summer.

4 Suffolk County has refused tc adopt an offsite emergency plan for Shcrehat, as has the State of New York. LILCO has submitted the offsite emergency i

plan which is being litigated. This LILC0 plan generally prevides for LILCO to supply most of the perscnnel which would ordinarily be s'upplied by local governments in carrying out an offsite plan. The State of New j

York and Suffolk County have taken the position that the plar, provi,oir.g for LILCO personnel to perform these duties is contrary to New York. State law and. further that the plan is technically deficient. The State anc the Ccur.ty have filed law suits in New York courts tc have the LILC0 pian declared illegal. LILC0 has filed a suit in the Federal District Court seeking (1) to have County Council resolutions finding emerger.cy planr.ir.g on Long Islano impossible declared illegal (on the ground that such determinations have been preempted by the Federal government), and (2) to compel the County to assist LILC0 in energency planning on the l.

grounds of Federal law and the County's past conduct.

The Licensing Board hearing is going forward on the technical adequacy of the LILC0 plan. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has reviewed the plan at the request of the NRC and issued a report on March 15, 1984 in which they found 32 inadequacies. Many of l these involve the legal question of whether LILCO has the authority to

carry out the plan. FEMA will file testimony on its review with the l Licensing Board on April 17, 1984.

Litigation on the adequacy of the emergency diesel generatcrs is contingent upon LILC0 and a utility industry group completing their

( review of aspects of adequacy of the Transamerica Delaval Industries l (TDI) diesels at Shoreham. After the report is received by the NRC it i will be reviewed by the Staff and litigation involving the dieseis might

go forward.

l l

l

. Suscuehanna 1 & 2 '-

The Licensing Board's Initial Decision on Susquehanna 1 and 2 was issued on April 12, 1982 and now constitutes final agency action. Full power operation of Susquehanna 1 was authorized on November 12, 1982. A license authorizing fuel loading and operation of Susquehanna 2 at power levels up to 5% of full power was issued on March 23, 1984.

1

WATERFORD 4

A final PID was issued by the Licensing Board on May 26, 1983 (LBP-83-27);

that decision was affirmed by the Appeal Board on December 9,1983 (ALAB-753), in which the Appeal Board also denied two motions to reopen (one of which concerned the foundation base mat). The Commission has extended its time for review of ALAB-753 until April 27, 1984.

On December 12, 1983, a supplemental motion to reopen the record was filed, which asserted that documents relative to base mat construction had been falsified, thus calling into question the Applicant and Staff's prior conclusions as to the base mat's structural integrity. The Applicant filed its response to this motion on January 13, 1984. The Staff's re-sponse is due to be filed on April 13, 1984, although it now appears that the Staff will require additional time to complete its review before its response can be filed, and the Staff intends to file a motion seeking.,an additional limited extension of time.

On February 28, 1984, the Appeal Board denied a further notion to reopen (on QA matters) without prejudice, although it granted the intervenors until March 30, 1984 in which to refile the motion. The intervenors have requested a six-month extension of time in which to refile; this request has been opposed by the Applicant and Staff and is now pending before the Appeal Board. It should be noted that the Staff is conducting an intensive review of QA allacations relative to the Waterford plant, which review is ongoing at this time.

Both of these matters have the potential to impact licensing.

9

. . e,

, Watts Bar 1 & 2  :

This-.is an uncontested OL proceeding. The Staff's SER for Unit I was issued in June 1982, with supplements issued 9/82 and 12/83. The safety review is still underway. A Comission decision on issuance of the OL is projected for June 1984 for Unit 1 and December 1985 for Unit 2.

.)

i' 99 4

4 i

< -- -- -, , - , - - - - , , , - , , . - - - - ,.-,ea- - - - - ,, - - - - - --,----- -. ------ -- - -.,

r s ,

r

v. , . e. .

, t

'i ' , .-

~

. -/

WOLF CREEK J, i Litigation has been concluded on the only admitted contentions (Offsite Emergency Preparedness). Finoings have been filed by all parties. A late petition for leave to intervene on allege,d CA/QC deficiencies has been denied by the Board. Petitioner has until April 10, 1984 to appeal the denial. In the event the petition is eventually allowed, it will have an impact on licensing, since the Applicant's. projected fuel load

-date is 9/23/84. -,

r' s* p a

- < j/

> f, *

, 4

,0

.* 4 4 ,

_ r_ '

?

.#- i j/

t r ,f y

'T b?

it'

, ,f -

f' e

n. ,

g.

