ML20148E096
| ML20148E096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, Comanche Peak, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 02/29/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803240456 | |
| Download: ML20148E096 (14) | |
Text
(: n
't ft YgMtoy'o
> UNITED STATES l'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
{
g ftg*****,/
February 29, 1988 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chainnan:
This quarterly status report is forwarded in response to the direction given in House Report 97-850. The enclosed report covers the fourth quarter of calendar year 1987. The NRC licensing activity during the period of this report included tne issuance of a full-power licanse for Palo Verde 3 on November 25, 1987, and an operating license restricted to five percent power for Braidwood 2 on December 18, 1987.
Additional licensing delay for Shoreham is projected due to complex litigation.
Also, licensing delay may occur for Comanche Peak Unit 1 because the duration of the hearing is uncertain.
Although a license authorizing fuel loading and precriticality testing for Seabrook Unit I has been issued, there is a projected delay for low-power licensing.
Full-power, licensing for Seabrook Unit I will be delayed due to offsite emergency preparedness issues. The length of the delay is not krewn at this time.
With the exception of Seabrook and Shoreham, regulatory delays in this report are not impacted by the schedules for resolving offsite emergency preparedness issues.
Sine.erely, h W-1 E.
l Lando W, Zech, r.
j l
Enclosure:
NRC Quarterly Status Report to Congress l
cc:
Rep. John T. Myers 8803240456 880229 COMMS NRCC PDR CORRESPONDENCE PDR
,. 4
'NRC QUARTERLY REPORT Shoreham The NRC issued an operating license restricted to 5% ot~ rated power on July j, 1985.' On June 8, 1987, the reactor was shut down after completion of a third round of ;ow-power testing. During the last test run, tne licensee synchronized the turMns generator to the power grid. The plant would be physically ready to exceed 5% at this time, if NRC authorizations were granted.
However, because emergency planning for the plant has not been approved, addittoral delays in licensing the plant to operate above 5% power will continue.
On February 20, 1985, the New York State Supreme Court in Suffolk County, New York issued a declaratory judgment that the licensee does not have the legal authority to perform offsite emergency planning functions for Shoreham wie,hout the participation of State and local governments. This decision was affirmed on appeal but is now pending before the highest state court in New York.
On March 18, 1985, a United States District Court in New York also ruled, in a separate proceeding, that the State and Suffolk County could rot be forced to participate in emergency planning; this decision was affirmed in March 1987 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On April 17, 1985, the Emergency Planning Licensing Board ruled in the licensee's favor on most emergency planning contentions. But, relying in large part on New York State court decisions, the Board ruled that the licensee does not have the legal authority to perform certain required emergency planning functions.
The Licensing Board issued its concluding Partial Initial Decision (PID) on emergency planning on August 26, 1985.
In this PID, the Board decided that there is not "reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency" at Shoreham. The Board based this decision on its conclusion that the licensee lacks the legal authority to implement its offsite plan, and because there is no State plan indicating that there would be an integrated, cooperative, and coordinated offsite response in the event of an emergency. Both the licensee and intervenors appealed to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board (ASLAB)
2 the April and August er.ergency planning decisions.
In response, the ASLAB, on October 18, 1985, upheld the Licensing Board's decision that the licensee does not have the legal authority to frplement its offsite emergency plan.
On November 4, 1985, the licensee asked the Commission to review the ASLAB decision. On July 24, 1986, accepting LILC0's argument that state and local governments would use their best effurts to protect the public in a radio-logical emergency, even if that means using a utility plan, the Conmissicn ordered (CLI-86 13) further Licensing Board proceedings on the adequacy of emergency plannicg at Shoreham presuning that the State and County would act in an actual emergency. The L censing Board is in the process of identifying the issues remaining to be litilated. On October 29, 1987, the Comission anended its rules to provide criteria for the evaluation at the operating license review stage of a utility's emergency plans in cases where the state and/or local governments decline to participate in emergency planning. The amendment is consistent with the Commission's July 24, 1986 decision (in CLI-86-13)onShoreham. Whether in fact a particular utility plan will be found adequate would still be a matter for adjudication in individual icensing proceedings.
The ASLAB issued its decision on the appeals of those aspects of the Shoreham Emergency Plan not related to "legal authority" issues on March 26, 1986.
