ML20206J937
| ML20206J937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point, Perry, Harris, Byron, Braidwood, Seabrook, Comanche Peak, Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9905130021 | |
| Download: ML20206J937 (23) | |
Text
mm
'I l
n, ?
AITED STATES
('
f g
{
NUCLEA PEGUL ATORY COMMISSION y,'.'
/
}
AMHINGTON. O C. 205%
{
) g Ng, -
h
%.... /yl
%, 's-j cHAWNN ebruary 9, 1987 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. Chairman:
b/
1 am forwarding the enclosed quarterly status report for the fourth quarter of calendar year 1986, in response to the direction given in House Report 97-850.
The NRC licensing activity during the period of this report includes i
the issuance of a full-power license for Perry Unit 1 on November 13, 1986; Shearon Harris on January 12, 1987; and Byron Unit 2 on January 30, 1987; and an operating license restricted to five percent power for Nine Mile Point Unit 2 on 0.ctober 31, 1986.
Licenses authorizing fuel loading and precriticality testing were issued for Braidwood Unit 1 and Seabrook Unit 1 on October 17, 1986.
Additional licensing delay for Shoreham is pro.iected 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 1 will be delayed due to
//
offsite emergency preparedness issues. The length of the delay is not known
//
at this time.
A license for fuel loading and precriticality testing has been issued for Braidwood Unit 1.
Low-power licensing for Braidwood will be M -
delayed until hearings are completed.
With the exception of the Seabrook and Shoreham plants, regulatory delays estimated in this report are not impacted by the schedules for resolvin'g off-site emergency preparedness issues.
Sincerely,
[an % W.Q.
do W. Zech, r.
i'j g O 00 Chairman
Enclosure:
NRC Quarterly Status Report to Conaress cc:
Rep. John T. Myers 9905130021 870209 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR L
y
9.
y,
\\'
NRC QUARTERLY REPORT Sh'oreham The NRC issued an operating license restricted to 5% of rated power on July 3, 1985.
The 5%. test program is completed. The plant was shut down on October 8, 1985 to begin an outage during which the licensee perfonned required I
surveillance and maintenance..and replaced the startup sources. The licensee also completed reactor vessel water level instrumentation modifications. On August 4, 1986, the plant was restarted and on August 26, 1986, the turbine generator was synchronized to the grid for the first time. The plant was shut down on September 1, 19.86, having successfully completed the planned operator training shifts, tests.of the RCIC and HPCI and the modified water level instrumentation'. The plant would be physically ready to exceed 5% power at this time, if authorization were granted.
The New York; State Supreme Court in Suffolk County, New York issued a
' declaratory judgment on February 20, 1985, that LILC0 does not have the legal authority to perform offsite emergency planning functions for Shoreham without the participation of State and local governments.
The ruling was issued in response to petitions filed with the Court by the State of New York and Suffolk County.on March'7, 1984.
Subsequently, a U.S. District Court in New York ruled on March 18, 1985, that the' State and Suffolk County could not be forced to participate in.emergen.cy planning'. Both of these decisions are on appeal.
l
I 3.
2 i
,.9 Additional delays. in a final Comission decision on full-power operation (above 5% power) are,likely. The emergency planning Licensing Board issued two ' '
Partial Initial' Decisions (PDI) on LILCO's. emergency plan.
First, on April 17,
~
1985, the Board. ruled ii) the licensee's favor regarding the majority of the emergency pla51ning contentions, but, relying in large part on New York State court decisions concluded that LILCO.does not have the legal authority'to perform certa;in required emergency planning functions.
Second, on August 26, 1985, the Licensing Board issued its concluding PID on emergency planning decidir,g the relocation center issue and reaching its ultimate decision as to whether "there is reasonable assurance that, adequate protective measures can and will be taken in'th'e event of a radiological emergency" at Shoreham. The Board found that such " reasonable assurance" is lacking primarily due to LILC0's lack of legal authority to implement its offsite plan, and the absence of a State plan indicat'ing that'there would be an integrated, cooperative and coordinated offsite response in the event of an emergency. Appeals of both the April and August emergency planning decisions were filed with the ASLAB by both LILC0 and the intervenors. The ASLAB, on October 18, 1985, upheld the Licensing Board!s decision that LILCO does not have the legal authority to implement its,offsite emergency plan. On November 4, 1985, LILC0 filed a petition for review of.the ASLAB decision before the Commission. On July 24, 1986, the Commission ordered further Licensing Board hearings on the adequacy of emergency planning at Shoreharn presuming that the State and County would participate in. any response to an actual emergency.
,. - g s The ASLAB issu'ed'its decision on appeals of those aspects of the Shoreham Emergency Plan not related to the " legal authority" issue on March 26, 1986.
In that decision;and in one of September 19, 1986, the Appeal Board remanded to 7, _,., __ _
j
a o
the Licensing Board issues involving:
- 1) plume EPZ size,'2) role conflict of l
l school bus driyers, 3) evaluation plans for hospitals. 4) the use and availability of reception centers, and 5) the adequacy of protective measures in the ingestion pathway zone. However, it ordered the Board not to proceed until ordered.to do so by the Comission, insofar as the Commission then had 1
the Appeal Boar'd's legal authority decision before it. On September 19, 1986, the Commission (stated th'at it would review the Appeal Board's decision remanding issu'es regarding the plume EPZ and the hospital evacuation plans.
It further lifted the stay of the remand of the other issues, indicating that 1
)
the Licensing', Board shou,id proceed to consider them.
