ML20236Q483
| ML20236Q483 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/13/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8711200084 | |
| Download: ML20236Q483 (19) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ -
ga ned '
'/ 'o UNITED STATES
- 8' ~ Eg' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
$ ;$ WASHINGTON, D C. 20555
%,- ,o 1
- November 13, 1987 CHAlRMAN
\
The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman i Subcommittee on Energy and Water l Development 1 Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-I 1
Dear Mr. Chairman:
1 This quarterly status report is forwarded in response to the direction given in House Report 97-850. The enclosed report covers the third quarter of 1 calendar year 1987. The NRC licensing activity during the period of this i report included the issuance of a. fuli-power license for Beaver Valley 2 on i August 14, 1987, and operating license restricted to five percent power for '
' South Texas Unit 1 on August 21, 1987.
Additional licensing delay for Shoreham is projected due to complex litigation.
'Also, licensing delay may occur for Comanche Peak Unit 1, because'the duration of the hearing is uncertain.
Although a' license authorizing fuel loading and precriticality, testing for Seabrook Unit I has been issued, there is a projected delay for low-power licensing. Full-power licensing for Seabrook Unit I will be delayed due to ;
offsite emergency preparedness issues. The length of the delay is not known at this time.
With the exception of Seabrook and Shoreham, regulatory delays in this report are not impacted by the schedules for resolving off-site emergency 1 preparedness issues. '
l Sincerely, i k, .
Lando W. Ze , Jr
Enclosure:
NRC Quarterly Status Report to Congress cc: Rep. John T. Myers l
,& PW f jv ~
___ i
O i
L l.
NRC QUARTERLY REPORT l
l Shoreham The NRC issued an operating license restricted to 5% of rated power on July 3, 1985. On June 8,1987, the reactor was shut down after completion of a I third round of low-power testing. During the last test run, the licensee L synchronized the turbine generator to the power grid. The plant would be 1
l physically ready to exceed 5% power at this time, if NRC authorization were granted. However, because emergency planning for the plant has not been approved, additional delays in licensing the plant to operate above 5% power i are likely.
On February 20, 1985, the New York State Supreme Court in Suffolk County, New York, issued a declaratory judgment that the licensee does not have the legal 1 authority to perform offsite emergency planning functions for Shoreham without the participation of State and local governments. This decision was affirmed on appeal but is now pending before the highest state court in New York. On March 18, 1985, a United States District Court in New York also ruled, in a separate proceeding, that the State and Suffolk County could not be forced to participate in emergency planning; this decision was affirmed in March 1987 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On April 17, 1985, the Emergency Planning Licensing Board ruled in the licensee's favor on most emergency planning contentions. But, relying in large part on New York State court decisions, the Board ruled that the licensee does not have the legal authority to perform certain required emergency planning functions. The Licensing Board issued its concluding Partial Initial Decision (PID) on emergency planning on August 26, 1985. In this PID, the Board decided
- - - - _ _ = _
l
w.
1 <
. 2 that there is not " reasonable assurance that adequate protective. measures can l and will be taken in'the event of a radiological emergency" at Shoreham. The 1
L Board based this. decision on its' conclusion that the licensee lacks the legal authority to implement its offsite plan, and because there.is no State plan indicating that there would be an integrated, cooperative, and coordinated offsite response in the event of an emergency. Both the licensee and interveners appealed to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board (ASLAB)'
the April and August emergency planning decisions. In response, the ASLAB, on October. 18, 1985, upheld the. Licensing Board's decision that the licensee does not have the legal authority to implement its offsite emergency plan. On November 4, 1985, the licensee asked the Commission to review the.ASLAB decision. On July 24, 1986, accepting Lilco's argument that state and local governments would use their best efforts to protect the public in a radiological emergency, even if that means using a utility plan,- the Commission ordered further Licensing Board hearings on the adequacy of emergency planning at Shoreham presuming that the State and County would cooperate with Lilco in an actual emergency. The Licensing Board is in the process of identifying the issues for these hearings.
