ML20214F656
| ML20214F656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214F652 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8705260202 | |
| Download: ML20214F656 (39) | |
Text
.
[ OTGINXL NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNnto STATES IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-443 SEABROOK MANAGEMENT MEETING LOCATION: BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES: 1 - 36 DATE: THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1987 1
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OffiaalReporters 444 North Capitol Street 8705260202 870515 Washington, D.C. 20001 PDR ADOCK 05000443 (202) 347-3700 T PDR NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
/4 '
- 4'
.e-SEABROOK MEETING-5/7/87 Attendees V. Herses- - NRC/NRR/PDI-3
~ F. Miraglia NRC/NRR Tom Murley NRC/NRR Ed Reis NRC/0GC Jim Snfezek- NRC/NRR Frank Congel NRC/NRRDREP William Daley' -
NHY George Thomas NHY Robert E. Sweeney NHY Bethesda Office William B. -Derrickson NHY Ted C. Feigenbaum NHY
.Eric Beckjord NRC/RES Denny Ross NRC/RES T. P.-Speis NRC/RES William Olmstead- NRC/0GC Sherwin Turk NRC/0GC-Donald 1. Perrotti NRC/NRR Falk Kantor NRC/NRR David Matthews NRC/NRR Sunil Weerakkody NUS Corporation
-Richard J. Barrett NRC/NRR/DRPEP Steve Long NRC/NRR/DRPEP Scott Newberry NRC/ DEDO Linda Correia Congressman Markey Richard Hampe NH CDA
a ,
F. ,
tCR30864.0. 1 ELW/sjg .
'l UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA l'
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
SEABROOK MANAGEMENT MEETING 4
DOCKET. NUMBER 50-443 5'
6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room P-110 7 Phillips. Building 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 8 ,,
9 Thursday, May 7, 1987 10 The meeting convened at 10:07 a.m.
11 PRESENT:.
A MR. NERSES 13 MR. VARGA MR. TURK 14 MR. LONG MR. BARRETT 15 MR. MURLEY MR. OLMSTEAD MR. MIRAGLIA-16 MR. KANTOR MR. NEW 17 MR. MOODY MR. BERKJORD 18 MR. FEIGENBAUM MR. SPEIS 19 MR. HALL MR.. THOMAS MR. DERRICKSON 20 MR. DALEY MR. HAMPE 21 MS. CORREIA MR. CONGEL 22 MR. SNIEZEK.
23 24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
s-L8'640 Ol'01 2 H/bc. l' PROCEEDINGS 2 MR. MURLEY: Do we have any members of the public 3 here?
4 MR. HAMPE: I'm Korean.
I i
5 MR. NERSES: This-meeting was' intended to give !
6 7
New Hampshire Yankee people an opportunity to meet with the
.new. administration, so to speak, since we've had a l]
8 reorganization. And it would be an opportunity for you 9 folks to provide us information on some of the things that 10 have been issues that you people have desire to emphasize to 11 us at this point in time.
l 12 And-I would like to turn it over to you. And,
( 13 first of all, let's have an opportunity to provide comments.
\
14 MR. MURLEY: I have jut a couple of comments.
15 Let the record show that -this is my first licensing meeting 16 with New Hampshire Yankee. I've had many meetings as the
( 17 Chief Inspector in Region 1.
18 This, we understand, is a meeting that you have 19 asked for. And so, by and large, we will let you discuss 20 what you wanted to talk with us about.
21 I think there are a couple of things that we 22 would like to know. One is where you intend to go with 23 regard to your application for the reduced low power zone--
24 reduced EPZ--so that we can plan our resources, and so 25 forth.
{
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
8640 01 01 3 ;
- I
'H/bc 1 We have reduced our effort somewhat on the review i 2 that we are placing on it. And I need to know whether se 3 can reduce it even further, speed it up or whatever.
4 I guess that is the major thing we would like to 5 hear. If there are any other discussions you would like to 6 talk about on where you vere going with regard to licensing, 7 we would be glad to listen to. Okay?
8 M. DERRICKSON: Let me answer your question on 9 that first. I think we can. We did make our filing in 10 association with reduced emergency planning zone in two 11 parts.
12 Last July, we filed a technical packgage with 13 you. And, in December, we filed a petition in which we
{
14 requested a variance to the 10-mile rule and asked for a 15 one-mile emergency planning zone based on the technical 16 study that we submitted last summer.
17 And as I understand the ruling from Judge Hoyt, 18 she said that there were some issues that needed to be 19 reviewed by you folks before a final judgment could be made 20 on the one-mile emergency planning zone; and invited us to 21 come back after such a review process.
22 And I would officially like you to continue the i l
23 reviev because we may wish to come back, because, despite ;
1 24 the fact that there are some questions, we really believe i I
( 25 technically the package that we submitted is correct and t
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Natiorwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
~
?8640'01 01 4
~
~*H/bc 1 accurate and justifies a one-mile emergency planning zone.
2 EMR..MURLEY: I guess that is not quite my 3 understanding. And'I will have to turn to counsel here.
4 My understanding was that the hearing board made 5 the point that you have not.-- that you need to perfect your 6 case a little better before they would consider it.
7 I am not sure that the understanding was that!
8 they need us to' review it first to find out where it needs 9 to be perfected.
10 Is that a fair characterization?
11 MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes. So it is a question of whose 12 court the ball is in, and it seems to me it is in your 13 court. And there is the expectation that the case needs to 14 be perfected if you intend to do that.
15 MR. FEIGENBAUM: The woros in the Order -- and I 16 do not have it with me, I am afraid -- I think it says 17 something to the effect that both the NRC staff and the 18 applicant need to do further work to answer the questions 19 that were outlined in the Order.
