ML20210L956
| ML20210L956 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris, Byron, Braidwood, Seabrook, Vogtle, Comanche Peak, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1987 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702120521 | |
| Download: ML20210L956 (21) | |
Text
. . s
- k2 Kf %
,,f
+ %,, UNITED STATES y , p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 ;j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\ *****
/
FEB 5 198/
MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
. FROM: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
MR MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Enclosed is the NRR Monthly Status Report. The report has been updated to include information available as of January 31, 1987. During the period since the last report, a low power license was issued for Vogtle Unit 1 on January 16, 1987 and full power licenses were issued for Harris 1 on January 12, 1987, and Byron 2 on January 30, 1987 This report identifies a potential or actual licensing delay for the following four plants: Shoreham, Comanche Peak Unit 1, Braidwood Unit 1 and Seabrook Unit 1. Seabrook 1 experienced a four month impact prior to issuance of the fuel load license. An additional two month delay is forecast for low power licensing. Full power licensing will also be delayed, however, the extent of the delay cannot be quantified at this time. Low power licensing for Braidwood is contingent upon a favorable Licensing Board decision.
Issuance of this decision is scheduled for March,1987.
arold R. Denton, Direc or Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
NRR Monthly Status Report i
l l
i f
i s.._ _ _ . -
NRR MONTHLY REPORT Shoreham
. 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 du, ring which the licensee performed required surveillances 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, 1986, having successfully completed the planned operator training shifts, tests of the RCIC and HPCI and the modified water level .
instrumentations. 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 tc perform offsite emergency planning functions for Shoreham without the partici-
. pation 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 partici-pate in emergency planning. .Both of these decisions are on appeal.
)
N t
Additional licensing delays in full-power authorization (above 5% power) are likely. The emergency planning Licensing Board ruled in the licensee's favor regarding the majority of the emergency planning contentions on April 17, 1985, but, relying in large part on New York State court decisions ruled that LILC0 does not have the legal authority to perform certain required emergency planning l functions. The Licensing Board issued its concluding partial initial decision (PID) on emergency planning on August 26, 1985, in which it decided the reloca-tion center issue and reached its ultimate decision as to whether "there is e reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can a9d will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency" at Shoreham. The Board found that such
" reasonable assurance" is lacking primarily due to LILCO's lack of legal author-ity to implement its offsite plan, and the absence of a State plan indicating that there would be an integrated, cooperative and coordinated offsite response in the event of an emergency. Appeals of t.oth the April and August emergency planning decisions were filed with the ASLAB by both LILCO and the intervenors. -
The ASLAB, on October 18, 1985 upheld the Licensing Board's decision that LILC0 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 hearings on the adequacy of emergency planning at Shoreham presuming that the State and County would participate in an actual emergency.
The ASLAB issued 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 one of September 19, 1986, the Appeal Board remanded the following issues back to the Licensing Board for further action involving: 1) the plume ,
EPZ size, 2) role conflict of scnoolbus drivers, 3) evacuation 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, as the Comission had the legal authority decision before it. On September 19, 1986, the Commission stated it would review the Appeal Board's remand
. of issues regarding the plume EPZ and the hospital evacuation plans. It further lifted the stay of the remand of the other issues, and indicated the Licensing Board should now consider them.
An exercise of the LILC0 emergency plan (EP) was conducted on February 13, 1986.
The NRC has reported that the licensee adequately demonstrated its onsite emergency response capabilities. FEMA issued its evaluation of the offsite exercise on April 21, 1986, and identified five deficiencies and several areas requiring corrective action. The intervenors and LILC0 asked the Comission to establish procedures to allow litigation of contentions steming from the exercise. On June 6,1986, the Comission directed that a Licensing Board be established to conduct an expeditious hearing regarding the contentions on
" fundamental flaws" in LILCO's EP which might have been shown by the exercise.
The ASLB has admitted 15 contentions with many subparts for litigation involving the emergency planning exercise. Since the commencement of discovery, all parties
, have filed numerous motions related to the scope of contentions to be litigated and the deposition of witnesses. On January 6, 1987, the Licensing Board held a conference of counsel to discuss discovery and hearing scheduling issues. The Board decided that discovery should conclude on February 7, 1987 and the hearing should commence on March 9, 1987.
l-
l On November 10, 1986, the intervenors filed a motion to reopen the record to admit I
three new issues: (1) withdrawal of WALK radio station; (2) lack of agreement with l the Red Cross; and (3) lack of congregate centers. This motion has not yet been l
ruled upon.