}
An exercise of t'h.e LILCd emergency plan (EP) was conducted on February 13, 1986. The NRC' staff concluded that the licensee adequately demonstrated its onsite emerge'ncy'responte capab'1'lities. OnAprilf21)1986 FEMA issued its evaluation of the offsite exercise' identifying five' deficiencies and several h
areas requiri,ig. correct [ive action. The intervenors and LILCO asked the Commission tot, establish, procedures to all'ow litigation of contentions stemming n
I from the exercise. OnJune6,1986,theCommission'directedthataLicensing Board be established to conduct an expeditious hearing regarding only i
i contentions which, if timely, would demonstrate that the exercise reveale'd l
" fundamental ; flaws" in LILCO's plan. The ASLB has admitted for litigation 15 Y
multi-part contentions involving the emergency planning exercise. Since the commencement $f, discovery,allpartieshavefiled_numerousmotionsrelatedto
{
thescopeofhontentionstobelitigatedandtothedepositidn_ofwitnesses.
On December 4, 1986, the Licensing Board held a conference of counsel to l
discuss the 1,nt,ervenors' motion to extend the discovery period and other issues b
i l
a
-.g
_, ~ _ _ _
f Q
bq s
4..
'a,,
related to disc lovery. The Board. decided that depositions should conclude on
)
i
-January 21,1987h with,the hearing to comence on February 16, 1987.
.On Noverrber 10, 1986, the intervenors also filed'a motion to reopen the record 1
on:
(1)-the withdrawal of WALK radio ' station as the primary radio station for theShorehamemergencybroadcastsystem;(2)thelackofanagreementdiththe Red Cross to provide she'1ters for' potential evacuees.in any Shoreham emergency; and (3) the lack'of congr,egate centers. This motion is pending before the i
Commission.
4 s
Due to the New, York State court decision, the Board decisions and the New York i
State and Suffolk County positions on Shoreham emergency planning, the Comission is pnable to; forecast a realistic 1.icensing impact at this time.
e n
Comanche Peak '
As construction 'of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station-(CPSES) was' nearing
' completion, nunierous concerns wereiraised regarding the design and the construction adequacy of the plant. Primarily, these concerns arose through:
(1) issues in contention before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB); (2) the staff's review of4 technical concerns and allegations regarding design and constructionLof the plant, which are documented in five Supplemental s
Safety Evaluation Reports; and (3) Cygna Energy Services which performed an Independent A sessment Program of design and construction at Comanche Peak.
9 4
- g.
'g 9
a e
5 g
8 i
..~a
.. ~,.,
)
A n
v v q-Following identification.of these concerns, the applicants submitted to the NRC staff a Program' Plan wh'ich includes resolution of all issues raised by exte'rnal sources (e.g., ASt.B hearings, NRC, Cygna), as well as a set of self-initiated actions to re'-examine the adequacy of design and construction of the Comanche Peak Project.'.The staff has issued Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report No.
13 which approved adoption of the applicants Plan as an approved method of j
resolving these concerns. The NRC staff is currently monitoring all phases of implementation of the Plan.
The applicants underestimated the magnitude.of the Plan and its associated activities..As a result, the schedule for completing the effort has slipped from the initial estimates. Applicants' most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission states that all reanalysis, reinspection, rework, and testing activi' ties prerequisite to the loading of fuel in Unit I will be complete in early 1988.- Based on this estimate, commercial operation could be achieved in early 1989! Unit 2 will not be ready for commercial operation untilafterth'e'1985summerpeakseason.
1 Problems discovered.through design and construction; reviews will result in additional cor'rective actions which include reanalysis. revision or updafing of n
existing design calculations, physical reinspection 'of as-built hardware, and in some cases, physical rework. 4The applicants'are developing comprehensive i
corrective action plans to resolve CFRT findings and their implications. The applicants have. requested Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation to develop I
cction plans.to review.100% of safety related' systems in'the mechanical, civil / structural, electrical, and instrumentation and control areas. This j
i i
I
~.
.* c y m.eme ween 4 ee g 3 xgn_ver e-
=*=w v,-
,9 4
7 p
O' O'
c.,.
includes qualifying and/or fixing existing hardware as necessary. Other specific areas.'which:are being.a'ddressed separately by specific architect-engineersinc1'ude:
large and small bore pipe supports (SWEC); cable m.,
tray hangers 6h conduitsupports(Ebasco.Impell);HVAC(Ebasco);and equipmentqualif,1 cation 5'(Impell).
+
Initially,thha'pplicantsandthestaffproposedtolitigateProgramPlan results in serie's, before the panel of the Licensing Board (ASLBP)'which is reviewing the utility's application for an operatingflicense. The intervenor, CASE, proposed to litigate, in' order:
- 1) design issues ~, 2).the adequacy of applicants' P' ogram Plan, 3) Program Plan results,' and 4) ultimate conclusions r
and generic iinpl.ications. The applicants' response opposed CASE's proposed i.
schedule and rei.terated their request to litigate, as necessary, program results reports'as they are issued. The staff, having gained some experience in reviewing these results reports, reconsidered its earlier position and requested that hearing, sessions be based on completed disciplines. The Licensing Boa'rd held a' rehearing conference to discuss scheduling matters p
August 18-19, 1986, at which the Licensing Board adopted a schedule which called for discovery on the adequacy'of the CPRT~ Program Plan, followed by the
- filing by CASE of sumary disposition motions on that subject. The Board kould then decide whether to hold a hearing on' Program Pla'n adequacy issues, or await I
the results of' implementation of the Program P.lan. Discovery regarding Program Plan adequacy has been' ongoing since that date and is still ongoing at this time. The development'and implementation of the, Program Plah and the resulting consideration.of' its adequacy has been the major if not sole. issue before the Licensing Board.in this phase of the proceeding for the last two years and a
6 4-3 9 f
- t a_
.,_,,,u.,
- 1,.
p-o
_s y ep.4 e as- - - A
O o
_7_
app 2ars to bethe. major issue for some time yet to come. The Comission is unable to predic't whether a licensing impact will occur.