/

s S

/

. / , ** 5 j <

a ,.

^

1

)

' E b

/

r

• 4 e '

92 t

.- t .

EVERGENCY PREPAREDNESS STATUS cranc Gulf 1 No outstanding Emergency Preparedness issues for license issuance.

Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 FEMA findinos resolving ASLB conditions and recommendations related to offsite preparedness for authorization of operations above 5" power were receivec on April 2,1984 ,

The staff is responding to questions posed by the Commission in an erder issued Aoril 3,1984 regarding the potential impact of seismic e'v ents on offsite emergency preparedness.

Suscuehanna 2 -

Sc outstanding Eme ger.cy Preparecness issues for license issuance.

Snorehar 1 Onsite plan review completed. All SER items related to onsite plans resolved.

FEMA findings on LILCO offsite plans were received on March 15, 1984 The findings were forwardeo to the applicant by NRC letter of April 2,1984, for LILCO's review and evaluation of the deficiencies and legal concerns identified by FEMA.

Callaway 1 Onsite plan review completed. All SER items related to onsite plens resolved.

FEMA findings on the adequacy of State and local plans received varch 27, 1984 Full participation exercise conducted March 21, 1984; FEMA evaluation has not yet been received.

Emergency Dreparedness pre-operational inspection conducted January 8-20, 1984 Region III follow-up inspection conducted March 19-23, 1984. Seven remaining items'being corrected by applicant. Region III to re-inspect.

(,

. =

Waterford 3 Cnsite plan review coroleted; FEMA interim finding on ac'eauacy of cffsite clars received February 7, 1984 Full participation exercise completed February 1984 No significant deficiencies observed, however, the FEMA evaluation has not yet been received.

Supolemental FEMA findings addressing ASLP conditions related to offsite pre-paredness are scheduled to be received by April 15, 1984. Resolution of the ASLB conditions must be completed orior to authorizing operations ?bove' 5%

pc-er.

Catawba 1

_ Onsite clan review comclete. Offsite olan review continu4nc. Hea i ng on offsite rir.r.ine issues screduled to ccmmence Apri' 30, 1992 Full Darticipation exercise conducted on February 16, 1982 Sta#f awaiting exercise report from FEMA.

Watts Bar 1 i

Onsite and offsite plan reviews are continuing. FEMA interim findings on of' site planning scheduled for April 15, 1984 Emergency preparedness pre-operational inspection conducted March 26 - April 6.

1984.

Fermi-2 Onsite plan review continuing, however, no significant open items remain to be

! resolved.

l Pre-operational inspection conducted October 1983. Open items beirg resolved by applicant.

FEMA interim findings received in February 1083. A supplemental FEMA findino

nas been reauested on the revised draft Monroe Countv plan. The plan has been i

submitted to FEMA for review but has not formally been aporoved by the County Comnissioners.

A full carticipation exercise is scheduled for June 1984.

l

l .

• Bryon 1 Onsite plan review comoleted. All SER items related to'onsite plans resolved, however, ASLB Initial Decision identified three Emergency Preparecness license j conditions which must be resolved prior to operation above 5" of rated scwer.

Region III confirming resolution by applicant.

FEMA findings on the adequacy of offsite plans received February 1,1984 Pre-operational. inspection conducted December 5-16, 1983. Deficiencies being ]

corrected by applicant. Region III to re-inspect.

Full participation exercise conducted November 15, 1983. No significant deficiencies identified by either NRC of FEMA (FEMA exercise report not receivedl.

~

Cc.anche Peak Onsite plan review continuing. Staf awaiting applicant's revised emergency plan to close out unresolved items in SER. FEMA findings on tr:e acecuacy of offsite plans received on September 29, 1982.

Pre-operational inspection conducted September 26 - October 7, 1983. Deficien-cies being corrected by applicant. Region IV to re-inspect.

Full participation exercise conducted December 14, 1983. No significant deficiencies identified by either NRC or FEMA, however, FEMA exercise report not yet recieved.

Limerick Onsite and offsite plan reviews continuing. Hearinn on onsite emercency planning scheduled to begin April 23, 1984. FEMA findings on o## site pia.ns scheduled for April 15, 1984.

Wolf Creek Onsite plan review completed; staff is awaiting applicant's response to several confirmatory items.

FEMA interim findings on the adecuacy of offsite plans received February 2,1984 Sucplementary findings relating to correction of identified de'iciencies scheduled for April 15, 1984.

