ML20206K646
| ML20206K646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Limerick, Waterford, Comanche Peak, Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1984 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9905130226 | |
| Download: ML20206K646 (24) | |
Text
__ '4 K_p_g_ h 6----
(c ()
A UNITED ~ STATE?
l e
s e'
NUCLEAR REGULATOMiCOMMISSI N
'f I
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55
~
May 2, 1984 y
CHAMMAN je f.
The Honorable. Tom.Bevill, Chainnan
[
l Subcomittee on Energy and Water
.,.9 Development
-d g
Comittee on Appropriations g
United States House of Representatives a
g o
Washington, D.C.
20515 g3
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This quarterly status report is in response to the direction given in House Report 97-850.
The enclosed report is intended to cover the first quarter of 1984; however, because of the high level of licensing activities in April which impacted this report, we have delayed its submittal in order to incor-porate this information. As a result, the data reported herein is current as of April 27, 1984.
The total licensing delay projected in our report is seventeen months: two months for Shoreham, five months for Limerick, seven months. for Comanche Peak, one month for Waterford and two months for Byron.
The estimated regulatory delays in this report do not reflect any additional 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. Also, not reflected in the estimated regulatory delays is the potential impact of the D. C. Circuit Court mandate of April 16, 1984 related to the I
NRC's review of applicants' financial qualifications.
The additional time it
[
will take to complete necessary reviews and the potential for further I
litigation of financial qualification issues at individual hearings could result in significant additional delays.
Finally, the two months' delay
/) b" projected for Shoreham is predicated on a decision authorizing low power I/
operation in early June 1984.
However, given recent actions by the courts and the Comission's order of April 30, 1984, which vacated the hearing schedule previously adopted for low power and established oral argument before the Comission on specified issues regarding low power operation, the early' June 1984 date may be overly optimistic.
Commissioners Asselstine and Gilinsky note' that this report is based on applicants' construction completion dates, which in most cases have proven to be overly optimistic.
They add that the current NRC staff construction completion dates, which have proven to be more realistic, show only a very limited potential delay for two plants -- Waterford 3 with one month and Byron 1 with two months.
Moreover, Comissioners Asselstine and Gilinsky note that in each of these cases the additional time is needed for the Boards to address outstanding safety issues for the plants.
They de not believe that the time needed to address outstanding safety issues can properly be characterized as a " licensing delay."
9905130226 840502 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR w
- Gy. J,.',,[
- ?.:,';l :,'; '.,,',
s 2,
.Th'e Honorable Tom Bevill,
The NRC licensing activity during the. period of this report included the 1ssuance of an operating license restricted to 5% of full power for Susquehanna Unit 2 on March 23, 1984, authorization of full-power operation for La Salle Unit 2 on March 23, 1984, authorization of full-power operation for WNP-2 on April 13, 1984 and authorization of low-power operation for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 on April 19, 1984.
On January 13, 1984, the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board denied an application for an operating-license for the Byron Nuclear Station.
Sincerely, f
Opf&'
9 Nunzio J. Palladino ~
)
Chairman
Enclosure:
NRC Quarterly Status Report to Congress cc: The Honorable John T. Meyer J
l I
+
- f. k '..d e..; i,::,,' ::. '.,,,
[y ':.
i,.
NRC QUARTERLY REPORT F
-LIMERICK The schedule for ASLB hearing-related activities is as follows:
o
. The' onsite emergency planning. hearing began on. April 23, 1984.
The Board ruled on the admissibility of-offsite emergency planning contentions on April 20, admitting twelve contentions, o
Testimony for the welding deficiencies / quality assurance contention was filed on April 16 to support the hearing beginning the week of May 7.
o Contentions on the environmental consequences of severe accidents were filed by LEA and by the City of Philadelphia in February 1984, l
seven of which were admitted in March 1984.
The hearing will begin on May 29 on all but one of the contentions.
The hearing on the L
contention concerning potential contamination of the City's water supplies will' begin on June 19, 1984.
The FES for severe accidents was issued on April 6',1984.
The Licensing Board estimates a decision in January 1985. This overall schedule results in a licensing impact of five months based on the applicant's August 1, 1984 completion date.
i n
I
,. p, ' ' ',,
.a...
e
'~
o.
Midland All of the stop-work orders in effect were lifted by mid-February 1984. Activities of the Construction Completion Plan are being initiated by the applicant as allowed in the prerequisites in the Plan approved by the Commission on October 6, 1983.
In a press release and stockholders meeting on April 10, 1984, the applicant announced that the planned fuel load date of Unit 2 is now July 1986.
Unit 1 (the process steam unit), continues to be in an indefinite status since the Dow Chemical pullout in ' July 1983.