On January 29' 1986, during a routine review of various licensing documents, the staff found Shat the construction permit for Unit I had expired on August
-1, 1985, and th'a.t the applicant had.not made a' timely filing for its renewal.
Following a request by the utility, the staff granted an extension of the CP on February 10, 1986.
In a January 31, 1986 submittal' to.tlie Comission, the intervenor (CASE)' requested a hearing on the application to renew the construc-tion permit. By Memorandum and Order dated. March 13 1986, the Comission referred CASE's' request for a hearing to the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP), for appointment of a Licensing Board to rule on the hearing request andato conduct any necessary hearings and affirmed the Staff'sextenhionoftheconstructionpermit,'subjecttocompletionofthe hearing before t.he ASLBP..
TheASLBPest$bNshe'aBoardmadeupofthe-same' members-fromtheOL d
proceeding to consider requests for hearing and petitions to' intervene in p
regard to the. applicarits' application for an exte'ns'io'n of.its construction permit for CPSES Unit 1.
On May 2,1986, the ASL'Bl issued an Order admitting a sin 0 e contenfthon composed of two essentially identical contentions, which 1
questioned whether applicants had thown good cause.for the granting of a construction _ permit extension and' consolidating theitwo intervening parties.
h The staff and applicants appealed the ASLB's Order adm.itting'the contention.
4 k
a r
4 l 4
6t g
8 t
__ m
r
.m.
Q\\ 51; L',
he di. g' , J 8 $
E9 2
+Gw{:'
-p
, % & 9 ht{
~ ;g f,
ll OnJuly2,19k6,',th'eAphair'BordscekifihEbque a
on' ke'[b6nitissionasking M M ' $ %was;,M P'iose T ^ %W'a
. % i,.-
{
M 9
+
- .s m
on.
orec on as a' matter, of -
whether the a'dmi;tted conte
\\
law by the Commi,s,sion's:1982 decision in WPPSS, CLI-82-29. On September 19, 1986, the Commission issued an order, CLI-86-15, directing the Appeal Board to determine admissibil'ity.of the consolidated contention in accordance with the I
guidance contained therein.
]
c' The Appeal Board in an order dated September 22, 1986, p'rovided the parties
\\
with an opportunity to coment on the Commission's response. All parties submitted briefs,to the Appeal Board. However, the Appeal Board deferred a decision until the Licensing Board acted on the consolidated intervenors' September 30,' 1986, motion to either amend their contention or reconsider previously excluded contentions based on the Commission's guidance. On October 30, 1986, ths' Licensing Board issued an Order admitting one amended contention.
Both the staff and the. applicants filed appeals from thi,s Order. The Appeal Board schedu e'd oral argument on both appeals for January 29, 1987.
Watts Bar On November 14;'1986, TVA announced its priorities for.the startup of its nuclear units'as follows: Sequoyah, Browns Ferry, and Watts Bar.
TVA further indicated tha't engineering support from Browns Ferry and Watts Bar may be reallocated to the Sequoyah restart effort on'a limited basis. Although TVA has not established a schedule for completing' Watts' Bar Unit 1, Mr. C. Mason, TVA's Acting Manager of Nuclear Power, stated during a' news conference that he
.~ x
1 g.
still expects Unit 1 to.go on line before the end of 1988', The staff is awaiting TVA's; Watts Bar specific response to the September 17, 1985 10 CFR ~
50.54( f) lette'r'..
l
~
All employees.. scheduled for. interview as part of the Watts Bar Employee Concern l
Special Program '(WBECSP) have been interviewed under this program.
i I
Approximate _1y;5,000 concerns were raised of which 2,000 concerns are safety-related. 'All conc. erns from the WBECSP have been placed in nine categories depending on the nature of the concerns. Within each category, there are sev ra,1 subcategories with concerr)s of a similar nature. TVA will
]
submit a final. report for each category, addressing the resolution of each category.
Employee Concern Task Group reports have been received and are under review by the staff.
The NRC has completed the process of expurgating names and identifying j
information of, individuals who expressed concerns to QTC from the QTC files to ensurethecohfidentialityoftheseemployees.' Approximately 2045 files were expurgated and the techiiical information available was forwarded to TVA's Officeof.the.InspectorGeneral for additional review prior to forwarding the files to TVA's"lli'ne organization for resolution'of the concern. 'The Offide of 1
the Inspector General completed its review of these files and forwarded all of l
them to TVA..
4 1
3.~J ' '
j
~..
- On July 17, 1986,, TVA submitted'a revised' Corporate' Nuclear Performance Plan.
The staff is currently reviewing this submittal. However, additional revisions
.W e
9 a
{ _
.ea..,
yg m.,ip,.w.e.,q,,
g.y w.
\\
O O
10
{ p w',
r g,..
a
.areexpectedto:re'flec'tg,aheslin};htorg'anilafio irso'niiel,gpg: management Eand gggg gegqcg 47,.
.M t.
procedures. O'n October'18[1986[Nr. S.yWhitegpfgey,of Nuclear Power, tp'ok c :. m,
an unpaid leave of absence from his duties as a result.of reports issued by TVA's Of' ice of Inspector General and the Office of Government Ethics regarding the conflict o'f interest, question. TVA has_ implemented a plan that allows the continued use of the services of contractor. employees in either management or 1
advisory positions, while complying with the requirements laid down by the Office of Government Ethics.