The ASLAB issued its decision on the appeals of those aspects of the Shoreham Emergency Plan not related to " legal authority" issues on March 26, 1986. In that decision and in one issued September 19, 1986, the Appeal Board remanded the following issues to the Licensing Board for further action: (1) whether the
- Shoreham plume emergency planning zone (EPZ) is large enough; (2).whether possible role conflict on the part of school bus drivers will lead to an inadequate number of drivers; (3) whether evacuation plans for hospitals are adequately detailed; (4) whether Lilco's provisions for recepticn centers for
_ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ___.1_.______ ________d
evacuees are adequate; and (5) whether Lilco has planned adequate protective
) measures for the ingestion pathway EPZ.
An exercise of the licensee's emergency plan (EP) was conducted on February 13, 1986. The staff found that the licensee adequately demonstrated its onsite emergency response capabilities. However, in its evaluation of the offsite plan issued on April 21, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identified five deficiencies and several areas requiring corrective action.
The interveners and the applicant asked the Commission to establish procedures to allow litigation of contentions stemming from the exercise. On June 6, 1986, the Commission directed the appointment of a Licensing Board to conduct an expeditious hearing on whether the exercise identified any " fundamental flaws" in the plan. The ASLB admitted 15 lengthy contentions for this litigation. The evidentiary hearing began on March 10, 1987, the record was closed on June 18, 1987, and all proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed in September 1987.
On November 10, 1986, the interveners asked the Commission to reopen the record to admit three new contentions concerning: (1) the withdrawal of WALK radio station from the agreement to broadcast information in an emergency; (2) the lack of an agreement for the Red Cross to provide emergency services; and (3) a lack of reception centers for evacuees. On June 11, 1987, the Commission agreed to reopen the record for the contention on the emergency broadcasting station, but rejected reopening on the other issues.
On December 15, 1986, the Licensing Board granted the licensee's motion to reopen the hearing record to admit new evidence on its proposal to replace the
. __ ____ _ _ __ ---- - ---- - -~~-- -
. .4-Nassau County. Coliseum as a reception center for evacuees with three of its own j facilities. Separately, on December 15, 1986, the Appeal Board affirmed the ,
Licensing Board's conclusion that the licensee is obliged to plan to accommodate all' evacuees who seek radiological monitoring and decontamination.
Hearings on the adequacy of the reception centers for evacuees concluded on i July 30, 1987.
On April 14, 1987, the licensee requested that the Commission consider, on an ;
expedited basis, Lilco's request for a license to operate Shoreham at 25% power.
The licensee based-the request on 10 CFR 50.47 (c)(1), under which an applicant -
has an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission (1) that deficiencies in the emergency plan are insignificant to the case at hand, i or (2) that there are compensating actions to mitigate the deficiencies, or (3) i that there are other compelling reasons to permit plant operation. On June 11 j 1987, the Commission denied the request without prejudice to licensee's
~'
refiling of the request with the ASLB pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(c). The licenree so filed on July 14, 1987.
As a result of the New York State and Federal Court decisions, the Board decisions, and the New York State and Suffolk County positions on cooperation I
\
in emergency planning, the Commission is unable, at this time, to forecast j realistically the licensing impact of adjudicatory proceedings on Shoreham.
4 Comanche Peak j l
As construction of the Texas Utilities Electric Company's (applicants') two-unit j Comariche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) was nearing completion, numerous
(
1 t I
J.
. concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of the design and the construction of the plant. .Primarily these concerns were raised through: (1)issuesin I contention from 1982 through 1984 before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB); (2) the staff's review of technical concerns and allegations regarding the design and construction of the plant, which are documented in five Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports (SSERs 7-11 issued between January and May 1985); and (3) Cygna Energy Services, which conducted an Independent Assessment Program of design and construction at Comanche Peak (1983-1985).
In response to these concerns, the applicants submitted to the NRC staff in October 1984,theComanchePeakResponseTeam(CPRT)ProgramPlan. The plan has since been updated,.with Revision 3 issued in January 1986 and Revision 4 in June 1987. The plan provides for (1) the resolution of the issues raised by i sources external to the applicants (ASLB hearings, NRC, and Cygna) and (2) actions to be initiated by the applicants to reexamine the adequacy of design and construction of the Comanche Peak plant.
