ML090620052
| ML090620052 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bellefonte  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/2009 |
| From: | Raghavan L Watts Bar Special Projects Branch |
| To: | |
| Milano, P , NRR/DLPM, 415-1457 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML090610248 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MD9564, TAC MD9565 | |
| Download: ML090620052 (8) | |
Text
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NOS. CPPR-122 AND CPPR-123 BELLEFONTE NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-438 AND 50-439
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 26, 2008, as supplemented on September 25, 2008, and on November 24, 2008, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) reinstate construction permit (CP)
Nos. CPPR-122 and CPPR-123 for Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN) Units 1 and 2, respectively, returning the facility to a terminated plant status. The NRC had previously withdrawn the CPs on September 14, 2006, at the request of TVA.
TVA indicated that reinstatement of the CPs would allow it to evaluate whether the completion of the construction and operation of the BLN units would be a viable option. Upon reinstatement of the CPs, TVA stated that it would resume preservation and maintenance activities as described in the Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants, published in the Federal Register on October 14, 1987 (52 FR 38077).
2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
2.1 Background
On June 21, 1973, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC; predecessor to the NRC) assigned Docket Nos. 50-438 and 50-439 to the TVA application to construct two Babcock &
Wilcox Co. (B&W) pressurized-water reactors at the BLN site in Jackson County, AL, near Scottsboro, AL. The AEC published the application for the CPs in the Federal Register on August 3, 1973 (38 FR 20932). Under the National Environmental Policy Act, TVA issued a final environmental statement addressing the construction and operation of the BLN units in May 1974. The AEC issued its final environmental statement in June 1974. On December 24, 1974, after the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued its initial decision on site suitability and environmental matters, the AEC issued CP Nos. CPPR-122 and CPPR-123 to authorize the construction of BLN Units 1 and 2, respectively, under Title 10, Section 50.35, Issuance of Construction Permits, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.35).
On February 1, 1978, TVA filed an application for operating licenses (OLs) for BLN Units 1 and 2, which included an OL final safety analysis report (FSAR) and an OL
environmental report. The NRC docketed the TVA application on June 6, 1978, and published a notice of opportunity for a hearing in the Federal Register on July 17, 1978 (43 FR 30628).
TVA continued construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 through the 1980s until it forecasted a decrease in electric load growth. As a result of this forecast, by letter dated July 29, 1988, TVA informed the NRC that it was deferring construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. TVA placed the units in a deferred plant status and carried out a layup program consistent with the Commissions deferred plant policy described in the NRCs Generic Letter 87-15, Policy Statement on Deferred Plants, dated November 4, 1987. Subsequently, by letter dated October 1, 2005, TVA informed the NRC that it had ceased construction activities and layup and quality-related activities. TVA also carried out certain investment recovery activities. In response to a TVA letter dated April 6, 2006, the NRC staff granted TVA its request to withdraw the CPs on September 14, 2006, and considered the plant terminated. At the point construction was deferred, TVA indicated that Unit 1 was approximately 90 percent complete and Unit 2 was approximately 58 percent complete.
While BLN Units 1 and 2 were in a deferred status, until 2005, the NRC performed periodic inspections of the BLN layup program and documented the inspection results in its inspection reports. These inspections determined that TVA was adequately performing preservation and layup activities. The NRC did not conduct further inspections because it withdrew the CPs in September 2006.
In letters dated August 26, 2008; September 25, 2008; and November 24, 2008, TVA requested that the NRC reinstate the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2. In describing the reasons for its request, TVA indicated that reinstatement of the CPs would allow it to evaluate whether the completion of the construction and operation of BLN Units 1 and 2 was a viable option. TVA stated that because the economics of power generation have changed, the completion and operation of the units may now be economically viable. Also, the reinstatement of the CPs will allow major safety-related construction to start more quickly and also avoid procurement bottlenecks for heavy forgings and other large components. TVA stated that the reinstatement of the CPs will provide regulatory certainty for performing more detailed engineering and regulatory analyses and for establishing a regulatory framework and licensing basis that would be used in considering the viability of completing the units. Upon reinstatement of the CPs, TVA will resume preservation and maintenance activities consistent with the Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants. TVA will provide appropriate advance notice to the NRC of its plan to resume plant construction as specified in the Policy Statement on Deferred Plants, to allow the NRC time to evaluate the acceptability of reactivating construction activities. As last amended by an NRC Order dated March 4, 2003, CP Nos. CPPR-122 and CPPR-123 will expire on October 1, 2011, and October 1, 2014, respectively.
