ML20214K842
| ML20214K842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/22/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214K831 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-53, FOIA-86-54, FOIA-86-55 NUDOCS 8608220133 | |
| Download: ML20214K842 (2) | |
Text
.
l DISTRIBUTION:
Subj.
Econti Cir.
KGoller JAN 2 21986 Chron.
Dross Rdg.
RMinogue CPrichard VStello RGrill RBrowning' s an D0 r/f Dr. David A. Ward, Chairman CHeltemes Central Files Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards GCunningham U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Sniezek U"
Dear Dr. Ward:
gr Thank you for your letter of December 10, 1985 to Chairman Palladino containing additional suggestions regarding possible rulemaking on the definition of high-level radioactive waste (HLW). The Comission decided to defer action on the publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to await the passage of pertinent low-level radioactive waste legislation which it believed might have implications on the definition of HLW.
Congress did pass this legislation in December and it is expected to be signed by the President. Per -
the Comission's direction, the staff is now reviewing the implications of the legislation to determine whether any revisions in its recommendations for rulemaking on the definition of HLW should be made.
As you are aware, the document upon which the ACRS commented recomended publishing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and not a proposed rule.
As such, it was a presentation of the issues which the staff views as important to defining HLW, and not a presentation of staff position.
- However, in giving its direction, the Commission also instructed the staff to consider submitting a package which recomends publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking, rather than an advance notice.
Your comments will be considered in the staff's review of the implications of the recently passed legislation.
Upon the completion of our review, the staff plans to have further discussions with the ACRS on this matter. Please let me know if I can provide you with any further information.
Sincerely.
Original signed by' Victor Stello Victor Stello, Jr.
Acting Executive Director for Operations Y
.f4 EDO Note: *See previous concurrence RE rowning VStel,lo I k!8G l d a
Vu
. ______[ _ I
_____[
b
[
..b
_b____
_____b
' k.--
NAME:CPrichard
- RGrill
- FCostanzi
- EConti
- KGoller
- Dross inogue f ////
DATE:
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
- / //f/N
/ /
/
m CARDE86-63 PDR U
m..- -..-v
-~-:~~~~-----
g
=. "
DATE NRC FORM 414 1-15-86 gm ROUTING SLIP ORIGINATOR op d
OFFSCE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 7
EDO NUM8ER EAR REGMATOpg
/
, FOR OPERATIONS d
INCOMING DATE G
4 Signature gd
-% DCA-/)}4YV WW 4
u m 11n 1
Sumary Sheet (Notation) for the Comissioners/re RCQdARTERLYSTATUSREPORT TOCONGRESS(BEVILL)
}
[
CONCURRENCES PECEIVED ELD ADM U
~
/CR PA t.
(.
NMSS IP REG 01
[
RES D
gOGR GC r
IE RM PE AC8 COMMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE CHECK r
+'
N
((
,p
\\q y,
i e
e s ~.
n e vo p
/
h l
U
[
s4#n"h+ABjY'
/MpT oy
/
,k%WA$NMe, s y'
'y t
s\\a[
- 2. ROE tr
(
gy 3
RETURN TO oaE-4 u
,\\
l
/
ni 3 REXA o
l
}As.
/y' RETURN TO f
ROE L
l 1
ea RETURN TO AC8
] COURIER
] OCA'[
\\
h
/
y'guna-,,h UNITED STATES Cys Stello NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Roe 4
E E
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 Rnhm k....,/
Sniezek Rabideau orrece or THE February 6, 1986 Taylor Denton CHAIRMAN Thompson SBlack GCunninghan LUnderwood DKasun The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman
- CMiles, PA Subcommittee on Energy and Water RHogan, IE Development Harold Black, Committee on Appropriations NMSS United States House of Representatives Central Files Washington, D.C.
