ML20206K685

Forwards Quarterly Status Rept in Response to Direction Given in House Rept 97-850.Encl Rept Covers Second Quarter of 1984.FEMA Findings on off-site Emergency Preparedness Are Included in Rept

ML20206K685
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Limerick, Diablo Canyon, Comanche Peak, Shoreham
Issue date:	08/06/1984
From:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS
References
NUDOCS 9905130240
Download: ML20206K685 (20)

Text

n .

fd d.

geg%

g .,

.- ONUCLEAR REGU s': Gm TORY COMMISSION fy e' -

+

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 YskY

-)1

'. t.  : -

%,, ' y August 6,1984

...+ ,

• rHAIRM2N . , ,*

.' PUf!LIC CoccMEtli ROOM The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman 84 AUG 10 P3 52 Subcommittee on Energy and Water -

Development .

Comittee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This quarterly status report is in response to the direction given in House Report 97-850. The enclosed report covers the second quarter of 1984. The total licensing delay projected in our report is ten months: four months for Shoreham, one month for Limerick, three months for Comanche Peak, one '

month for Diablo Canyon and one month for Byron.

The estimated regulatory delays in this report do not reflect any additional potantial impact from the schedules for FEMA findings on off-site emergency 4 prepa redness. 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 Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation, jointly transmitted by the NRC and FEMA.

Comissioner Asselstine notes tha.t thisfreport is based on applicants' ,

construction completion dates, which in most cases have proven to be  ;

overly optimistic. He adds that the NRC staff construction completion i dates have proven to be more realistic and show only a very limited ,

potential delay. Moreover, Comissioner Asselstine notes that in each  !

of the cases identified in this report the additional time is needed for either the Comission or the Boards to address outstanding safety issues f for the plants. He does not believe that the time needed to address outstanding safety issues can properly be characterized as a " licensing [' q i del ay. "

y 1 The .NRC licensing activity during the period of this report included the issuance of an operating license restricted to 5% of ful1-power for Callaway on June 11, 1984, authorization of full-power operation for Susquehanna Unit 2 on June 27, 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.

~

9905130240 840006 }

PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR i

- - - - a

...;,;.y3 .

, ~7fhe,,Monorable Tom Bevill, Chairman ',

. Altho ( this ' report contains details on NRC licensing activity through the second quarter of 1984, please note that the agency has taken more recent licensing action. Specifically on July 18, 1984 Catawba Unit 1 was issued a license which permits fuel load and precritical testing.

Additionally, authorization of full-power' operation at Grand Gulf tinit I was granted on July 31, 1984. On August 2,1984 the Comission voted to authorize full-power operation at Diablo Canyon Un'it 1.

An order implementing this decision will be issued. in the near future.

Sincerely,

/

N dJ h b ' l Nunz J. Fa ladino Chainnan l

Enclosure:

'NRC Quarterly Status Report to Congress

.cc: .The Honorable John T. Myers I

9 8

e l.

_'J

7 ,

I L. , . 3 4 ,'l , - ,-

' ~

~

( ,

4 .

j l

p .

l NRC QUARTERLY REPORT l l

LIMERICK i l

On May 9,1984, the applicant revised its estimated fuel loading date for Unit 1 from August 1, 1984 to September 15, 1984. Also, pursuant to j 10 CFR 50.~57(c), the applicant submitted'a motion to the Board requesting iss'uance of an expedited Partial Initial Decision that would permit fuel

. loading by September 15, 1984 and subsequent operation up to 5 percent of j rated power.

The status of ASLB hearing-related activities is as follows:

o Hearings on petroleum and natural gas pipeline hazards were com-pleted in Msrch 1984. Proposed findings were filed on May 14, 1984.

o Hearings on environmental qualifications and onsite emergency planning were held in April 1984. Proposed findings were filed July 2,1984.