CPCo's discussions with the Michigan Public Services Commission and state officials are continuing regarding existing cash flow problems which could preclude continued construction of Unit 2.
Byron 1 On January 13, 1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its initial decision denying Commonwealth Edison's application for an operating license for the Byron Nuclear Station Unit 1.
Comonwealth Edison appealed the decision on January 23, 1984.
Oral arguments before the Appeal Board were completed on April 19,1984.
~
- . 7.'l. v : h. y I,
The appeal could result in the Appeal Board -(1) affirming the Licensing Board's denial of an operating license, (2) reversing the Licensing Board's decision and authorizing issuance of'an operating license, or-(3) ordering reopening of the _ evidentiary record. :The Commission may review the Appeal Board's
' decision.sua sponte or upon petition for. review by a party.
It is possible that' Commonwealth could qualify for an operating license either through an outright; reversal of the Licensing Board's quality assurance findings or H
through modification of the Licensing Board's quality assurance decision based 1
on further evidentiary hearings.
At this time, the Appeal Board estimates its
' decision will be-issued in a few weeks.
If the Appeal Board orders reopening of the_ evidentiary record and remands the case to.the Licensing Board for further hearings, it is estimated that a decision could be issued in four months.
Under these circumstances the staff. estimates that there would be
-1 a two-month licensing delay.
Commonwealth Edison has stated that Byron 1 will be ready to load fuel by July 1, 1984.
Shoreham On September 2, 1983, the ASLBLissued a partial initial decision.on all matters except off-site emergency planning and the emergency diesel generator con-tentions. -On February 22, 1984, the licensing board denied an initial motion b
r
',2
., f:.,*
.l -
- w.. ;;,.
_4
.o by the utility for a low-power license until the emergency diesel generator contentions have been completely litigated or an alternate basis for low-power operation has been approved by the Board. It is estimated that hearings on these diesel generator contentions would not start until late. July 1984 based on the staff's estimate of June 1984 for issuance of an SER on the diesel generator review, and that a Board decision would not be expected before December 1984.
On March 20, 1984, the applicant filed with the Board a supplemental motion for a: low-power operating. license.
The staff has reviewed the motion and
- published its findings in a supplemental safety evaluation report issued on April 19,1984.
The staff concluded that operation of Shoreham at power levels up to 5% of rated full power, without the availability of the permanently
' installed emergency diesel generators, presents no significant risk to the
- public health and safety.
If the motion is granted by the Board, it would provide for.~a phased startup - Phase I: fuel load and precriticality testing; Phase II: cold criticality testirg; Phase III: heatup and low power (approximately
-15) at rated pressure and _ temperature; and Phase IV: low-power testing up to 5'% of rated power.
A separate licensing board to hear and decide the supplemental motion for a low-power license was established on March 30, 1984.
Oral arguments on this motion were heard at a conference of counsel on April 4, 1984 and a hearing was' scheduled for April 24 - May 5. 1984.
On April 26, 1984,.aL temporary restraining order was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia barring further hearings on the applicant's m
F
. ' '. ' }m,, -.'iN l,..
j supplemental mocion for ten days or until a hearing can be held on the intervenor' motion for a preliminary injunction. The basis for the Court's decision was that the expedited schedule did not provide the intervenors l
sufficient time for preparation of their case.
Prior to the court action, the staff had estimated a potential two-month licensing delay assuming a Board decision in early June.
This delay could be' longer depending upon the new i
hearing schedule to be established.
On April 30, 1984 the Commission issued an order which vacated the hearing schedule previously adopted for low power and established oral argument before the.Comission on specified issues regarding low power operation.
A copy of the Commission's order is attached.
Based on the applicant's indication that the plant is physically ready to load fuel at this time, an early June decision on the supplemental motion for a low-power operating license would represent a two month licensing delay.for low-power authorization.
However, an early June,1984 decision date may be overly optimistic.
Further ifcensing delays in full-power authorization are 1
possible due to the outstanding contentions on off-site emergency planning and emergency diesel generators,
]
w
.,l ' ', ",[
+
y.
6-Catawba 1
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 1
was issued on. March 15, 1983.
Prehearing conferences were held on' January 12-13,
{
3 1982, October 7-8, 1982, January 20. 1983, August 8, 1983 and September 12, 1983.
j There are four safety and environmental contentions, ten emergency planning contentions, and. two recently admitted TDI diesel generator contentions.
To'date, all admitted contentions except emergency planning and recently admitted contentions related to diesel generators have been heard.
An ASLB partial initial' decision on safety and environmental issues (excluding the TDI diesels and emergency planning issues) is currently 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 basis, an emergency planning decision would not
-appea"r 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, i
l l
J
=
y.s..,-.1..