20515 EDO R/F g
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This quarterly status report is forwarded in response to the direction given in House Report 97-850. The enclosed report covers the fourth quarter of calendar year 1985. No quantified licensing delay is projected in our report; however, licensing delay for Shoreham is projected due to complex litigation.
Additionally, licensing delay may occur for Comanche Peak Unit 1.
This delay, if any, cannot be quantified at this time due to uncertainties in the duration of the hearing.
With the exception of Shoreham, the estimated regulatory delays in this report do not reflect potential impact from the schedules for resolving issues 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, the most recent of which was forwarded on October 31, 1985.
The NRC licensing activity during the period of this report included the issuance of a full-power license for River Bend on November 20, 1985.
Operating licenses restricted to five percent power were issued for Millstone 3 on November 25, 1985, and Palo Verde 2 on December 9, 1985. On January 31,1986 a full-power license was issued for Millstone 3.
Sincerely,
~
- f. 6 (' (.AY w
.A U Nunzio J. Palladino Chainnan
Enclosure:
NRC Quarterly Status Report to Congress cc: The Honorable John T. Myers h
IQ,4v -
/
s NRC QUARTERLY REPORT Shoreham On June 14, 1985, the ASLB issued a favorable decision regarding the adequacy of the TDI Emergency Diesel Generators. This oecision authorized the staff to issue the 5% license, but the authorization was temporarily stayed by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On July 3,1985, the Court of Appeals denied the stay motion and on July 3, 1985, the NRC issued the 5% license.
~
The 5% test program is essentially completed. The plant was shut down'on October 8 to begin an outage during which the licensee performed required surveillances and maintenance, and replaced the startup sources. The licensee has decided to further extend the outage until February to perform reactor vessel water level instrumentation modifications. The licensee intends to startup and synchronize the turbine generator with the grid after this outage. The plant would be physically ready to exceed 5% power at this time, if authorization were granted.
On February 20, 1985, a New York State Supreme Court in Suffolk County, New York issued a declaratory judgment that LILCo does not have the legal authority to perform offsite emergency planning functions for Shoreham without the partici-pation of state and local governments. The ruling was issued in response to
.g.-
.i petitions filed with the Court by the State of New York and Suffolk County on March 7, 1984. On March 18, 1985, a U.S. District Court in New York ruled that the State and Suffolk County could not be forced to participate in emergency planning.
Both of these decisions are subject to appeal.
Licensing delays in full power authorization (above 5% power) are likely. On April 17, 1985, the emergency planning licensing board ruled in the licensee's favor regarding the majority of the emergency planning contentions, but, relying in 4
large part on New York State court decisions rujed that LILCo does not have the legal authority to perform certain required emergency planning functions. On August 26, 1985, the Licensing Board issued its concluding partial initial.
l' decision (PID) on emergency planning, in which it decided the relocation center issue and reached its\\ ultimate decision as to whether there is reasonable assurancethatadequateprotectivemeasuhescanandwillbetakenintheevent of a radiological emergency" at Shoreham.
The Board found that such " reasonable assurance" is lacking primarily due to LILCO's lack of legal authority 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 both the April and August emergency planning decision were filed with the ASLAB by both LILCO and the intervenors.
The ASLAB, on October 18, upheld the Licensing Board's decision that LILCO does i
1
}
. - _ -.... _ _ _ _. _. ~ - _. -. _ _ _ _ _,, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _,.. _.. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _
~
. 4 not have the legal authority to implement its offsite emergency plan. On November 4,1985, LILCO filed a petition for review of the ASLAB decision before the Commission. On December 19, 1985, the Commission accepted the petition, but deferred its decision until the Appeal Board issues its decision on the remainder of emergency planning appeals still pending.
Due to the Board decisions and the New York State and Suffolk County positions on cooperating in emergency planning, the Commission is unable to forecast a realistic licensing impact at this time.
Comanche Peak Unit 1 As construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Unit 1 was A,
nearing completion, numerous concerns were raised on both design and construction of the plant.