Deficiencies discovered through the CPRT reviews have led to corrective actions at the plant that include reanalysis, revision, or updating of existing design calculations, physical reinspection of as-built hardware, and, in many cases, actual physical hardware changes and reconstruction. The applicants have developed a comprehensive corrective action program to resolve CPRT findings and address their implications. This effort includes qualifying and/or fixing existing hardware as necessary. The corrective action program is broken down into 11 topical areas. These areas and the architect-engineers addressing them are: mechanical, electrical, civil / structural, instrumentation and control, j large bore pipe supports, and small bore pipe supports (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation); cable tray hangers and conduit supports (Ebasco,
_ -_______.____-_ - - __- -__- -_ - - \
Q ,
[f iJ 3 1 1
) ^1
, IN
' ( ;'i
['
'Impell); heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (Ebasco); a d conduit
supports for train C less than two inches in diameter and equipment g , I qualification (Impell). 4 ;( 7,,
5
?,
l' \ ,
The results of the quality of construction portion of the CPp\ Plan are A a ,
scheduled to be submitted by October 1987. Theapplicantsare.condinuingpo)lf j ,. .
j-J ,!
submittoNRCvariousIssue-SpecificActionPlanResultsReportsaddressin6I ,
N/
,e ; i s,
T; issues raised mainly by the NRC Technical Review Team.
a c N(
InapublicmeetingwithNRConApril7,1987,theappibantsstatedthatthe ,
I ,
currentscheduleforUnit1istocompleteallplantconstructionand-[; (o y.. ;
modifications and be ready for fuel loading in March 1988; taking into account ,g-i the potential for a hearing, the applicants have scheduled the Unit 1 % el f !
, Yl . \
loading date for July 1988. The applicants' current Unit 2 fuel Qsp da'ts is ,- ;
scheduled for January 1989. ,
./
p
,Js !
In a letter dated May 12, 1987, the NRC requested that the applicants, identify y,
all of the activities required to support licensing and provide additio'nal information regarding the corrective action program, as well[a'sladditional r(
specific information concerning the CPRT and related activities. T),e l applicants responded to the request on June 25, 1987. In a public meeting on 4 July 29 and 30, 1987, NRC met with the applicants to discuss their response. k S' During the meeting, the applicants described as part of p$ir Corrective Action j Program (CAP) the Post-Construction Hardware Validation Program (PCHVP). The A 4
applicants intend the PCHVP to implement specific CPRT recommendations, perform ,,
(
required inspections of hardware or engineering requirer $nt changes made in the
- f -l
- .i course of the CAP, and perform hardware inspections as a resu?t oftaew work.
/
l ,
~
i y r l
l { /
I 1 f *
( ;
i
~
j n ,
j s d _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ u t
~
R- ]
NK~]~
yy K n c
-r p'p ,
- /j .j A ;; 1 NRC is reviewing the information it obtained at the public meeting and 'I
.L sisNequent submi";tals by the applicants on the relationship between the CPRT 1
i and CAP (August 20,1987), a detailed. description of the CAP and process fibw a .
K .
diagrams for the 11. topical areas (August %8, 1987), a description of the PCHVP
-V ,
engineering evaluation methodology (September 8, 1987), and a description of
}
.'i . $1.he Technical Audit Program dd Engineering Functional Evaluation Program D :: % n"1
'f s being conducted (September 8; 1987). The staff is using that information to
+ develop a comprehensive review and inspecticn program for Comanche Peak
. \ licensing activities. The staff plans to-evaluate any changes to this broader I Corrective Action Program be'ere they are implemented by the applicants. I) l '
l i
l5 ,
ss The ASLB has adopted an approach that cells for discovery en the adequacy of r
the CPRf Plan, followd by the intervenor, Citizens Association for Sound Energy, (CASE) filing summary disposition motions on that subject. The Board would then decide whether to conduct a hearing on Plan adequacy issues, or to await the results of implementation of the Plan. Because of. questions raised regarding the. expanded scope in the Corrective Action Program and related activities, CASE and the applicants have agreed to postpone indefinitely taking-
\
{ riepositions and filing summary disposit. ion motions on the conceptual adequacy-
- g. [ of'tig Plap. On August 20, 1987, the applicants filed a motion before the ASLB
'f6r establishment + of a ' schedule for the identification and litigation of
>y '
(
treturs that remain to be resolved under Contention 5, which is based on j "
r s
comp %tiot of CPRT and CAP activities and issuance of final reports. The NPC staffiskrentlyreviewingtheapplicants'proposalandplanstofilea respcpeInhctober1987whichtakesintoconsiderationtheworkthestaffmust 2+
complete
- prior to hearing.