Pre-operational emergency preparedness inspection schedule not yet cetermined.

Full participation exercise scheduled for September l'984

Palo Verde Onsite plan review is continuing. Staff is awaiting re'sponse by acclicant on open items. FEMA interim findings on offsite planning scheduled for July 15, 1984 Full participation exercise was conducted May 1983.

Region V completing pre-operational inspection process to confirm full imole-mentation of onsite preparedness program.

Perry I' Onsite plan review continuing. Staff awaiting applicant response to SER coen items. FEMA interim findings on offsite plans receivec March 1, 1984 Full carticication exercise scheduleo for November 1984.

~

Pre-ocerational emergency preparedness insoection schedule not yet determined.

River Bend Onsite and offsite plan review continuing. Recent review concludes that upon satisfactory correction of those items requiring resolution and those items committed to by the applicant, the onsite emergency plan will be acceptable.

FEMA interim findings on offsite planning scheduled for May 1, 1984 Midland 2 Onsite plan review continuing. Staff awaiting applicant's revised emergency plan.

FEMA Region V Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) continuing to review offsite emergency plans.

No pre-operational inspection or exercise scheduled at this time due to delays in construction completion schedule.

J 4

- . - - - - - , , , + - - - - - - . - w- -, n,,,,

l

~

1 Y / w Jw I h - ) w <. c..

l .

Waterford 3 iAf Ittsoe: tion A CAT inspection was conducted during February and March and ended on March 23, 1984 The CAT inspection reports are usually issued about 45 days after com-pletion of the inspection. The results of this inspection will likely reouire folicwup and resolution by the staff.

Comanche Peak 1 CAT Inspection

• Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) inspectior, was conducted at the C'omanche feat site during the period January - March 1983. The CAT found a notewe-thy ce fi cien::, relating to poor welding of heating, ventialation and air condi-tioning cuct supports. The applicant has shown that the duct suDports will function saticf actorily "as-built" (the welds were over-desicned) ar.d the -

y - :t 17 Because there is sinnificant construction activity on site witF er. rodi#i-

tt'c c 'particu arly to pite supports' being perfer ec at the ii. minute, the CAI raised a cuestion concerning whether the QA/QC inspecticrs would be performed on the final as-built design. The applicant has made cemmitments to conduct a final reinspection to assure that the components confer- to fir.al design documents. The NRC Pegion IV staff will verify the adecuacy of the applicant's reinspection program by audit.

Fermi 2 CAT Inspection A CAT inspection has started with onsite inspection effort to begin April 23, 1984 Perrv 1 CAT Insoection a CAT ir:pection was conducted du-ing August and September and was completed or September 23, 19R3.

Limerici i Vo T Creek 1

. r.nc p s

Wrlanc . .

~17 'r

..---.p.or .

, ,...4 3p .; . . . '

.4

- . . , , s t _ e .-

, , , 3 ,,, .

9

Ca113 w 3.v.-1 IDI inspection An IDI was conducted during November and December 1982. The IDI Report was issued March 29, 1983. The applicant has responded to the insoectier, report.

All open items in the inspection report have been addressed by the applicant.

Evron 1 ID: Inspection An IDI was conuocted durinc May and June 1983. The !Di Repor. aas i $suee September 30, 1983. The applicant has responded to the inspection report.

A number of ocen items still remain based on staff review of the acalicant's response. Open items are identified in the staff's March 23, 19E! letter to Cc monaealth Edison. An additional inspectior, in the areas of internal flooding

-  ? .c p:s ttJ.5tec cracks anc bred.s in higt.-ereray a .t mocerate-e' t-: lines -as-concucted the week of March 26., 1984 An exit meeting on this accitienal irsaection is scheduled April 13, 1984 Commonwealth Edison has indicatec to the staff that it has contracted with Bechtel to conduct additional design reviews of three systems desicned by Sargent and Lund_y, the architect-engineer for Byron.

River Bend 1 IDI Inspection An IDI will be conducted at River Bend 1. Field work is scheduled to start the week of Aoril 9,1984. The inspection will extend through May 1994 with IDI report issuance scheduled for July 1984. The results of this irspection will likely require followup and resoltution by the staff.

, - ~ h .

l catawba 1 IDVF Peview No-IDVP was conducted for Catawba 1 based on input from NRP and Region 11 and

. the staff's position regarding its. response to the recent 10 CFF. 2.206 petition from GAP.

T Limerick 1 IDVP Review .