20 I think the way I read the order is that the 21 Judge was saying that the NRC staff review needs to 22 continue, and these questions need to be resolved as part of 23 that review, so that we can at some point in the future, 24 that the technical review comes out successful and the case 25 is right. We can come back with another submittal. It ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
.=
8640 01 01 5 1 would not be premature, but we would be ready for the
} 'H/bc 2 Judge's review.
3 Am I correct in that?
4 MR. TURK: May I respond-to that?
5 We may be putting emphasis on something that is a
'6 little off to the side right now. You are correct that the 7 -licensing court indicated that more work had to be done by 8 both the applicant and the staf f if a petition were to 9 succeed.
10 But, the petition you submitted has been ruled 11' insufficient by the Licensing Board. That petition is no 12 longer before the Licensing Board. The question that needs 13 to be answered is do you intend to come back with a
{.
14 supplement to the petition?
15 So far, all I have. heard you say is that you-may 16 wish to, but you have not indicated that you intend to or 17 that you have any more concrete thinking on that.
18 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Yes. And our interpretation, 19 reading of the Order from Judge Hoyt, was that the NRC would 20 continue its review because the NRC staff, in their earlier 21 pleadings to the Board, indicated that there were issues, 22 five or six issues, that had to be resolved before they 23 could come back to the Board with any definitive conclusion.
24 MR. TURK: Let me say that I have had
( 25 conversations with Tom Dicken. That is not -- our i
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
n-L
'8'640 01 01~ 6
'EWH/bc- I conversations-have proceeded. It's my understanding that .
( 2' Mr. Dicken agrees that the current petition is'no longer-3 before the-Licensing Board. And for any. petition to'be 4 considered again for the Licensing Board, there has,to be a
.5 resubmission.
6 Now, in addition --
7 MR. FEIGENBAUM: That is true, but I am 8 separating the petition now from the technical' case.
9 MR. TURK: The second point I would make is that 10 the Licensing Board cannot direct the staff to undertak'e a 11
- review. The Board and the Staff's functions are separate. -
l 12 Whether or not the staff will proceed in its review is 13 totally distinct from what the Licensing Board nay expect.
14 I think what needs to be addressed hero is wha' 15 ! Public Service of New Hampshire intends, no that the NRC i
16 i staff can then decide how to respond.
i 17 MR. DERRICKSON: That's fair. We did file the 18 technical package and the petition separately. And I think l
19 there are merits in reviewing the technical package 20 independent from the one-mile emergency planning zone; since I
21 i the basis for emergency planning hinges on what actions are 22 adequate to protect the health and safety of the public.
23 And we have tried to represent the effect of an accident at 24 Seabrook on the public at dif ferent locations from the 25 plant.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
=.
g.
7 8640 01 01
-- 7
' FWH/bc- 1 And we believe there is merit in continuing to
- 2. review for'that purpose. I think you are correct, we have 3 to go back and take Judge Hoyt's order and look at -- if 4 we're going to come back with another petition for 5 modification of .the emergency planning zone.
6- See, what we have to do to comply with her l 1
7 determined deficiencies, if you will. And we have not done 8 that yet. That part is still under review up in our shop.
9 MR. TURK: I don't want to leave vou with an 10 impression that is incorrect. The impression that I have 11 right now is that at this point you do not know yet whether
'2 1 you intend to come back with a petition?
13 MR. DERRICKSON: That is correct. But the .
14 technical package has other benefits'besides supporting ,
15 another petition. l-16 MR. MURLEY: I think I understand that. I will' i
17 -look with my staff then at the ' technical _ package and see 18 where -- what role it will play in our overall evaluation, !
19 independent even of whether or not you come back with an l 20 amended request. f 21 MR. DERRICKSON: That's fair.
1 22 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think it is important to f I I 23 I emphasize the fact that the timing now is very unclear and 24 we would like to have some anticipation of what your intent 25 is and what the schedule is, so that we can appropriately ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
^
g1 8640'01-01 '8
"'4H/bc 1 ' plan to utilize the-resources of the staff more
.2 appropriately.
3 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Jim, could you address that? We 4 have submitted an action plan for resolving the issues as we 5 understand;the NRC.had as of a month ago.
6 MR. MOODY: We submitted our comments on.the
-7 Brookhaven final report on April 22nd. And,.in addition to J8 that, we have an action plan for addressing the open issues 9 that Brookhaven and the NRC have identified.
10 If you want, I will put up the slide:and talk 11 about it.
12 MR. FEIGENBAUM: If you would'just briefly 13 discuss the action plan that was submitted.
q{
14 MR. MIRAGLIA: But the action plan, if I am not 15 mistaken, was predicated on trying to get the issues and the 16 questions that the staff raised resolved in or about the 17 November time frame. And that is what those schedules are.
18 .And that was predicatedoon the staff's affidavit 19- in response to Judge Hoyt as one that, when the staff would 20 be prepared to bring the-matter before that Board.
21 Now, if -- is that schedule still an operative 22 schedule, or are you going to come in here and ask for a 23 continued review? Or repetition us on that item? Or is the 24 schedule stretching out?
25 That is important for us from a resource planning
{. ,
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
~
c- ;
8640 01o01 9
'4H/bc .1 perspective. .Should we keep that kind of level of resourcs? !
2 Should we stretch it out?
3 I think we have to know what'your intent is.
4 MR. MOODY: We have-a schedule for submitting a 5 couple of major reports by about June 1st. It addresses the 6 three major' issues that were open.
7 We proposed meetings. We proposed that 8 Brookhaven and the NRC continue and not wait'until June 1st 9 to evaluate these same issues.
