ML20011D705
| ML20011D705 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, Limerick, Comanche Peak, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1989 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 8912280295 | |
| Download: ML20011D705 (13) | |
Text
=s
@ M7g%
i' UNITED STATES l
2.'
"t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
g i
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20656
- %.g.,*/
December 18, 1989 CHAlt AN The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
1 am enclosing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) quarterly status report on licensing schedules.
The report, which covers the third quarter of calendar year 1989, is provided in response to the direction given in House Report 97-850.-
Seabrook was manually shut down on June 22, 1989, during the conduct of a low power test. Restart will commence after the licensee has completed a review of the events associated with the shutdown and has discussed any corrective action with the NRC staff.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a decision, dated November 9,1989, finding emergency planning adequate and authorizing the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue a license for Seabrook.
In a later order dated November 20, 1989, the Licensing Board explained why the-license authorization could stand in spite of the Appeal Board having-issued-an order reversing and remanding certain portions of an earlier Licensing Board decision on emergency planning that formed a partial basis for license issuance. Under Comission regulations, the license authorization does not take effect until the Comission completes its review to determine whether to stay the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's decision.
By order dated November 16, 1989, the Comission stated that it would decide all applications for stay of the authorization of full-power operation of Seabrook.
Concerning Comanche Peak, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth i
Circuit in New Orleans has not ruled on a: petition to review CLI-88-12 and CLI-89-06, which denied the petitioner a hearing and. permission-to intervene in the Comanche Peak operating and construction permit amendment proceedings.
i The Fifth Circuit has tentatively scheduled oral argument on that case for the week of February 5,1990.
i The Comission has moved that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit transfer another petition to overturn CLI-88-12 to-the -
Fifth Circuit for consolidation with that case. The Comission's motion remains under review by the court.. The applicant is currently reassessing the Unit 1 completion schedule based on the results of a recent readiness appraisal by the NRC staff. Currently, there are no NRC actions delaying the schedule for issuance of a full-power license.
DF?
8912280295 891218 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC i
i
l l
The Honorable Tom Bevill 2
l l
The staff is continuing to review the corrective action programs and the Watts Bar Nuclear Performance Plan and is developing a licensing plan that is consistent with the applicant's licensing schedule for Unit 1.
On August 30, 1989, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board terininated the Limerick 2 proceeding on severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs). The Commission issued a full-power license for Limerick 2 on August 25, 1989.
A discussion of Shoreham was not included in this quarterly report because Shoreham received a full-power license on April 20, 1989. Similarly, a discussion of Limerick 2 will not be included in future quarterly reports.
With the exception of the Seabrook delay, regulatory delays described ir. Jis report are not affected by the schedule for resolving off-site emergency preparedness issues.
Sincerely, n_ : =W.
Kenneth M. Carr
Enclosure:
NRC Quarterly Status Report cc: Rep. John T. Myers i
I l
1
4 f
NRC OUARTERLY STATUS REPORT Seabrook Low Power Issues affecting issuance of a low-power license have been resolved. A 5-percent power license restricted to 0.75 effective full-power hours was issued on May 26, 1989.
The plant achieved initial criticality at 5:23 p.m. on June 13, 1989.
Low-power testing was in progress on June 22, 1989, when the reactor was manually shut down during the conduct of a natural circulation startup test. The licensee has agreed not to restart the reactor pending a review of the events surrounding this shutdown and a discussion of any corrective actions with the NRC staff.
The NRC sent an augmented inspection team to the site on June 28, 1989-to evaluate the circumstances surrounding this shutdown. The team issued a report on August 17, 1989, which cited several violations. On October 25, 1989, the NRC issued a notice of violation and proposed imposition of a civil penalty for $50,000. The licensee replied to the notice of violation on November 17, 1989, and did not contest the proposed civil penalty. A majority of the licensee's corrective actions resulting from this shutdown have been completed. The intervenors sought to reopen the hearing record based on the performance of the licencee's personnel during this incident.
On October 12, 1989, the Licensing Board denied that motion. The intervenors have appealed.
Full Power On November 16, 1989, the Commission issued an Order providing that in connection with its review of the Licensing Board decision authorizing the issuance of an operating license for Seabrook, it, rather than the Appeal Board, would consider any motions to vacate or stay the Licensing Board's I
decision. Briefing of those matters is to be completed on December 8,1989.
Among the matters for Commission consideration in its inmediate effectiveness review are:
New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHREP). The Licensing Board decision of December 30, 1988, concluded that_the NHREP was adequate. This decision was appealed by the intervenors.