Primarily, these concerns were raised through (1) issues in conten-tion before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Eoard (ASLB); (2) the staff's review of technical concerns and allegations regardang deslgn and construction of the plant, which are documented in Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports; and (3)'Cygna Energy Services who performed an Independent Assessment Program i
of design and construction at Comanche Peak.
Following identification of these concerns, the applicants prepared and sub-mitted to the NRC staff for review, a program plan which includes resolution of 4
all issues raised by external sources (e.g., ASLB hearings, NRC, Cygna, etc.),
i as well as a set of self-initiated actions.
The NRC staff has completed its l
l
\\
. initial review of the programmatic aspects of the portions of the Comanche Peak Program Plan submitted to date and find those portions of the plan to be compre-hensive in scope and to provide a structure capable of addressing all existing issues and any future issues identified by external sources. The plan also contains applicants' commitment to a set of self-initiated programs intended to demonstrate the adequacy of design and construction of the Comanche Peak Project.
The staff's evaluation of the plan has identified certain programmatic concerns which have been forwarded to the applicants and intervenor. The staff has also provided comments on specific issues being addressed in the plan.
Following receipt of plan modifications responsive to staff comments on both pro-grammatic aspects and specific issues and receipt of comments from the intervenor, the staff will finalize its evaluation and findings.
In November 1985 the i
A
~
j staff and applicants initiated monthly pUblic meetings to discuss the status of the ongoing implementation of applicants' plan and the staff's oversight of the plan. On November 18, 1985, the applicants announced a revised schedule.
The detailed reanalysis and reinspection effort, and all related plant modifications that may be necessary, is now estimated to be complete in time to support l
commercial operation of Unit 1 in mid-1987 and Unit 2 six months later.
Hearings have been suspended at the request of the applicants.
For the meantime, discovery is ongoing among the parties. On November 12, 1985, the ASLB held a prehearing conference in Dallas on discovery matters and issued an
.,,e,_-.
,e-,
w-e,mmv.,-.,e,.,,--
m--m-g-.-e.,,,_,em,-,,,c,,,.n--,.-
_,.www-rw -we m o v, ~s
~
w---n--
J,
~
. Order on December 23, 1985. The NRC staff made available key staff people in an informal meeting with representatives of the intervenor CASE on November 19-20, 1985, to discuss the NRC staff Technical Review Team (TRT) findings as presented in Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports (SSERs) Nos. 7 - 11.
In addition, in response to extensive FOIA requests, the NRC staff has made available thousands of pages of documents related to the TRTs inspection and is in the process of making additional thousands of pages of documents available.
~
In the latter part of 1983, one sub-issue -- the possible existence of incidents or actions of which management was aware that might have been interpreted by workers as a discouragement to the proper reporting of A
deficiencies in the 46 program -- was identified which the Licensing Board determined to hear separately and as a consequence a separate docket was established (Docket 2).
In a telephone conference on December 24, 1985, the two licensing boards, with the agreement of all parties, dissolved the Docket 2 Licensing Board. As a result of this action, all further hearings will be conducted by a single Licensing Board (Docket 1), which has dealt with the remaining contention that questions the ability of the applicants' Quality Assurance / Quality Control Program to identify, correct and prevent recurrent deficiencies in the design and construction of the plant.
Due to uncertainties in the hearing schedule, the Commission is unable to predict whether a licensing impact will occur.
i l
o
. WATTS BAR TVA has not established a schedule for licensing Watts Bar Unit 1.
Before an NRC licensing decision can be made, TVA must address safety and management effectiveness concerns identified through the employee concern program.
Essentially all employees scheduled for interviews have been interviewed and approximately 1600 potential safety related concerns, 180 welding conerns, and, 380 intimidation and harassment /misconde:t concerns have been expressed.
Investigation of 300-400 concerns have been completed and approximately 50% of the concerns resulted in the need for corrective action. As of the end of December 1985 only 40 of those had been resolved.