10 And we were talking July or August time frame for 11 technical resolution. Now, that is without your input.
12 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Essentially, our schedule from 13 the action plan submitted on April 22nd has not changed, as
(-
14 it addresses the issues in that letter.- i 15 MR. MOODY: That's right.
16 MR. FEIGENBAUM: That we're outstanding on that l l
17 date.
18 Now, since that time, in the Judge's Order, there !
i 19 are additional issues that have been raised. And I think we 20 need to discuss how that affects schedules. l 21 MR. MOODY: Two of the six open items were 22 discussed for the first time Tuesday. And we are right on f f
23 schedule with what we proposed. Maybe accidentally, but we 24 are.
!l 25 The NRC has provided comments on the DBA
{
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC, 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8m-33MM6
8640 01-01 10
"*4H/bc 1 analysis. We have commented on that on Tuesday. In about a i
2 week, we are going to put it in writing officially. j l
3 The same thing with ad hoc criteria. There was a 4 request for additional information. We're going to provide 5 that in about a week.
6 So, two of the issues are on schedule as proposed 7 in our April letter.
8 MR. FEIGENBAUM: I guess the question is are you 9 working to the whole schedule that we submitted in that 10 action plan?
11 MR. MIRAGLIA: My answer would be that that 12 schedule was predicated on an end purpose of supporting or 13 having a staff have a position relative to your petition 14 request to the Board, which was that November date that the 15 staff is working towards.
16 And I'm saying to what end now is the staff 17 working? Is that still the operative date? Is it November?
18 Is it December? That is important for us to know so'that we 19 can appropriately manage the resources of our staff.
20 Do you intend to supplement your petition and go 21 forward and pursue in response to the Board's Order? I 22 think we have to know to what end we are working. That 23 schedule was predicated on the petition that was before the 24 Board. The Board asked the staff when would the staff be in 25 a posi. tion to address the issues that are before the Board.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l, 202 347 37(() Nationwide Coserage 80fL336W46
8640 01 01 11 "NH/bc- 1 And that is what the affidavit indicated. And
('
2 now, . since -- as you have heard,- the petition is not before 3- the Board.--
4 . What is your intent to schedule so that we can 5 appropriately --
6 MR. FEIGENBAUM: It is a little bit.like the
.7 chicken and the egg syndrome here. Basically, what the 8 Judge said in layman's terms is:
9 Do not come back until these technical issues are 10 resolved with the NRC stafff.
11 And what you are saying is really that, until you 12 have a petition in, you do not know what schedule you are 13 working to to resolve those technical issues.
(
14 I think the way we view it is that we need to 15 continue this review, hopefully in a timely manner of the 16 typical issues, get them resolved. And at that time, the 17 Judge would entertain another waiver request from us.
18 Right now, if we put something in that gives you 19 a better time frame of the schedule, it is still premature 20 adn I would expect to get the same result from the Board.
21 I think we need to close out the technical 22 issues, separate the legal aspect from it, from the 23 technical case, and continue that review.
24 MR. OLMSTEAD: Let me indicate that one of the 25 problems that we have right now is what the Judge refers to
{
l
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6M6 l 1
1
.O
- P640 01-01 12
~!BWH/bc l- as a prima facie case. We do not currently have a prima
(' 2' facie case on emergency planning without an exemption, and 3 loe.do not have a prima facie case on emergency planning'with 4- an exemption.
5 There are two possible scenarios that affect the 6 . schedule, but we need to know which approach to the meeting 7 requirements of the regulations you intend to follow; 8 otherwise, . we end up doubling resources on two different I
'9 theories. >
10 MR. DERRICKSON: Let's put that on the burner. for 11 just a minute. We also filed a Massachusetts emergency plan 12- some two or three weeks ago. We did that for several 13 reasons.
f 14 l One was to meet criteria in our petition, which l
15 ; we think it did help to shore up criterion four.
I 16 l It also, when properly supplemented with the l
17 i implementing procedure from us, we think would provide the 18 full basis for emergency planning in Massachusetts.
19 Now, there are a lot of dynamics going on here.
20 The rule change. When it looks like when it comes out, you 21 know, and how all of these things fit together.
22 So we are kind of in the same position you',re in.
23 On the other side, we are watching the Commissioners of the 24 rule change. We're not sure what it's going to look like, 25 so we're not sure how the final product can be done by us.
f
(
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
lj 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage Nth 336-6646
~ i. : ,
- 8640E01 01 -
13
.BWH/bc 'l 'And the same. thing on the petition, the chicken
- {
We apparently feelLwe need technical data on
~
2 .and.the. egg.
3 the petition by way of~some review in order for us to look 4 at other~ things we might do to answer all of Judge Hoyt's 5 questions.
6' But, also, the technical review might alter --
7 somewhat -- the degree of planning required in 8 Massachusetts, even in the 10-mile emergency plan. There is ,
i
, 9 a lot of potential things that this study could be used 10 for -- to support either another petition or the emergency i 11 plan'in Massachusetts, or whatever.
12 And that is why we're here. We see all of the 13 dynamics and we felt that we needed to go over this with you 14 to find the course of action.-
15 MR. OLMSTEAD: I think, on that issue, it is 16 unclear to us at least whether you intend on having a s. ate
- 17. and local emergency plan or a utility plan, and whether or !
18 not the commission changes the rule, you have to designate l l
19 one or the other and how this application is reviewed and ,
20 how it relates to the Licensing Board's decision and the l 21 evidence that has to be provided in the schedule that they f 22 are on depends on which strategy you pursue.
i 23 And I think that is what's causing everybody to 24 have trouble knowing where the put the resources. !