.i.. i
,s:
- 1, c.-
'A
'[
7 a
t 1984 to hear emergency planning contentions.
Discovery on this issue has essentially been completed and the hearing is scheduled to start on May 1, 1984..An emergency planning decision is expected by August 1984, in time to avoid delay in full-power authorization for Catawba Unit 1.
On December 5,1983, intervenors submitted an oral motion requesting admission of a threa-part contention regarding the diesel generators.
On February 17,
~1984, the I;oard admitted conditionally the part of the Intervenors' proposed contention on diesel generators dealing specifically with crankshaft design, and rejected the parts dealing with the vendor's QA program, and the opera-tional history of the vendor's diesel generators.
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.
Discovery on this issue was completed on April 4,1984;
-i however,' additional discovery is possible.
Tia hearing schedule has not yet been established with the result that this could cause a delay in low-power I
authorization.
On April 11, 1984, the applicant filed a supplemental motion for a. license to load fuel and conduct certain precritical testing activities
~' prior to a decision ~on the diesel generator contentions.
The applicant's schedule for fuel load is June 16,1984.
i
n
" /* '(,:?!'n ; J.,
l.
u, l
e I
i-
- Diablo Canyon -
During this last' quarter, the NRC staff has continued its evaluation of over 1
' 200 allegations concerning the plant design,' construction,~ quality assurance
'and management.- This evaluation'is being conducted by the Diablo Canyon 1
Allegation Management Team (DCAMT), a team of approximately.40 NRC staff J
l members and consultants formed specifically for this purpose.
The results of the DCAMT's efforts were reported in supplementary safety evaluation reports on January 4,1984 and March 19, 1984.
The staff has concluded that none of the 200 allegations should preclude low-power operation of Unit 1, but 4
that 16 of the allegations should be resolved prior to authorizing full-power operation.
i The. hearing.for a full-power license for Units 1 and 2 on design. quality
- assurance. (QA) was completed on November 21, 1983.
On March 20, 1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board issued a decision resolving the issue i
on design QA in favor of the licensee with respect to Unit 1.
The Appeal Board still has before it the appeal of the licensing board's August 1982 decision authorizing issuance of full-power license and has retained jurisdiction over the proceeding.
Motions to reopen the record on construction. QA and to 4
augment the' record on design QA are now before the Appeal Board.
[
+
...,q:.
u g
t i ';
-g-5 On' March 27-28, 1984, the NRC staff briefed the Comission on the resolution of allegations.. including a differing staff opinion, design' verification L program issues, recent developments related to the seismic design basis, plant staffing and other licensing matters.
The Comission decided at that meeting.
to defer a decision on low-power authorization pending further staff evaluation and consideration by the ACRS of the differing staff opinion on certain small and large bore piping, including quality assurance and. control.
The results of these further evaluations were presented to the Commission at a meeting on April 13.1984, and the Commission approved authorization of low-power oper-ation effective April 19,.1984.
Comanche Peak Unit 1 Comanche Peak has been in.a heavily contested hearing for over two years.
All
-but one contention have been dismissed.
The remaining contention questions the ability of the applicant's Quality Assurance / Quality Control Program to prevent deficiencies in the design and construction of the plant.
The Licensing Board
^
has admitted many allegations of design and construction deficiencies into the hearing-'as. relevant to this contention.
At the request of the Licensing Board, the applicant initiated a program of design and testing to respond to engineering
' technical questions remaining outstanding in the hearing record.
The applicant projects that Comanche Peak Unit I will be completed by September 1984, l
- h.. i,. [. J'E, '
s 10 however, the Licensing Board's initial decision is not expected until April 1985.
With this schedule, there would be a seven-month licensing delay for Comanche Peak Unit 1.
-The staff has identified several critical path items in the licensing review and inspection activities which must be completed.. Included will be the resolution of_ approximately 300 allegations and ccmpletion of the generic TDI diesel generator reliability review.
Due to the number and complexity of issues remaining to be resolved before the NRC can make its licensing decisions, the NRC staff has implemented a special team approach to the Comanche Peak review. This approach will assure the overall coordination / integration of these issues to assure the issues are resolved on a schedule to satisfy hearing and licensing decision needs.
The first phase of this effort, which is currently underway, involves the identification of all applicable issues, which is then followed by the preparation of a Program Plan for the resolution of the identified issues. A senior NRC manager has been dedicated to this team effort to assist in:the overall management of these activities.
Waterford Unit 3 t
A hearing was held in conjunction with the OL application and the final ASLB decision was issued in May 1983.