2.2 Regulations and Guidance Although no specific regulations govern the reinstatement of a terminated or withdrawn CP, the NRC staff considers the reinstatement of a CP to be analogous to extending the CP under 10 CFR 50.55(b) of 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities. Thus, the staff considered the following regulations and guidance during its review:
Each CP is subject to certain terms and conditions under 10 CFR 50.55, Conditions of Construction Permits, Early Site Permits, Combined Licenses, and Manufacturing Licenses. In particular, 10 CFR 50.55 states that, at or about the time of construction or
modification of the facility, the applicant will file any additional information needed to bring the original application for license up to date and will file an application for an OL or an amendment to an application for a license to construct and operate the facility for the issuance of an OL, as appropriate, as specified in 10 CFR 50.30(d). Moreover, 10 CFR 50.55 states that if the proposed construction of the facility is not completed by the latest completion date, the CP shall expire and all rights are forfeited. However, upon good cause shown, the Commission will extend the completion date for a reasonable period of time.
In 10 CFR 50.33, Contents of Applications; General Information, and in 10 CFR 50.34, Contents of Construction Permit and Operating License Applications; Technical Information, the NRC describes the information that an applicant should submit with a CP application.
In 10 CFR 50.35, the NRC specifies the criteria for the issuance of a CP. However, as stated in 10 CFR 50.35(c), any CP will be subject, in part, to the limitation that the Commission will not issue a license authorizing operation of the facility until the NRC has found that the final design provides reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation of the facility in accordance with the requirements of the license and the regulations.
In 10 CFR 50.40, Common Standards, the regulation provides certain considerations that will guide the NRC in determining whether to issue a CP or OL in this part to an applicant.
The Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants (52 FR 38077) presents the procedures that apply to a nuclear power plant while it is in a deferred status and when it is being reactivated. It also addresses the following:
the regulations and guidance applicable to deferred and terminated plants the maintenance, preservation, and documentation requirements the applicability of new regulatory requirements and other general administrative considerations In a staff requirements memorandum dated February 18, 2009, in response to the Commission action memorandum COMSECY-08-0041, Staff Recommendation Related to Reinstatement of the Construction Permits for Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, dated December 12, 2008, the Commission authorized the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to issue an Order reinstating the CPs, thereby placing the facility in terminated plant status. The Commission also directed the staff to publish a notice of opportunity for a hearing in association with the reinstatement of the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2, with the scope of the hearing limited to whether good cause exists for the reinstatement. Further, should TVA choose to pursue deferred plant status, the NRR Director is authorized to return the facility to deferred plant status once the Director determines that TVA has demonstrated compliance with the Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants.
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
3.1 Proposed Application from the Tennessee Valley Authority In its application dated August 26, 2008, as supplemented on September 25, 2008, and on November 24, 2008, TVA requested that the NRC reinstate CP Nos. CPPR-122 and CPPR-123 for BLN Units 1 and 2, respectively, which the NRC withdrew on September 14, 2006, at the request of TVA. TVA stated that the BLN plant was substantially complete and that it was being maintained in a deferred construction status consistent with the definition of deferred nuclear plant units as described in the Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants before withdrawal of the CPs. TVA also stated that reinstatement of the CPs would allow it (1) to return the units to deferred status and resume preservation and maintenance activities as appropriate under the Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants and (2) to determine, with a relative degree of certainty, whether the completion of the construction and operation of the units is a viable option.
3.2 Prior NRC Findings and Conclusions on the Construction Permits for BLN Units 1 and 2 In its safety evaluation report (SER) dated May 24, 1974, the NRC staff concluded (1) that the proposed facility satisfied the requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.35(a) and therefore can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public and (2) that there is reasonable assurance that all safety questions will be satisfactorily resolved before the completion of construction of the proposed facility.
3.3 Staff Evaluation The NRC staff evaluated the TVA request for reinstatement to determine (1) whether reinstatement of the CPs would affect the NRCs previous conclusions and (2) whether there was good cause shown for extending the CPs under 10 CFR 50.55(b). The regulation in 10 CFR 50.55(b) states that if the construction or modification of the facility is not completed by the latest specified completion date, the CP shall expire and all rights are forfeited. However, upon good cause shown, the Commission will extend the completion date for a reasonable period of time.
3.3.1 Evaluation of Impact on Prior Conclusions 3.3.1.1 Consideration of Design and Construction of the Facility The BLN facility comprises two individual units that share certain common structures, systems, and components. Each of the proposed B&W Model 205 two-loop pressurized-water reactors was being designed to operate at a thermal power of 3600 megawatts thermal with an expected ultimate capability of producing 3763 megawatts thermal. The nuclear steam supply system for each unit is housed inside a steel-lined, prestressed-concrete, cylindrical containment structure, which in turn is completely enclosed by a reinforced concrete structure called the secondary containment building.