7 25 MR. DERRICKSON: That's fair. This is what we l 1
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8(n.346M6
.w
- 8640 01.01 14
"*4H/bc 1 needed to hear from you. So we can go back --
2 MR. MURLEY: There is a certain element of sheer 3 understanding the technical arguments, understanding the j i
4 risk assessments that you have gone through that I think we 5 need to do'just to understand the plan. We will do that
- 6 irrespective of which way you finally decide that you want i
7 to -- what you finally ask of us.
8 So I believe we have to put those amounts of 9 resources on it, just to understand the plant and its 10 strength and weaknesses as determined in the PRA.
11- But, beyond that, I cannot go at this time until
-12 you tell us which way you head because it really does af fect 13 the way that we put our intense resources. I would call it
{
14 right now we are doing kind of a normal background review of 15 technical documents, like your risk assessment report.
16 MR. FEIGENBAUM: I just want to reiterate one 17 thing that Bill said. The technical package is not 18 necessarily separate from our total emergency planning 19 philosophy of how we're ultimately going to go into the NRC, 20 the package. They go hand in hand.
21 Massachusetts' plan would be submitted together 22 with the technical package. And, at this point, I guess we 23 are not prepared to detail exactly how those two go 24 cogether. But there is no question that the open technical l
25 issues in our study need to be resolved so that we can
{
l
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, }NC.
l 202 347 37txt Nationwide coverage 8(x) 336-6M6
8d400101 15 BWH/bc 1 better formulate and have the intelligence to come in with !
k 2 the best possible plan for Massachusetts, the most efficient 3 plan, the optimum plan.
4 So that is why we request that you continue your 5 view on the technical issues, so that we can get closer to 6 resolution of them and know the best plan, the best total 7 package to submit.
l 8 MR. MURLEY: I think I responded for our own 9 purposes we are to understand the plant and its strengths 10 and weaknesses, its risks, outlyers and so on.
11 I think we need to keep up that review. The 12 background review, as I call it. But it is not -- I do not 13 view it now as our staf f ef fort to review it according to a 14 one-mile emergency planning zone, for example, to justify 15 that at this stage until we hear that from others.
16 MR. FEIGENBAUM: I would agree with that.
17 MR. DERRICKSON: That is dead for the moment. The l 18 petition was denied, as you indicated, and we understand j 19 that.
20 MR. FEIGENBAUM: There started out to be six 21 initial technical issues that were outlined in a meeting I 22 about a month ago. And we do have an action plan to resolve ,
i 23 those six. And we have already had a meeting to talk about 24 two of them. j g 25 And there will be additional submittals from us i l
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20:-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 m 336-u w, l
8640 01101 16
"*4H/bc 1 as a result of those meetings.
2 Do you plan to continue reviewing the additional 3 four specifically with us?
4 MR. MURLEY: Are we ready to talk about the-
'S details of our review?
- 6. Frank, it's very thin. A lot of people are 7 requesting a lot of reviews from him.
8 MR. CONGEL: My plan was to continue with the 9 review and the depth and ef forts we will be spending on it 10 will be contingent on what comes out of this meeting and 11 what direction I get from the Office Director.
12 As you know, we did have the meeting on Tuesday.
13 We got some information on two of the issues. I think those 1
l 14 probably were a couple of the easier issues and it appeared 15 to me that after you make a formal submittal to us that we 16 will have something upon which to base some ultimate 17 conclusions.
18 The other four issues involve somewhat more ,
4 19 complexity and coordination with our Office of Research here 20 today, and probably some contractor support. It involves 21 much more detailed review of the PRA and the applications of i
22 the PRA.
23 Our intent was to meet some of the interfacing 24 deadlines in June or July with, hopefully, a final l 25 resolution in November.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800 336 6M6
.8640_01 01 17
'l I have to repeat that the November completion.is
.("NH/bc 2 really contingent upon what is decided here.- As of right 3 now and what I have in front of me, I have a package, a 4- draft on the status of all of the issues from our 4
5 perspectives. ,
6 I would be willing to discuss in detail what I 7 have and what 1 will need, and we will schedule after we-8 determine the other issues. It can be done. And we were 9 planning as recently as a week ago to meet the November 10 completion date. (
t.
11 MR. SNIEZEK: For what purpose were you doing ,
N 12 .that review?
13 MR. CONGEL: Until the Board ruling came out, we
{
14 were looking at it in terms of settling the question of 15 coming up with technical perspective on the question 16 regarding the acceptability or feasibility of the one-mile 17 EPZ.
18 MR. SNIEZEK: And from what you said, Tom, that 19 would not be the purpose for any of our further review.
20 MR. MURLEY: That's right.
21 We need to retalk about this after this meeting 22 amongst ourselves.
23 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Would it be to anybody's benefit 24 if we went through our understanding of what issues are open 25 to help you in your discussion?
['
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
>;t.
8640o01 01. l 18
? '4H/bc l' MR. MURLEY:
It's up to you, yes.
2 MR. MIRAGLIA:- My understanding, and you can 3- correct me if I'm wrong, didn't you have a technical meeting 4 on Tuesday?
5 MR. CONGEL: Yes, to discuss the two issues.--
6 design basis accidents and the Criterion IV.
7 MR. MIRAGLIA: So they would perhaps be making 8 sure that they understood the other issues that we have 9 raised. It would be an appropriate thing.to discuss now, 10 the other four issues.
11 MR. CONGEL: It would be up to them.
12 MR. MOODY: Do you want to talk about it'just in e 13 general terms? I have a list. I don't know if it is t
14 complete, but we will find out if it is complete.
15 (Slide.)
d b
.16 MR. MOODY: The top half of the slide are areas 17 wehre I believe review is essentially complete, for a couple 18' of reasons.
19 First of all, there was either good agreement or, 20 regardless of whose analysis you use, it does not affect the 21 l results.