There is currently a motion before the t
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
,., *.. P 4"..,
,,]:., y, - lC.i
~-
1 1,
Appeal Board to reopen the hearings based on allegations concerning the adequacy of the comon foundation' basemat.
An Appeal Board decision on this motion is expected in June 1984.
Based on the applicant's estimate that the plant will be ready to load fuel in May there is a potential for a one-month. licensing delay.
Due to the number and complexity of the remaining licensing and hearing issues, the number of open allegations and the amount of work yet to be completed in the NRC's routine inspection program, the NRC staff has im-plemented a special team approach to the Waterford 3 review.
This approach will assure the overall coordination / integration of these issues to assure the issues are resolved on a schedule to satisfy hearing and licensing decision needs.
The first phase of this effort, which is currently underway, involves the identification of all applicable issues, which is then followed by the preparation of a Program Plan for the resolution of the identified issues. A
. senior NRC manager has been dedicated to this team effort to assist in the overall manaren'nt of these activities.
One aspect of this integrated program. involves a special NRC inspection / evaluation team assembled at Waterford.
This team is composed of approximately 35 utaff members principally from the NRC Headquarters, NRC consultants and other Regional Offices.
Region IV personnel also assist in
. the effort. The team will be gathering information for the staff to use in its i
n
.. '.7. p j. '.., ;...
=. :.;.;
, t'
- .s. s
', e licensing decision.
Areas that are being examined include the installation and testing'of equipment as well as the quality assurance aspects of constructicn.
Of specific concern are allegations received by the NRC staff of improper construction. practices.
The results of this team'.s review will be published in an NRC safety evaluation report.
This document is expected to be
- issued in May.
In that document, the NRC will describe the areas reviewed and.-
the safety significance of any concern identified, and set forth any necessary corrective actions.
All other special team reviews, if any, will be handled in a similar manner.
j The NRC has received a number of allegations regarding improper practices
.during construction at the Waterford site.
These allegations cover both 3
technical and non-technical issues.
The non-technical' issues are being I
examined by the NRC's Office of Investigation.
The applicant was asked to provide the following information on the technical issues:
(1). An evaluation of the validity of each of the specific issues identified, clearly stating the basis for their conclusion;
('2) The safety significance of each issue in view of their conclusion in item-(1);and (3) The generic implications on other systems or contractors for any item found to have merit.
- f.,y
-s l*
13 -
I I
The applicant provided their response to this request to the staff on April 27, l
1984.
This information is currently being evaluated.
r l
The NRC has.~ recently completed a CAT inspection at Waterford 3.
The final CAT report is expected to be published in May 1984.
e
.M
... *. / l< *, ',. '. l Licensing Tables The present licensing schedule for all plants with pending OL applications is given in Table 1.
Plants are listed chronologically according to 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 Comission'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 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.
A
/
y I,
S
~
r.
4 4
4 4
5
.t1 8
8 8
8 8
sp
/ / / / /
lpnm C
C C
7 6
5 3
3 poo 0
0 0
0 ACC y
y O
4 8
yyyZ y
/
1 n
3 o
/
f i.
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 5
s 3
s nc 8
8 8
8 8 8
8 8
f oe
/ / / / / / / /
G c
CD 5
5 5
9 6
5 6
3 N
e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
D S
tD r.
y u
C e
f A
/ A
- I o
f
/ -
C 1
/ C C
L C
E N
2 N
)
F 7
O 8
n 4j y
9 l o N
1 ai
/
O i s e
1 e
I 3
Bti n
C 2
n C C C S
8 Lic o
o I
9 S ne N
N V
1 AID I
D Y
C f
n og i
n ti e
e n
rr n
n o
aa o C C C o C C C i
t e N
M t
SH e
sl np
/
em 6-i o tC e
a uR cn sE C
C C C
C C C C f o sS li IS pt pc Au R
r E L
Lt 5
lD Os 5
a n
co go it nC f n C
C C C C C C C f
fht dd acu ne t ep et sT n e
t Pc I
e e
D ljl o Ar n
P e
o 1
r uS t
oh sE C C C C C C C C e
ft sF l
i I
sw p
e m
l s o
ut C
di en S
n hU Rg o
1 c
Ct C C C C C C C C t
Sl AM c
a gn u
no r
t Ii st s
ni nn ed e
oo cd uR Ci s fA sE C
C C C C C C C rf L
sS oc r
I o
e f R nd
-~
o E
L s S lD fB sL e
a IS l
rco cA u
rit e
d an C
C C
C C C C C
Df e
tht h
Scu o
n c
ep is S
Tn s
te w
I s
d oe rn e
pv w
u l
e ef rt c
uS c
n sE C C C C C C C C te I
sD sf
(
.I af l e mn
)
y y2 oo s
f r
yh f
fn
)
tat 0
4 o
8 sl n 0
0 0 2
0 0 2
sI Eeo es f
DM gf o
(
nc ae 1
y1 hdc e
n 2 n
~
g 1
o 1
so
~
a y a 1
ef
~
P f
n n
1 1
e ts
(
l a
n r
i L
as
+
u C
a a
y m n A
ci 1
t G
h 1
B n
o e a
a e
T I n e w
h V
O dm e
a d
l u
n s
a e
T no l
l n
b q
o t
l r
o IC b
P a
a s
r t
l o
l B
a r i u y a a
h a
U 4
T G
D S
B W
C S
P S
d e
G, i w
/
e
. t, ;. ',.,
k, e
a e
S P
Z M G S
L W D C
F W
C T
I e
l i
E e i o i o e a
a a
e S r a
d S a m
l a m r
t t
P b
s r
s l
S b e f
b a
a e a
l l
CI T y e
a A r r
l n
l r
u a
e on O
r n R o i C o c
f b
n e
md T
1 d
o c
r h
2 o a
t 1
uni A
1 I
k k
e C
e r
ic I
e.