By letter dated March 26, 1984, Philadelphia Electric Company has committed to have an IDVP performed. A public meeting will be held in Bethesda on April 13,1904 to discuss the IDVP plan. ,

kolf Creek 1

7,7 Fevies An Integrated Design Inspection was performed on Callaway 1. Since Wolf Creek is of similar design and has the same architect-engineer and constructor as Callaway 1; i.e. , SNUPPS plants, the staff is considering whether this and other factors may support a conclusion that the design process for Wolf Creek 1 has met NRC regulations and licensing commitments. By letter of March 9, 1984 Kansas Gas and Electric' Company submitted information concerning the desigr-process used in constructing Wolf Creek. This information is being reviewed by IE.

Perry 1

-!DVP Review On March 12, 1984, the staff met with The Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company (CEI) concerning an IDVP for Perry. CEI presented inforr.ation con-cerning independent evaluations of specific areas of design. The staff comple-mented CE: on this effort but advised that the two independent. reviews did not cover all areas of the design process and that the staff intended to insoect the two independent reviews accomplished by CE! and to perform a redified IDI at Ferry to cover areas not addressed in the two independent reviews.

4

v' .and 2 .

IDVP Review

~

nn Independent Design and Construction Verification Frooram (IDVCP) is being conducted for Midland Units 1 and 2. TERA, the independent contractor, has indicated that the design verification may be completed by July 1954 Staff review of TEPA design evaluation reports will co r.ence upor completion of these. reports'. Physical verification of installed compnnents has been post-

.poned until the completion of Phase 1 of the CCP.

1 IDVPs i

.. NDP has resper.sibility for the folloviing plants included 6n the listi I

b. ...

Grand m acio uanyon .1 ~ ^

7. 'Susacehanna 2

. frere',n 1

5. Waterford 3

.' t. Watts W %

C '7 7 --- T e i .. . :

8. Comanche Pt?ak 1 s 9. Diablo Canynn 2

10. Palo Verde 1 e

i f

t l

l l .

i

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

LICENSINC STATUS FOR MIDLA'O The Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, is approximately 85% complete. Consumers Powe- Cenpany (CPCo) applied for the constructior permit on January 13, 1969.

The SER was issued in May 1982 and the FES was published in July 1982. Three supplements to the SEP, have been issued, with Supalenent 2 addressing renedial activities for the soils completion problen at the site. The Midland Plant experienced limited construction progress in 1983 because of continued OA oroblems. Stop work orders that were issued in December 1982 and November 1983 were all lifted by Mid-Feb. 1984, and construction has resu.ed under controls

inposed by a Construction Completion Plan (CCP). The Dow Chenical pull-out in July 1983 and limited electrical demand have resulted in an indefinite status for Unit 1. On April 10, 1984, the CPC0 Board of Directors endorsed continued construction of Unit 2, and announced a revised schedule date for comercial cperation in December 1986. Although no fuel load date was mentioned in CPCo's press release, the fuel load date has been estinated to be about July 1,1986, assuming the same differential from fuel load to ccmerical operation that the applicant has used in the past. The CPC Board of Directors cautioned that agreenents with the Michigan Public Services Commission and other elected state officials are still needed before plans are final and discussions to thi! and wil' continue. ,

(11 fia.ior Issues Ma,ior safety review issues concern the structural adecuacy of the diesel generator building, resolution of generic TDI diesel generator, performance problems, and conoletion of the Independent Design and Construction Verification Program.

Inspection efforts in late 1982 resulted in construction halts and the development i of the Construction Completion Program (CCP) which is a significant ouality i verification effort by CPC of past and to-go work. A limited SALF evaluation during this period resulted in an overall Category 3 rating, and also contributed to the reouirement for the CCP.

Recent Director decisions (10/6/83 & 1/12/84) on a 2.206 petition addressed orders implementing the CCP and an independent management appraisal. A current 2.206 petition re-addresses those issues denied in the above decisions.

The undorpinning of two safety related structures continues under the overview ,

of an independent third-party. Underpinning construction is on schedule wi e 24 of 57 temocrary piers prosently installed beneath the auxiliary buildin6 and ad,iacent turbine building.

! (2) Hearinos i

Since July 1981 the NRC has conducted extensive evidentiary hearincs address-ino the Order Modifying Construction Permits issued by the Staff en December 6, 1979, which concerns the soils compaction problen at the site and the associated quality assurance /ouality control issues. The staff's findings with respect to this record are due on fiay 11, 1984. It is expected that the Board's docicinn will be issued in July or Auoust 1984. Two pending n'otinns tr- rec:en the record i a re addressed beinw.