I l
l 22 ! The interf acing LOCA evaluation. We disagree l
- l. 23 with some of the details. However, Brookhaven and the staff 24 have said that it does not matter whose analysis you use, it i
l t' 25 does not affect the results.
l
(,
1 l /\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
- 202 347 37(x) Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
D 8640 01 01 19 1 There was some indication though that that review
{ H/bc 2 was not completed.
3 Containment, isolation, preexisting leaks I think 4 was completed. It had minimum impact on our results.
i 5 Containment structural capacity was completed.
6 We are pretty much' accepting the Brookhaven review in that j i
7 area, but we feel it is very conservative. Everybody agrees -
i 8 with the yield. The strength capability, one percent i 9 strain. But, from there on, there is a lot of disagreement 10 as to what the probability of containment failure is.
11 Source-terms, and the consequence analysis, there 12 has been. good comparison and agreements there. The source ,
. 13 terms basically are WASH-1400 methodology source terms. And 14 the consequence analysis was a comparison of CRAC-2, more l 15 recent MAX code with the ELGs.
M- 16 These are important to early releases.
17 The consequences and source terms, the whole back 18 end of it. Containment structural capability, preexisting re ,
19 leaks, byp' asses such as interfacing LOCAs. There has been a >
20 majog effort already completed the most important areas with 21 regard to.sarly releases. l t j g i .22
- And below here we have the open areas.
23 Shutdown events. We're doing a plant-specific :
c ,
24 study (here following the NSAC-84 methodology, but looking l
4 i: '
,,7 25- specifically at Seabrook.
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 200-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
. . - , , <,_.s . . _ _ _ . . - - _ _ . - - - , _ . ,
e 8'640 01 01- 20
'4H/bc 1 I guess I might ask here has there been any 2 progress in this~ area? There were comments on NSAC-84. Is 3 there an effort going on to complete the review of NSAC-84, 4 Brookhaven? Does anybody know?
5 MR. MURLEY: What is NSAC-84? j 6 MR. MOODY: The first study done of modes for.
7 five and six and sevenths. It was done on Zion by Pickett, 8 Load and Barrett back in -- I'm thinking it was published in 9 '85' time frame. It has been out for a few years.
10 It was based on NSAC-52, which was a in-detail j 11 data review, loss of LHR cooling, LOCAs.
12- MR. CONGEL: Rich Barrett is familiar.
.13 MR. BARRETT: I'm not too familiar, but there is
(
14 a generic issue that is being addressed regarding accidents 15 and shutdown. I believe that the principal industry 16 technical basis is NSAC-84, which is a review -- I think it 17 is specific to the Zion plant.
18 I believe that review is being done by 19 Brookhaven, but I do not know the status of it.
20 MR. MOODY: We have some of the comments of the 21 Brookhaven report on NSAC-84. We will try to make sure that 22 those are cleared up in our study when we submit it.
23 MR. FEIGENBAUM: I want to ask one question in 24 clarification here. We're claiming to submit this in June 25 for our action plan.
{
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
.: 1 8640 01 01 21 BWH/bc 1 If we submit it, is it your intent to review what
(
we have submitted?
~
2
'3 MR. SNIEZEK: For what purpose?
4 MR. OLMSTEAD: The problem is the standards of 5 acceptability, that the. staff has to review something new, 6 differ depending on what case you are making. And if you 7 submit it and tell us what the case is that you want-to 8 make, then the answer would be that the resources are put on 9 it.
10 MR. DERRICKSON: We will tell you by June what 11 case we're going to make.
12 MR. OLMSTEAD: Okay.
13 MR. DERRICKSON: I hear you. I understand.
14 MR. OLMSTEAD: That is what's causing people 15 problems in saying they're going to do something. They have 16 to know which standard it has to meet.
17 MR. MOODY: Wouldn't a technical review of our 4
18 submittal and, you know, the marbles fall where they fall.
19 I guess I don't understand.
20 MR. OLMSTEAD: Let me put it in concrete terms.
21 If you have a utility plan to evacuate a portion of the 10- l 22 mile EPZ, what the staff is looking at is different than if ,
I i
23 you say there is going to be no need to evacuate anybody in '
24 the 10-mile EPZ.
i 25 What might be acceptable for one purpose would 4 t
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
4 1,
e
~ 8640 01 01 22
"'4H/bc 1 not.be acceptable for the other purpose.
2 MR. MOODY: I think we're getting into acceptance 3 criteria.
4 MR. OLMSTEAD: Well, that's what a review is,
.5 too.
6 MR. MOODY: Yes, that's on my-next slide.
7 Induced steam generator tube rupture and direct containment 8 hearing, we are addressing in one report around the first of 9 June. We are looking more closely at the frequency of these 10 events as well as the possibility of opening the PORVs.
11 And I guess we could ask the same cuestion over 12 and over again. We are assuming there will be some review 13 performed.
14- Symtommatic search. I believe we're looking 15 closer at the front end more carefully for early releases.
16 We have discussed this before. We have not planned to 17 submit anything in this area right now. We have proposed a 18 meeting tu discuss this and get this started.
19 We will contract sometime in May, around the 15th 20 of May. And I believe this is the front end review, 21 familiarization with the PRA that was referred to earlier.
22 And the last two, we discussed on Tuesday.
23 And I believe we are on schedule for those. We 24 are going to submit something within a week on each one of 25 them and provide information based on Tuesday's meeting.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
't
.C 8640.01.'01 23
'VH/L 1 But I believe there is a need to define
- 2. Lacceptance criteria for each one of these.
3- MR. CONGEL: Let me add'one thing at this point.
4 What you have said so far is consistent with my group's 5 understanding of the technical aspects of this review with 6 exception with external initiators or events, the seismic 7 analysis. And those open areas.