On December 15, 1986, the Licensing Board ruled to grant LILCO's motion for reopening the hearing record to admit new evidence on replacing the Nassau County Coliseum as a reception center with three of its own facilities. Separately, on December 15, 1986, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's conclusion that LILC0 is obliged to plan for all evacuees who seek radiological monitoring and decontamination. Hearings on the adequacy of the relocation centers is scheduled to start on May 4,1987.
On January 2,1987, LILC0 petitioned the Commission for a review of the Appeal Board decision that LILC0 must plan for the monitoring of all evacuees.
Due to the New York State court decision, the Board decisions and the New York l State and Suffolk County positions on cooperating in emergency planning, the Commission is unable to forecast a realistic licensing impact at this time, i
l Comanche Peak l
l As construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) was nearing l completion, numerous concerns were raised regarding the design and the construc-l l . tion adequacy of the plant. Primarily, these concerns were raised through:
l (1) issues in contention before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing' Board l
(ASLB); (2) the staff's review of technical concerns and allegations regarding design and construction of the plant, which are documented in five Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports; and (3) Cygna Energy Services which performed an Independent Assessment Program of. design and construction at Comanche Peak.
Following identification of these concerns, the applicants submitted to the NRC staff the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Program Plan which includes resolution of all issues raised by external sources (e.g., ASLB hearings, NRC, Cygna), as well as a set of self-initiated actions to re-examine the adequacy of design and con-struction of the Comanche Peak Project. The staff has issued Supplemental Safety
. Evaluation Report No. 13 which approved the applicants' Plan. We are currently monitoring all phases of implementation of the Plan.
Deficiencies discovered through design and construction reviews have resulted in corrective actions which include reanalysis, revision or updating of existing design calculations, physical reinspection of as-built hardware, and in some cases, physical rework. The applicants requested Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation to develop comprehensive corrective action plans " Generic Issue Reports" to:
- 1) resolve CPRT findings and their implications, and 2) review 100% of safety related systes.s in the mechanical, civil /structurel, electrical, and instrumenta-tion and control areas. This includes qualifying and/or fixing existing hardware ds necessary. Other specific areas are being addressed separately by specific architect-engineers. These areas are large and small bore pipe supports (SWEC),
cable tray hangers and conduit supports (Ebasco, Impell), HVAC (Ebasco) and equipment qualifications (Impell).
~
The Quality of Construction portion of the CPRT Program is scheduled to be complete by March 1987. Issue Specific Action Plan Results Reports, which address those issues raised by external sources such as the NRC and Cygna are to be completed by mid-1987. Generic Issue Reports were completed in January 1987. Final y reports and physical rework is scheduled to be complete by August 1987. Hot Functional Testing is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 1987, if the above schedules are maintained.
..._ __ __ _ J
l The Licensing Board has adopted a schedule which calls 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 would then decide whether to go to hearing on Program Plan adequacy issues, or await the results of implementa-tion of the Program Plan and corrective action program " Generic Issue Reports".
Discovery regarding Program Plan adequacy is ongoing at this time.
During a routine review of various licensing documents, the staff found that the construction permit for Unit 1 had expired on August 1,1985, and that the applicant had not made a timely filing for renewal of the construction pemit.
Following a request by the utility, on February 10, 1986, the staff granted an extension of the CP. In a January 31, 1986, submittal to the 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 Licensirg Board Penel (ASLBP) for appointment of a Licensing Board to rule on the hea' ring request and to conduct any necessary hearings. The ASLBP establish-ed a Board made up of the same members from the OL proceeding to consider requests for hearing and petitions to intervene in regard to the applicants' application for an extension of its construction pennit for CPSES Unit 1. On May 2,1986, the ASLB issued an Order admitting as a single contention, two essentially identical contentions which questioned whether applicants had shown good cause for the granting of a construction permit extension and required the two intervening parties to be consolidated. The staff and applicants appealed the ASLB's Order admitting the contention.