t s t I
( /,
I h y
j , m a ,
~
s c,a ,
[ ,
s ,
+
During a houtine 'revfw(c.fL varipus" licensing . documents, the staff found that 2' . the construction pem.it (CP) for Unit 1- haN'expirrd on August 1,'1985, and that'.
q e fthe applicants.had int made 6 timely filing for its extension. Subsequently, j, id response t$ a Januavy 1986 request from' the app 1'icants, 'on February 10,
- 1986, the staff granted an extension of the CP. In a January 31, 1986,-
o submittal to the Commission, CASE requested a hearfpg on the CP extension o y ,
application. By a Memorandum and Order dated March 13, 1986, the Commission referred thi[ request to the ASLB Chairman for; appointment of a licensing Board n
to rule on the hearing request and to conduct any necessary hearings. On May 2, 1986, t$e ASLIisS0 ed ad Order admitting, as a single contention, two 0;
essentially 1dentical contentions that questioned whether the applicants had shown good riuse for geanting the CP extension and requiring the two intervening p)rties to be consolidated. - The staff and the applicants appealed dhe ASLB's Order. -. Subs $quently, on July 2,1986, the' Appeal Board asked the Commission for gu{ dance on whether this content on lfes foreclosed from
,, . i
< _ if tigation as a matter" of law by the Commission'.s decision in WPPSS, CLI-82-29.
i . 4
'On Lb~eptember 19, 1986, the Commission issued an Orderr, CLI-86-15, responding to
' d
/ '
// the Appeal Board'A request for guidance regarding the admissibility of the f*gS consolidated contjntion of interveners. Tho' Appeal Board, in an Order dated September 22,,1986, provided the parties with an opportunity to comment on the
- Commission's response. The interveners filed a motion to either amend their a- ,
contention or reconsider previously excluded contentions, based on the Comht:sfon'sguidance. On October 30, 1986, the Licensing Board issued an Order admitting one amended contention; appeals of this Order were filed by both the staff and the applicants. Oral argument or, the appeals was held on Jancary,29,198f'. On June 30, 1987, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's Ordere On July 17, 1987 the applicants petitioned the Commission for 4
L M
, s 6 s
.. _9_
review of the_ Appeal Board decision. Commission action on the applicants' request is pending.
On April- 29, 1987,'the applicants applied for an extension of the Unit 2 CP, which has a construction completion date of August 1,1987. The requested i
completion date is August-1, 1990. This application is being considered by the staff.
.~
Watts Bar On November- 14, 1986, TVA announced that its priorities for the startup of its nuclear units were_as follows: Sequoyah, Browns Ferry, and Watts Bar. TVA further indicated that engineering support from Browns Ferry and Watts Bar is being reallocated to the Sequoyah restart effort on a limited basis. Although TVA has not established a schedule for completing Watts Bar Unit 1 TVA has stated that it expects the unit to go on line before the end of 1989. The staff is awaiting TVA's Watts-Bar-specific response to its September 17, 1985, letter regarding compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(f).
All TVA employee interviews scheduled as part of the Watts Bar Employee Concern Special Program (WBECSP) have been completed. Of the approximately 5,000 j concerns raised, 2,000 concerns are safety related. Nine categories of concerns were established, and all the concerns raised have been categorized.
In addition, within each category, concerns of a similar nature have been grouped into subcategories. TVA plans to submit a final report for each category, addressing the resolution of the concerns in that category.