. v -. c; /, :. ; ' '-

+, < ,- 1

, 2

.o Hearings on'the welding deficiencies / quality assurance con-l tention were held in May 1984. Proposed findings were filed on_May 29, 1984.  !

o Seven contentions on the environmental consequences of severe 1

accidents filed by LEA and by the City of Philadelphia in February 1984 were admitted in March 1984. Hearings were held the weeks of May 22 and May 29 on six contentions (DES 1, 2, 3, 4 and City 13, 14). Hearings on the other contention (City 15) concerning potential contamination of the City's water supplies were held on June 19-20, 1984. Staff's proposed findings are due on Jul'y 16, 1984 and reply findings are due on August 6, 1984.

-The FES was issued on April 6, 1984. The Licensing Board now estigates a decision in October 1984. This overall schedule results in a licensing impact of one month based ion the applicant's September 15, 1984 completion date.

1 l

l l

3 i

C _ J

m., .

, ; Q y;,  ;.-

.:1 . . . , . . , , v, .

, x .

.. 3-

. 5 b-

.v

? Midland-On May;18,1984,tCPCo .submittetl a proposal- to a coalition of t state officials calling for completion of: Unit 2 and cancellation of Unit 1. Negotiations

'between CPCo and the coalition broke off on June 26, 1984 at which time.it'was' ,

expected,that' Consumers- Power Company's Board of Director would halt all work at' Midland,- At a B'oard of Directors. meeting on June 27, 1984, it was decided, however,.to' postpone a decision pending the outcome of negotiations which had resumed and wer'e expected;to continu'e through early July. On July 16, 1984, 'i

.the, Board.of-Directors voted to stop construction on both Midland Units,

?Bvron 1 1

I 10n: January.-13,1984,Rthe Atomic Safety-and Licen' sing Board issued its Initial l Decision. denying Commonwealth Edison's application for an operating license Lfor Ethe Byron Nuclear Station. ; Commonwealth Edison appealed the decision on January 23, 1984. . Oral arguments before the Appeal Board were completed on.

-April 19, 1984. . The ' Appeal Board issued it's decision. on May 7,1984 which 4

~

remands.'the record on quality assurance issues to the Licensing Board for the l receipt of further evidence. The Licensing Board 11ssued an order on June.8,.

1984(; defining fth'e5 issues!to'be c litigated in= the reopened hearing which;will' deginio'n L.Julyzl6,; 1984. -It is ~ estimated that a decision could be issued in September-1984'-..however,.thislis not considered likely.

,j c6 ;

i k

.y g y . \l 4

,, . . : '[ ',- ,

i s- . .

1 Commonwealth Edison has stated that Byron 1 will be ready to load fuel by.

1 September 15, 1984. Assumin! a Board decision is issued in October, this

would mean a one-month licenslbg delay for Byron.

1 Shoreham l

On September 21, 1983, the ASLB issued a partial initial decision on all matters except off-site emergency planning and the emergency diesel generator con-tentions. 'On FebruaryL22, 1984, the licensing board denied an initial motion 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 September 1984 based on the staff's estimate of late August 1984 for issuance of an SER on the diesel generator review, and that a Board decision would not be expected before January 1985.

On' March 20, 1984, the applicant' filed with the Board a supplemental motion for a low power operating license. The staff reviewed the notion 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 9

)

.a l u .

'.' .Q Q.

.,' , )

l 1

public health and safety. A separate licensing board to hear and decide the supplemental motion for a low power license was established on March 30, 1984.

L Oral arguments on this motion Gere heard at a conference of counsel on April 4, 1984. The hearings commenced on April 24 and were suspended on April 25, 1984, af ter a temporary restraining order was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

On April 30, 1984, the Commission issued an order which vacated the Board's 1 L -low power license hearing schedule-previously adopted and established oral argument before the Commission on specified issues regarding low power opera-l tion. Subsequently,'the intervenors withdrew their suit and the Court restrain-a ing order was vacated. Following oral argument on May 7, 1984, the Commission  !

ordered on May 16, 1984 that for a low power license, LILCo must seek an exemp-tion.from'GDC-17 under 10 CFR 50.12(a).

