ML20100H200
| ML20100H200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1984 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100G169 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-250 NUDOCS 8412070453 | |
| Download: ML20100H200 (16) | |
Text
.i
'Oh't UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,,,,, +*
E6 SW 2
MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
NRC MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Enclosed is the NRC Monthly Licensing Report for February 1984.
The potential regulatory delay shown in this report is 14 months, nine for Shoreham and five for Limerick.
l Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
NRC Monthly Licensing Report i
BELAIR84-250 PDR
NRC MONTHLY REPORT LIMERICK The Limerick SER was issued in August 1983. The ACRS Full Committee meeting was held on October 13, 1983. The ACRS letter was issued on October 18, 1983.
The ACRS intends to continue their review of the PRA studies, Emergency Planning, and several other issues. Supplements to the Safety Evaluation Report and to the Draft Environmental Statement were issued in December 1983.
The schedule for hearing-related activities is as follows:
o Hearings on petroleum and natural gas pipeline rupture hazards 3
have been held intermittently since December 9,1983 and will resume on March 6, 1984.
o Hearings on the aircraft carburetor icing hazard due to the cooling tower plume were held and completed in January 1984.
Proposed findings of fact are to be filed with the ASLB by all parties by March 8, 1984.
o Testimony for onsite emergency planning contentions will be filed by April 16, 1984 in support of the hearing scheduled to begin on May 7, 1984. The admissability of offsite emergency planning contentions will be considered in a prehearing conference to be held on March 5-6, 1984.
.i
.- J o
Testimony for the equipment qualification contention will be filed by March 22, 1984 to support the hearing beginning April 9, 1984.
o Testimony for the systems interaction contention will be filed by April 2,1984 to support the h. earing beginning April 23, 1984.
o Schedules for testimony and hearings on the quality assurance con-tention are to be developed.
The Licensing Board estimates a decision in January 1985, based upon the expected issuance by the staff of the FES for severe accidents in March 1984.
This overall schedule results in a licensing impact of five months based on the applicant's August 1,1984 completion date. The NRC staff plans to visit the site in the near future in order to better evaluate the progress of construction.
L
'l
2 Midland Balance-of-Plant safety related construction was halted in December 1982 due to quality assurance problems and development of a corrective action plan (Construction Completion Plan). NRC approved the Construction Completion Plan by Order dated October 6, 1983. On October 21, however, the applicant issued several stop-work orders halting all safety work because of design documen-tation problems. The stop-work order for remedial soils work was lifted by the applicant on January 19, 1984.
Several other stop-work orders have been partially lifted at this time. Activities of the Construction Completion Plan i
are being initiated by the applicant as the prerequisites in the Plan and the stop-work releases allow.
On November 9, 1983 the applicant announced that preliminary indications from a study being conducted by the company suggests the commercial operation of the first unit to come on line (Unit 2) would be delayed from February 1985 until mid-1986.
The applicant has revised the expected date to complete the study from shortly after the first of the year to April 1984. The staff expects the applicant's construction completion date to be modified at that time.
Based on the NRC's April 1983 visit to assess schedules, and events since that assessment, September.1986 (Unit 2) and June 1987 (Unit 1) are considered appropriaterinterim dates for scheduling NRC resources. Therefore, no con-struction impact is projected for Midland.
n-
, Byron On January 13, 1984, the ASLB issued a initial decision denying Commonwealth Edison's application for an operating license for the Byron Nuclear Station.
The Board withheld authorization for an operating license because of inade-quacies in the Byron quality assurance program.
On January 23, 1984, the applicant appealed the licensing board's decision to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and subsequently, has alternatively moved to reopen the record on quality assurance issues. The applicant currently projects a construction completion date of July 1984.
Shoreham
-On September 2, 1983, the ASLB issued a partial initial decision on all matters except off-site emergency planning and the emergency diesel generator con-tentions. The licensing board has withheld authorization to issue a low-power license until the emergency diesel generator hearings have been held and the issues resolved in the applicant's favor.
It is estimated that these hearings will not start until late July 1984 based on the staff's estimate of June i
1984 for issuance of an SER on the diesel generator review.
The board's initial decision on emergency diesel generator contentions is currently scheduled for December 1984.
By letter dated January 5,1984, the applicant indicated that the emergency diesel generator repairs and testing will be l
completed by March 1984, at which time the plant would be physically ready to load fuel. Therefore, based on the applicant's estimate, there will be a nine-month licensing delay.
L
J Catawba The Catawba FES and SER were issued in January and February 1983, respectively.
The ACRS Full Committee meeting was held on March 11,.1983.