On July 2,1986, the Appeal Board certified to the Commission the question of whether the admitted contention is foreclosed from litigation as a matter of law by the Commission's decision in WPPSS, CLI-82-29. On September 19, 1986, the Commission issued an order, CLI-86-15, responding to the Appeal Board's request for guidance regarding the admissibility of the consolidated contention
.. of intervenors. The Commission directed the Appeal Board to determine admissi-bility of the consolidated contention in accordance with the Commission's guidance.
The Appeal Board in an order dated September 22, 1986, provided the parties with an opportunity to comment 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 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, the Licensing Board issued an Order admitting one amended contention; appeals of this Order were filed by both staff and applicants. Oral argument on the appeals was held on January 29, 1987. The Appeal Board has denied applicants' request to stay discovery.
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 that 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,
l l
TVA's Acting Manager of Nuclear Power, stated during a news conference that he still expects Unit I 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) letter, which is expected to be submitted by April 1987.
d All employees scheduled for interview as part of the Watts Bar Employee Concern
~
Special Program (WBECSP) have been interviewed under this program. Approximately 5,000 concerns were raised of which 2,000 concerns are safety-related. All concerns from the WBECSP have been placed in nine categories depending on the nature of the concerns. Within each category, there are several subcategories with concerns 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 not yet been received.
- On July 17, 1986, TVA submitted a revised Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan which it revised on July 31, 1986 and December 4, 1986. The staff is currently reviewing these submittals. However, an additional revision is expected in l
l late February 1987 to reflect changes in the organization, personnel, and management procedures. On October 18, 1986, Mr. S. White, Manager of Nuclear o Power, took an unpaid leave of absence from his duties as a result of reports issued by TVA's Office of Inspector General and the Office of Gcvernment Ethics 1 -u regarding the conflict of interest question. On January 5,1987, Mr. S. White returned to his duties as Manager of Nuclear Power, after completion of the review of his contract.
l l
.g-While resolution of the employee concerns and the conflict of interest issue are considered to be the critical path items, environmental qualification 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.
Seabrook Construction of Seabrook Unit 1 is essentially complete. Fuel loading was completed on October 29, 1986. Precriticality testing is currently being performed.
On October 7, 1986, the Licensing Board issued an order authorizino issuance of a license to load fuel and conduct precriticality testing. Massachusetts and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League filed separate appeals of the Board's Order; Massachusetts additionally requested a stay of the issuance of a license. The stay request was denied by the Appeal Board on October 17; an operating license to load fuel and conduct precriticality testing was issued on that date. The Appeal Board denied the Massachusetts appeal on November 20,1986(ALAB-853)and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League appeal on December 8,1986 (ALAB-854).
, Massachusetts has petitioned the Commission to review ALAB-853; the issue raised in the petition is whether any license can be issued prior to the submittal of offsite emergency plans. The Staff responded to the petition on December 22, 1986.
The Commission by an order of January 9,1987, stayed the issuance of a low power license for Seabrook pending further Commission review.
Other litigation matters must be resolved before a low power license can be issued. The litigation matters involve environmental qualification of equipment, emergency classification and action scheme, and control room design. A Board decision is expected in February,1987. Activities authorized by the current
~
license could have been completed by late December 1986. Therefore, there will be an additional two month licensing impact. However, it is unlikely that this two month delay will have an overall impact on the plant startup schedule.
In order for operation 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 emergency planning. Emergency plans for New Hampshire and the towns therein were submitted in December, 1985. Contentions were accepted for litigation on the New Hampshire plans on April 29, 1986. Further contentions have been submitted, some of which have been admitted. Additional contentions, particularly on evacuation time estimates, are expected. An off-site exercise involving the applicant and New Hampshire was conducted on February 26, 1986, and a number of deficiencies of the type requiring a remedial exercise were identified. The State of New Hampshire is implementing improve-ments and corrective actions, and substantial revisi,ns to the New Hampshire plans were submittea on September 12, 1986. Because of these revisions, intervenors were given an opportunity to file new contentions and the hearing has been rescheduled to begin on May 28, 1987. Activities regarding the emergency response plans for Massachusetts are on the critical path for licens-ing. On September 20, 1986, the Governor of Massachusetts 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 exception or waiver of the provisions of the regulations to allow reducing the size of the EPZ for Seabrook station from ten miles to one mile.