- _ ~ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._. _ . _ _ . , _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ a l _ si ._ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ .

e Licensing Status of Midland 2 ,

One of the motions to reopen to record that is now cending before the Licensing Board involves the structural adecuacy of the diesel generator building. The Board is presently waiting to hear the Staf#'s position with respect to that issue. It is likely that the hearing will be reopened on this issue. There is also pending before the Board a notion to reopen the record on the issue of whether Consumers Power Company lied to the Staff and t~o the Board with respect to past schedules for construction completion. The Staff supported the Intervenor in this motion. The Board is expected to rule withir a month.

CPC0 has announced a new December 1986 schedule for commercial operation for Unit 2. Therefore, there is sufficient tire to litigate the seventeen remaining contentions that have been accepted by the Licensing Board in the operating license hearing. This includes the newly p'roposed contention before the Board on the TDI diesel generator problens. .

(3) Emergency Planning The onsite and offsite reviews are continuing. No pre-operational inspection or

- exercise is scheduled at this tire due to delays in the construction completion schedule.

(a) Third-Party Reviews Three separate third party reviews are currently underway and a fourth is in planning. Below is a brief discussion of.each:

A. IDVP The Independent Design and Construction Verification Program (IDVCPI being conducted for Midland Units 1 and 2 is based on three systems ; C ' the AFW System, (2) the Control Roon HVAC Systen, and (3) the Standby Energency (Diesel Generator) Power System. The TERA corporation, the independent contractor, has indicated that the design verification may be completed by July 1984 Staff review of TERA design evaluation reports will connence upon J completion of these reports. Physical verification of installed components ,

has been postponed (because of construction delays) until sufficient rework is available and the final installations are completed.

B. CCP Overview The Construction Completion Plan involves the reinspection by CpCo of 100" of all accessible safety systems. Stone and Webster is performing an independent overview of this work. The CCP was approved by Order dated October 6,1983; CPCo expects to complete the proaram by June 1986.

C. Soils Pework Overview The rework due to soils comoaction problems includes the underpinning of tur safety-related structures which is being per'orred under the overview of Ste-r and Webster. CP~o expacts to comple'.e the undarpinnino work by narly la36.

r

' Licensing Status of Midland 2 ,

D. Management Overview In response to the NRC's Cor.firmatory 0-der of January 12, 1984, CPCo has selected the firm o' Cresap, McCormick and Paget in con,iunction with the TERA Corporation to conduct an indeoendent manacement appraisal of the Midland Plant. The proposed plan was submitted for NRC approval on March 7,1984 and is presently under review.

(5) CAT Inspection A CAT inspection is being scheduled during CY 84-85.

(6) Region III Staffing Status .

The NRC staff assigned to perforn inspections at the Midland facilit) has been increased this fiscal year. The increase is in accordance with the Region III

. staffing and is due to the backlog of open inspection items and the increased inspection workload associated with the Construction Completion Program.

Pe; ion !!! row has three reside-t inspectors Incated a' inc '4idland site. an .

additio .a! three individuals in the Region III o#' ices assigned full time to the Midland Dro.iect, and three inspection specialists from the Recian III

, - Division of Encineering.who scend tine onsite as needed. Addit erally, an i

NRC Resident Site Supervisor has been selected for "idland and will report to the site in the near future.

[ The NRC is in the process of aporoving a contract with a national laboratory for assistance with the technical inspection program at Midland, approximately two and one-half man-years of effort. In the interin, two Argonne contract engineers, formerly assigned to Zimmer, have been temporarily assigned to provide inspection assistance at Midland.

With the announced decision by the owners of the Zimmer plant to not complete it as a nuclear facility, Region III dissolved the Zimmer Section and the Office of Special Cases and transferred the Midland Section together with all its people to the division of Project and Resident Programs (DPRPl. The Director of the Office of Special Cases was reassioned as Chief, Projects Branch 1, DPRP, with responsibility for Region III plants under constructior.,

including ftidiand.

(7) NRC Inspections The following normal inspection itens have not yet been started:

as-built verification safety committee inspection

- plant procedures inspection operating procedures maintenance procedures ,

Licensing Status of Midland 2 .