While resolution,of the employee concerns and the conflict of interest issue areconsidere{tobethecriticalpathitems,environmentalqualification program issues and welding program concerns must be resolved prior to licensing. TVA has not' established a schedule for responding to the Watts Bar specific issues.
i Seabrook 1-Construction ofI Seabrook Unit 1 is essentially complete. The applicant's fuel load date was June 30, 1986, however, because a license could not be issued at that time, certification of readiness for fuel load was delayed to July, 1986.
The applicant had hoped to be ready for commercial operation on October 30, 1986.
d On October 7, 1986, the:ASLB granted the applicant's request to load fuel and perform precriticality testing and authorized the Director of NRR to issue a 4
n,.
f.-
l{
.. n. g _
O
. g licenseforthe.requestedoperationsubjecttotheDirectorofNRR'sfindings requiredunder10CFR50.57(a). On October 17, 1986 Facility Operating License NPF-56 was issued authorizing fuel loading and precriticality testing of the Seabrooi: Station, Unit 1.
Fuel loading was compl.eted on October 29, 1986.
i Seabrook stilI h'as contested issues. in litigation to be resolved before a license can be.is' sued to authorize the plant to operate up to 5% power. The litigation matters involve environmental qualification of equipment, emergency classification'an'd action scheme, and control room design.
Environmental qualification and emergency classification were litigated in 1983, but the re~ cord was left open pending applicant's submittal of reports on those matters, and the staff's review of t! hose. reports.' t.itigation of the control room dss.ign was put off until the applicant completed ~much of its control room design, and the staff had reviewed that design. The staff completed its-review and filed its safety' evaluation. report.with the Board on June 11, 1986. The Board held the hearings the week of September 29, 1986 and closed the rec'ord on Octob"r 3, 1986. A Board decision was not expected until mid-January,j987. Activities authorized by the. current license could have beencompletedbylateDecember1986. Therefore, there will be an additi6nal onemonthlic'ending, impact. However, it is unlikely that this one month delay will have an ov all'im. pact on thh plant startup schedule.
~
In addition, oh January. 9,1987, the Comission stayed issuance of a low power license. The,sby1,st'oremaininforcependinglCommissionreviewofapartial
. decision of tihe Appeal.' Board on a single issue underlying the decision to issue t,
l' l,
(
b--
a
.
- ma*cm. g une me sa, i.gn e n r.-
ww 4
.e. 3
- y l,y g w - 73a.~+ y.
O-O
_ 12 a fuel load license. The Connission,has issued an expedit'ed briefing schedule andanticipatesthatanyfurtherdelaywillbeunlikelytohaveanoveralI' impact on scheduling in light of need for emergency plan hearings before startup can og. cur.
In order forlpperation at full power to be authorized, issues involving off-site emergency response planning in New Hampshire and Massachusetts must be resolved and.the.ACRS must review emergen_cy planning.
Emergency plans for New Hampshireand't'hetownithereinweresubmittedinDecember,1985. Contentions l
were accepted for litigation on the New Hampshire plans on April 29, 1986.
Further contentions'have been submitted, some of which have been admitted.
l i
Additional contenti6ns, particularly on evacuation time estimates, are l
expected. An off-site. exercise involving the applicant and New Hampshire was 4
conducted on'Jebruary'2'6, 1986, andanumberofdeficienciesofthetype i
requiring a remedial exercise were identified. zThe State of New Hampshire is 1
3 implementing" improvements and corrective actions, arid substantial revisions to l
l the New Hampshire plans were submitted on September.'12, 1986. Because of these revisions, intervenors,were given an opportunity toifile new contentions and by Order dated January 9, 1987, the hearing has been rescheduled to begin no sooner than May'28, 1987. Activities regardingLtheLemergency response plans for Massachusetts are on the critical path for licensing. On September 20, 1986, the Governor of Massachuse'tts stated that Massachusetts will not submit emergency plans.for review. On December 19, 1986, the applicant filed a petition under.'10 CFR 2.758 and 10 CFR 50.47(c).with respect to the regulations requiring planning for, a plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ).
The petition.with the Licensing Board seeks an ex.ception or waiver of the e
i..,*
__..m pqm
- 9. o.
- 9 13 -
,6 provisions of:the' regulations.to allow reducing the size of the EPZ for SeabrookstatIpn'fromtenmilestoon,emile. On December 22, 1986, the NRC -
staff. filed a re'sponse to applicant's petition requesting, among other things, that the Licensing Board set a schedule for consideration of their request under 10 CFR 2.758 and 50.47(c) with respect to the plume emergency planning zone. On December 23, 1986, without c.ommentin'g.'on.the-. staff's filing of
~ December 22, 1986, the Board ordered all parties.to file briefs on the merits of the applicant's petition. The staff believes that resolution of off-site emergency pla'nnjng issues will delay issuance:of a full power license, however, the extent of the delay cannot be determined at this time'.
Braidwood i
9 Construction:6f Braidwood Unit I was essentially complet,ed on October 17, 1986.
Hearings on 1;he emergency preparedness contention-;were initiated on October 29, 1985, and were completed on March 12, 1986. The1pa'rties have submitted
. proposed findings on th'is contention and-the mader".is pending' before the Licensing Board.for its decision.
In April 1986 e Comission dismissed the
~
.intervenors' quality ass'urance contention.
It did not dismiss another contention (relating to the harassment and intimidation of quality control t.
inspectorsat'.theapplicant'selActricalcontractor),whichhadbeenadmitted pursuant to stipulation agreed to by all parties to the. proceeding. Hearings I
on the.contentio.n concerning harassment, intimidation. retaTiation and other discrimination'werebegun'.onMay6,1986,.andth[erecordwasclosedonDecember
-.O a
L N,, ;,
e g
f
_qW---
_..a
- ppp,
,,m 4,
O lO 14 g
17, 1986. The ASLB initial. decision for the low power license is scheduled to be issued in March, 1987.