The ACRS letter was issued on March 15, 1983. Prehearing conferences were held on January 12-13, 1982, October 7-8, 1982, January 20, 1983, August 8, 1983 and September 12, 1983.
There are four safety and environmental contentions and ten emergency planning contentions.
To date, all admitted contentions except emergency preparedness and recently I
admitted contentions related to diesel generators have been heard. The NRC staff proposed findings are due by March 16, 1984, and an ASLB partial initial decision is expected in late May 1984 In January 1984, the applicant raised the question of the emergency planning hearing schedule and suggested a mid-March 1984 date.
The ASLB expressed the view that such a date was unattainable, and that it would not be prepared to hear emergency planning issues until it had issued its decision on the safety phase of the case.
On this basic, an emergency planning decision would not appear likely until October-November 1984. However, on January 18, 1984, the applicant filed a motion to bifurcate the hearing and requested the appoint-ment of a separate Board to rule on the emergency planning contentions. This motion was granted and a separate licensing board was established on February 27, 1984 to hear
~:
. 2 emergency planning contentions. The applicant's schedule calls for fuel loading to begin on May 1, 1984 and for ascension above 5% power on August 27, 1984. Use of a separate licensing board should allow earlier emergency planning hearings and the possibility of an emergency planning decision by August 1984, in time to avoid delay in full-power authorization fo Catawba Unit 1.
On December 5,1983, intervenors submitted an oral motion requesting admission of a three-part contention regarding the diesel generators.
On February 17, 1984, the Board admitted conditionally the part of the Intervenors' I
proposed contention on diesel generators dealing specifically with crankshaft design, and rejected the parts dealing with the vendor's QA program, and the f
. operational history of the vendor's diesel generators. The board referred its ruling rejecting the latter portions of the proposed diesel generator conten-tion to the Appeal Board.
In an order issued on February 27, 1984, the Board admitted on its own motion a contention on certain diesel generator problems identified by the applicant in a recent board notification.
f
2 Licensing Tables The present licensing schedule for all plants with pending OL applications is given in Table 1.
Plants are listed chronologically according to a
construction completion dates. The estimated Commission Decision dates are based on the utility company estimates of construction completion.
The
~
Immediate Effectiveness Decision date reflects the Commission's schedule to reach a decision on whether to stay the' effectiveness of the ASLB decision authorizing a license for full-power operation.
For the plants with construction completed, the Commission Decision dates reflect the schedule 4
for a Commission decision regarding a full-power license unless otherwise noted.
For the other plants, the Commission decision dates are simply based on the applicant's construction completion dates and reflect the projected need date for NRC authorization of fuel loading and low-power operations.
Operating licenses restricted to 5% power may be issued by the NRC staff without additional Commission consideration subsequent to a favorable Board decision.
The estimated regulatory delays and the target dates for Commission decision shown in Table 1 do not reflect any potential impact from the schedules for FEMA findings on off-site emergency preparedness. Any additional potential delays, based on the staff's analysis of the schedules for the FEMA findings, are included in a report to the Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, jointly transmitted by the NRC and FEMA.
s e
9
L 141.lc I (Page I af Hi DIVIslon DF 1ICfMSINO ?/79/R4 Licensing Schedules for All Prmfing OL Applications (includes Schedules for Additional Units with Prniccted Cnnstruction (capletion in CY 1983-1987)
! SIR Cmsi. Decisinn I/
tst Staff Staff ASt B
~ Appl.
Delay issue Technical Issue ACRS lsstse Technical lisue 6/ Start of Initial Cases.
Constr.
Plant (ikathj DES Input to DL SER Fis
_ Input to DL SSE R ~ Hearing Decision M ** Dec.
Cnspl.
- r. rand relf I 3/
0 ?/
C C
C C
C C
C None Mone N/A 03/84* 2/ C pt.hle Canyon !
O 4/
C C
C C
C C
C C
- 4/
03/8'4* 4/ - 4/
lasalle 2 0 ?/
C C
C C
C C
C None Mone N/A 03/84 ?/ C LHP-?
O 2/
C C
C C
C C
C Mone Mone N/A 03/84 2/ C
%:squehanna 2 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
03/84 03/84 hwrna 1 0
C
-C C
C C
C C
C C
71/
21/
07/h4
, 6Lat ts Far 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C None None N/A 06/84 06/84 1
rall ay i O
C C
C C
C C
C C
03/84 03/84 04/tt4 hrch.r I 9 7/
C C
C C
C C
C C
C 7/ - 7/ 12/R4' 7/ C3/84 7/
Pala verde I
_0_
C C
C C
C C
C C
C-C 04/84 05/l:4 g/
9m INTAL 9
Iwttcates changes Isnme last report in Decising or fanstruction Complet inn Date
- fissiiulan derision on ef fectiveness of ASL8 decision ns6
T.t.le I (Page 2 of 8)
. DIVISION OF LICINSINr. 7/?9/84 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Appilcations (includes Schedules for Addttlanal Units with Prolected Construction Cameletion in CY 1983-1987)
SER 5$Fil Comme. Decision i/
. ist 5taff
~ 5taff A5L8
~-
Appl.