8 MR. MOODY: That is in a systematic search. I 9 asume systematic search is part of familiarization with the 10 PRA and a better look at having ways of early releases such 11 - as missiles, tornados, missiles.
12 MR. CONGEL: If that is-the case, then I can say 13 that your understanding and mine at this juncture is
{'
14 consistent.
15 MR. MOODY: What is important though, unless you 16 are doing something, I think we need to have a meeting.
17 MR. MURLEY: Of those six areas, some of you said 18 there is material that is submitted. Either industry 19 material, or you have submitted it?
20 Some you said you were going to submit? And some 12 1 apparently you don't have plans on?
22 Can you list which ones, which are which, there?
23 MR. MOODY: We have already submitted information 24 on shutdown events. There were 75 requests for additional l t 25 information and we supplied substantial additional analysis 1
l-t
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
ie.
8640 01 01 24
'4H/bc 1 and information. One was shutdown events. It was a quickie 2 kind.of bounding analysis. Brookhaven was not comfortable.
3 I don't.think the staff was. And we're going back and 4 looking in more detail. In the steam generator tube rupture 5 --
6 MR. FEIGENBAUM: To complete the response, there 7 are additional pieces of information that we're going to 8 , submit on shutdown. I think that is what Tom is looking 9 for.
l 10 MR. MOODY: Oh, yes.
1 11 MR. FEIGENBAUM: There is an additional submittal l 12 and the schedule for that is June. 8 4 13 MR. MOODY: The first of June.
(
14 MR. FEIGENBAUM: The NSAC-84-analogy, a more l
15 , detailed review.
16 MR. MOODY: Okay.
l 17 ! MR. MURLEY: We're going beyond NSAC-84. In the 18 case of induced steam generator ube rupture, there was a
{
19 request for additional information. We did some detailed 20 , analysis on this.
21 We used the MAPP code, which was benchmarked with 22 Westinghouse tests. And more recently, I believe they did 23 some benchmarking with more detailed EPRI code.
24 This analysis showed that the induced steam
( 25 generator tube ruptures were not a problem. As a matter of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
$ 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
t g'
.,1:' ;
!8640 01 01 25 l ' fact, I do not know of. any analysis that has been performed
.("NH/bc' 2 that shows;that it is' a problem. I think right now it is 3 speculation.
4- But the review of that analysis, the verification i
5 of,MAPP, getting this through Research, this seems to be a ;
i-6 very long tedious process and we-have been lookingla't l 7 reducing the risk from this.other ways, basically. >
~
8 MR. SPEIS: I'm not aware of a MAPP analysis that f-9' goes into, that is an important issue there. I'm not aware 10 of any detailed analysis.that goes into natural circulation, '
-11 to see what.goes first and whether the steam generators 12 would be susceptible to failures before you depressurize-the j i
13 system. j
, t
.14.
~
Is that what you are referring to?
- i -
15 1 MR. MOODY: Yes. The MAPP analyses models.three ;
i ;
circulations -- one in the reactor vessel, one in the-hot h 16 17 leg to the steam generators, and another circulation up 18 through the tubes and then back up through the tubes again. !
19 It models it and we have submitted analyses on i
20 that. And it even discusses the benchmarking on the 21 Westinghouse experiments as comparisons.
22 I believe they're going to perform some more, l
- 23 too. i l
I
- H24 Direct containment heating. We have provided >
1 1
l
< 25 information on frequency of these events. And I think our
/4CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
I - 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6 4 6
{
o,
- c. :
- 8640~01'01. 26 "7H/bc 1 basic position here is that the configuration at Seabrook, 2 and when you model three-dimensional above the seal table, 3 we walk down there'and look up around the steam generators, 4 the grading, the pipe supports, pump supports, everything 3 that is in there. i i
6 We do not think it is as big of an issue as what 7 NUREG-ll50, for example, sees. And, again, we're looking at~
8 frequency of these events, initiating it. And the potential 9 for reducing the concern for this one. And that will be in l
10 the report also in June.
11 Does that help?
12 MR. MURLEY: What has been submitted or what is 13 going on in the systematic search area.
f{
l 14 MR. MOODY: When we started the technical review 15 back in-August or September, we had a few meetings. And we 16 discussed the ways that we had thought of. We went back and 17 looked at the Seabrook PRA and looked at how you could get r.
18 an early release such as. airplane crashes, turbine missiles, 19 steam generator tube rupture, initiated events, structural L
L 20 failure, bypasses, interfacing LOCAs.
21 We have discussed this a number of times. I 22 think what the staff is saying, they have not gone back and 23 actually done that review in detail.
24 Is that correct?
(' -25 MR. CONGEL: That is correct.
t ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
2
.t-8640 01 01: 27 1 MR. MOODY: I'm not so sure we have an awful lot {
. ("'4H/bc 2 of submittals'on this subject, but it'has been discussed'a 3 -few times.
4 MR. FEIGENBAUM: DBA and ADHOG expansion. We -;
5 will be' submitting additional information.
6 MR. MOODY: Yes. The comments we made on Tuesday 1
7 will be submitted in writing, and there was request for 8 additional information on the ADHOG expansion criteria that 9 was submitted also.
10 MR. CONGEL: Before you leave this slide, I want 11 to make one thing clear. I agreed with you about the 12 characterization of the issues, but the_ upper list, I would 13 say are close to resolution. But I want to make the group
-(
14 here know that we have not formally agreed to resolution to 15 any of the problems, any of those questions or issues.
16 (slide.)
17 MR. MOODY: I had.three other criteria. I might
. i 18 as well continue with this.
19 There is ASLB memorandum and order. I think 20 there are new open items in that area that we will have to !
I 21 at some point in the future possibly meet with the staff on. !