On May 31, 1984, the Board established a schedule for resuming the hearings which calls 'for testimony to be filed on July 16, 1984 and the hearings to commenceonbuly 30, 1984. A decision is expected to be issued in September 1984.

f l-

yx h

N, ,

z. ; 1, - ...- '

l. -

'c r t .

BasedionEthe. applicant's: indication that the plant, except for the TDI diesels,

.was-physically ready to: load-fuel in May 1984, a September-decision favorable

'.to the applicant on the^ exemption request and' motion for a low power operating license'would imply that a;four-month. licensing delay for low power authoriza-tion had occurred. For;this. reason,"a four-month delay is indicated in this report ~in. order to be consistent with past practice where delays are calculated

'on the basis'of the applicant!s-_ schedule. It is not intended to imply that

!- the~NRC. accepts that Shoreham was ready for' fuel loadLin May 1984. Further licensing delays ~in full power' authorization'are possible due to the outstanding

contentions-on off-site emergency planning and emergency diesel generators.

Catawba Tro hearing Boards have been established for Catawba. The Emergency Planning hearing'was completed on June 8,- 1984, and a decision is expected by August 1984.

L

~

'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 contentions. The staff supported:this motion.

l

$ :On April- 12, 1984, intervenors filed a motion to admit three contentions on severe accidents (hydrogen),. control room deficiencies, and lack of financial qualification. On May 25, 1984, the parties reached 'a stipulation not to i:

l '.

• I.

p p)

, , r) q

'c ...,' .,

oppose the zero power precritical fuel load license sought by the applicant in

'its April 11', 1.984 motion. On May 30, 1984, the Board issued a Memorandum and Order approving-the stipulatio'n. This decision authorizes the Director, NRR, 1

l upon making the appropriate findings, to issue a license to load fuel and con-duct precritical testing at Catawba subject to certain conditions.

The ASLB's Partial Initial Decision for all issues except TDI diesels and emergency planning was issued on June 22, 1984. The decision also rejected intervenors'- I three contentions submitted on April 12,-1984 but admitted a late filed conten- I l

tion on diesel generator reliability. The hearing on diesels is scheduled to begin on August 6.

l l

Diablo Canyon

'The Commission reinstated on November 8, 1983 the authority to load fuel and perform sub-critical testing and on April 13, 1984 the authority to go critical and operate at up to 5% power. Unit 1 went critical on April 29, 1984. Low-power testing was completed on May 23, 1984. Staff review in support of a full power license will not be complete until at least mid-July. Licensee stated that the plant was ready for power ascension on June 22, 1984. Major activities to be completed prior to. full power are resolution of concerns on piping and supports, resolution of certain allegations, definition of a program

.to re-evaluate seismic design basis and amendments to technical specifications.

i

)

r' g- o

.o l

~ '

. , . ,U ' -

On March 20, 1984, the Appeal Board issued a decision resolving the issue on

' design QA forLUnit 1, subject to certain conditions. Design QA issues bearing on Unit 2 are still before the Appeal Board. On June 28, 1984, the Appeal Board denied motions to reopen the record on design QA and construction QA and licensee character and competence. On June 29, 1984, the Appeal Board issued l

a Decision on the staff and Applicant's appeal of the Licensing Board's 1982 Initial- Decision. In its Decision, the Appeal Board vacated the Licensing l Board's condition requiring that formal FEMA findings be obtained on the State

-of California emergency plan. Still pending before the Appeal Board is an i appeal of-initial ASLB full power decision by the Governor and Joint Inter-venors. Pending before the Commission are (1) petition for review of ASLAB decision of December 1983 on construction QA, (2) petition for review of ASLAB decision of March 1984 on design QA, (3) determination regarding consideration of earthquakes in emergency planning and (4) determination of immediate effectiveness of 1982 ASLB Decision.

Comanche Peak Unit 1 Comanche Peak has been in a heavily contested hearing for ever 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

[.