1 Del y - Issue Technical Issue ACR5 Issue Technical Issue 6/ Start of Initial Comm.
Constr.
Piet
- (Mon ths)
DES Input to DL SIR h
Ff5 Input to DL 55fa - Hearing Decision h" Dec.
Cnagl f ated.4 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
05/M ]?/ 05/84 05/84 05/H4 w terford 3 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
C E/04/84 05/M lessi 2 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
06/84 06/H4 fee swhe Peak I O
C C
C C
C C
C C
07/84 07/84 07/84 07/84 19/
Di t.la Canyon 2 04/
C C
C C
C C
C
-C
- 4/
08/84 4/ GR/M 4/
W if (rect 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
06/84 07/84 07/84 08/84 g iierrict I 3/
5 C
C C
C 03/84 C
C C
0l/85 17/ 01/85 01/85 08/84 17/
e t..nt 1 3/
0 r
C C
C C
C C
C 09/84 09/84 09/84 09/u4 84 5AF II R/ 9/ 0 fl/A 5/15/84 6/15/84 08/84 N/A 08/M 09/84 None leone N/A 09/84 8/ N/A rhdland 2 g/
0 C
C C
C C
C C
C 10/85 1A/ 10/85 09/86 -,10/114 g/
hmrI n/5 ft/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/$
N/5 N/$
N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 g/
8.eer i 3/
,_ o C
C C
C C
C C
C 06/84 07/M ll/R4 10/H4?{/
ws.-Ilif As 5
Ie.dicates changes frnn last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date s eismissieme des isi.m see ef fectiveness of A54 8 decision
9 IAst I I (Page 3 of 8)
DivlSinN OF LICEN51100. 7/?9/84 Licensing Schedules for All Pensling OL Applications (laciudes Schedules for Adefittunal tinits with Prntected Construction Completion in CY 1983-1987)
SER 55IR Com. Dec1sinn I/
(51 5taff Staff ASL8
~ Appl.
Delay issue Technical Issue ACR5 issue Tec.hnical Issue 6/ Start of Initial Casse.
Constr.
80 FEi Input to DL 55ER ~ Hearing Decision h" Dec.
hl Plant (Nnnths)
DES Input to DL SIR 1
rela verde 2 0
C C
C C
C 11/84 12/84 C
C M/
C 01/85 02/85 g/
flidland 1 0 18/
C C
C C
C 05/87 06/87 C
10/85 18/ 10/85 06/87 02/85 18/
River Bend I ??/ 0 5/I4/84 C
03/84 05/84 9/28/84 05/84 06/84 10/84 03/85 04/85 04/85 04/85 firaiduood 1 0
C C
C 03/84 06/84 05/84 06/84 10/84 03/85 04/85 04/85 04/H5 Hyron 2 -
0 C
C C
C C
C C
C C
R/ 04/85 05/E5 r.ellefonte 1 3/
0 04/96 06/86 07/87 03/87 10/86 05/87 07/87 None lione N/A 10/87 10/HF p/
Itarris 13/
0 C
C
- C C
C 03/84 04/84 09/84 05/85 05/85 05/85 06/85 ustts Bar 2 0
C C
C C
C 06/85 06/85 finne None - N/A 12/85 12/85 Hillstone 3 0
4/l?/H4 5/15/84 7/16/84 8/15/84 11/16/84 10/12/84 11/15/84 leone Ilone N/A 11/85 11/85 Iteave r talley ?
n s27/84 7/27/84 9/28/84 IP'84 12/31/84 11/84 12/84 Ilone Ienne 25/ 11/85 12/85 12/85 fnpunche Peak 2 0
C C
C C
C 10/01/84 11/01/84 C
04/84 04/t.4 01/86 01/86 Mm.TalAt 0
Indicates chaney s isses last report in Dectston or Construction Oc:vietton Date Coussission des tsion nee ef fecttveness of A$t8 decision
DWISION Of LICENSING 7/?9/84_
ticensing Schedules for All Pending OL Applications 1Asti I (Page 4 ef 8)
(includes Schedules for Additional Units with Projected Construction Completion in C719R3-1987)
Camus. DectsInn 1/
55TR Appl.