TVA submitted a revised Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan on July 17, 1986, and submitted revisions on July 31 and December 4, 1986, and March 26, 1987.
l
- L. The staff is reviewing these submittals and a number of open issues addressed j l- i at a public meeting held on April. 20, 1987. j While resolution of-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 before the plant is )
{
licensed. However, TVA has not established a schedule for responding to the I Watts Bar-specific issues. On January 29, 1987, TVA filed a request to extend the Watts Bar Unit 1 CP to September 1988, and the Unit 2 CP to January 1990.
l On June 30,.1987 - the NRC granted the extension request; however, the staff noted that the dates requested were extremely optimistic in light of the work j yet to be completed. l Seabrook j i
Construction of Seabrook Unit 1 is essentially complete. A fuel load and i i
precritical test license was issued on October 17, 1986. Fuel loading and precriticality testing is complete.
1 1
On August 22, 1987, the applicant petitioned the Licensing Board, pursuant to j 50.57(c) for a fuel load and precritical testing license. The Board granted the petition. Interveners appealed this decision to the Atomic Safety and 1 Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB) and the appeal was denied (ALAB-853). The interveners appealed the ASLAB decision to the Commission. In its consideration of ALAB-853, the Commission allowed the fuel load and precritical test license, but stayed the issuance of the low-power license pending completion of Commission review of that Appeal Board decision. The single 1
]
. issue under review was whether a low-power license should be issued without a bona fide utility emergency plan for that part of the plume exposure emergency
)
l planningzone(EPZ)thatliesinMassachusetts(MassachusettsEPZ). On April 9, 1987 the Commission concluded its review and decided that the applicant must file a bona fide utility emergency plan for the Massachusetts EPZ before a low-power license can be issued and in June the Commission held that the Massachusetts plan submitted by the Applicants was not a bona fide utility plan.
Accordingly, the stay was left in place. In a subsequent letter to the NRC, the applicants indicated that they are developing compensatory plans and procedures for emergency planning within the Massachusetts EPZ since the Governor of Massachusetts will not submit emergency plans. On September 18, 1987, the applicants submitted a utility plan for Massachusetts and, on September 22, 1987, they requested that the Commission lift its stay of the low-power license.
On March 25, 1987, the Licensing Board rendered a Partial Initial Decision authorizing the Director of NRR to issue a low power license. This decision was appealed by tne interveners. The Appeal Board issued a decision on October 1, 1987, affirming a portion of the Seabrook Licensing Board's Partial Initial l Decision, but reversing in part and remanding certain contentions for consideration.
Before a full power license for Seabrook can be authorized, the unresolved safety issues and issues involving offsite emergency response planning in New Hampshire and Massachusetts must be resolved, and the ACRS must review the emergency plans. Emergency plans for New Hampshire and the towns therein were submitted in December 1985. After a number of deficiencies were identified in the offsite exercise involving the applicant and New Hampshire on February 26, 1986, the State of New Hampshire implemented improvements and corrective
-__-------------_---.a- - - . _ - -
.c actions, and submitted' substantial revisions to the plans on September 12, 1986.' . On October 5, 1987 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board handling Offsite Emergency Planning began the' evidentiary hearing on the New Hampshire plans. A. schedule- for. litigation of the applicants' " utility plan" for ,f
. Massachusetts portions of the EPZ has not yet been established. j 4
u l
4
7
- 8 f
- 7
/ 1 .