'. h h

. . ,' t,' .

," ,, g ,

, f .

h' earing'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 1 will be completed by September 1984, however,;the Licensing Board's initial decision is not expected until December )

i 1984. .With this schedule, there would be a three-month licensing delay for Comanche' Peak Unit 1. I l

J a

As indic~ated in last. quarter's report, the NRC-staff has implemented a special

. team approach to the Comanche Peak review because of the number and complexity I

of_'. issues remaining ~ to be. resolved before the NRC can make its licensing deci-sions. The first phase of this effort involved the identification of- all applicable. issues and the preparation of'a Program Plan for the resolution of I

~

the. identified issues. This phase is now complete and a plan has been approved which encompasses all licensing,< inspection, hearing and allegation issues. In  !

accordance with the approved plan, a Technical Review Team has been formed to evaluate and resolve a number of technical issues, including allegations. This

. review team began its onsite activities on' July 9,1984.

. i j

rx

(~

Q.

p ., s .,

.: t . ,

_10

, .+

~

Waterford Unit 3 l

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 l

Appeal Board to reopen the hearings based on allegations concerning the '

adequacy of the common foundation basemat. An Appeal Board decision on this motion is expected in July 1984.

1 1

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- i 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.

1 On April 2, 1984, the staff began an onsite effort designed to,promptly complete those issues necessary for the staff to reach its licensing decision on Waterford Unit 3.

~

These issues covered a number of lice,nsing and inspection areas, including allegations of improper construction practices at the facility. The staff completed its field work on May 25, 1984, after six weeks.onsite, and has identified several items that could potentially affect the safe operation of the plant.

4

's - -

. .q u;;;,;. o O

, -11 On June ~ 8,1984,' at-a meeting 'in Bethesda, the st'aff presented a summary of

( 'its findings to the applicant, Louisiana Power & Light.

The applicant has been requested.to propose a prbgram and schedule for a detailed and thorough

( a'ssessment:cf the ' concerns, addressing both their root.cause and generic j implications. 'A more detailed description of the; areas of concern were

- formally transmitted to the applicant by letter dated June 13, 1984. The appli-cant's proposed program will be evaluated by the staff before consideration of .>

issuance of an operating license for Waterford 3.

I 1

i

• 1 e

e 4

.~

i s ..

~

O

..- . . - '[L' '

O a

l l

~

Licensino Tables )

. l The present licensing schedule-for all plants with pending OL applications is

~.g iven 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 Commission's schedule to reach a decision on whether to stay the effectiveness of the ASLB decision authorizing a license for full power operation. For the plants with construction completed, the Commission Decision dates reflect the schedule 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.

d L

m.

L.um

]v

~

-.w._.

? -

[ Om _

6 * * *

• _

'r. .

4 4 4 4 4 4

-. ' . *.tt l sp /

8 8 8

/ / / / /

8 8 8

, pnm C' C 5 "C 7 7 0 9 9

- ~ '

poo 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACC /

4 / 2 /

8 1~ / / / 1

/ 2 4 7 2 0 n 3 'o . * * * * * * * *

./ i e . 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 _

6 i

s mc oe 8 8 8

/ / / / / / / / /

8 8 8 8 8 8 _

G c CD 7 7 9 8 7 7 0 0 9 N e 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 I D /

S

• 0

• N * / 2 4 E m. . 7 8 C m f A - / A /

.L . F I

O

)

7 8

9 C

o

. l o f

E n

/ -

N

/

/

7

- C 7 0

/

2 1

/

N 1

2

/

C 4

. N 1 ai 4 1

.O - is e .