In j
that decision and in one issued September 19, 1986, the Appeal Board recnded the following issues to the Licensing Board for further action:
(1)w' ether the Shoreham plume emergency planning zone (EPZ) is large enough; (2' whether possible role conflict on the part of school bus drivers will let i to an inadequate number of drivers; (3) whether evacuation plans for hospitals are adequately detailed; (4) whether LILC0's provisions for reception centers for evacuees are adequate; and (5) whether LILC0 has planned adequate protective measures for the ingestion pathway EPZ. On review of the determination to remand these issues, the Comission, on November 6,1987, reversed the Appeal Board's remand on the two issues involving the EPZ size.
l On November 10, 1986, the intervenors asked the Comission to reopen the record to admit three new contentions concerning:
(1) the withdrawal of WALK l
radio station from the agreement to broadcast information in an emergency; (2) the lack of an agreement for the Red Cross to provide emergency services; I
On June 11, 1987, the and (3) a lack of reception centers for evacuees.
Comission agreed to reopen the record for a contention on the emergency
3 broadcasting station, but rejected reopening on the other issues. LILC0 has filed a new emergency broadcasting system plan, and intervenors have recently filed new contentions on that plan.
On December 15, 1986, the Licensing Board granted the licensee's motion to reopen the hearing record to admit new evidence on its proposal to replace the Nassau County Coliseum as a reception center for evacuees with three of its own facilities.
Separately, on December 15, 1986, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's conclusion that the licensee is cbliged to plan to accommodate all evacuees who seek radiological monitoring and decontamination.
Hearings on the adequacy of the reception centers for evacuees concluded on July 30, 1987, and the Board's findings are pending.
An exercise of the licensee's emergency plan (EP) was conducted on February 13, 1986. The staff found that the licensee adequately demonstrated its onsite emergency respons'e capabilities. However, in its evaluation of the offsite pian issued on April 21, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identified five deficiencies and several areas requiring corrective action.
The intervenors and the applicant asked the Commission to establish procedures to allow litigation of contentions stenning from the exercise. On June 6, 1986, the Commission directed the appointment of a Licensing Board to conduct an expeditious hearing on whether the exercise identified any "fundamental flaws" in the plan. The ASLB acmitted 15 lengthy cententions for this litigation. The evidentiary hearing began on March 10, 1987, and the record was closed on June 18, 1987. On December 7, 1987, the ASLB issued its Partial Initial Decision on contentions related to the scope of areas tested during the exercise.
The ASLB ruled that the exercise itself did not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, paragraph IV.F.1 because certain areas of the emergency plan were not tested. On February 1, 1988, this ASLB issued an Initial Decision finding that the exercise demonstrated the existence of several fundamental flaws in the LILCO Plan.
Prior to this decision, on January 22, 1988, LILCO submitted a revised emergency plan for Shoreham, and NRC has forwarded the revised plan to FEMA for review.
A schedule is being developed by NRC and FEMA for review of the revised plan, exercise of the p!an and litigation of the revised plan. The time needed for resolution of offsite emergency planning issues will delay issuance of a full
4 w
power license. Until the schedule is firmly developed, the length of delay cannot be estimated. A preliminary estimate of the schedule for a Licensing Peard decision is Spring 1989.
On April 14, 1987, the licensee requested that the Comission consider, on an expedited basis, LILC0's request for a license to operate Shoreham at 25%
The licensee based the request en 10 CFR 50.47 (c)(1), under which an power.
applicant has an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission (1) that deficiencies in the emergency plan are insignificant to the case at hand, or (2) that there are compensating actions to mitigate the deficiencies, or (3) that there are other compelling reasons to permit plant operation. On June 11, 1987, the Comission denied the request without prejudice to licensee's refiling of the request with the ASLB pursuant to 10CFR50.57(c). The licensee so filed on July 14, 1987, and the Board has initiated proceedings to consider this application.
Comanche Peak In response to concerns raised regarding the adequacy of the design and the construction of the Comanche Peak plant, Texas Utilities Electric Company (applicants) developed the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) l Program Plan.
Revision 4 of the pian was issued in June 1987 and provides l
for (1) the resolution of the issues raised by sources external to the l
applicants (ASLB hearings, NRC, and Cygna) and (2) action] to be initiated by the applicants to reexamine the adequacy of design and construction of the Comanche Peak plant. Deficiencies discovered through the CPRT reviews l
have led to a comprehensive corrective action program at the plant that l
includes reanalysis, revision, or updating of existing design calculations, physical reinspection of as-built hardware, and actual phys' al hardware changes and reconstruction.