sa
)3 2
I e a d
1
(
1 1
k n
P P
st'
,1 y
e 3
a ie 8
a 3
3 1
o a
g os
/ f f /
n k
e n
c 9
2 1
ea f
2 dh
(
o cn Ig 1
N MD f
oeE se 3
0 / 0 0 0 5
0 0 7
0 1
0 nls 8
fs S
tat
)
o 4
hy nf
/
s r
oo
)
.n m el I
(
fa N
N Ds I
fs C / C /' C C
C C C C C
C Es n
et S
A c
Su c
tr e
l ie u
vp d
eo e
nr s
I et nT S
s 5
pe c
si
/
uc5 h
n N
1 tht e
o C / C 5
C C C C C C C
C na d
fD S
/
tif u
e 8
ocf l
Ac 4
a e
St ts Dl S s Bf L
E R
f o
6 o
dn
/
I r
e N
1 Ss L
co C / C 5
C C C C C C C C
Es Ai ir S
/
Ru dc s
8 e
de iC 4
oo in nn ts ii s
t on r
ng a
u N
0 MA lS c
C / C 8
C C
C C C C C
C t C c
t S
/
gR Uh-i 8
S ne o
4 id n
tu C
sl o
e m
ws I
i p
N N
Fs tf l
C /
C / C C C
C C C C C Es ho e
S A
Su r
t e
P io rA n
ol jl D
e I
cP a
nTS te t
pet en e
0 uca dd N
8 thf i
C / C / C C
C C C C C
C nf Cn S
8 ti og 4
oc n
a 5
sO Dl 5
- t. t t
E r R uA la cp tp 0
SI ii N
9 Ss ol C / C /
C C C C C
C C C Es nc S
8 Ru a
4 e
Ct oi
/
pn 6
mo ls e
N HS t
N o
et i
C /
C n
C C C C
- C C
C C
aa o
S e
rr n
it n
i go n
f CY D
I 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
DIA 1
V 6
N 0
N 8
1 6
4 5
ens 9
I
/ / / o / / /
/
/
ciL 8
S 8
S 8
n 8
8 8
8 C
C 8
ttB 3
I 4
5 e
5 5
4 5
4 sf O
4 fa 1
N 1
/
1 ol 9
7 2
n 8
O
/
/
7 F
)
1 0 0 0
O 0
E C
L 0
N 0
N 9
1 7
4 'C 6
f o
I 7
/ / / / / / - /
/
s
/
S 8
A 8
8 8
8 8
.f C
s E
8 5
5 5
4 5
4
.a N
4 2
S 0
D I
/
e N
0 DC c
G 1
0 0
1 0
0 0 0
0 0
6 eo 1
1 N
7 9
1 1
9 8
4 9
6
/
E.s n
s 3
/ / / / / / / / / / /
8 e
I
/
8 S
8 8
8 8
8 8 8
8 8
4 o
3 4
6 4
5 5
4 4
5 4
4 n
1
/
8
/
1 8
/
4 4
/
CCA oop 1
0 N
1 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
mnp 2
N 7
/
2 8
9 8
9 9
5 6
p s
.l
/ / /
A / / / / / / / /
.i t 8
S 8
8 8
8 8 8
8 8
8 4
6 5
4 4
4 4
4 4
4
.r
,1 2
0 1
6
/
1 7
4
/
8
/
/
/
. ' * ' e,.
4.**. 7 ". G..