TVA is continuing to investigate the remaining concerns in order to identify all those that need to be x
resolved prior to licensing. The NRC has conducted two inspections of the interview program and was basically satisified that the program, if implemented properly, would adequately identify and correct safety concerns. Additional inspections are planned.
In addition, the concerns and available investigation reports are being provided to NRC for review.
In a meeting with the Commission of January 9, 1986, the TVA Board of Directors identified the progress that they had made in selecting a new Manager, Power and Engineering (Nuclear) to head the nuclear program, and establishing an Inspector General Office.
TVA requested and the NRC agreed to give the new Manager of Power 30 days to become familiar with TVA and to identify any additional changes he wanted to implement prior to addressing the corporate issues relating to licensing Watts Bar.
i l
. While resolution of the employee concerns is considered to be the critical path item, the environmental qualification program issues and the welding program concerns must be resolved prior to licensing. The submission of the TVA response to the NRC staff 50.54(f) letter is now expected in February 1986.
De a
9 D
e b
1
~
.. ~.
4 i
4 Table (Page 1 of 7) 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 12/31/85 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Appilcations 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 DL SER h
FE5 Input to DL 55ER - Hearing Cacision Eff.**
Dec.
Comp 1.
1/
~1/
"/S C
E#
II C
C C
C C
C C
C C
Shoreham 1 E/
EI C
C C
C C
C C
C Comanche Peak 1 Watts Bar 1 0 El C
C C
C C
C C
Mone None N/A N/5 N/5 El El N/A C*
C*
River Bend 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
C l
Perry 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
C 02/86* 02/86*
02/86*
GE55AR II 9/
0 N/A C
C C
N/A C
01/86 None None M/A 01/86*
N/A Millstone 3 El O
C C
C C
C C
C None None N/A C*
C*
Pals Verde 2 E#
0 C
C C
C C
C C
C 16/
16/ 03/86*
C*
Catawba 2 0
C C
C C
C C
01/86 C
C C
02/86 02/86 SU8-TOTAL 0
Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date
- Comunission decision on effectiveness of ASLB decision 1
1 I
?
TABLE (Page 2 of 7) 4FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 12/31/85 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Appilcations SER SSER Cosa. Decision 1/
Est starr starr ASLB Appl.
4 Delay Issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue 6/ Start of Initial Coen.
Constr.
M_tg_
FES Input to DL SSER ~ Hearine Decision Eff.**
Dec.
Comp 1.
Plant (Months)
DES Input to DL _SE2 t
Comanche Peak 2 0
C C
C C
C N/S N/S C
EI y
El N/A N/A 02/86*
02/86*
l Hope Creek 0
C C
C C
C' C
C C
Citaton 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C C $#
N/A N/A 02/86* 02/86*El Cine Mlle 2 0
C C
C C
C C
C None None N/A 02/86 02/86 El Harris 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
02/86* E /03/86* 06/86* 06/86*
Br:1 W I O
C C
C C
C 01/86 02/86 C
08/86*
09/86* 09/86* 09/86*
4 Seabrook 1
- 8/
8/ 06/86 06/86 C
C C
C C
C C
C 8/
?
Byron 2 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
10/86*
10/86*
SUB-T0TAL 0
1 Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date l
${
- Commission decision on effectiveness of ASL8 decision 1
r t
TA8LE (Page 3 of 7) 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 12/31/85 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Applications SER SSER Comm. Decision 1/
Est Statf Staff ASLB
- Appl.
Delay Issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue 6f Start of Initial Comm.
Constr.
Plant (Months)
DES Input to DL SER Mt FES Ir.put to DL SSER Nearine Decision Eff.**
Dec.