5t u A5LS
~5taff Delay' Issue Technical !ssue ACRS issue Techalcal issue 6/ Start of Initial Comen.
Constr.
Ist Staff Plant (Hnaths)
DE5_
input to DL SER h
ff5 Input ta DL 55tR _ ~ Nearing Decision Eff.**
Dec.
C_nsylu fl6mton I e
C C
C C
C C
C 03/84 11/ 09/85 10/85 12/85 01/86 Hnpe Creet 0
6/15/84 8/20/84 10/12/84 11/84 11/16/84 0l/85 02/85 07/95 01/86 01/86 01/86 01/86 Nine Nile 2 0
7/20/84 10/10/84 12/10/84 1/10/85 2/15/85 1/10/85 02/85 None None 02/86 02/86 07/86 preldunn4 2 0
C C
C 03/84 06/84 01/86 02/06 10/84 03/85 04/85 04/06 04/86 Pala Verde 3 0
C C
C C
C 02/86 03/96 C
C 16/
C 04/86 05/86lj/
Marble Hill 1 3/ N/5 U / N/5 N/5 N/$
N/$
N/5 N/$
N/5 N/5 H/
N/5 N/5 N/5,
N/5 Wrwitle 3/
0 9/26/84 4/01/85 6/01/85 07/85 3/?6/85 8/01/85 9/01/85 N/5 N/5
'N/5 09/86 09/86 O
C C
C C
C 07/M 08/06 C
04/04 05/84 10/M 10/86
%.. Temas 1 3/
0 09/95 11/85 12/85 01/86 02/86 01/86 01/86 06/86 11/86 ' 17/86 12/86 12/86 fatada 2 s unP-3 0
C 6/05/84 8/09/84 9/?0/84 4/06/84 II/0Q84 12/13/84 05/85 11/95 12/85 06/87 06/81 M/
lt:P-l 14,/
' n/5 N/5 N/5 N/$
N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 InIAs. Dil Av 14 In.ticates changes frrun last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date
- Cosseission decisinn on effectiveness of A$t8 derlslon
+ +.4
1 TABLE 1 (Page 5 of 8)
FOOTNOTES
_1f Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional poten-tial delay from Emergency Preparedness Review.
For plants with construc-tion completed, the Comission decision dates shown are for full-power, however, initial licensing may proceed (restricting power to 5% of rated full power) based on a favorable ASLB decision (if applicable) and a preliminary design verification by the applicant and staff. Construction completion dates and Commission decision dates are based on the utility company estimate of construction completion.
2/
An operating license restricting operation to fuel loading and operation up to 5% power has been issued for these facilities. A Comission decision regarding operation above 5% power will be made on a schedule comensurate with the licensee's need for full-power authorization; therefore, no delay is projected.
y
-3/
Additional unit is also under OL review. However, construction comple-tion estimate is beyond 1987.
-4/
The low-power license for Diablo Canyon Unit I was suspended by Commission Order on November 19, 1981.
The design verification program has been completed; final plant modifications are being made.
SER Supplements 18, 19 and 20 were issued in late 1983 in support of staff recommendations for a decision regarding reinstatement of low-power license. On November 8, 1983, the Commission reinstated the authority to load fuel and con-duct cold system testing; on January 23, 1984, the Commission authorized Modes 4 and 3 for hot shutdown and hot standby, respectively. A status report on the staff evaluation of allegations was issued as SSER #21 on January 4, 1984 A Commission decision in March 1984 is expected with respect to criticality and low-power testing authorization. An Appeal Board hearing on matters of design quality assurance for Unit I and Unit 2 was held November 1983. A decision is expected March 1984. The results of the design verification effort and the resulting modifications will be evaluated by the staff with respect to Unit 2 and an SER Supplement will be issued.
i I
Table 1 (Page 6 of 8)
FOOTNOTES 5/
Heavily contested plants are provided a longer than normal hearing schedule (i.e., 12-17 months vs 11 months) from SSER t,o Commission decision date.
-6/
Date shown for first units is for first SSER following ACRS meeting.
Additional SSERs will be issued to close out remaining open items.
-7/
On September 23, 1983, the ASLB issued a partial initial decision on all matters except offsite emergency planning and emergency diesel contentions.
The licensing board withheld authorization to issue a low-power license until emergency diesel generator issues were resolved in applicant's favor. Hearings regarding emergency diesel generator head cracking were postponed at the request of all parties pending completion of an investiga-tion into the diesel generator crankshaft failure which occurred on August 12, 1983.
Several other failures of the diesels were subsequently reported by the applicant.