- h C 8 M
H 8
S 8
R M
P T
7 y
li u
o e i e a
e y
r i i a A
g/
8 m
a l
t r
1 r a v
d l
P 8
e v
l t
r 1
o l
e l
o l
t CI T
n e s
s i e m d r a
a E
on O
c r t
s f
w n
V n
ud T
h o
8 o
2 o
S d
e t
1 ni A
e V
n a
1 n
o e r
tc L
a e r t
d n
1 d
(
sa P
l e
d e
P st e
l 3
2 1
Ie a e 1
1 2
ga os k y n
e
]3 2
c 2 2 2
3 dh ea
/
cn
(
o Ig MD f
oeE se 0
0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 nls 8
1so tat
)
1 hy nf 8
s r
oo
/
)
nm ol 7
4 5
I
(
fa
/ /
/
Ds I
fs C
2 1
C C 0 C
C 1
C C Es n
at 7
7 4
4 Su c
c
/ /
/
/
e l
tr 8 8 8
9 u
ie 4
4 6
4 d
vpeo e
nr s
et I
nT S
s 7
5 pe c
si
/ /
ucs h
n 2
1 0
tht e
o C
7 5
C C
6 C C C C C
na d
fD
/ /
/
tir u
e 8 8 8
oct l
Ac 4
4 6
a e
Si Ls Dl S s 8i L
E o
R fo dn 9
7 I
r e
/ /
Ss L
co C
2 1
C C 0 C
C 0 C C Es A1 1r 8
6 2
4 Ru dc s
/ /
/
'/
e de IC 8
8 8
8 in oo 4
4 7
4 ts nn s
iI t
on r
8 ng a
u
/
MA lS c
C 1
1 C
C 0
C 0 0 C C tC c
t 0
5 3
5 6
gR Uh i
/ /
/
/ /
S ne o
8 8 8
8 8 id n
4 4
7 4
4 tu sl C
1 1
e o
2 1
9 ws m
/ /
/
I i
p 3
1 1
0 2
Fs tf l
C 1
6 C
C 0
C 6
8 C C Es ho e
/ /
/
/ /
Su r
t 8
8 8
8 5
e P
i 4
4 6
4 4
rA on ol j1 D
e I
cP a
1 1
nTs te t
0 0
pet en e
/
/
uca dd 0
1 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 t h.r I
1 1
2 6
4 5
C 6
6 5
9 nr Cn
/ / / / / /
/ / / /
ti og 8
8 8
8 8
8 d 8 5 8 oc n
4 4
4 5
4 7
4 4
7 5
a 5 sO Dl 5
tL L
E r
R uA cp 1
1 tp 1
1 SI ii
/
/
l Ss oi 0
1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 Es nc 1
2 5
6 4
7 7
7 6
0 Ru a
/ / / / / /
C / / / /
e Ct 8 8 8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
oI 4
4 4
5 4
7 4
4 7
5
/
mo 6
pn lse HS t
et i
N N N 0 mC 1
1 aa o
C o o o 9
0 0
C C rr n
D n n n /
/ /
it I
e e e 8
8 8
n i
V 4
4 4
go n
I f
S C
I Y
ON DIA 1
0 0
0 0
1 ens 9
I 7
N N N
5 N
3 3
0 ciL 8
F
/ o o o / o C / / / C itB 3
8 n n n 8
n 8
8 8
si L
4 e e e 5
e 5
5 5
M g/
ia 1
I ol 9
C n
8 E
7 N
/
)
S E
C I
0 1
0 0 0 1
f o
N
/ / / / / g/
8 1
N N
5 N
4 4
0 C
.f m
G 7/
/ / /
.e 8
8 A A 8
A 8
8 3
4 5
5 5
5 5
/
D 3
e 1
0 0
1 1
0 1
1 0 0 0 1
DC c
/
1 6
1 2
5 0
0 8
4 6
1 eo t
8
/ / / / / / / / / / /
.c n s
4 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
6 6
5 5
5 7
5 5
5 7
5
.n Io n
If CCA 0
0 1
1 0
1 1
0 0
0 1
oop 1
6 1
2 6
0 0
8 4
2 2
mnp
/ //////////
p s.l 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
.t t 6
6 5
5 5
7 5
5 5
5 5
.r 1
1 8
9
/
1
/
5
/
s
m
.T;*
m-'
f.