Comp 1.
g Cidland 2 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
N/S N/S N/S N/S M/
vogtle 1 0
C C
C C
C#
C, C
N/S N/S N/S 12/86 12/06 So. Texas 1 0
01/86 01/86 02/86 03/86 05/M 04/86 05/86 06/86 05/87*
06/87* 06/87*
06/87*
Psla verde 3 0
C C
C C
C 12/86 01/87 C
M/
M/ 03/87 03/87 Watts Bar 2 0
C C
C C
C 01/87 01/87 None Mone N/A 03/87 03/87 Seaver Valley 2 0
C C
C C
C 01/86 02/86 None None N/A 04/87 04/87 Brcidwood 2 0
C C
C C
C 11/87 12/87 C
08/86 09/86 01/88*
01/88*
Sellefonte 1 0
MS N/S N/S N/S N/$
N/S N/S Mone None N/A 01/93 01/93 WNP-3 M/
0 C
N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/$
N/$
N/$
Nidland 1 0
C C
C C
C N/S N/S C
N/S N/$
N/S N/S M/
WNP-1 M/
0 N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S SUS-TOTAL 0
Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date
- Commission decision on effectiveness of ASLB decision 9
a TA8LE (Page 4 of 7) 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 12/31/85 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Applications SER SSER Come. Decision 1/
Est Staff Stati ASLB
~ Appl.
Delay Issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue 6/ Start of Initial Comm.
Constr.
Plant (Months)
155 Input to OL SSER ~ Nearine Decision Eff.**
Dec.
Comp 1.
Vogtle 2 0
C C
C C
C 01/88 02/88 M/S N/S N/S 03/88 03/88 South Texas 2 0
01/86 01/86 02/96 03/86 05/86
'10/88 11/88 06/86 05/87*
06/87* 12/88 12/88 Bellefonte 2 0
N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S Mone hone N/A 01/95 01/95 Limerick 2 U#
0 C
C C
C C
N/S N/S C
C C
N/S 07/90*
Seabrook 2 $#
0 C
C C
C C
N/$
N/S C
S#
I#
N/S N/S Perry 2 $#
0 C
C C
C C
N/S N/S C
C 01/86 N/S N/S Grand Gulf 2 E#
0 C
C C
C C
N/S N/S Mone None N/A N/S N/S 1
TOTAL DELAY 0
Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date Commission decision on effectiveness of ASLB decision
e i
o
-TABLE (Page 5 of 7) l FOOTNOTES i
0 1/' Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional poten-
~
tial delay from Emergency Preparedness Review. For plants with construc-4 tion completed, the Commission decision dates shown are for full-power; however, initial licensing may proceed (restricting power to 5% of rated i-full power) based on a favorable ASLB decision (if applicable) and a pre-liminary design verificaticn 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 i
up to 5% power has been issued for these facilities. A Consnission i
decision regarding operation above 5% power will be made on a schedule commensurate with the licensee's need for full-power authorization; j
therefore, no delay is projected unless otherwise noted.
1 j
3/
Construction has been halted; a construction completion date has not been established.
i 4/
A joint motion to dismiss the proceedings was filed by the applicant and intervenors on 1/28/85. An Order and Memorandum withdrawing all remaining contentions and terminating the proceedings was issued by the ASLB on j
February 14, 1985 5/
The applicant for Clinton has informed the staff thet the plant will be ready for low-powh licensing between late February and late March 1986.
l 6/
Date shown for first units is for first SSER following ACRS meeting.
Additional SSERs will be issued to close out remaining open items.
7/
A fuel loading and cold criticality testing license was issued on December 7, 1984. On Jure 14, 1985, the last safety-related issue was l
resolved in favor of LILCO, and a 5% power license was authorized.
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 would be an integrated response to an emergency without State and local cooperation. 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.