On November 7,1989, The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board remanded part of this decision back to the Licensing Board for further consideration. On November 9,1989, as supplemented on November 20, 1989, the Licensing Board determined that the remand did not affect the prior authorization of a full-power license for Seabrook. Both intervenors and the applicant have petitioned the Commission for review of the Appeal Board decision.
i b
Seabrook plan for the Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) and the June 1988 Full-Participation Exercise.
The Licensing Board decision cateo November 9, 1989, concluded that the SPMC was adequate and the full-participation exercise of June 1988 did not reveal any flaw in the emergency plans. The decision authorized, subject to Commission review, the issuance of a full-power license.
The intervenors have appealed this decision.
Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS).
The Licensing Board's decision of June 23, 1989, rejected contentions seeking to litigate the Vehicular Alert and Notification System.
Intervenors have appealed this decision.
On-site Performance in 1988 Full-Participation Exercise.
The Licensing Board decision of January 30, 1989, rejected contentions seeking to litigate matters concerning the applicant's on-site performance during the June 1988 full-participation (off-site) exercise.
The ASLAB affirmed the decision on June 20, 1989.
Emergency Broadcasting System (EBS).
On November 9,1989, the intervenors filed a motion to reopen the hearing record on the sufficiency of the EBS upon withdrawal of a station in that system.
{
1989 On-site Exercise.
The Licensing Board's decision of November 20, 1989, rejected i
contentions seeking to litigate the scope of the June 1989 on-site emergency planning exercise.
decision.
The intervenors have appealed this Advisory Connittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Review of Emergency Planning.
A meeting of the ACRS was held September 8,1989, on emergency planning.
Following the meeting, the ACRS issued a letter dated September 13, 1989, to the Chairman of the NRC concluding that, subject to satisfactory resolution of certain licensing-issues, there is reasonable assurance that Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 1, can be operated ~ at a core power level up to 3411 MWt without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. These licensing issues pertain to the event that occurred June 22, 1989, as noted above, during a i
natural circulation test performed by the licensee, and to the _
installation and operation of the public alert notification system for the communities within the emergency planning zone.
'J H
l
~
v
~
-Comanche Peak The staff is continuing to monitor the performance of the Texas Utilities I
Electric Company's (applicant's) Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) and the implementation of the corrective action program plans approved by the staff on January 22, 1988, and is proceeding with other scheduled activities necessary i
for Comanche Peak licensing.
In its annual report for FY 1988 to the Securities and Exchange Consnission the applicant reported that, as of February 1989, Unit 1 construction was appro,xi-mately 3 months behind the schedule announced in March 1988.
Consequently, the applicant had expected Unit I would be ready to load fuel in September 1989. In a press release dated October 6,1989, however, the applicant stated that " Fuel load for Unit 1 is scheduled for this fall...."
The staff perfonned an Operational Readiness Assessment Team (0 RAT) Inspection on October 16 - 27, 1989. The ORAT concluded that construction and testing of Unit I was not sufficiently complete to make a determination with respect to its operational readiness.
During an interim exit meeting on October 27, 1989, the staff identified several actions that the applicant must take before the staff can complete its inspection-and stated conditions under which the follow-up inspection will be resumed to confinn the applicant's assessment that Unit 1 is operationally ready. The applicant is currently reassessing its Unit I completion schedule based on the results of the staff's ORAT inspec-tion and has not made any announcements regarding when Unit I will be ready for the follow-up inspection and subsequent fuel loading.
Based on the applicant's current working schedules, however, the staff estimates that Unit 1 may be ready to load fuel as early as January 1990.
The applicant's Unit 2 fuel load date is currently unscheduled as work on Unit 2 was suspended in March 1988, except in areas necessary to support Unit 1 operations, pending the completion of Unit 1.
The staff has received a petition filed by Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
(" Cap Rock") pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, requesting that NRC issue an order enforcing the Comanche Peak antitrust license conditions.
In addition, the petition requests that the applicant be required to make available to Cap Rock, under reasonable rates, terms, and conditions, the partial requirements.
i l
coordination, and other essential electric power services provided by these license conditions.
The petition also requests that an antitrust hearing be L
instituted to modify the license conditions to prevent the applicant from further abusing its monopoly power.
In its' petition, Cap Rock asserts that the applicant is currently refusing to provide the essential service that would enable Cap Rock to purchase generating capacity and economical energy from i
other bulk power supply sources.