On August 18, 1986, the applicant filed a request pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(c) for authorization to lead fuel and perform precritical testing. The staff sub-mitted a response supporting the request; the intervenors opposed the request.
On September 18, 1986, the ASLB issued an Order granting 'the applicant's motion. A license authorizing fuel loading and precritical testing for Braidwood Unit 1)was iss'ued on October 17, 1986. Fuel loading began on October
~
25, 1986, and was; completed on November 3, 1986.
The ASLB initial;decisio'n for the low power license is now scheduled to be issued in March 1987.
A' low power ifcense could.be? issued immediately following isshin'ce of a fav'orable decision, provide thatethe Commission's immediate effectiveness: review.is favorable. Full power licensing is scheduled forApril198i., Theapplicanthasstatedthatthe" current ~ start-up'scheduleis
~
dictated by the hearing schedule, and that absentithe hearing, the plant could h
have been ready for a lo'w power license in mid-December,1986. 'Therefore, based on the applicant's projected schedule and che current schedule for the ASLB initial decision for the low power license, there<is an approximate four month licensing. impact.- However,Y the extended length of the hearing was, in part, due to the extensive rebuttal case introduced.by.the applicant.
P 9
4 4
I l
e 9
p t-m. ;.
..,7
~
J.
O
~
~
.r'.
E * *
.t1 l sp C C C C C C 6
pna 9
poe
/
/
ACC 11
/-
1 1
3/
d 2
n 7
7 7
~
1 o
?
8
- 8 8 i
mJ S
- / S
/ /
s ec
/ C 2 /
2 1
i oe N
'0 M 0 0 c
'C D e
/
D R
7 I
8 C *f I
- S A /
m C / / /
1 m
I M
0 l
o
_f
~
I l
C E
/
n R
'l
~ o ai 1
is A
7 e
8ti C C / 8 n C tic N /
o Sne 1
M AID 0
^
I f'
g
. o. n d
_ti e
rr C C C C n C aa o
te N
I
.S H s
n
/
o 6-i t
.e a
uR Nc sE C C C C C C Oi
.sS
.IS Il Tp Ap LAR U
E 0
GLS
. lP EOS a
R co g
it Rn rn-C C C C C C Oi rht Td acu Cn tep e
t Ae sTn a
- I D
R l
n Rl o
AA i
E e
Lr
- uS t
Co sE C C
'C C C C e
l Uf sF p
M I-m s
o Fe C
Ol
~
]3 n
u Ed Ce S
1 o
i Ih Ra Fc Ct C C C C C C tc FS
'A M u
0 r
g t
n s
i
~
nn s
oo_
n Ct e
e s
c uR i
sE C C C C C C rioc L
sS e
.I-nd o
R iB E
O st S
lP iS a
cA rco e
rit an C C C C C C Df o tht
.w '
n scu is ee s
Ti te I
rn oe pv ei
.e rt uS C C C C C C c
.~
te sE sf 4
sD af I
le
=
c-mn
+ oe
)
c s
/
/
r yh 1
8 fn o
tat
)
sl n O 0 0 0 si es 8
Eeo gi DM
.nc f
J
_(
- ae o
hd
/ /
c 1
/,
2-2 n
so a
1.
ei e
2 2-2 g
1 ts 1
e L
as m
k l
1 A
ci P
Jt a
'1 n o i T
.im
(
,. n h
o o M s
O dm a
e y t r
i T
no l
l r
r n b e r IC e
b P
o r i a
n r S
a h
e l
e i a U
S P
C S
M H S
T e
4g a
b
?
ij s I
- l j
. O
~
~
EE
.r.
- 7 7
7 7
T. t i ss
- C *C 8 S S 8 8 8 6
WW///
/
6 pns 3
4 6
0 poa 1
/
ACC 9
0 0 0
/-
13 1
/
2 n
1 o
7 7 7 8 8 8 7
7 7 i
.m.
s mc
// / S S 8 8 8 WW///
i oe 4 1 1
3 4 6 c
CD 0
0_
8 0 0 0 e
D 7
7 7
8 8
8 A
'5
/ A /
m m
f
/C / / / 6 / 6 o
o f
4 1
N N 1 R 0 C
E 0
0
/_
~
5 1
E n
le at 7
e S / e
.i s 8
- C W
1_
6 n
n Bti
/C o C Lic 3
o Sne 0
N N
AID foe
- n ti e
e
.rr C C C n C C n C aa o
o te N
N
.SH s
n
./
o E-i t
e 7
a u R' 8
Nc sE C C C C C / C C Ol sS 2
Ii IS 0
Tp Ap LAR U
E C
GLS lP EOS a
co R
g it 7
Rn-rn 8
Oi rht C C
'C C C / C C Td acu 1
e 0
t Cn.
teo a
Ae 5Ts D
~ I R
- I n
~
l o
Rl
~
i AA t
E e
e Lr uS Co sE C C C C C C C C lp Uf sF m
N I
o s
[C FeOl.-
.n:
u o'-
Ed
~
m Ce S
.i-
.t Ih-Re
- c" Fc Ct C C C C C C C C u
. r F S.
1.M Qt 0
g s?
G Ct n
nn i-oe s
1 n-s e
e
. ri c
uR
.ec i-sE L-
'sS C,C C
C, C C C C e
nd iB
't I
o R
sL E
.O
.i S.
S lP
,cA.