. On December 23, 1986, the Board ordered all parties to file briefs on whether the applicant's petition, makes a prima facie showing that the reculation should be waived so as to allow further consideration of the application. The staff believes that resolution of off-site emergency planning issues will delay issuance of a full power license, however, the extent of the delay cannot be determined at
~
this time.
Braidwood Construction of Braidwood Unit 1 was essentially completed on October 17, 1986.
Hearings on the emergency preparedness contention were initiated on October 29, 1985, and were completed on March 12, 1986. The parties have subnitted proposed findings on this contention and the matter is pending before the Licensing Board for its decisiun. Hearings on the contention concerning harassment, intimidation, retaliation and other discrimination were initiated on May 6, 1986, and the record was closed on December 17, 1986. The NRC staff will submit proposed findings on the harassment contention on February 13, 1987. 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 load fuel and perform precritical testing. The staff sub-mitted a response supporting the request; the intervenors opposed the request.
l l
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 I was issued on October 17, 1986. Fuel loading began on October 25, 1986, and was completed on November 3, 1986.
The ASLB initial decision for the low power license is now scheduled to be issued in March, 1987. A low power license could be issued immediately .
following issuance of a favorable decision. Full power licensing is scheduled for April 1987. The applicant 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 the applicant's projected schedule and the current schedule for the ASLB initial decision for the low power license, there is an approximate four month licensing impact. However, the extended length of the hearing was, in part, due to the extensive rebuttal case introduced by the applicant.
O w - --- - . . . _ - . -_ ._
,,_n,.,-- . . , , _ - - _ _ . - , , , . - - - . - - , - . - - . , -
. s - *
.c Table (Page 1 of 8) 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 01/31/87 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Applications SER SSER Est Comm. Decision 1/
Staff Staff ASLB Appl.
Delay Issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue 6/ Start of Plant Initial Comm. Constr.
(Months) DES Input to PD SER h FES Input to PD SSER - Hearina Decision Eff.** Dec. Comp 1.
2 1#
Shoreham 1 C C C C C C C' C 1# ~1#
C N/S C-Clinton 1 2/ 0 C C C C C C C C $# N/A N/A 02/87 C Seabrook 1 - 8/ C C C 13/
C C C C C 02/87* 8/ N/S 8/ M/S C Nine Mile 2 2/ 0 C C C C C C C Hone None N/A 03/87* C Harris 1 0 C C C C C C C C C C* C* C SUB-TOTAL -
Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date
- Commission decision on effectiveness of ASLB decision
u . , , -
TABLE (Page 2 of 8) 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 01/31/87 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Applications SER SSER Comm. Decision 1/
Est staff staff ASLB Appl.
Delay Issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue 6/ Start of Initial Comm.. Constr.
Plant (Months) DES Input to PD SER & FES Input to P0 SSER ~ Hearino Decision Eff.** Dec. Comp 1.
Braidwood 1 4 M/ C C C C C C C C 03/87 04/87 04/87 C Byrcn 2 0 C C C C C C C C C C C* C Vogtla 1 2/ 0 C C C C C C C C C 5# 03/87* 03/87* C*
Witts Bar 1 0 E# C C C C C C C None None N/A N/S N/S E#
Comanche Peak 1 El C C C C C C C C N/S N/S N/S N/S El i Palo Verde 3 0 C C C C C 02/87 03/87 C 16/ 16/ 03/87 03/87 Besvar Valley 2 0 C C C C C C C None None N/A 04/87 04/87 4
Sn. Tsxas 1 0 C C C C C C C C C M/06/8706/87 06/87 SUB-TOTAL 4
- Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date
- Commission decision on effectivepess of ASLB decision i
I
TABLE !(Page 3 of 8) 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 01/31/87 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Applications SER SSER Comm. Decision 1/
Est Staff 5taff ASL8 ~ Appl.
Delay Issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue 6/ Start of Initial Comm. Constr.
Plant (Months) DES Input to PD SER g Mt FES Input to PD SSER - Hearirl, Decision Eff.** Dec. Compi.