Cap Rock maintains that an NRC license condition placed on the applicant requires that the applicant provide, at i
reasonable cost, otherwise unavailable services such'as scheduling, dis-patching, and transmission line service that would facilitate Cap Rock-i purchases from supply sources other than the applicant. As'provided in 10 CFR. 2.206, the staff will. take appropriate action on the petition within a reasonable time.
It should be noted that the staff considers this to be a compliance action and not a pre-licensing action-that could delay issuance of the Unit 1 operating license.
On August 29, 1989, the staff issued a final " Finding of No Significant Change" pursuant to the operating license antitrust review of Comanche Peak. Cap Rock-filed a petition to review that finding in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the i.
District of Columbia Circuit on November 30, 1989.
i On August 11, 1988, the Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR) filed a i
i l
request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene in the Comanche j
Peak operating license and construction permit amendment proceedings, which i
were tenninated by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) order on July 13, 1988.
CFUR supplemented its filing on September 12, 1988.
The applicant i
i and staff opposed the original petition in filings dated August 26 and 31, 1988, respectively. The applicant and staff also opposed CFUR's supplemental filing in filings dated September 28, and October 3,1988, respectively.
Both the staff and the applicant recommended that the Comission deny the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to show, in both filings, that the factors of 10 CFR 2.714(a) weigh in the petitioner's favor. CFUR filed a second supplement on December 19, 1988.
On December 21, 1988, the Comission j
issued a memorandum and order (CLI-88-12) denying CFUR's petition to. intervene on the grounds that the petition faileo to satisfy the five-factor test' for 1
late-filed intervention petitions. On February 15, 1989, CFUR filed a petition to review CLI-88-12 with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. This petition is still under consideration and oral argument is tentatively set for the week of February 5,1990.
On July 13, 1989, Lou Burnam, on behalf of the Greater Fort Worth Group of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club filed a Motion to Reopen the Record. On i
July 25, 1989, Mr. Burnam withdrew his motion.
On October 16, 1989, CFUR filed a motion asking the Comission to stay the -
issuance of the Unit I low-power license that CFUR anticipates will be issued to the applicant in the near future pending judicial resolution of its petition before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. By order dated October 19, 1989, the Comission denied the request, but ~ directed the NRC staff to address CFUR's concerns in accordance with the established procedures for handling allegations.
i Mr. Joseph Macktal filed a motion on December 30, 1988, requesting the i
Comission to reconsider CLI-88-12 and another motion on January 13, 1989, seeking status as an intervenor.
Mr. Macktal's motions for limited inter-vention and his motion for reconsideration of CLI-88-12 were denied in CLI-89-06, which was issued by the Consnission on April 20, 1989.
1 On January 19, 1989, Mr. Macktal filed a motion before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn CLI-88-12.. The Comission moved that-the court dismiss the petition but the Court denied that motion in an Order dated October 6,1989.
The Commission then moved that the D. C.' Circuit transfer this case to the Fifth Circuit for consolidation with the litigation i
pending-there.
The Comission's motion is presently under review by the court.
1 On April 27, 1989, CFUR petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to review CLI-89-06. On June 5,1989, the Fifth Circuit consolidated that petition with the petition to review CLI-88-12. TU Electric and Mr. Macktal joined that case as intervenors.
I
t' These motions centered on the NRC's requests to Mr. Macktal to provide the agency with the specifics of his allegations concerning safety defects at Comanche Peak. After making these allegations public, Mr. Macktal refused to provide them to the NRC. On June 5,1989,_ the NRC's Office of Investigations (01) issued a subpoena requiring Mr. Macktal to provide this information to the NRC. Mr. Macktal challenged the subpoena before the Commission.
Specifically, Mr. Macktal filed before the Commission a motion for a protective 1
order on June 13, 1989, which was denied in CLI-89-12; a July 5, 1989, motion j
for reconsideration of CLI-89-12, which was denied in CLI-89-13; and a July 5, 1989, motion for "recusation " which was denied in CLI-89-14.
Mr. Macktal still refused to comply with the subpoena. Accordingly, the Connission sought enforcement of the subpoena in Federal District Court in Fort Worth. The Court ordered Mr. Macktal to obey the subpoena and the U.S.
Court of Appeals refused to stay the Court's order.
On September 18, 1989, Mr. Macktal complied with the subpoena.
The OI investigation is still open.
Mr. Macktal was an electrical foreman who lost his job at Comanche Peak in 1986. Mr. Macktal filed a Department of Labor complaint against Brown & Root claiming that he was terminated for raising safety concerns. A settlement was reached between Mr. Macktal and Brown & Root in 1987.