The staff has reviewed the applicants' descriptions of its corrective action l
program and provided its preliminary conclusion at a public meeting on l
December 9, 1987. At the public meeting, the staff identified eight areas where additional information may be needed. After consideration of any L_
'O 5
ad_diti al inout from the applicants or other parties, the staff plans to issue a formal evaluation of the applicants' corrective action programs.
Aftr the staffs' approni of the applicants' progre,, the staff will evaluate 5
In any changes to the program before they are implemented by the applicants.
addition, the staff has developed a comprehensive review and inspection program and schedule for Comanche Peak licensing activities and is proceeding according to the schedule.
The applicants stated during a prehearing conference on November 2 and 3, 1987, that the current schedule for Unit 1 is to be ready for fuel loading in August 1988; the applicants' Unit 2 fuel load date is currently unscheduled.
On Novem'oer 2 and 3,1987, the ASLB conducted a prehearing conference to discuss a schedule for the identification and litigation of matters that remain to be resolved under Contention 5.
In a Memorandum and Order dated November 18, 1987, the ASLB established a litigation schedule orgai.. ;d around the Collective Significance Report and Project Status Reports.
The Project Status Reports provide the results and status of the applicants' corrective action programs for each of the 11 topical areas. The Collective Significance Report will provide an overall assessment by the CPRT of the Comanche Peak design and. construction programs.
Five of the 11 Project Status Reports have been issued. All other Project Status Reports are scheduled to be issued by mid-January 1988. The Collective Significance Report will be issued after the last Project Status Peport is issued. The ASLB states in its flemorandum that in evaluating these documents, it will assume that the historical QA/QC programs for design and for construction have broken down.
The Board further expressed concern that it may be harder to demonstrate the l
adequacy of fiirished construction than it is to demonstrate the adequacy of finished design.
During a routine review of various licensing documents, the staff found i
f that the construction permit (CP) for Unit I had expired on August 1, 1985, l
and that the applicants had not nade a timely filing for its extension.
l Subsequently, in response to a January 1986 request from the applicants, on February 10, 1986, the staff granted an extension of the CP.
In a January 31, 1986 submittal to the Ccmission, CASE requested a hearing on
=.
6 the CP extension application. By a Memorandum and Order dated March 13, 1986, the Comission referred this request to the ASLB Panel Chairman for appointment of a Licensing Board to rule on the hearing request and to conduct any necessary hearings. On May 2, 1986, the ASLB issued an Order admitting, as a single contention, two essentially ide tical contentions that questioned whether the applicants had shown good cause for granting the CP extension and requiring the two intervening parties to be consolidated. The staff and the applicants appealed the ASLB's Order.
Subsequently, on July 2, 1986, the Appeal Board asked the Comission for guidance on whether this contention was foreclosed from litigation as a matter af law by the Comission's decision in WPPSS, CLI-82-29.
On September 19, 1986, the Comission issued an Order, CLI-86-15, responding to the Appeal Board's request for guidance regarding s
the adraissiktlity of the consolidated contention of intervenorr. The Appeal Board, in an Order dated September 22, 1986, provided the parties with an opportunity to coment on the Comission's response. The intervenors filed a motion to either amend their contention or reconsider previously excluded contentions, based on the Comission's guidance. On October 30, 1986, the Licensing Board issued an Order adnitting one amended contention. Appeals of this Order were filed by both the staff and the applicants. Oral argument on the appeals wss held on January 29, 1987. On June 30, 1987, the Appeal Boaret affirmed the i.icensing Board's Order. On July 17, l987 the applicants The petitioned the Comission for review of the Appeal Board decision.
decision became final agercy action on October 6,1987, as the time provided by NRC regulations within which the Comission may act to review the decision expired, ard the Comissior declined to review.
On April 29, 1987, the applicants applied for an extension of the Unit 2 CP, l
which has a cer.struction completion date of August 1, 1987.
The requested completion date is August 1, 1990. This application, which necessitates an environmental evaluation of continued groundwater withdrawal, is being con-sidered by the staff.
Watts Bar On November 14, 1986, TVA announced tnat its priorities for the startup of l
its nuclear units were as follows: Secpoyah, Browns Ferry, and Watts Bar.