• e 2 I 4 Bti n - C C C G n C S 8 ti c o o I 9 Sne 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 C C o C C .

i t e H N t . SH e

sl np /

om io 6-tC e a uR cn sE C C C C C C C C C io sS li IS pt pc A u R r E .L Lt 5 lD Os 5 a go n co it nC f n C C C C C C C C C idd f ht acu ne t ep e et ST n t P c I a e D lj l o n _

Ar o _

P e r uS it .

oh sE C C C C C C C C C e _

f t sF l i I p sw e

m o .

l s C _

ut _

di n _

en S o _

hU Rg i .

c Ct C C C C C C C C C t -

Sl AM c a u _

gn r _

no ii t

s _

st nn _

ni oo ed e Ci s

cd uR iA sE C C C C C C C C C ri L sS oc r I e o nd .

.f R o E L iB .

.s S -lD st -

e a iS l f co cA u fi t e d an C C C C C C C C C Df e tht o _

h Scu ep n

c is _

S Tn s I te s rn e oe pv

.du ei l e rt _

c uS c n sE C C C C C C C C C te sf i sD

( I af l e

) /

en eo r

s / / / 1

- yh 2 2 7 2 f n

) tat -

o _

. 7 sl n 0 I 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 si Eeo es f DM gi nc o ( .

ae 1 hd 1

f 3 c e n n

, g 1 o so a y 3 1 ei

, P- f n 1 1 ts

, ( l a d 1 r L as _

u C n a

y a

r o a B a A ci m

1 t G 1 2 T i n o h w f b O dm e a d l e a r w s n l T no l l P

n a

b a

r o

l e t

a t

t t

o r

a r

-B IC b- l y

a r i h a a a a e U

• T G D S C W C W B F $ a* 1 I i A

,l. -

• f  :

/

4

/

5 1

-. .. .  ?

y 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5

- - r 8 8 A 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 tt. / / / / / / / / / /

1 s p 9 9 M 1 1 1 4 6 8 2 mnm s oo 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

~ ACC 4 / /

R t~ / 4

./ 8

.0 n * * * * *

. 3 io . 4 4 4 4 4 4 5' 5 5 5

/ m . 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6

i s mc oe

/ / / / / / / / / /

2 0 9 1 1 1 4 6 8 2 G c CD 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 N e I D S * *

• N

• 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 E m. . 8 8 A 8 8 8 8 8

. C m f / / / / - C / / / /

I o f 2 0 N 7 4 5 4 9 L C E 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

)

F 7 O 8 9 -- l o

'n /

N 1 ai * *

• 4 O - - i s 4 4 e 4 5 5 5 5 I 4 Bti 8 8 n 8 - C 8 8 8 8 S 8 Li c / / o / / / / /

I 9 S ne 2 0 N 7 3 5 3 8 V 1 A I.D 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 I

.D Y

C f

n og i n ti 4 4 4 n rr e 8 8 8 o aa C C n C C 'C / / / C i . t e o 0 9 0 t SH N 1 0 1

.esl np /

. io om 6-tC e 4 4 4 a uR 8 8 8 cn . sSsE C C / C C C / C / C io 9 8 9 li IS 0 0 0 pt pc A u R r E L Lt S lD Os S a go n co 4 4 4 it 8 .

8 8 nC f n C C / C C C / C / C i f ht 8 7 8 dd acu 0 0 0 e ne t ep t et ST n a Pc I D b e

lj 4 n l o 8 o A r / i r

P e 5 t . e u5 A 1 e oh sE C C / C C C / C C C l ft sF N 0 p I 1 m

..swi e C o

l s ut n di 4 4 4 o en 5 8 8 8 i hU R g / / / t

, c - Ct C C 8 C C C 7 C 8 C c Sl AM 0 0 0 u a r gn t ii no s nn st oo ni 4 Ci .a ed e 8 ri s

.cd uR /

iA sE C C 1 C C C C C C C oc e L sS 3 e .

r I / nd o 8 o f R iB E L sL s S lO iS le a 4 cA f co 8 e u fi t / Df d an C C 1 C C C C C C C o e a tht 3 n h Scu / i s c ep 7 s S T n te I rn s oe pv e

d ei u rt .