Before TVA notified the NRC that it was deferring construction, the NRC staff noted in its review that the principal features of the design of the BLN facility were similar to those that the staff was also evaluating for other plants (e.g., North Anna Nuclear Generating Station Units 3 and 4
and Washington Nuclear Unit 1) and had previously approved for construction. To the extent feasible and appropriate, the staff was using the previous evaluation of these plants in its review of the BLN facility. Although none of the B&W Model 205 pressurized-water reactors was completed in the United States, BLN Units 1 and 2 are of the same design as the Mülheim-Krlich Nuclear Power Plant A reactor in Germany, which operated well for 3 years and proved the design. The plant was ordered to shut down because of certain plant siting deficiencies.
TVA provided the technical and design information in the preliminary safety analysis report through Amendment No. 12 and in the FSAR through Amendment No. 29. The NRC staff evaluated the technical and design information and documented its results in the original SER (dated May 24, 1974) and in Supplement No. 1 to the SER dated August 30, 1974. As stated in the original SER, this was only the first stage of a continuing review by the NRC staff of the design, construction, and operating features of BLN. The staff specifically noted that it would be reviewing the final design to determine that all of the Commissions safety requirements were met before the issuance of an OL.
In its application requesting reinstatement of the CPs, TVA has not proposed to change the design of the facility, as described in the preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) and FSAR.
Also, no information has been identified that would invalidate the conclusions presented in the staffs original SER. Because the design information on which the staff based its previous findings will not change, the NRC determination as to whether the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public would remain valid if the NRC reinstates the CPs.
3.3.1.2 Consideration of Safe Operation at the Proposed Location In its SER dated May 24, 1974, and Supplement No. 1 to the SER dated August 30, 1974, which supported the granting of the original CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2, the AEC staff summarized the results of its technical evaluation of BLN Units 1 and 2 and delineated the scope of the technical matters that it considered in evaluating the radiological safety aspects of the proposed facility. Based on its evaluation, the AEC staff concluded that BLN Units 1 and 2, could be constructed and operated as proposed without endangering the health and safety of the public. In Section 21.0, Conclusions, of the SER, the AEC staff detailed its specific findings in concluding that the provisions of 10 CFR 50.35(a) and 10 CFR 2.104(b) were satisfied. In addition, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the TVA application for CPs to construct the BLN facility. In its letter dated July 16, 1974, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards stated that certain items can be resolved during construction and that if due consideration is given to issues in its letter, BLN Units 1 and 2 can be constructed with reasonable assurance that the units can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. These findings and conclusions are unaffected by reinstatement of the CPs.
In addition to the PSAR, 10 CFR 50.34(a) requires the submission of the quality assurance plan and preliminary plans for training and conduct of operation. TVA provided this documentation with its original application. Upon reinstatement of the CPs, TVA would need to update these documents before proceeding with any activities governed by the applicable programs, plans, and procedures. This is consistent with the discussion in the Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants about information that must be submitted when reactivating a facility. In particular, the policy statement clearly states that deferral, termination, and reactivation will be
subject to all applicable current regulations, standards, policies, and guidance. Because a CP constitutes only an authorization to proceed with construction but does not constitute the Commissions approval of the safety of any design feature or specification unless the applicant specifically requests such approval and such approval is incorporated in the CP, the NRC staff will review the detailed design information and resolution of any safety issues during the OL application review.
3.3.1.3 Impact of Investment Recovery Operations on Prior Conclusions TVA suspended preservation and maintenance activities after the NRC withdrew the CPs and conducted some investment recovery activities such as the removal of steam generator tubing, certain sections of the reactor coolant piping, various storage tanks, and a number of the original construction storage buildings. In its August 26, 2008, letter, TVA stated that upon reinstatement of the CPs, it will carry out its nuclear quality assurance plan as the plan relates to a deferred plant. Equipment not subject to preventive maintenance under a layup program would be entered into the TVA corrective action program and prohibited from being placed in service without further evaluation or without full restoration or replacement. Systems and components (equipment) that may have been affected during investment recovery activities would also be entered into the TVA corrective action program and prohibited from being placed in service without a full evaluation or without restoration or replacement as well. The NRC staff finds that these activities are not material to reinstatement of the CPs but will be subject to NRC inspection, review, and approval during the OL review stage.