On February 22, 1984, the ASLB admitted three new contentions regarding the adequacy of the emergency diesel generators (EDGs). The contentions allege that the EDGs are undersized and overrated, improperly designed and improperly manufactured.
The Board refused to admit a contention regarding the QA program of the EDG manufacturer (TDI), but stated that QA concerns would be included in the litigation of the other three contentions. The Board also denied a motion by the applicant for a low-power license, stating that the admitted contentions must first be completely litigated. The Board left open the possibility that the applicant could provide a basis for low-power operation, but such a basis would be subject to litigation before a low-power license could be authorized.
The Board did not set a date for the start of the litigation, but from the discovery schedule which was established, it appears that litigation would not start until July 1984 and would likely be extensive. Hearings on Emergency Planning commenced on December 6, 1983 and are continuing. There are more than 70 offsite emergency planning contentions.
-8/
Severe Accident Design; BWR/6 Nuclear Island design.
Comission decision may be needed on GESSAR II Severe Accident Design since it is a forward referencing design approval.
-9/
The dates for applicant construction completion, DES issuance and FES issuance are not given for this application because it is a standardized design.
Facilities that reference this design will supply this plant-specific information.
The Comission decision date shown reflects the NRC staff-approval schedule for the FDA and not a Commission decision.
10/ By letter dated January 27, 1984, the applicant informed the NRC that construction of Zimer had ceased and that attempts would be made to convert Zimer to a coal-fired plant. The applicant stated that they would file with the ASLB for withdrawal of their application in the near future.
j ',
1 TABLE 1 (Page 7 of 8)
FOOTNOTES (Continued)
-11/ A prehearing conference to consider schedule changes in light of the revised construction completion date was held on June 2, 1983.
The parties agreed to a two-phase hearing with issues other than quality assurance and emergency planning to be held beginning in March 1984.
The balance of the hearings are scheduled tentatively for July 1985.
-12/ The projected ASLB decision date will be for low-power operation only with emergency preparedness issues to be completed later. Therefofe, the possibility exists for the hearing on emergency planning issues to impact plant operation.
H/ Staff review schedule is presently being revised in light of the new construction completion date.
M / Application docketed; no schedule established.
H/ On February 13, 1984, the applicant announced that it would not be ready to load fuel in May 1984 for Palo Verde Unit I due to problems with the LPSI pumps. The revised date will be established during March 1984 after the schedule is reassessed.
-16/ By Order dated December 30, 1982, the Licensing Board re-opened the record on Palo Verde with respect to Units 2 and 3 only to consider issues related to salt deposition on surrounding lands. Hearing scheduled for April 1984.
-17/ By letter dated December 27, 1983, the applicant reported an expected con-struction completion date of August 1,1984. Due to the heavily contested nature of this proceeding, a decision by the Licensing Board on all issues is not expected before January 1985.
This would result in a licensing im-pact of five months based on the applicant's August 1, 1984 completion date.
-18/ At a hearing on November 9,1983, Consumer's Power advised the ASLB that commercial operation of Unit 2 may be delayed to mid-1986. This reflects an approximate 17-month delay from the past commercial operation date of February 1985. The fuel load date estimate has not yet been modified by the applicant. Therefore, no delay is projected for Midland. An ASLB decision on the construction permit modification order phase of this consolidated OL/0M proceeding is scheduled for September 1984, s
-19/ The applicant has advised the staff that the new construction completion date is mid-1984.
The staff interprets this to be 7/01/84.
?,0/ Commission review is pending an Appeal Board decision on reopening the hearings.
.N I '
TABLE 1 (Page 8 of 8)
FOOTNOTES (Continued) 21/ On January 13, 1984, the ASLB issued a final initial decision denying Commonwealth Edison's application for a operating license for the Byron j
Nuclear Station. The Board withheld authorization for an operating i
license because of inadequacies in the Byron quality assurance programs.
The impact of the ASLB decision on the Commission decision date can not j
.be ascertained at this time. The schedule will be revised pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal of the Board's decision.
22/ On January 5,1984, the applicant announced cancellation of River Bend Unit 2.
23/ By letter dated 1/18/84, the applicant informed the NRC that they have suspended construction on Marble Hill due to the company's inability to finance the project.
24/ By letter dated 12/22/83, the applicant's attorney suggested that the Marble Hill ASLB defer any further action on the Marble Hill proceeding.
25/ No contentions were accepted by the licensing board for litigation, and hearing proceeding was dismissed on January 27, 1984.
-26/ CEI press release. dated 2/22/84 announced a plant completion slippage to late 1985. NRC Caseload Forecast Panel will visit the site in early March 1984 to determine the most likely fuel load licensing date.