TVA forther indicated that engineering support from Browns Ferry and t
f d
7 Watts Bar is being reallocated to the Sequoyah restart effort on a limited basis. Althougn TVA has not established a ' chedule for ccmpleting Watts Bar s
Unit 1, TVA hr.s stated that it expects the Unit to go on line before the end of 1989.
The staff is awaiting TVA's Watts Bar-specific response to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter dated September 17, 1985.
TVA has stated its intention to provide its plan for licensing Watts Bar as Volume 4 of the TVA Nuclear Performance Plan.
In their letter dated November 9,1987, TVA stated that an independent team consisting of TVA employees and assisted by nationally recognized nuclear power experts has been established to define the necessary actInns to successfully demonstrate the licensability of the Watts Bar units.
No schedule has been provided for submission of this plu by TVA.
All TVA employee interviews scheduled as part of the Watts Bar Employee Concern Special Program (WBECSP) have been completed. Of approximately 5,000 concerns raised in the W8ECSP, 2,000 concerns are safety related. All of the concerns that were raised have been placed into one of nine categories for In addition, within each categcry, concerns of a similar grouping purposes.
nature have been further grouped into subcategories. TVA plans to submit a final report, by category, that addresses the resolution of the concerns in that category.
TVA submitted a revised Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan on July 17, 1986, and submitted revisions on July 31 and December 4,1986, and March 26, 1987.
The staff reviewed these submittals and the open issues adoressed at a public meeting held on April 20, 1987. The NRC issued its safety evaluation approving the Ccrporate Nuclear Performar.ce Plan on July 23, 1987.
Seabrook On August 22, 1986, the applicant petitioned the 1.icensing Board pursuant to 50.57(c) for a fuel load and precritical testing license. The Board granted A fuel load and precritical test license was issued on October 17, the petition.
1986.
Fuel loading and precritical testing are complete.
o-8 By an order of January 9,1987, the Comission barred the issuance of any further low power licenses for Seabrook prior to its determining whether, as a matter of law or policy, an offsite emergency plan for that portion of the Seabrook EPZ in Massachusetts must be filed before the issuance of such a license. The Licensing Board found on March 25, 1987, that other conditions for the issuance of a 5% low power license for Seabrook had been met. The Commission in CLI-87-02, on April 9, 1987, found, as a matter of policy, that the submittal cf such a plan was necessary before a 5% power license could issue.
It reiterated this determination in CLI-87-03, on June 11, 1987, where it required that there be a good faith submittal of a bona fide offsite EP for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ prior to further licensing at Seabrook.
In CL1-87-13, on Novem0er 25, 1987, the Commission lifted the stay it had imposed in Jar._ary, finding that the applicant had on September 21, 1987, submitted a bona fide emergency plan for that portion of the EPZ in Massachusetts. However, the Comission stated that this, of itself, did not authorize a further low power license for Seabrook, as the Appeal Board in ALAB-875 (October 1, 1987) may have disturbed the Licensing Board's March 25, 1987, authorization of such a license when it reversed part of that determination and remanded safety issues to the Licensing Board for further consideration.
In addition, on February 3,1988, the Appeal Board remanded the issue of the public alert and notification system in Massachusetts to the Licensing Board for further proceedings.
Before a full power license for Seabrock can be authorized, unresolved safety issues and issues involving offsite emergency response planning in New Hampshire i
and Massachusetts must be resolved, and the ACRS must review the erergency plans.
l After a Emergency plans for New Hampshire were submitted in December, 1985.
number of deficiencies were identified in the offsite exercise involving the applicant and New Hampshire on February 26, 1986, the State of New Hampshire implemented improvenents and corrective actions and subnitted substantial revisions te the plans on September 12, 1986. Da October 5, 1987 the A emic Safety and Licensing Board handling Offsite Emergency Planning began the evidenti&ry hearing on the New Harpshire plans. These hearings should conclude in January 1988. The NRC has forwarded the utility offsite emergency plan for Massachusetts to FEMA for review. A schedule for the litigation af the applicant's I
utility plan for Massachusetts portions of the EPZ has not yet been established, t
12/31/e7 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR MACTOR MGULATI0li Table (Page 1 of 5 )
19 ceasing Schedules for All Pending Ot. Applications Caen.Decistd SSE R Appl.'
A51B SER Staff Delay leie Te<hnical Issue ACRS Issue Techalcal Issue 5/ Start of Initial Casm.
Constr.
Staff
~ Hearing Decision E f f.**
Sec.