The settlement was under review by the Secretary of Labor when Mr. Macktal requested that the Secretary i
of Labor overturn the settlement agreement because the agreement limited his right to bring safety concerns to the NRC.
The Secretary of. Labor ruled on November 14, 1989, that the part of the agreement restricting Mr. Macktal from contacting the NRC or other government agencies, or cooperating or appearing as l
a witness in the agencies' proceedings was void, but held that the rest of the l
settlement remains in effect.
The NRC staff has reviewed the Comanche Peak Emergency Plan through Revision 11.
The most recent full-participation exercise was conducted July 24-28, 1989.
Although the on-site portion of the exercise was successful, several identified weaknesses are scheduled for correction, and the exercise did not demonstrate the on-site evacuation and accountability elements _ of the exercise.
During an exercise conducted on October 27, 1989, these elements were adequately demon-
~
strated. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) evaluated the off-site portion of this exercise-and is expected to issue its report to support l
licensing of Comanche Peak above 5-percent of rated power.
l 1
l l
l i
6
. I
l Watts Bar On May 22,1989, the applicant submitted its plan for the licensing of Watts Bar Unit 1 (the Watts Bar Nuclear Performance Plan (WBNPP)) as Volume 4 of the TVA Nuclear Performance Plan. The WBNPP was prepared in response to the issues raised by the NRC in a letter dated September 17, 1985, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f).
In this submittal. the applicant described the actions taken or planned to identify, document, investigate, and correct problems at the Watts Bar nuclear power plant.
The WBNPP also makes reference to the corrective actions program (CAP) plans prepared for Patts Bar.
At present, the applicant is developing a detailed schedule for implementing portions of the program plan and the completion of the Watts Bar nuclear power plant.
Tl.e NRC staff is presently reviewing the CAP and the WBNPP, and a number of team inspections are under way.
The staff is also developing a licensing plan, including both technical review and inspection activities to be conducted by the staff, consistent with the applicant's licensing schedule for Unit 1.
TVA is currently evaluating the licensing schedule.
Limerick, Unit 2 In a decision dated February 28, 1989, the United States Court of Appeals 'for the Third Circuit held that the Commission was required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider in the Limerick licensing pro-ceeding certain " severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs)"
l l
proposed by the intervenor.
The court also granted a petition by the Graterford prisoners regarding training for the bus and ambulance drivers who i
might have to evacuate the prisoners in the unlikely event of a very severe accident at the plant.
j On April 14, 1989, the Commission ordered that the Limerick hearings be i
reopened on the contentions of the Graterford prisoners.
In the meantime, the-Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the Pennsylvania Emergency Management i
Agency, and Philadelphia Electric Company completed training for over 100 Corrections Department employees.
Based on a stipulation executed by all parties requesting termination, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board formally terminated this proceeding on August 11, 1989.
- On May 5, 1989, the Conmission issued an order directing that a licensing board consider the SAMDA issue.
On August 16, 1989, the staff issued a supplement to the final environmental statement for the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, evaluating the SAMDA alternatives.
Following numerous pleadings and briefs by all parties, the licensee reached an agreement with the-intervenor.
On August 25, 1989, a stipulation executed by all parties was filed with the licensing board requesting that the hearing be terminated. On August 30, 1989, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board responded to this request by terminating the proceeding.
The Commission issued a license to Philadelphia Electric Company on June' 22, 1989, authorizing fuel loading and precriticality testing. A second license-was issued on July 10, 1989, authorizing power operation up to 5 percent. - On August 25, 1989, a full-power license was issued for Limerick Unit 2.
As a result of the extensive preoperational testing, the startup and power ascension programs have proceeded ahead of schedule and without any significant problems.
The unit achieved full power in October 1989 and completed preoperational testing on December 1, 1989. The unit is expected to enter commercial operation by February 1990.
J
- I k
5 4
4
~. - - -
. -, ~
w
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL APPLICATIONS TABLE (1 of 4) 12/01/89 SER SSER Come. Decision 1#
Est Staff Staff Abl0 Delay Issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue 2/
APPI*
~ Plg (Months) Ds5 Input to PD SER Mtg FES Input to PD SSER Hearing Decision Eff.**
Dec.
Comp 1.
Start of Initial Comm.
Cons ti Shoreham 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
2#
E#
C C
C Seabrook 1 0
C C
C C5#
C C
C C
11/13/89 N/S N/S C
South Texas 2 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C
'C Vogtle 2 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
8/
Limerick 2 0
C C
C C
C C.