7 8 0 n m . /
mc / / /
- 5 8 u 3
/ i 9
o s
oe CD S
N N 1 1
C 1
1 0 i m D c
e
/ /
{ 7 7
8 m f - S A /
1 f / /
m N C N 1 o E C
m W
l B
L ic S
A ID l o /
ai i s ti f
ne og n
6 C
/
7 C C N e
n o
e n
o
/
2 1
C n C N C ti C C rr aa t e Si N Nl O p i
t i
s n
o a
c
/
5 I
e u R s E s 5 5
C C C C C I pR D TAE l P A S a LLSf cfio t UO C C C C C G an E g th t e n S c u t R i e p a Rd T r. D On I T e n CP o A i El t Rl e A e l R u S C C p A r s E C C C m E o s F o Lf I C C
Us n N e / o l i F u S 1 t 1
Od Eh Cc e
R C
A hC C C C C t
c u
r s
IS F nn F g ' oo 0n i Ci s
s e ri n u R_ oce e s i
L c
I s
EC C C C C nd iB o
sL iS D cA R l P e E a Df o o Sff ic t C C n an C C C is th t s S ce up te n
rn T
I oe pv ei rt c
t e e sf u S C af s E C C C C l e s D I mn oo r
f n
) / / o s g 7 si y h es t a t - - 0 0 0 -
gi
) sl n nc 6 E e o ae D M( / hd f
/ 2 2 c o 2 n
/ y 1 so 1 3 e ei 2 s t s l
e 1 e l a as g 1 x L ci a d a A P m k r V e T dm i
( a o e T O no h o V r T I C e t e r e h n r b o v t B
l a o a l a u b h e a e o U
- a l S S P B S S **
T P
' ll l i(i lll
0 3
do mc / 1/ / 2 S' S
/ / / / /
S S oe 2
/ i 0 1 N N N N 7 9 s CD 0 0 0 i c
e *
- D 7
. . 8 S C
/ A S A
- m. f f C C 1 / / / / '
m 1 N N N N o E C
n /
2 l o 1 ai is e S C B ti C C C e S n /
L ic n /
S ne o N o N A ID N N f
og e n e C C ti C C C n C n rr o o aa N N t e SH
/
5 s 9 8 n e 7 8 8 8 o u R C C S S S i s E / / / / / /
s S 2 1 1 N t
S 1 0 1 N N a I c
i Nl Op I pR D TAE l P A S a 7 8 8 LLSf cfi o t 8 8 8 S
UO C C S S G an / / / / / /
E g th t 1 2 0 N N N e n Sc eu p 1 1 1 t R i a Rd T nI D O n -
n T e o CP i A t El e Rl A e l p
R u S C C C C C C C A r s E C m Eo s F o Lf I C C -
n Us o Ne i l
t F u Od Eh e
S R
C A
gC M
C C C C C C C t
c u
r C c s IS nn F oo F g '
0n i Ci s
s e _ ri n u R C C C C C C oce e s E C C c s S nd i I o L iB sL iS D cA R l P e E a Df Sf c o o fi t n an C is C C C C C C C s th t te Sc eup rn T n oe I pv ei rt c
t e e sf af u S C C C C C C s E C C l e s D I mn oo r
/ / f n
) 0 o y h s f9 01 1 si es gi t a t 0 0 - 0 - 0 -
nc
) sl n 0 0 6 E e o ae DM hd
( 2 c f
o 1 n k k / so 2 a 4 ei 2 a t s 2 s 1 e 2 e as e a P P 2 g r L ci d x r k A m a o 2 e a e a e id m P o T B h B h c T no
( c c i O w e h s n s n r T IC e t d l t a t a e -
n t t m B l
a i
a g u t m t m U
- b r o o a o a o i **
T a l P B V S W C W C L S
mc / /
/ .i oe 1 1 / / / / /
N 9 s CD 0 0 N N N N 0 i -
c e
D
- m f A A C A S S S m f / / / / / /
o E N N N N N N C .
n l o ai i s B ti e e e L i c n n C n S S C S ne o o o / /
A I D N N N N N f
ogn e e e ti n n C n S S S rr o o o / / /
aa M N N N N N t e SH
/
5 s
n e o u R S S S i s E S S S S t s S / / / / / / /
a I S N N N N N N N c
i Nl Op I pR '
D TAE l P A S a LLS c o UO i t S S S S S G f n S 5 E g fh t / / / / / / /
R n ac u N N N N N N N e i t e p t Rd ST n a
On I D T e n CP A o i
El Rl t A e e R u S l p
Ar s E S S C C S S C E o s F / / / / m o
Lf I N N N N C C U s n Ne o l
F u S i Od Eh C c IS e
R C
A R//C S N
S N
C S
/ /
N S
N C
t t
c u
r s
F nn F g n
oo 0is e Ci s
n u R ri e s E S S S S oc c s S / / / / e i I N N C C N N C nd L o iB st D iS R l P cA E a e Sf c o Df fi t S S S S o an / / C C / / C n N N N N i s th t s Sc u t e e p T n rn I oe pv ei rt c
e t e sf u 5 s E S S C C C S C af s D / / / l e N N N I
mn oo r
_) f n s o y h si t a t es gi
) sl n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
6 E e o nc D M ae f ( hd o / c 8 / n 3 3 so 1 2 2 1 ei e Y t s g e e / f 2 A as a t t 3 l L ci P n n u / / k o
E D
im d m
( o o 2 G 3 3 no f f o e t e e y d 3 1 r L IC l n l l r n - - b A b a l l r a P P a T a e e e r M N e O
- WW l
T P B B P G S T *
- l
i TABLE (Page 4 of 6)
FOOTNOTES
-1/ Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional potential delay from Emergency Preparedness Review. For plants where construction is ;
completed, the Commission decision dates indicate the date for the decision on a full-power license; however, initial licensing may proceed (restricting power to 5% of rated full power) on the basis of 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 applicant's 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 j decision regarding operation above 5% power will be made on a schedule 3 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_/ Philadelphia Electric Company's projected fuel load date is August 1, 1589; the company has presented a schedule that could advance fuel load to May 28, 1989.