Ceapl.
E5t Ms Fts Input to PD 55tR
- ts Irgmt tc P0 Sf a g
Plant (Months]
Shorchem } 7/ - 6/
C C
C
-C C
C C
C C{/
-!/
II/5.
C s
Seabrook 1
- f/
C C
C C 11/ C C
C C
C 7/
M/S 7/
11 / 5 C
Palo Verde 3 2/ 0 C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C*
C Scisth femas I 2/ 0 C
C C
C C
C C
C C 12/
2/88*
2/98*
C I
SUS-10lAL Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date Commission dec6sion on et f cctiveness of A5tB decision t
4 1
4
)
o
8i 1
~
12/31/37.
e 0FFICE 3F NCLEAR IIEACT04 CtGULAil0N Table (Page 2 of 5)
L? censing Scheduler,f w All Pending OL Applications Comm. Declslon-
.p 55tR SE R A$tt Appl.
Staff Delay issue Technical Issue ACR5 issue Technical Issue 5/ Start of In3tlal Comm.
Constr.
tst Staff Plant (Months) Ot5 Input to PD Sit h FES,
Input to PO SSER -
Hearing. Decision (fi.**
.Dec.
Compt.
O C
C C
C C
C C-C C
C 03/00*
'C*
[
E Braldsood 2 Vogtle 2 0
C C
C C
C 12/88 01/89 C
C C
02/89 02/89 South lemas 2 0
r C
C C
C 10/88 11/88 C
C 12/ 02/88*
12/88 12/88 '
Comenche Peek 1
-10/
C C
C C
C C
C C
N/$
N/$
N/S N/S Watts Bar 1 09/
C C
C C
C C
C Mone None N/A 11 / 5 N/'
Comanche Peak 2 0 C
C C
C C
N/$
M/S C
N/$
N/A N/A II/5 10/
timerick24/
0 C
C C
C C
N/$
N/$
C C
C 07/89 07/89 4/
t SUS-TOTAL Indicates changes free last repart in Decision or Construction Completion Date
(
(
Commission decision on effectiveness of A588 decision 4
I i
l l
1 1
e i
G
p?l.
4 If
.r
.t1 3
5 l sp 9
9 7
pnm
/ /
S S
S S
S 8
poo 1
1
/ / / / /
/
ACC 0 0 N N N
N N
1 3/2 8 m.
/ /
S S
S S
S 1
3 5
9 9
o mc l
oe 1
1
/ / / / /
s C3 0 0 N N N N N
tce D
m.
A A
C A
S S
S m
f o
f
/ /
/ / / /
C E
N N
N N
N N
n l o ai is e
e C e
Bti n n n
S S
C o / /
N M
N ti c o
Sne N
AID f
ogn ti e e C e
rr n
n n
S S
aa o
o o / / /
t e M M N
N N N
SH
/5~
euR S
S S
S S
S st
/ / / / / / /
s$
N N
N N
N R N
IS 0P lao ct nEf nt S
S S
S S
S S
sR i
oSf h u
/ / / / / / /
iS acp N
N M
N N N
N e
t t en t
a STI a
D c
l n
ip o
i Np t
OA e
I l
TL L
u S
S C C S
S p
AO e
Ug sS
/ /
/ / /
m Gn sE N
N N N N
o C
Ei IF n
Nd o
n i
R e T
Rq S
S C
C S
S S
t OP S
Cl Ct
/ /
/ / /
c s
Al AM N
N N
N N
tr t
EA s
R nn r
oo Ro Af Ci s t
ri t s ul u
S S
C C
S S
C oc te e
e
/ /
nd Mu sR
/ /
d sE N
N N
N o
F e IS t B st Oh IS c
ES D
- A C
P e
I g l
Df Fn ao o
0s ict n
Fi i s n
f nt S
S C
C S
S C
s
/ /
e fhu
/ /
te cR acp N
N N
N rn iE t en oe tS STI pv ei rt c t e sf e __
S S
C C C S
C af l o u
/
sS
/ /
N mn sL N
N ID oo r
f n o
)
s si h
es yt gi 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
nc
)
an ae seh hd tl 5
c f
ED(
/
n o
8
/
so 3
ei 3
1 1
2 2
e t s g
e e /
f 2
A as L
ci a
t t
}
l in P
n a
u / /
k E
o o
2 G
3 3
o D
das o
na
(
e t
e e
y d 3
1 r
L IC f
f l
n l
l r
n -
b A
b a
l l
r a
P P
a f
a l
e e e
r M
N e
0 T
P B
B P
G W W S
T e
e lIi
- j
y se TABLE (Page.4 of 5)
FOOTNOTES
-1/
Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect cdditional potential delay from Energency Preparedness Review.