22 Technically, we do not think there is anything 23 significant that affects our conclusions. But it is 24 something that we have to keep track of.
25 Acceptance criteria. I think this one is
{
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
o 8640 01 01 28
-BWH/bc- 1 important. There has been a major effort to review, as we 2 just talked about, early releases and risk, and so forth.
3 When we started our analysis back in '85, we looked very 4 hard at NUREG 0396, for example, and we looked at this so-5 called four criteria for the generic 10-mile EPZ with regard 6 to NUREG-0396.
7 And we chose some acceptance criteria that we are 8 using. I think there is a need, if we're going to come to a 9 conclusion here, for the staff also to either agree with our 10 criteria or propose a criteria to management.
11 It probably would be a management decision.
12 MR. FEIGENBAUM: If I understand the NRC staff's 13 position from the beginning of the meeting, the criteria may 14 be different if we go in again with a one-mile waiver 15 request versus if we go in with something else.
16 And the acceptance criteria -- correct me if I'm 17 wrong -- may change as a result of what our filing would be.
18 So I think we understand the path there.
19 MR. MURLEY: Steam generator tube breaks, for 20 some cases, they are not important and for other cases, they 21 may be very important.
22 And so I think we need to -- that is just one 23 example.
24 MR. MOODY: I will not argue it, but I guess the 25 way I see it is whether somebody requested a one-mile, two-ACE FEDERAL REPOP.TERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
- o o
'8640 01 01- 29
/EWH/bc 1 mile, whatever, it' does not really matter. Somebody has to
( 2 think-about what the acceptance' criteria is going to be.-
3 What'is the DBA acceptance criteria? Is it the 4 upper PAG and some basic questions of how you calculate 5 that? I think those things have to be resolved.
6- The last one, which maybe is not as open any 7 more, we have been talking about it, is the review schedule 8 and the need for future meetings to discuss these open 9 areas.
10 Questions?
11 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Frank, do you have anything to 12 ' add to that as far'as the status?
13 MR. CONGEL: No.
14 MR. DERRICKSON: Just a recap on this subject.
15 I want to make sure we are un the same wave-16 length. You're going to go look at what sort of a review 17 you can do, of what sections -- given that we have not 18 supplied another package to you. And we're going to go back 19 as soon as practicable, we will put forth a complete 20 i - package, utilizing whatever parts of this safety study are 21 appropriate.
22 MR. MURLEY: We have to understand how your aux 23 feed systems work and the redundancy. And no matter what 24 argument comes in, we have to understand that. So we will 25 be reviewing those sorts of things, yes.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
8 e
8640 01 01
~
30
(.
BWH/bc 1 MR. DERRICKSON: I'm glad we had this little 2 discussion. We have only a couple of other thingsHon our 3 list that we wanted to cover.
4 One is you have reorganized and, obviously, your 5 new organization is in place and everything is firmed up now 6 as far as who has got what responsibilities, and all that.
7 MR. MURLEY: Let me just take a minute and 8 explain. Jim Sniezak is the Deputy. Frank Miraglia is the 9 Assistant Associate, I guess, Director for Projects. So we 10 are in a matrix type organization.
I 11 Rich Starostecki, whom you know from the' Region, j
'12 is Associte Director for Technology and Inspection. And e
13 Frank Congel works for him.
14 Rich, I don't think, is here right now. But I 15 1h intend that when you need to get the policy out of NRR, any 16 l one of the four of us can speak for the office. In some 17 cases, we are in very close contact.
18 Other than that, I don't need to go into a lot of 19 detail. But, the system is in place. We have got shakedown i
20 fproblems, like anything else. But it seems to be heading i
21 toward working.
22 MR. DERRICKSON: Just for your information, we 23 came prepared to tell you the status of the plant, just so 24 that you would know.
25 MR. THOMAS: Construction is complete and we have ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
it o.
8640-01 01 , 31
(.
BWH/bc 1 been doing zero power testing in accordance with the 2- licensing position in October, and that zero power testing ;
i 3' is now complete. ,
l 4 The plant is cooled down. It is in mode five and 5 will~be ready to heat up again in over a week. And we will 6 be in the position at that time, obviously, to get the 5 7 percent license.
I 8 Right now, we are preparing a tube leak on a heat
~
.9 exchanger, and that is the reason that we are in mode five.
10 MR. MURLEY: I never did hear the resolution of 11 the -- doing a test. Aux feed line, you lifted a relief-i 12 valve because of something or other, and you were going to 13 .go-back and refix that and redo the test.
14 , I guess I have not heard how that turned out.
15 MR. THOMAS: What happened is we were in the ,
16 process of starting a test. And we opened a couple of 17 valves and the safety valves let go -- that is not the right 18 I word. The safety valves lifted on one of the steam lines.
19 ,
In fact, two of the valves lifted. i i
20 MR. DERRICKSON: Main steam. ,
2:1 ! MR. THOMAS: What we determined was moisture l
22 built up in the line, because we had been sitting there {
23 behind the main steam isolation valves for a couple of days
!' I 24 at that point in time. !
25 We had analyzed this. We had occasion to repeat ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
-: s ,
, s.
8640 01:01 32 4
BWH/bc 1 that again, and we have changed our procedure so that now,
, when we are behind the main steam isolation valves for any 3 period of time, we have opened on those lines to prevent 4 moisture buildup.
5 And we are convinced that was the cause of the 6 problem.
7 MR. MURLEY: You finished the test that you were 8 doing.
9 MR. THOMAS: We finished the testing we were dong 10 on the emergency feedwater system, but we plan to do a 11 confirmatory surveillance test when we start _up again. We 12 have had to change out the internals in a couple of the 7
t 13 valves associated with it, the steam valves on the steam 14 line to the turbien-driven pump.