l e 4 c c uS A -

8 t e n sE C C / C C C / C C C sf i sD N 7 af

( I 0 l e mn oo

) r s / f n yh 4 o

) t at si 7 sl n 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 es gi E eo f DM nc o ( ae

/ hd 2 1 9 2 c n

e k / / n / so

. g a 3 8 1 oy 1 1 3 ei a e 1 t s P P 1 k n e d 1 as

( I e a d n d L ci e k I e C r e 1 o k A im 1 t h c r e B o o T d m n c i R C o V s w or O no e a n r A l r i d T IC l l a e 5 f b o e r i b -

m m e I

l b P 5 l a l v r a a a o i E o i a i a r e t

• l C L GW D P R H B S S * *

. .; i' y?

l ,  ; ,

O 4,

~ r . 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6

.t1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

. - i sp / / / / / / / / / /

pnm 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 6 2 6 poo 1 1 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 ACC

. /

I- *

" - n * *

. 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 '6 6 6

. 4 io-s n.

nc 8 8 8 8

/ / / / / / / / / /

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 oc 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 6 2 6

. / ic CO 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 3 D 5 6 6

/ * '4 8 8 8 6 .

• A / / C 8 / / A / A m / 1 0 / 0 1 / 2 /

G m f. N 2 1 2 1 0 N 0 N N o f 1 I C E S ) t N 7 E 8 n /

C 9 l o 6

• l 1 iai e 1 4 5 6 e e e t - s n / / 8 8 8 n n n 4 8ti o 1 0 C / / / o lo o F 8 ti c N 2 1 2 9 1 N f N O 9 sne 1 0 0 1 AID N

O Y I C /

S f I

V i n og n e H 5 e e e I ti n S 8 n n n D n rr o C C C C / / o o o o aa N N 7 N N N i t e 0 t SH e

sl np /

om 6- 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 i o 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 tC e / C C / / C / / / /

a uR 5 0 1 2 6 2 2 cn sE 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 i o sS / /

l i I S 1 1 pt 1 1 pc A u R r E L Lt 5 l D Os 5 a 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 n co 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 go it / / / / / / /

nC f n 2 C C 9 1 C 1 6 0 1 f ht idd ne acu t ep 1

/

0 0 0

/

0 0 0 1

/

1 1

t e

et ST n 1 1 a P c I D

e l j n

l o 4 4 5 4 o A r 8 8 8 8 i P e / / / / t r uS 6 6 5 1 e oh sE 1 C C C C C 1 C 1 3 ft sF / / / / lp i I 1 1 2 2 m sw e

1 1 1 o C

l s ut 4 5 4 n di en S 8 4 8 8 o

. / 8 / / i hU R a 5 / 0 0 t c Ct t 1 C C C C C 1 C 1 1 c Sl a

A *. /

8 1 /

1 u

r gn t no s ii nn st ni 4 4 4 4 oo 8 8 8 8 Ci ed e / / / / s cd uR 6 2 0 8 ri iA sE 1 C C C C C 1 C 1 2 oc L sS / / / / e .

r I 7 0 2 9 nd o 1 1 o f R i8 t L sL s 5 l O iS e a 4 4 4 4 cA l f co 8 8 8 8 e u ri t / / / / Df d an 6 C C C C C 0 C 0 7 o e tht 0 2 1 2 n h scuep / / / / i s c 7 8 0 7 s S T n 1 t e I rn s oe e pv d ei u 4 4 4 rt l e 8 8 8 c

• c uS / / / t e n sE 7 C C C C C C C 0 7 sf I sD 0 2 2 af

( I / / l e 7 7 mn

)

oo r

s f n

) t at yh o si 7 sl n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 es E e0 gi f

o D1 4 nc

( ae hd 3 2 2 c e y n

g k so 2 a e ei a 3 e 2 2 l t s P / e P k as

( e n

3 d 1 e r e la L ci r e e a v A c idn l

1 t o 2 1 e h n r B l T n t V c o C M r O no E a s n y n t s e T IC L l l o r o a n e t e v -

B P l r r l m i p t n a 0 A i y e a o l o a i e 0

• t

)

T H B P P C C H V N 8 5 * *

, ll1

• . i -

" / .

s , .