- emeroency procedures

- evaluation of test results

- verification that test results are reviewed by the licensee

- fire protection

- containment leak rate test results review "

testing of pipe supports and restraints

- emergency planning

- security The following inspection itens are each presently about 10% complete:

- radiation protection "

radwaste

- radiochemistry *

- environmental monitoring At the present time, the staff is evaluating resource needs for these inspections and is planning to support the scheduled fuel load date.

I!.^ -F are ? number of ct'ar r cren insie:ticr. items. These a e:

A. Construction There are presently 52 violations including deviations, 40 unresolved items, and 24 open items that remain to be closed. These will recuire a significant inspection e' fort. At this time we do not anticipate significant problens that would affect the fuel load date.

B. Preoperational Testino There has been no significant preoperational testing effort at the present time. This area will require a significant inspection effort in the future.

'The licensee's schedule indicates that this effort will not be n eded until March-April 1985. No resource problems are anticipated to accomplish this inspection prior to the anticipated fuel load date.

I C. Radiation Protection and Radwaste There have been two preoperational radiation protection inspections conducted at the site. The licensee appears to be naking sufficient progress in this area. At this time we do not anticipate significant problems that would affect the fuel load date.

D. Security

'The licensee has an NRC approved security plan which must be fully implemented at the time of fuel load. There have been no NRC inspections nf the Midland security procram to date. Reaional nonitoring of the licensee's progress is expected to begin approxirstely IP nonths prior to fuel load. Thore is ro fuel onsite at +he presen- tire.

+* .

Licensing Status of Midland 2 ,

(8) Allecations .

Significant inspectior, effort has been expended in 1983 and 1984 on 182 allegations from 36 individuals. To date, 106 have been closed, leaving 76 open allegations '

)

provided by 17 allegers. These open allegations can generally be divided into the following' areas:

• g s

QA breakdown )

unqualified personnel '

- lack of weld rod control )

- theft of onsite property

- /

QA/QC oersonnel not allowed to write nonconformance reports fire protection inadequacies *

('

usage of alcohol and drugs -

N inadequate weldino criteria ' '

The open allegations need to be thoroughly reviewed to determine their sianificance in terms of impact on plant safety. As noted, additional staff has been and

- is being assigned to the t'idland proiect to expedite the evalu.2 tion cf these ~

alleaaticrs.

(9) 01 Investications At present there is one (1) ongoing investigation involving the Midland facility pertaining to.a complaint of intimidation and harrassment by a former QC inspector. '

i

6 7 ,

[ y-1b) .

Q '. l== Y&n . -

\ucear In"ormation anc Resource Service 13 f (cmet u km NW 4tt Ra hS ocia, D C prC3f i?0?,290 7B?

June 1, 1984 James M. Felton, Director FREiv0M OF INFORMAll0N Division of Rules and Records ACI REQUEST Office of Adminstration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NN Washington, D.C. 20555 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REOUEST

& IQ ~ $ -fY ,

Previous Related Request: FOIA 84-208 (BELL)

To whom it may concern:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522, as amended, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service requests the following documents regarding the enclosed memorandum from Chairman Nunzio Palladino to the Commissioners, on the subject of Licensing Delays, dated March 20, 1984. Please consider " documents" to include reports, studies, test results, correspondence, remoranda, meeting notes, meeting minutes, working papers, graphs, charts, diagrams, notes and summaries of conversations and interviews, computer records, and any other forms of written communication, including internal NRC Staff memoranda. The documents are specifically requested froa, but not limited to, the Office of Policy Evaluation (OPE) ; Office of General Counsel (OGC) ; Office of the Executive Director of Opt: 2. t i e rJ ; the Office of thc Extcutivt LogEl Directo:

(OELD); Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRh) ; and the Operating Reactors Branches of the Division of Licensing. In your response, please identify which documents correspond to which requests below.

Pursuant to this request, please provide all documents prepared or utilized by, in the possession of, or routed through the NRC related to:

1. The enclosed March 20, 1984 memorandum from Chairman Palladino to the Commissioners Re: Licensing Delays, including, but in no way limited to, the " briefing sheets" alluded to in paragraph two of the memo; and

2. The legal authority, and justification for, expidited hearings held by Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Boards, and the Commission.

In our opinion, it is appropriate in this case for you to m/m g,.

oI@

w gv 7f r - 4

O i , _,, .

waive copying and search charges, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

552 (a) (4) ( A) "because furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public." The Nuclear Information and Resource Service is a non-profit organization serving local organizations concerned about nuclear power and providing information to the general public.

Sincere ,

r v.s M9' ! )

Nina Bell Nuclear Safety Analyst cc: File i