.a
.e
.Dfm rco rit C C C C C C C C o
c_tht is.
an n -
scu 4
s ep te;
.T n rn..
I oe pv..
1ei;-
uS
_ rt.
c
.e
- t e -
sE C C C C C C C C sf
~
af sD l e.
I mn oo r
)
.fn.
EE s
/
e
.yh 4
.si
' tat 1
s, 8
.Eeo 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
4
)
sl n c
DM e
(
d fo
^ _.
1 2
n-2 k
y so.
a 3
e ei 1 l 1
e l
1 ts.
e as.
g t
P e
l a,.
d r
d a s L
ci
(
o*
1 a e r V a A
im P
t o g B h e
x T
dm e
c v r e O
no n
w
- . IC gl s n e T T
E a
d t
t a
e v L
l i
B g t m
l a
P a
B o a o a e o U
A r
f C
P S
S S
V i B
T
.~
~
[ );
3.
d.
r u
s
- f I
?j
wMtdNg4DwAMh9;Tw g:1
- Yjg m
Kn w m({4 k. g O+;.
5 g
d*
Ti,.'
s
,r o
/-
21
' i.v
.tl 8 8 8 0 3
5 l s S
S 8 8 8 9
9 9
pne WWU///VU 3
2 4
poo ACC O 0 1 0 0 0
/'
6 1~
8 n
U o
. 8 8 8
9 9 9 8 8 8 0 3
5 3
i m.
S S
/ / V WV//
/
s
.mc
/
3 2
4 1
2 i
oe N
1 c
CD 0
0 1 0 0 0 e
D 8
7 7 7 S
8 8 8 m
m f
A / / / /
A A o
_f
/
N.
4 1
6 C
W/ N C
E N
0 0 0
/
.n 5
rl o 1
ai e
7 is n
S 8
- e e ti o
//C C C n n Mic N N 3
o o Sne 0
N N AID C
f.o en e
e e ti n
n n rr o
C C C C C o o aa M
M M te SH I
s n
/'
o 6
i t
e 7
8 a
uR S S 8 8
S S
S WW//C WWW Nc sE 2 2 Oi sS Il IS 1
0 f
Tp Ap LAR U
E 0
GLS
.lP EOS a
7 8
R co S
S 8 8
S S
S C /
WW/U N WW g
_it Rn f n 1
Oi fht 1
O Td i cu e
Cn tep t
Ae 5 T. n a
EP I
D R
n l
Rl o
i AA E
e t
Lr uS S
S e
Co sE C C C C C C /
W p
l Jf
.sF N
P I
m s
o Fe C
Ol n
u Ed o~
Ce - S S
S i
t Ih Rg C 0 C C C C U/ N c
Fc Ct AM u
FS r
0 t-gn _
snn i _
n
- oo s
- Ci c
. e _
s e
S S
ri uR
- oc i
sE C C C C C C WW f e L
s$
nd I
o R
iB.
E O
sL iS S
. lP c A._
a e
fco Df S S
. fit o
. an C C C C C C WW n
tht s
- i. s Scuep te Tn rn I
.oe pv ei
.rt c
e~
.te.
.uS sE S
S sf af sD C C C C C C / /
. le N N I
..mn oe.
r
)
. fn s
. e yh
)
sl n 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 t
tat s
8 Eeo f
- DM
?'. c.
e
(
o d
. so 2
n 3
k 2
[ 9ei e
a-1 2 g
2 e 2
's ts 2, as a
~
P a
2 e e P
r
.d x
t
.t L. ';ci im
. A c_& d m
(
a e o 2 e k n n
~
t B, h o
T c o o TO no n
c w e i
f
.f i
IC ~
E a
s n
.d l
h r e e L
l t
a i t
t e
l l
- ~
B P
t m e g
u m l
l
.S
.~
- U a o r o o i e e T
W C B V S
L B B 5
r '*
- A f,
~
J
.I
,I i
a l
F
O g
~
d b-
- r.
.t 1 re l sp s s s s s Ww_Www pcm pea ACC
/
s 1~
E
/ n
~
1 o
2 i
m.
s s.
s s s
/
s mc ww Www 2 i oe 1
c CD e
D A s s m
- C - Www S
f
/
o f
N C
E n
l o ai is 7
e Bti 8
n s s sne 1
N ww Lic
/ C o
AID 0
f~
,m ogn e
ti n s s aa N ww rr C C o
.t e sH 6
sn
/-
o 6
i t
e a
uR s s s s s ww www
!t c sE 0l
.ss 1i Is Tp Ap LAR U
E O
GLs
.lP a
EOs R
.co s s s s s Rn f n N M M ww g
it
/ /
/
Oi fht e
Td acN t
Cn tes Ae 5Tn EP I
R l
Rl i
AA t
E e
C ww i.
.uS s s
,e Lr Co
.sE C C Uf sT N
I s
Fe C
Ol u
Ed Ce s:
i s s
.t Ih~
.Rg C w/
t C C c
JvM n
Fc Fs 0
. t.
g n
i s
Ci n
e e
.s c
uR s s
- ..i.
ww i
- sE C C C
~,..e
- ss L
I.
. t.a R
E O
.is s
lP
.ca a
I'c o s s e
fit C
C-C ww o,
an tht i.
Scu ep
.e Tn I
..ee
..i.t c
.e.
- t.,e
- us s
.r sE C C C C w 4
sD ie I
- c...
~.
)
r.
s
- y. h y
gi.
tat
)
sl n 0 0 0 o 0 8
Eeo
~
DM f
.(
o 4
/E
~
2 e
s Y
g f
A
.s a
2 M
_1 c i.