- . , - r

~, .

8

[

- . . 1 F

. e.

. alp "s c ns s *.

n / 2en/ H t .

. lp.

pm arc

. ri f

/

n u

wn O I 1 3

t f

t/

i

/o t

H, t

o t

i

- /

I n

o .

• 6 6t 6 6 1

• i i '. t s tt 1

H $ 5 t s

m w ec.

f 1 4 s / / / / / / /l / /t / '

g i_ . l 1

1 n 9 i 2 1 t i

t t n t f

( e Cl n 0 t 1 0 I n c I O , .

/ * *

- 6 *

• 5 4 6 *

n. . / / a4 / /N / 70 5 5 0 5 5 A 5 G e f C / / / /

t t n f t t 2 N it ti i

t i C [ 0 0 1 S

t

-)

t E 7~

8 n C l o /

I 1 6 e

- iai s

• 5 6 1

• n 9~

L 4 8ti 5 8 5

• 8 5 5 o 5 r 8 1 i c / / / C / C / / H /t o 9 5 ne t t 1 0

N 1 N N f t

- 1 AIC 1 i _

n Y .

- C _

5I f ,

~

l n og v i n e l ti 4 6 n 5 O n rr C n 5 8 5 o /

o aa / / C / C / C N N i t e 0 N 6 N t Sll 1 0 e

sl np /

om i o 6~ 6 0

5 8

6 8

6 8

7 8 5 5 7

8 5 tC e / / / / / / / / /

a uR 6 1 8 1 1 N N 7 N cn sE s5 C 0 0

/

0 0 0 0 i o l i I5 9 pt pc A uR =

rE L

'l tS l D Os S a 6 5 6 6 6 7 n ico 8 8 8 8 8 5 5 8 5 go t C / / / / / / / / /

nC f n 5 1 7 1 2 N N 5 N f ht 0 0 0 0 1 0 _

idd ne acu t ep

/

8 ~ t e - .

et ST n a .

l' c I D e

lj n l o o Ar 5 6 6 P e 8 8 5 8 it r uS / / / / 5 e oh sE C C 6 C 2 C N C 0 / l p

f t sF 2 0 1 N ,.

i I / m -

se w 3 C

o -

s lut n di 4 5 6 5 7 o en S , 0 8 8 / C 8 5 i hU R g C / / C / C N / / t c Ct 8 7 1 3 N c O Sl AM 0 0 0 0 u r

a gn - t s

+ no i nn ist 5 5 7 oo .

ni 8 8 8 Ci ed e / / 5 / s uR - 1 2 / 2 5 ri cd oc C C 0 C C N C 0 / .

i A sE 1 _

l sS / N e r I 6 nd .

o o f R iB E L st s S l O iS e a 5. 5 6 cA l f co 8 8 5 8 e u fi t / / / / 5 Df d an C C 1 C 1 C N C 6 / o e t ht 0 1 0 N n h 5 cu / i s ~

c ep ' 4 s -

S T n t e I rn s oe pv e ei d rt u 4 5 6 c

l e /

8

/

8 8

/ 5 t e c uS .

- n sE 6 9 C

4 /

N sf i sD C C 2 0 C C 0 af l e

( i / C 9

, . mn oo

- ) /

8 r

f n s

yh 1 o

) t at 5 si 7 sl n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 / 0 es E eo N 1 gi f DM nc o ( ae hd

/ c 4

n /

3 n so e / 3 .

t g 8 3 1 ei a 1, 2 1 Y t s P e e A as

( 2 d / 2 s d / 1 t / t ci o 3 a r 3 n 4 E im

_ t d o a x e 1 d o 1 D d m 1 .