Issues concerning the adequacy of the LILC0 plan are still pending before the Appeal Board. On December 19, 1985, the Commission accepted a petition to review the Appeal Board's ruling on the legal authority issue, but deferred consideration of it
I
-o-o TABLE (Page 6 of 7) j FOOTNOTES 7/
(Continued) until the Appeal Board rules on other pending emergency planning issues
~
in the proceeding. On August 26, 1985, the Licensing board issued its concluding emergency planning decision holding that there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, primarily because of LILCO's lack of authority to implement its own offsite 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 from a portion of this decision have been filed.
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 emergency planning, the Commission is unable to forecast a realistic licensing impact at this time.
8/
A partial initial Decision on all safety issues litigated to date is expected in March 1986. Hearings on outstanding emergency planning issues have been delayed until the offsite emergency preparedness plans have been submitted. Resolution of the offsite emergency planning issues has the potential to delay issuance of a full power license, although the length of any such delay cannot realistically be forecast at this time. An offsite fullscale exercise is currently scheduled for February 1986.
9/
The dates for apphicant construction completion, DES issuance and FES 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/ A joint motion to dismiss the proceedings was filed by the applicant and intervenor on 2/19/85. This motion was granted on February 28, 1985.
11/ By Order dated November 20, 1984, the ASLB granted the intervenors' motions to withdraw their contentions and terminate the proceeding.
~
12/ On November 18, 1985, applicants provided revised commercial operating dates for Units 1 and 2.
The applicants project a Unit I comercial oper-l ation date of mid-1987, with Unit 2 comercial operation six months later.
The ASLB has not established a hearing schedule; therefore, the licensing delay, if any, cannot be determined.
1 l
13/ Plant is mothballed. New dates will be established when the plant is out of the mothball status.
,1_4 / Application docketed; no schedule established.
t
~
TABLE (Page 7 of 7)
FOOTNOTES 15/ On November 18, 1985, the staff held a meeting with Niagara Mohawk to dis-
' cuss the discrepancy between the staff fuel load estimates of late 1986 and the applicant's estimate of February 1986. The staff made a site tour on December 6,1985 to review construction progress. A revised licensing schedule is under consideration by the staff and will be set in the near future.
1 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 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.
i 1]7) Not used.
18/ On July 16, 1984, the Board of Directors for Consumers Power voted to halt construction on both Midland Units.
19/ Schedule to be determined after receipt of TVA's response to 50.54(f) letter.
20/ Three Partial Ini,tial Decisions resolving most contentions litigated to date were issued'in February, August; and December 1985. A decision on drug use and stren effectiveness is scheduled to be issued in February 1986.
s Sumary dispositron motions have been filed on two remaining emergency preparedness contentions. A Board ruling is scheduled for late February 1986.
If hearings are required, they will be scheduled for March 1986.
This will not impact low-power licensing.
I 21/ Construction has been halted at about 30% complete. Continued construction is dependent upon interaction between the applicant and the Pennsylvania l
Pubite Utility Connission. Assuming the resumption of construction by April 1986, it is expected that Unit 2 would be complete in mid-1990.
22/ Construction has been suspended with the plant about 35% complete. The applicant has requested a Construction Pemit extension to April 30, 1991.
This estimate will be reassessed in December 1985.
l l
l l
l l
l
- 'e[
UNITE 3 STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL FROM:
DUE:
EDO CONTROL: 001353 DOC DT: 01/22/86 JAMES B. DEVINE FINAL REPLY:
STATE DEPT.
TO:
STELLO, ACTING EDO FOR SIONATURE OF:
GREEN SECY NO:
DESC:
ROUTINO:
HOPE NRC WILL MAINTAIN CURRENT LEVEL OF STELLO PARTICIPATION IN USG ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING IAEA ROE SAFEGUARDS & INCREASE LEVEL FOR FitLL SUPPORT OF RFHM THE U.S.
NONPROLIFERATION OBJECTIVES SNIEZEK DAVIS DATE: 01/23/86 GCUNNINGHAM ASSIONED TO: IP CONTACT: SHEA SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
i FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION
/y
- --