15 MR. DERRICKSON: One other issue is the 5 percent 16 license, is to our knowledge, all the requirements of the 17 Commissioners have been delivered to them for the 5 percent 18 license. I guess it is up to them to decide.
19 Do we have any feel for what sort of schedule 20 i they are on?
21 MR. OLMSTEAD: You cannot have a feel about that 22 because we cannot talk to them about it.
23 MR. MURLEY: I do not have a feel for it.
,, 24 MR. NERSES: We have a couple of things that we i
25 have to talk about that need to be addressed. We think we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
g 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
s
. ,3 o
8640 01 01 33
-(.
BWH/bc l' have it ironed out and wrapped up. That is the containment 2 . building spray piping issue.
3- MR. FEIGENBAUM: We understand that we owe you 4 some additional information on that. We plan to submit that 5 in the next couple of working days. ,
6 MR. NERSES: If we get the information to people, 7 we will probably have that wrapped up.
8 MR. MURLEY: Excuse me. Is that resolved before 9 any licensing --
10 MR. MIRAGLIA: There is the Board decision and 11 the Commission decision. If we had those, there are a 12 couple of technical issues that we need some information on.
13 We want to make sure they have a clear understanding.
14 MR. NERSES: It is pretty much on its way to 15 being wrapped up. We had a number of conference calls. And 16 it looks like to us that, if we get the information, we 17 should put that one to bed.
18 MR. NERSES: Mode 1, justification for in term 19 operation. We have the 5 percent license that lists the 20 items in the 5 percent, up to 5 percent.
21 There are items in Mode 1 that we are concerned 22 about that may be SECY-related, and we've asked them to 23 provide us information on justification, for potential 24 justification for interim operation items. ,
k- !
25 They're looking into that. They're meeting with l
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
202-34J 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
-w -
b o
<8640 01 01 34
-BWH/bc 1 the resident inspector to find out if there are any and'what 2 they are, making sure that there-are not any difficulties 3 regarding those things.
4 So that is another area that is going to be 5 wrapped up. There is a conversation between them, the 6 resident and ourselves, so we are on top of that.
7 MR. DERRICKSON: Any comment on that?
8 MR. HALL: We talked with Tony yesterday. We 9 have a series of meetings set up to get all of our. things 10 together. -We're going to meet with the residents on Monday, 11 this coming Monday. It is the lith, I believe.
12 And then we are going to get all of the different 13 groups together again after'that, to make sure we have 14 everything that we know of out on the table.
15 We will get together again with the residents a 16 week from Monday to have a final as to all of the items that 17 we know of between us, and make sure that we agree on this 18 list of things that have to be done for Mode 1, so that we 19 have a schedule and a plan.
20 Tony and Dave are with us and they have no 21 problems with the way we are tackling it. We will have a 22 definition for all of the JIO's -- we will have a definition 23 -- we will have those that will be in the category for Mode 24 1. And any other items for Mode 1 by the 18th, when we meet 25 with him. We will have a list.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
o
.}
O 8 40-01 01 35 BWH/bc 1 MR. MIRAGLIA: You understand the concern from a 2 licensing perspective is that we have to look at those 3 justifications. If they look like.they may be exemptions, o 4 then we have a-procedural process to go through. So that'is 5 why we want to make sure that we understand what you are 6 going to have, so we can make that decision and start that 7 procedural process.
8 MR. NERSES: I'only left one question that I have 9 in my mind. West Newbury just recently filed with the Board 10 the response to the mootness question, before the 11 Commission. And identified, and I saw a letter there 12 identified by some legal representatives of the Town of West 13 Newbury about removing the sirens.
14 The letter I think was dated April 23rd. It was 15 sent to Ropes and Gray. What do you know about that 16 situation?
17 MR. THOMAS: The town fathers of West Newbury 18 have ordered us to move the siren poles and the associated 19 sirens from the town. West Newbury, by the way, is the --
20 it is a small community in Massachusetts out on the edge of 21 the emergency planning zone in Massachusetts, about as far 22 away from the plant as you can get.
23 And we have basically told them that we are not 7
24 going to remove the poles.
A 25 MR. DERRICKSON: We have legal permits to have ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 %tionwide Coserage 800-336-6MS
____~
m.c
, C e
l' i 8640 01 01 36
(. .
BWH/bc 1 the' poles erected. All of the poles are in place.
2 MR. NERSES:- If they take the poles.down, th /--
3 MR. THOMAS:
. Then it becomes an issue.
4 MR. FEIGENBAUM: We will keep you informed as to 5 what is going on in that area.
6 MR. DERRICKSON: That's all we have.
7 MR. MURLEY: Let me summarize just to make sure 8 my understanding is the same as yours.
9 You do not know yet whether you are going to 10 resubmit the application for the one-mile EP2. As I 11 understand, you will before June let us know what your next 12 step is.
13 We said that we are going to continue our 14 g background review of the technical aspects of the risk 15 assessment, mainly to understand the plant and its risks.
16 r It is.not on the top front burner that it was 17 l when the application was active.
18 Anything more?
19 MR. MIRAGLIA: No.
I 20 MR. MURLEY: Is that a fair summary?
21 MR. DERRICKSON: That is correct.
22 Thank you. We appreciate your time.
23 (Whereupon, at 11 o' clock, a.m., the meeting 24 adjourned.) ,
25 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3 %)0 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
e p.
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER k
This. is to ' certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED ~ STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in' the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: SEABROOK MANAGEMENT MEETING DOCKET NO.: 50-443 PLACE: BETHESDA, MARYLAND ,
DATE:
THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the' original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt (TYPED)
BARBARA L. WHITLOCK Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation
_ . . _ _ _ __ _ - - - _ - - . _ _ _ _ . _