C C
C C
C*
C Bellefonte 1 2#
0 N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S Mone None N/A N/S N/S Bellefente 2 1 0
N/S N/S N/S N/S-N/S N/S N/S Mone None N/A N/S N/S Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date Commission decision on effectiveness of ASLB decision N/S: Not $cheduled N/A: Not Applicable
6 OFFICE OF MUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL APPLICATIONS 12/01/89 SER
'SSER Comm. Decision
- E' Est Staff Staff ASLB Delay Issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issure 2/ Start of Initial Comm.
Constr Appl.
Plant (Months) DES Input to PD SER Mtg FES Input to PD
$5Di-Hearing Decision Ef f **
Dec.
Cog 1.
Comanche Peak 1 $#
C C
C C
C C
C C
N/A*
N/A*
N/S*
N/S* $
Comanche Peak 2 0 C
C C
C C
N/S N/S C
M/A*
N/A N/S N/$ $#
Watts Bar 1 E O
C C
C C
C C
C Mone None N/A 12/92*
12/92*
Watts Bar 2 E O
C C
C C
C C
C Mone None N/A N/S M/S
. Grand Gulf 2 $#
0 C
C C
C C
N/S N/S None None N/A N/S N/S
-- Perry 2 E O
C C
C C
C N/S N/S' C
C C
N/S N/S Serbrook 2 5#
0 C
C C
C C
N/S N/S N/S C
M/S N/S
- N/S W -3 }/
0 C
N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S M/S N/S M/S N/S M/S M/S WNP-1 2 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 Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date Commission decision on ef:ectiveness of ASLB decision
'N/S: Not Scheduled N/A: Not Applicable
.no
..--.j_.;g_,.mC_.
.J._n
.m_a.=
.m,
..-e
.m.mm,-
m.m__.m.m%_m_m.p.
l l
~
Table (Page 3 of 4)
FOOTNOTES M
Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional potential delay from emergency preparedness review.
For plants with construction completed, the Comission decision dates indicate-the date for the decision on a full-power license; however, initial licensing may proceed (restricting power to 5 percent of rated full power) on the basis of a favorable ASLB decision (if applicable) and a preliminary design verification by the aDplicant and staff. Construction completion dates and Comission decision dates are based on the applicant's estimate of construction completion.
2/
The date shown is the estimated date for issuing the first safety evalua-l tion report supplement (SSER) after the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) meeting on the application.
A "C" indicates.that this SSER has been issued. Additional SSERs will be issued to close out.
{
remaining open items.
3_/
Construction has been halted; a construction completion date has not been established.
4I In its annual report for FY 1988 to the Security and Exchange Commission, the applicant reported that, as of February 1989, Unit I construction was approximately 3 nonths behind the schedule announced in March 1988.
Consequently, the applicant had expected Unit I would be ready for fuel loading in September 1989.
In a press release dated October 6, 1989, however, the applicant stated that " Fuel' load for Unit 1 is scheduled for this fall...."
The applicant is currently reassessing its Unit I comple-tion schedule based on the results of the staff's Operational Readiness l
Assessment Team insr'7 tion conducted October 16-27, 1989 and has not made any announcements rec eding when Unit I will be ready for fuel loading.
Based on the applicant's current working schedules, however, the staff estimates that Unit i may be ready to ' load fuel as early as January'1990.
The current Unit 2 fuel load date has not been established. The Comission is unable to predict whether licensing will' be delayed.
El The ACRS report of April 19, 1983, recomended issuance of a low-power license. By letter dated September 13, 1989, the ACRS recommended issuance of a full-power license, subject to adequate resolution of issues related to low-power testing and FEMA recommendations.
i SI Construction has been halted; the construction permit expired on October 31, 1988, and the applicant stated in a letter dated September 22, 1988, that it han no intention of requesting an extension to the pennit expiration date.
M On June 29, 1988, TVA announced deferral of Bellefonte 1 and 2.
The schedule for completion will be considered at a later time. Work on Watts Bar will be primarily focused on Unit 1, which is now targeted for operation in FY 1992.
_ 8/
The ACRS considered Unit 2 during its review of Unit 1.
At the December i
1988 ACRS meeting, the ACRS concluded that it did not need to further review Unit 2.
1
4 TABl.E (Page 4 of 4)
El On March 3,1989, the Comission voted to dismiss Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton as parties from all proceedings pending before the Comission on any of its adjudicatory boards.
_ _ _.