(
k O
. ~, ~
4
- T 1
1 O
8 8
S C
V M
P B
N H
C T
.o a o a
a r
i o l
1 1
A e.
si A
a t
b o f
e e n T
P P
t g
r l
a n p
i P
B e
CI L
1 3
T u
l l
4 t
a E
l L
on e
b e e V
m M C o n
m ud D
1 x
a e o l
r n
t I
s y
]3 H r o
l e
si E
a ic L
s 2
i d
d e e 1
(
sa A
l e
k P
st Y
1 l
2 2
a ie 3
os 3
1 g
n
/
e c
3 dh
/
4 ea cn i
N oeE
(
o ig 1
N ND f
s se 7
/ 0 0 0 O / 0 0 0 0 0 nls 8
is S
S tat
)
o hy nf 2
s r
3
)
oo
/
nm 9
7 6
el C
C /
N
/ /
I
(
fa N
0 2
/ C C
2 1
C Ds I
fs
/
9 6
S 0
5 Es n
et S
/
/
/ /
Su c
g c
8 8
8 8 e
l tr 5
4 4
4 u
ie vp d
eo e
nr s
et I
1 nT S
s 6
4 0 8 pe c
si
/
/
/ /
ucs h
n N
0 1
0 N
1 2
tht e
o
/
5 1
C 1
/ C C
0 0 C
na d
fD S / /
/
S
/ /
tir u
e 8 8 8
8 8 oct l
Ac 4
5 5
4 4
a e
Si Ls Dl S s 8f L
E o
R f 1
1 o
dn 8
6 2 0 i
r e
N /
/ N
/ /
Ss L
co
/ 0 1
C 0 / C C
1 1
C Es Ai tr S
9 2
1 S
0 2
Nu dc s
/ /
/
/ /
e de fC 8 8 8
8 8 In oo 4
5 5
4 4
ts nns ii t
9 on r
/
ng i
1 a
s 2
0 0
0 /
1 NA lS c
N 0 1
7 N
5 1
1 tC c
t
/ / /
C / / C / 0 /
C gR Uh i
S 8
8 8
S 8 /
8 S
ne o
4 6
5 4
8 4
Id n
5 tu C
sl 1
e o
4 3
2 1
ws m
/
/
/ /
I i
p N
0 0
2 N
0 1
1 Fs tf l
/
6 2
C 6 / C 6
5 6
C Es ho e
S / /
/
S
/ / /
Su r
t 8
8 8
8 8 8 e
P f
4 6
5 4
5 4
rA on
.o l ll D
e I
cP a
1 nT5 te t
1 8
1 pet en e
/
/ N
/
uca dd 0
0 0 0 /
1 0
1 0
thf i
N 6
1 7
1 S
2 5
0 1
C nf Cn
/ / / / /
/ / / /
ti og S
8 8
8 8
8 8 8 8
oc n
4 6
6 5 6
6 5
5 a
s sO Dl s tL L
E r n uA 1
cp tp l
2 9
SI 1l
/
/
Ss oi 1
0 0
0 N 0 0
0 0 Es nc N
3 1
8 1
/
1 6
2 2
C Ru a
/ / / / /
S
/ / / /
e Ct S
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
oi 4
6 6
5 7
6 5
5
/6-mo pn ls e
0 0
1 N 0 N
HS t
5 6
N N
0 o 7
/
et i
N / /
C / /
C / n /
S aa o
/
8 8
S S
8 e 8
rr n
D S
5 6
4 5
,1 it I
2 1
n f
Y 1
4
/
go n
l
/
f C
L*
Y
?"
1 1
0 0
N 0
0 DIA 1
N 1
1 4
N N
3 o
1 9
ens 9
0
/ / / / / / C / n / /
ciL 8
7 S
8 8 8
S S
8 e
8 8
it8 3
5 6
4 1
5 6
5 si L
6 ia 1
I
/
ol 9
C n
8 E
7 N
)
S 1
1 0
0 0
0 1
E C
I N
2 2
5 N
N 4
2 1
0 f
o N
/ / / / / / C / / / /
.f m
G S
8 8 8 S
S 8
8 8
8
.m 5
6 4
5 6
6 5
3
/
D 3
e 1
0 1
1 0
0 0 0 0 1
DC c
/
N 6
2 0
9 N
3 8
2 1
2 eo 1
8
/ / / / / / / / / / /
.c s s
4 S
8 8
8 8
S 8
8 8
8 8
s I
7 6
6 6
7 6
6 6
5
.a o
n
~/
1 0
1 1
0 0 0 0
0 0
CCA N
6 2
0 9
N 3
8 2
1 1
oop
/ / / / / / / / / / /
mnp S
8 8
8 8
S 8
8 8
8 8
p s.l 7
6 6
6 7
6 6
6 6
tt
..r 1
1 3
5
/
/
_-/,
p s.p.
y, ' y...
~.
g.
j'q;.'(;i<,.
I TABLE 1(Page5of8)
FOOTNOTES I
i 1/
Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional poten-
~
p 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 comp.letion dates and Comission decision dates are based on the utility company estimate of construction completion.