3.3.1.4 Conclusions on Design and Safe Operation The NRC staff finds that reinstatement of the CPs does materially affect the staffs previous conclusions relative to design and safety considerations. In particular, the staff notes that a CP constitutes only an authorization to proceed with construction but does not constitute the Commissions approval of the safety of any design feature. Any CP is subject to the limitation that the Commission will not issue a license authorizing operation of the facility until (1) the applicant has submitted to the Commission, by amendment to the application, the complete FSAR, and (2) the Commission has found that the final design provides reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation of the facility in accordance with the requirements of the license and the applicable regulations.
3.3.2 Good Cause for Reinstatement In its application, TVA stated that since the NRC withdrew the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2, it has come to believe that the economics of power generation have changed such that completion and operation of BLN Units 1 and 2 may be economically viable. Discussing the economic circumstances in its August 26, 2008, letter, TVA states that since the CP withdrawal in 2005, the cost per kilowatt of installed capacity among generation alternatives has continued to increase. The increased demand and competition for procurement of necessary reactor components have created additional cost and schedule impacts on new construction. TVA estimates that the advanced stage of construction of major BLN Unit 1 and 2 structures, systems, and components, including the containment buildings, cooling towers, circulation water buildings, most major and minor Unit 1 systems, and some Unit 2 systems, represents a significant asset. In the opinion of TVA, this situation offers the potential of a significantly lower cost per installed kilowatt, a shorter schedule for the start of major safety-related construction,
and the opportunity to avoid procurement bottlenecks for heavy forging and other large components. Therefore, TVA has decided to examine the possibility of adding BLN Units 1 and 2 to its mix of base load generating options. As a first step in its evaluation, TVA requests reinstatement of the CPs. This will provide regulatory certainty for performing more detailed engineering and regulatory analyses and for establishing a regulatory framework and licensing basis that TVA would use in considering the viability of completing the units. Upon reinstatement of the CPs, TVA will preserve and maintain the units as described in the Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants. The NRC staff finds that TVA has shown good cause for reinstatement of the CPs.
3.3.3 Summary In summary, the NRC staff finds that reinstatement of the CPs will not affect the health and safety of the public. A CP constitutes only an authorization to proceed with construction and does not constitute the Commissions approval of the safety of any design feature. The CPs are subject to the limitation that the Commission will not issue a license authorizing operation of the facility until the NRC has found that the final design provides reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation of the facility in accordance with the requirements of the license and the regulations. On the basis of the economic, material procurement, and electrical generation considerations provided by TVA, the staff finds that TVA has shown good cause for reinstatement of the CPs.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
Under 10 CFR 51.21 (Criteria for and Identification of Licensing and Regulatory Actions Requiring Environmental Assessments), 10 CFR 51.32 (Finding of No Significant Impact),
and 10 CFR 51.35 (Requirement to Publish Finding of No Significant Impact; Limitation on Commission Action), the NRC performed an environmental assessment and reached a finding of no significant impact. The agency published its assessment in the Federal Register on March 3, 2009 (74 FR 9308). Based on the environmental assessment, the staff determined that reinstatement of the CPs will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The NRC staff has evaluated the information in the TVA submittal. Based on that evaluation, the staff concludes that the TVA request for reinstatement of the CPs would not affect the safety, design, security, or environmental considerations for the BLN facility. The staff concludes (1) that reinstatement of the CPs would not affect the NRCs previous conclusions that the proposed facility can be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safety of the public, (2) that there is reasonable assurance that all safety questions will be satisfactorily resolved before the completion of the construction of the proposed facility, and (3) that TVA has shown good cause for reinstating the CPs.
Based on the foregoing evaluation, issuance of an Order rescinding the withdrawal and reinstating the CPs to the latest completion dates of October 1, 2011, for BLN Unit 1 and October 1, 2014, for BLN Unit 2 is justified.
With regard to the TVA statement that it would place BLN Units 1 and 2 into a deferred status under the Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants, the Commission directed in its staff requirements memorandum dated February 18, 2009, that upon issuing an Order to reinstate the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2, the facility would be placed in terminated plant status.
Therefore, CP Nos. CPPR-122 and CPPR-123 for the construction of BLN Units 1 and 2, respectively, are reinstated and the facility returned to a terminated plant status under Section III.B, Terminated Plant, of the Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants.
Should TVA choose to pursue placement of the facility in a deferred plant status, it shall ensure, to the satisfaction of the NRR Director, that it has complied with the guidance and provisions under Section III.A, Deferred Plant, of the Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants.
When the results of its evaluation and inspection are satisfactory, the NRR Director may then authorize placement of the facility in a deferred plant status. Should TVA decide to reactivate construction, it shall comply with the provisions for notifying the NRR Director and shall provide the information described in the Commissions Policy Statement on Deferred Plants.
Principal Contributors: L. Raghavan P. Milano Dated: March 9, 2009