Watts Bar 2 0 C C C C C N/S N/S None None N/A N/S N/S Comanche Peak 2 -
C C C C C N/S N/S C N/S N/S N/S N/S E#
! Braidwood 2 0 C C C C C 11/87 12/87 C 03/87 04/87 01/88 01/88 Vogtlef2 0 C C C C C 01/88 02/88 C C 03/87* 03/88 03/88 South Texas 2 0 C C C C C C C C C 15/ 06/87 12/88 12/88 Limerick 2 0 C C C C C N/S N/S C C C 04/90 04/90 Bellef'onte 1 0 N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S None None N/A 01/93 01/93 Bellefonte 2 0 N/S N/S N/S N/5 N/S N/S N/S None None N/A 01/95 01/95 SU8-TOTAL -
Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date
- Commission decision on effectiveness of ASL8 decision P
l l
l TABLE (Page 5 of 8)
FOOTNOTES
-1/ Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional potential delay from Emergency Preparedness Review. For plants with construction completed, the Commission decision dates shown are for full-power; however, initial licensing may proceed (restricting power to 5% of rated full power) '
based on a favorable ASLB decision (if applicable) and a preliminary design verification by the applicant and staff. Construction completion dates and Commission decision dates are based on the utility company estimate of construction completion.
. 2/ An operating license restricting operation to fuel loading and operation up to 5% power has been issued for these facilities. A 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 unless otherwise noted.
3/ Construction has been halted; a construction completion date has not been established.
4/ A joint motion to dismiss the proceedings was filed by the applicant and 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 Decision (PID) on two of three contentions was issued in favor of the applicant on August 27, 1986. The intervenors have filed a notice of appeal. A concluding PID was issued on the environmental qualification of solenoid valves in favor of the applicant on December 23, 1986.
-6/ Date shown for first units is for first SSER following ACRS meeting.
Additional SSERs will be issued to (. lose out remaining open items.
i 7_/ A fuel loading and cold criticality testing license was issued on December 7, 1984. On June 14, 1985, the last safety-relatcd issue was resolved in favor of LILCO, and a 5% power license was authorized.
, Additional licensing delays in the full-power authorization (above 5% power) are likely due to off-site emergency planning issues. On February 17 and March 18,1985, New York State Courts held that LILCO had no authority
- to implement 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) LILC0 does not have legal authority
, to carry out the plan and as there is no reasonable assurance that there l would be an integrated response to an emergency without State and local l cooperation. On August 26, 1985, the Licensing Board issued its concluding 1
Partial Initial Decision holding that there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a l
TABLE (Page6of8)
F00TNOTFS
-7/ (continued) radiological emergency at Shoreham, primarily because of LILC0's lack of authority to implement its own offsite plan, and the absence of a State plan indicating that there would be an integrated, cooperative and coor-dinated offsite response in the event of an emergency; appeals from portions of this decision were filed. The Licensing Board's conclusion on lack of
" legal authority to implement its emergency response plan was affirmed by the Appeal Board on October 18, 1985. On December 19, 1985, the Commission accepted a petition filed by LILC0 on November 7, 1985 to review the Appeal Board's decisions. On March 26, 1986 the ASLAB issued its decision on appeals of these aspects of the Shoreham Emergency Planning Proceeding not related to the " legal authority" issue. The Appeal Board remanded four issues, related to: 1) plume EPZ size, 2) role conflict of school bus drivers, 3) evacuation plans for hospitals, and 4) the adequacy and use of relocation centers back to the Licensing Board for further action. However, it ordered the Board not to proceed until ordered to do so by the Commission, as the Commission 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 LILC0 emergency response plan showed "any fatal flaws" in the plan. The ASLB admitted 15 contentions with many subparts for litigation and set the hearing to begin in March, 1987. On July 24, 1986 the Commission ordered further hearings on the adequacy of emergency planning at Shoreharrf presuming that the State and county would participate in an actual emergency.
In addition, on September 19, 1086, the Commission said it would review the Appeal Board's determinations in regard to the need for further consideration of the plume EPZ size and need to plan for the evacuation of hospitals, and lifted the stay of the remand of issues involving the role conflict of school bus drivers and the use and availability of relocation centers.