2f An operating license restricting operation to fuel loading and operation up to 5% power has been issued for these facilities.
A Commission decision regarding operation above 5% power will be made on a schedule commensurate with the licensee's need for full-power authorization; therefore, no delay is projected.
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 Comission reinstated the authority to load fuel and con-duct cold system testing; on January 25, 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. SSER #22, further addressing allegations, was issued in March 1984 in support of low-power authorization.
An Amal Board hearing on matters of design QA was held in November 1983.
On March 20, 1984, the ASLAB issued a decision resolving the design QA issue in favor of the' licensee subject to conditions'for operation of the component cooling water system and further analysis for jet impingement inside containment.
At a meeting on March 26-27, 1984, the Commission decided to defer a decision on low-power authorization pending further staff evaluation and consideration _ by the ACRS on a differing staff opinion on issues related to certain small and large bore piping.
The results of these further evaluations werc presented to the Commission at a meeting on April 13, 1984, and the Commission approved authorization of low-power operation effective April 19, 1984.
The results of the design verifica-tion effort and the resulting modifications will be evaluated by the staff with respect to Unit 2 and an SER Supplement will be issued.
L
.< x...a.? = #..
w.
i.
t" ; r a
f's'habl#.1.*(fade.
T3.
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 to Commission decision date.
/
Date shown for first units is for first SSER following ACRS meeting.
6 Additional SSERs will be issued to close out remaining open items.
7f 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 did not set a date for the start-of the litigation, but from the discovery schedule and based on the staff's estimate of June 1984 for completion of its review, it appears-that litigation would not start until July 1984 and would likely be extensive.
Hearings before a second ASLB on Emergency Planning comenced on December 6, 1983 and are continuing. There are more than 70 offsite emergency planning contentions.
On March 20, 1984, the applicant filed a supplemental motion for a low-power operating license with the first
- Appeal Board.
The. applicant's construction completion date (March 1984) is for readiness to load fuel based on a phased startup as described in the-applicant's supplemental motion for a low-power operating license..
The delay ~ f two months is predicated on a low power decision by early o
June, 1984.
~~/
Severe Accident Design; BWR/6 Nuclear Island design. Comission decision 8
may be needed on GESSAR II Severe Accident Design since it is a forward referencing design approval.
/
The dates for applicant construction completion, DES issuance and FES 9
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 Commission 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 infomed the NRC that 0
construction of Zimmer had ceased and that attempts would be made to
-convert Zimmer to a coal-fired plant.
The applicant stated that they would file with the ASLB for withdrawal of their application in the near future.
'O h
a
..i
(*
[..,.-
O O
~3%
.\\-
i
..o t of.
b.
" * ~
j TABLE l'(Page 7 of 7) 3 FOOTNOTES (Continued)
- 1J/ 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.
However, this has been indefinitely deferred.
The balance of the hearings are scheduled tentatively for July 1985.
i
-12/ The ASLB decision for all admitted contentions with the exception of those related to emergency diesel generators and emergency preparedness was' issued on June 22, 1984.
-13/ Plant is mothballed.
New dates will be established when the plant is out of the mothball status.
14/ Application docketed; no schedule established.
M/ Not used.
M/ 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.
-17/ Not used.
l M / On July 16, 1984, the Board of Directors for Consumers Power voted to q
halt construction on both Midland Units.
i 19/ Not used.
. M/ Commission review is pending an Appeal Board decision on reopening the hearings.
2J/ 'On January 13, 1984, the ASLB issued a final initial decision denying.
Commonwealth Edison's application for a operating license for the Byron Nuclear Station.
The Board withheld authorization for an operating license because of inadequacies in the Byron quality assurance programs.
The ASLB decision was appealed.
The Appeal Board ordered reopening -
of the evidentiary record in its May 7,1984 decision.
ASLB order of June 8, 1984 defines issues for the reopened hearing which'will begin July 16, 1984.
I
.w f
-3,
\\.
- M
1 i
' $ Y TABLE 1 (Pagt 8 of 8)
FOOTNOTES (Continued) s 21/ On January 13, 1984, the ASLB issued a final initial decision denying Commonwealth Edison's application for a operating license for the Byron Nuclear Station.
The Board withheld authorization for an operating license because of inadequacies in the Byron quality assurance programs.
The ASLB decision has been appealed.
of the evidentiary record, it is estimated that an ASLB decision could b issued in September 1984.
22/
2 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 finance the project. suspended construction on Marble Hill due to the company's in 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 proceedir.g.
25/
hearing proceeding was dismissed on JanuaryNo contentions w 27, 1984.
26/
6 CEI press release dated 2/22/84 announced a plant completion slippage p-to late-1985.
.i
_.