For plants with construction completed, the Comission decision dates indicate the date for the decision on a full-power license; however, initial' licensing ray proceed (restricting power to 5% of rated full ' power) on the basis of a favorable ASLB decision (if applicable) and a preliminary design verification by the applicant and staff. Construction completion dates and Ccmission decision dates are based on the applicant's estimate of construction ecmpletion.
2/
Not Used 3/
Construction has been halted; a construction completion date has not been established.
4/
Philadelphia Electric Company's projected fuel load date is August 1, 1989; the company has presented a schedule that could advance fuel load to May 28, 1989.
The date shown for the first unit is the date for issuing the first
-5/
Safety Evaluation Report Supplement (SSER) after the ACRS meeting on the application.
Additional SSERs will be issued to close out remaining open i tems.
6/
The last safety-related issue was resolved in favor of the applicant on s
June 14, 1985, and a license restricted to 5*. of power was issued July 3, 1985.
Full-power authori::ation has been delayed pending resolution of emergency planning issues. The current status of those issues is as follows:
(1) Following the decision of the New York stato courts, a Licensing Board has held, and an Appeal Board has affirr.ec, that the applicant lacks the legal authority to irplement its emergency plan.
( 2.) The Comission has ordered further hearings en the adequacy of applicant's plan presuming State and local cooperation in the event of an emergency (the "realism" issue). Those hearings have not been scheduled.
(3) The Appeal Board has remanded several issues to the Licensing Board.
(4) The record was reopened by the Licensing Board at the request of the applicant to take evidence on the replacement of the Nassau County Coliseum as a reception center. The hearing concluded on July 31, 1987.
(5) The record was reopened by the Comission, at the request of the intervenors, to consider the withdrawal of radio station WALK from its agreement to broadcast eneraency information. The hearing on this issue has not been scheduled.
(6) The Comission ordered hearings to determine whether applicant's emergency planning exercise revealed "any fundamental flaws" in its emergency plan. Those bearings were completed June 18, 1987.
.o TABLE (Page 5 of 5) 6/ (Con't.)
The Licensing Board has made an initial ruling, holding that the scope of
~
the exercise was inadequate to meet the requirements of the Commission's regulations. On February 1, 1988, the Licensing Board issued a concludir.g initial decision finding that the exercise demonstrated the existence of several fundamental flaws in the LILC0 plan. Given the number and complexity of emergency planning issues remaining, a realistic licensing impact forecast cannot be made at this tine.
-7/
As noted in the text, a Partial Initial Decision on all safety issues was issued on March 25, 1987. This decisioa authorized issuance of s low-power license:. The Licensing Board is now considering whether it can renew its low power authorization in light of the remand. The Appeal Board has remanded certain contentions for further consideration.
It is unlikely that the delay in low-power licensing will have an overall impact on the startup schedule for the plant, because resolution of offsite emergency planning issues is the critical element in the full-power licensing.
Construction has been suspended with the plant about 35% complete. The
-8/
applicant has requested a Construction Permit extension to January 1, 1997.
~9/
The schridule will be determined after the staff receives TVA's site-specific response to its September 17, 1985, 50.54 (f) letter.
-10/ The applicant's current schedule for Unit 1 is to be ready for fuel loading in March 1988. The current Unit 2 fuel load date has not been established.
The Commission is unable to predict whether licensing will be delayed.
-11/ The ACRS report of April 19, 1983 recomended issuance of a low-power l i ce.nse.
Further ACRS review is required before a full-power license is issued.
A Dartial Initial Decision was issued on June 13, 1986. On August 29,
~~12/ 1986, the Soard resolved all remaining issues in favor of the applicant and authorized issuance of operating licenses for South Texas Units 1 and 2.
On October 8, 1986, the Appeal Board affirmed this decision. The Comission has decided not to review this decision, ud the record is closed. A low-power operating license was issued to Unit 1 on August 21, 1987.
Construction has been halted; the applicant has stated that it will 13/
pursue revocation of the construction permit and withdrawal of the 7
operating license application.
f i