L P
e.
k y/
E d2
(
3 D
.t n
n y d 3
1 L
iC E
a A
.n r-e L
l P
P T
o r
B
.P A
e e r n n O
I s
P G
w u T
..n
~
r I
i ;i q
f3 h
lll
e A
(Page 5
^
-1/
Licensing schedulesfand decision <datesFddenotMfledDadditional poterithi 7
delay from Emergency Preparedness Review.: For plants with construction completed;: the Commission decision dates shown are for full-power; howeverl initial lic6nsing may proceed (restrictino power to 5% of rated full power based on'a favorab1'e 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 estimat.e of construction. completion.
2/
An operating licens'e restricting operation to fuel loading and operation up to 5%: power has been issued for these facilities. A Comission
~
decision;r'egardingloperationabove5%powerwillbemadeonaschedule commensurate ~ with the licensee's need for full-power authorization; therefore, no delay.is projected unless otherwise noted.
3)
Construction has been halted; a construction completion date has not been established.
4/
AjointNitiontodismisstheproceedingswasfiledbytheapplicantand intervenors'on January 28, 1985. An Order and Memorandum withdrawing all remaining contentions and terminating the proceedings was issued by the ASLB on February 14, 1985.
5/
A Partial Initial Decisfon (PID) on two of three contentions was issued in favor of the applicant ou August 27, 1986. LThe intervenors have filed a notice of' appeal. A concluding PID was issued onlthe environmental qualification of solenoid valves.in favor.of.the applicant on December' 23, 1986. This PID requested that,theistaff confirm that the Board's coriclusion,'on dose effects on cable isinot[ changed as a result of new information provided by the applicant on. September 18,'1986.
6/
Date shown'for first units is for first SSER.following ACRS meeting.
Additional.SSERs will be issued to close outLremaining open items.
7/
A fuel loading and cold criticality testing license was issued on December,7,'1984. On June 14, 1986,.the last safety-related issue was
~
resolved iri. favor of LILCO, and a 5% power license was authorized.
Addition'al'. licensing delays in the full-power 1 authorization (above 5% power) are like'1y due to off-site emergu cy plannin'g issues. On February 17 and March 18, 1985, New York Sta'te Courts' held that LILCO had no authority to irnpiment its emergency plan. A Licensing: Board reached a general conclusion on April 17 -1985, that although the LILCO emergency plan is adequate, it could not be concluded that it 'would' be implemented, as (had been determined by the courts),LILCO:does,not have, legal authority to carry opt the plan and.as there is no reasonable 9surance thet there would be an integrated response to en emergency without State a.d local cooperation. On August 26,<1985, the Licensing Board'issueJ its concluding Partial.I'nitial Decision. holding that there is:no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures cantand will!be' taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, primarily, because:of LILCO's lack of authority to implement its' own offsite pign',;:and the absence of a State 7
e
.k'
~
s
.,.a o
+ee.
womea6 woeweerm une ow. c eee
-=- -
,y
o g
r y;
y o
TABLE (Page:6 of 8) l FOOTNOTES 7,/'
(continued)^
plan indicating that there would-be an integrated, cooperative and coor-l dinated;hffsite' response in the event of,an emergency; appeals from portions of this, decision were filed. The Licensing Board s conclusion on lack l
of legal: authority to implement its emergency response plan was affirmed j
by the App,eal Board on October 18, 1985. On December 19, 1985, the Comission accepted a petition filed by LILCO on November 7,1985 to review I
decision o Board's decisions.,,0n, March 26,;1986 the'ASLAB issued its i
the Appeal
- n appeals of those aspects of.thetShoreham Emergency Planning i
ProceedingJnot related to the " legal' authority"' issue. The Appeal Board remanded'four issues, related to:
1)plumeEPZ' size,2). role'conflictof school bus' drivers, 3) evacuation plans'for2 hospitals, and 4) the adequacy and use of relocation centers back to the Licensing Board for further action. However,titJordered the Board notito proceed until ordered to do so by the Commissio~n, as the Comission had;the legal authority decision before it. On June 6,1986, the Comission ordered that hearings should start on, whether;the February 13, 1986, exercise ~of LILCO emergency
~
response plan showed '"any _ fatal flaws" 'in' the plan. The ASLB admitted 15 contentions with many subparts for litiga. tion and: set the hearing to begin in February. 1987.- On July 24, 1986.the' Commission ordered further hearings.:o,n the adequacy of emerge &y planning:st Shoreham presuming that the State and county would part V.
te iri an actual emergency.. In addition, on September 19. 1986, the Cow -
Jon said;itlwsuld. review the Appeal Board's determint. cions-in regar.
.o the need)for further consideration of the ' plume EPZ size and need to pian for thelevacuation of hospitals, and lifted the stay of the remand of issues involving;the' role ' conflict of school b'us drivers and the use and availability ofirelocation centers.
The Appeal Board also issued a decision on September 19, 1986, remanding to the Llcensing Board other issuestin regard-to~ the monitoring of evacuees and any. defects in LILCO's' plan for the ingestionLpathway area. On November! 10, 1986, the intervenors filed a motio,1 with the Comission to reopen t,he record,to admit three new issues; withdrawal of WALK radio stationt lack of agreement with the Red Cross; and lack of congregate centers. '.For operation above SY, power, favorable decisions on offsite emergency: planning are required. Due to the Board decisions on emergency planning'and-the position of Suffolk County:and New York State on whether they will lc'ooperate in emergency planning, the Comission is unable to forecast-a' realistic-licensing impact at this time.
8/
A Partial ; Initial' Decision,(PID) on all safety issues is scheduled to be issued 1,n mid-January, 1987.