5/
The date shown for the first unit is the date for issuing the first Safety Evaluation Report Supplement (SSER) after the ACRS meeting on the applica-tion. Additional SSERs will be issued to close out remaining open items, p/ The last safety-related issue was resolved in favor of the applicant on June 14, 1985, and a license restricted to 5% of power was issued July 3, 1985. Full-power authorization has been delayed pending resolution of l emergency planning issues. The current status of those issues is as follows:
(1) Following the decision of the New York state courts, a Licensing Board has held, and an Appeal Board has affirmed, that the applicant lacks the legal authority to implement its emergency plan. (2) The Commission has ordered further hearings on the adequacy of applicant's plan presuming State and local cooperation in the event of an emergency (the " realism" issue). Those hearings have not been scheduled. (3) The Appeal Board has l remanded several issues to the Licensing Board. Hearings on the remanded l issues have not been scheduled. (4) The record was reopened by the Licensing Board at the request of the applicant to take widence on the replacement of the Nassau County Coliseum as a reception center. The hearing concluded on July 31, 1987. (5) The record was reopened by the Commission, at the request of interveners, to consider the withdrawal of radio station WALK l
l l
L_-__
TABLE (Page 5 of 6)
FOOTNOTES
-6/ (continued) from its agreement to broadcast emergency information. The hearing cn this issue has not been scheduled. (6) The Comission ordered hearings to .
determine whether applicant's emergency planning exercise revealed "any I fatal flaws" in its emergency plan. Those hearings were completed June 18, ;
1987. Given the number and complexity of emergency planning issues remaining, I a realistic licensing impact forecast cannot be made at this time. l l
7/
As noted in the text, a Partial Initial Decision on all safety issues was I issued on March 25, 1987. This decision authorized issuance of a low-pwer I license. However, the Comission stayed issuance of the low-power license !
until a bona fide offsite emergency plan is submitted for Massachusetts portions of the EPZ and the Appeal Board has remanded certain contentions for further consideration. It is unlikely that the delay in low-power licensing will have an overall impact on the startup schedule for the plant, because resolution of offsite emergency planning issues is the critical element in the full-power licensing.
8f Construction has been suspended with the plant about 35% complete. The applicant has requested a Construction Permit extension to January 1, 1997.
-9/ The schedule will be determined after the staff receives TVA's site-specific response to its September 17, 1985, 10 CFR 50.54 (f) letter.
10/
0 The applicants' current schedule for Unit 1 is to be ready for fuel loading in March 1988. However, taking into account a potential hearing, the applicants' schedule to comence fuel loading is July 1988. The current Unit 2 fuel load date is January 1989. The Comission is unable to predict whether licensing will be delayed.
11/ The ACRS report of April 19, 1983, recommended issuance of a low-power license. Further ACRS review is required before a full-power license is issued.
12/ 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 Units 1 and 2.
On October 8, 1986, the Appeal Board affirmed this decision. The Comission has decided not to review this decision, and the record is closed. A low-power operating license was issued to Unit 1 on August 21, 1987.
a n:
o
' TABLE (Page 6 of'6)
' FOOTNOTES-13/ ' Construction has been halted; the applicant has stated .that .it will.
pursue. revocation of the construction permit.and withdrawal of the operating license application.-.
1
. _ - _ . _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -_ ___._____--_-..-.- __.____--- _ __ - - - _ -