The Appeal Board also issued a decision on September 19, 1986, remanding to the Licensing Board other issues in regard to the monitoring of evacuees and any defects in LILC0's plan for the ingestion pathway area. On November 10, 1986, the intervenors filed a motion with the Comission to '
reopen the record to admit three new issues: withdrawal of WALK radio l station; lack of agreement with the Red Cross; and lack of congregate i
centers. On December 15, 1986, the Licensing Board ruled to grant LILC0's
( ' motion for reopening the hearing record to admit new evidence on replacing the Nassau County Coliseum as a reception center with three of its own facilities. These hearings are scheduled to start on May 7,1987. Separa tely, on December 15, 1986, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's conclusion i
that, in addition to planning for the number of evacuees likely to seek sheltering, LILC0 is obliged to plan for evacuees for radiological monitoring and decontaimina-tion alone. On January 2,1987, LILCO petitioned the Commission for a review of the Appeal Board decision. For operation above 5% 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 cooperate in einergency planning, the Commission is unable to forecast a realistic licensing impact at this time.
l
e -
l TABLE (Page 7 of 8)
FOOTNOTES
-8/ A Partial Initial Decision (PID) on all safety issues is scheduled to be issued in February, 1987. If favorable, this decision would authorize issuance of a low power license. In addition, the Commission has stayed issuance of the low power license until it completes its review of ALAB-853.
A fuel load and precritical test license was issued on October 17, 1986. The plant was ready for licensing on June 30, 1986, therefore this represents a
, four month delay. Based on the applicant's schedule for ccmpleting activities authorized under the current license, plant startup will be further delayed by at least two months. Revisions to the New Hampshire emergency response plans l 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 two month delay in low power licensing will have an overall impact on the startup schedule for the plant.
-9/ Construction has been suspended with the plant about 35% complete. The applicant has requested a Construction Permit extension to April 30, 1991.
10 / Schedule to be determined after receipt of TVA's response to the September 17, 1985, 50.54 (f) letter.
11/ Not used.
-12/ On November 25, 1986, applicants reported to the SEC that all reanalysis, reinspection, rework, and testing activities prerequisite to the loading of fuel in Unit I will be complete in early 1988. 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.
The Consnission is unable to predict whether a licensing impact will occur.
-13/ ACRS report of April 19, 1983 recommenos low power license. Further ACRS review is required prior to full-power licensing.
-14/ On August 18, 1986, the applicant filed a motion pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(c) with the ASLB for authorization to load fuel and perform 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 licensing is scheduled for April 1987. The applicant 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 the applicant's projected schedule and the current schedule for the ASLB initial decision for the low power license, there is an approximate four month licensing impact.
However, the extended length of the hearing was in part due to the extensive rebuttal case introduced by the applicant.
i l
l i
TABLE -(Page 8 of 8)
FOOTNOTES
--15/ A Partial Initial Decision was issued on June 13, 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, the Licensing Board reopened the record
, on Palo Verde with respect to Units 2 and 3 only to consider issues related cy to salt deposition on surrounding lands. By order dated July 22, 1985, the Board dismissed the proceeding on the basis of a settlement between
{ the parties.
--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.
t t
DISTRIBUTION FOR NRR MONTHLY STATUS REPORT E. Adensam P-904C T. Barnhart 042 H. Berkson P-522 R. Brady P-522 R. Vollmer P-428 a
W. Olmstead MNBB-9604 D. Crutchfield P-500 R. Martin Region IV
.. P. Cotter (5 copies) E/W-450 H. Denton P-428 J. Martin Region V R. Fraley H--1010 -
J. Funches P-433 J. Glitter MNBB-3302 M. Harwell P-730 F. Herr EWS461 J. Hickman MNBB-3302 J. Keppler Region III R.Bernero(2) P-1102A J. Lyons P-430A J. Milhoan EWS-305 T. Murley Region I T. Novak 528
$ - N. Grace Region II 6 D. Matthews EWW-571 R. Hogan EWW-571 D. Prestemon EWW-419
( J. Scinto MNBB-9604 R. Scroggins MNBB-12111
, V. Stello MNBB-6113 l J. Taylor EWS-360 W. Russell AR-5111 C. Velez P-412
- R. Virgilio AR-5037 i
. J. Youngblood 440 R. Lloyd EWS-312A G. Lainas P-1000B
. F. Miraglia P-202A H. Thompson 528 S. Gagner MNBB-3217 L. Rubenstein 340A
.V. Noonan 110B J. Stolz 2148 G. Knighton P-302 t
H. Berkow 234D E. Rossi 543 A. Smith EWW-360A M. Williams EWS-263A V. Zeoli MNBB-12217 B. Boger AR-5200 l $&*
l l
t