If favorable, this decision'would authorize issuance 6f a low / power license. A fuel. load.and precritical test license was issued on October 17, 1986. The plant.was ready for~ licenstra on June 30',a19.86,: therefore this represents affour month delay. Based on the applicant's schedule for completing. activities authorized under the current license,: plant startup will be further ' delayed'by.about one month. Revi-sions to;the New Hampshire emergency response / plans were submitted on September'12, 1986, and on September 20, 1986? Massachussetts announced that it[would not, submit emergency response plans: for Seabrook. Therefore, it is unlikely that the one month delay inclow power licensing will have
-anover,qllimpact,on'thestartupschedulefortheplant.-
6 g
i t
me.e-ars. sigma aeve
- WW
. %,mes
/ (
o t.,.
Nik -
(Page 7 of 8)/ &.
, Qb R. J.'
' i kh A TABLE t 3 o
' MF00TNOTESh
! M@4DA ~
%M v'
Construct 1;m h'as' bee $ d ' M a) 4 fg gn suspended'withiNie pl out 35% complete. The
$k.
'I
~
-9/
epplicant has requ'ested a Construction.PemitIextension t'o April 30, 1991.
.]
10/ Schedule to be determined after receipt of TVA's response to the Sept # r 17, 1985,~50.54 (f) letter.
-11/ On November 13, 1986, the full power license for Perry, Unit I was issued.
The Comm hsion.had' authorized its issuance' during its meeting of November 7,;1986. On August 15,'1986, the Governor of Ohio informed the NRC of his: withdrawal of support for evacuation plans for Davis Besse and Perry because of safety concerns related to the Chernobyl accident and the earthquake near Pe'rry. The Governor'has appointed'a team to review the evacuation. plans in light of ^5ese two incidents. On October 28, 1986, this team: met in Bethesda tr receive technical presentations from NRC's senior staff. The' staff was requested to delay issuance of the full power licen'se for Perry N nding completion of the team's work. On October 29. 1986,,the NRC was informed that FEMA does not consider the April 15',.1986 exercise to be a full-participation exercise. An exemption from Appendix E, 10 CFR 50, was issued on November 6, 1986, with a determination that the minimal nature of the deficiency in the fullpa(t.icipationexercisewasacceptable.
On September 4, 1986,- the U.S. Court of Appeals?(6th Circuit) issued an orderistaying any Commission vote on authorizing issuance of the full power license. The Commission briefing on the full: power license z
was held on September 5, 1986. The Court's decision vacating the stay was issued on October 14, 1986. The State of Ohio' filed a petition with the Court requesting a delay in issuance of the' full. power license after the Commission had denied its petition to intervene. The Court ruled in orders dated November 7 and 11, 1986, that the full power license "may issue in due course," but on November 14,1986,;the Court issued a restraini' nil order enjoining the applicant from' operating above 5% power.
On November-13, 1986,-Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy also filed a petition.with the Court asking that the license be-revoked. Oral argumention these matters was held before the Sixth Circuit Court on Decembe N3, 1986. On December 23, 1986,'the Court vacated its prior Stay Order, shich prevented operations above 5% of rated power. On December 24, 1986,' intervenor OCRE filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court re' questing emergency relief from the action of the Sixth Circuit Court. On December 31,1988, Justice Scalia issued an Order denying the requested' stay.
A second stay request,; filed January 5, 1987, was denied V
by Justice. Scaliebi on January 8,1987.
-12/ On November 25, 1986, applicants reported toLthe SEC tHat all reanalysis.
reinspection, rework, and testing activities. prerequisite to the loading of fuel in Unit 1:will.be complete in early11988. Based on this estimate, commercial' operation would be achievable.in early 1989.
Unit 2 will not
^
be ready for commercial operation until after the 1989 summer peak season.
Tiie Commistion is unable to predict whether:ailicensing impact will occur.
E e
(
--m
.. - _ ~
..s
i 4
TABLE (Pagehof8) 1 FOOTNOTES 13/ ACRS report of April 19, 1983 reconinends low powbr license.
Further ACRS review is required; prior to full-power licensing.
14_/ On August'18, 1986, theapplicantfiledamotNn'~pursuantto10CFR50.57(c) with the' ASLB for authorization to load fuel land aerform precritical testing for Braidwood 1.
On September 18, 1986, the ASLB issued an Order granting the applicant's motion. The zero power license was issued on October 17,1986. '.The ASLB initial decision for the low power license is scheduled: to be issued in March,'1987.. A low' power license could be issued immediately. following issuance of a favorable decision. Full power licensin'g.is scheduled for April 1987. The applica,nt has stated that the current start-up schedule is dictated by.the hearing schedule, and that absent the. hearing,'the plant could have.been ready for a low power license in mid-December, 1986. Therefore, based on.tha applicant's projected schedule,and the' current schedule for the'ASLB' initial decision for the a power license ;there is an approximate four month licensing impact.
l however, the extended length of the hearing was in part due to the extensive rebuttal case introduced by the applicant.
--15/ A Partial. Initial Decision was issued on JuneT13,1986. On August 29, 1986, the Board resolved all remaining issues in favor of the applicant and authorized issuance of operating licenses for South Texas 1 and 2.
On October 8,.1986 the Appeal Board affirmed this. decision.
--16/ By Order' dated December 30, 1982, t'ne Licensing Board reopened the record on Palo Verde with respect to Units-2 and 3 only to' consider issues related to salt deposition on surrounding lands.
By order dated July 22, 1985, the Board dismisse'd the proceeding on the basis of a settlement between the p:rties.
--17/ Construction has been halted; the applicant has stated that it will pursue revocation of the construction permit and withdrawal of the operating license application.
f e
I I I 9
a i
4 4
m. m..
~