n n w e b e V a f no t a a d l w T 3 a e 1 L I C

_ t l l l t a o - l l - A n P a g t . l r d l P 1 A ld r o a o a t t e t t 0

• I H B V C S P W lH B W 1 **

9 3 :;.; \. -

o 'o l,

. - TAB'E;1'(Page L 5.of:7)

• • FOOTNOTES

. . 1  !

l If Licensing schedules land decision dates do not reflect additional poten- l

'tial delay _ from Emergency Preparedness Review. For plants with construc- l

' tion completed, the Commission decision dates shown are for full power;  !

thowever,; initial. licensing may proceed-(restricting power _to 5% of rated

. full power) based on a. favorable ASLB decision (if; applicable).and a.

preliminary design verification by the applicant and staff. Construction completion dates.and' Commission decision dates are-based on the utility j company . estimate of construction completion.

-2/L An operating license restricting operation to fuel loading and operation up to.5% power.has been issued for these facilities. A Commission i 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 unless otherwise noted. ,

1 3/ Additional unit lis also under OL review. However, construction comple-  !

tion estimate is beyond 1987.

4f The: low power license for Diablo Canyon Unit 1.was suspended by Commission Order on November 19, 1981. The design verification program, including '

plant modifications, have been completed. SER Supplements 18, 19 and 20 4

.were issued in late 1983 in support of staff recommendations for a decision- l regarding' reinstatement of low power license. On November 8, 1983, the '

Commission reinstated the. authority to load fuel.and conduct 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. l

SSER.#22, further addressing allegations, was issued in March 1984 in '

support of low power authorization. .An Appeal Board hearing on matters of. design QA was held in November-1983.'

On March 20, 1984, the ASLAB iss'ued a decision resolving the-design QA_ issues 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 j

the ACRSionia differing staff opinion on. issues related to certain small and'large bore piping. 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 operation effective April 19, 1984. The results of the design l verification effort and the resulting ,

modifications-will be evaluated by the staffLwith respect to Unit 2 and an SER Supplementwill be. issued..

Initial criticality occurred on April 29 and low power testing was completed on May 23, 1984. The remaining issue to be resolved prior to full power licensing.is the resolution'of certain allegations, in particular those related to piping!and supports. - -

b,

'w '-,-w.i.. a e

-QT.*3 .

O O

, .4 ,

. Table 1L(Pagt 6 of.7) s' 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. .

-6/ Date shown~for first units;is for'first SSER following ACRS meeting.

Additional SSERs'will be issued.to close outcremaining-open items.

-'7/ :On February 22, 1984','the'ASLB admitted three new contentions regarding

~

the adequacy of the emergency diesel generators (EDGs). The contentions 1 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 August 1984 for completion of its reviest, it appears that litigation'would not start until September 1984'.and would likely be extensive. Hearings.before a second~ASLB on Emergency P1anning commenced on December.6, 1983 and are continuing. There are more than 70 offsite ,

i emergency planning contentions. On March 20, 1984, the applicant. filed

a. supplemental' motion for a low power operating license. A third ASLB has'been established to hear that motion. In response to Commission Order CLI-84-8, the applicant filed a new request-for an' exemption from GDC-17 on May 22, 1984. On May 31,.1984, the Board established a hearing schedule.

-A low power license decision could be issued.in August 1984. The Commission ordered that no license can be issued until it has reviewed the ASLB decision on this issue.- On June' 14, 1984, LILCo informed the NRC that l the plant was ready to load fuel.on May 15, 1984. '

.8/ Severe Accident Design; BWR/6 Nuclear Island design. Commission decision i may be needed on GESSAR II Severe Accident Design since it is a forward

~

referencing design approval. .

. i 9/ LThe dates for applicant construction completion, DES issuance and FES l l issuance are not given for this~ application because it is'a standardized l

[ 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/ In light of_the one year' slippage in the applicant's construction com-

-pletion date for Perry, the Board will call for a conference of the parties;in'the near future to determine' appropriate scheduling for the

. remaining phases of this proceeding.

l l-i

!. )

.,L ,-