ML20012B575
| ML20012B575 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/02/1990 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003150345 | |
| Download: ML20012B575 (11) | |
Text
,_
h pD k it,
'o,,
UNITED STATES f
E-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIMilON l
n t
2 U
WASHINGTON, D C. 20865 i
t i
March 2, 1990
}
CHAIRMAN L
l I
The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman
}'
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development j
. Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
)
I am enclosing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) quarterly status report on licensing schedules.
The report, which covers the fourth quarter of calendar year 1989, is provided in t
response to the direction given in House Report 97-850.
j Seabrook was manually shut down on June 22, 1989, during the conduct of a low-power test.
Although restart was permitted i
once the licensee completed a review of the events associated with the shutdown and of any corrective actions with the NRC staff, so little time remained for operation at power, as authorized by the low-power license, that restart was considered by the licensee to be; impractical prior to receiving a full power opernting license.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Appeal Board issued l
decisions in November 1989 concerning emergency planning and license authorization for Seabrook.
Under Commission regulations, the license authorization does not take effect until the Commission completes its revier to determine whether to stay the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's decision.
By order dated November 16, 1989, the Commission stated that it would decide ~all motions to stay the authorization of full-power operation of Seabrook.
After reviewing these matters, the Commission, on March 1, 1990, authorized issuance of a full power license for the Seabrook Station.
Concerning Comanche Peak, the United States Court of Appeals for
~the Fifth 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.
The Fif th Circuit held oral argument on that case on February 5, 1990.
On February 6, 1990, the Court denied the petitioner's eequest for a stay of the license and indicated that it would issue a decision on the merits later.
The Commission has noved that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit transfer another petition to overturn
/f oo 3/roWh #
NO
The Honorable Tom Bevill 2
CL1-88-12 to the Fifth Circuit for' consolidation with that case.
The Commission's motion remains under review by the Court.
The NRC staff concluded a second Operational Readiness Assessment Review of construction at Comanche Peak on February 2, 1990, and i
issued e license to Texas Utilities Electric Company for fuel load, testing, and low power operation not to exceed 5% of rated power at Comanche Peak on February 8, 1990.
Currently, there are no NRC actions delaying the schedule for issuance of a full-power 1
license.
On December 28, 1989, the staff issued its Safety Evaluation Report on the Watts Bar Nuclear Performance Plan.
The staff is continuing to review the various corrective action programs and other licensing issues.
With the exception of the Seabrook delay, regulatory delays described in this report are not affected by the schedule for resolving offsite emergency preparedness issues.
Sincerely, p 2. [
4 mes R. Curtiss Acting Chairman
Enclosure:
NRC Quarterly Status Report cc:
Rep. John T. Myers
i D
ENCLOSURE NRC OUARTERLY STATUS REPORT ON LICENSING SCHEDULES FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF CY 1989 i
Seabrook Low Power 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 circulaticn startup test. The licensee agreed not to restart the reactor pending a review of the events surrounding this shutdown and a discussion of any corrective actions with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (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 of
$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 this incident. On October 12, 1989, the Licensing Board denied that motion. The intervenors have appealed. Although this appeal is pending, it does not affect consideration to authorize a full power operating license.
Full Power On November 16, 1989, the Comission issued an Order stating that it, rather than the Appeal Board, would consider any motions to vacate or stay the Licensing Board's decision authorizing the issuance of an operating license for Seabrook. A briefing by the parties on matters related to immediate effective-ness was completed on December 8, 1989. Among the matters pending Commission consideration in its imediate effectiveness review are the following:
New Hampshire Radioloaical Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP)
The Licensing Board decision of December 30, 1988, concluded that the NHRERP was adequate.
This decision was appealed by the intervenors.
On November 7, 1989, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB) remanded part of this decision back to the Licensing Board for further consideration. On November 20, 1989, the Licensing Board detennined 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.
n h
4 i,
j; i
Seabrook Plan for the Massachusetts Comunities (SPMC) and the June 1988 Full-Participation Exercise The Licensing Board decision dated November 9, 1989, concluded that the SPMC was adequate and the full-participation exercise of June 1988 did not reveal any fundamental flaw in the emergency plans. The decision authorized, subject to Comission review, the issuance of a i
full-power licent.e. The intervenors have appealed this decision.
Vehicular Alert and Notification System (VANS)
[
The Licensing Board's decision of June 23, 1989, on the adequacy of the siren system for public notification was in favor of the l
applicant.
Intervenors have appealed this decision.
6 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. On January 8. 1990 the Licensing Board rejected the motion to reopen the hearing record. This decision has been appealed.
1989 On-site Exercise The Licensing Board's decision of December 11, 1989, rejected conten-l tions seeking to litigate the scope of the September 27, 1989 on-site
)
emergency planning exercise. The intervenors have appealed this decision.
Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Review of Emergency Planning On September 8,1989, the ACRS held a meeting on emergency planning for Seabrook.
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 MW(t) without undue risk to
(.
the health and safety of the public.
The licensing issues identified p
by the ACRS pertained to the event (noted above) that occurred June 22, 1989, during a natural circulation test performed by the l
licensee, and to the installation and operation of the public alert notification system for the comunities within the emergency planning Zone.
Imediate Effectiveness Review A Comission briefing was held on January 18, 1990.
On March 1, 1990, the Comission authorized issuance of a full power operating license.
l.
i Comanche Peak i
The NRC staff is continuing to monitor the perfonnance of the Texas Utilities 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. Concurrently, the staff is proceeding with other scheduled activities necessary for Comanche Peak licensing.
in its annual report for FY 1988 to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the applicant reported that, as of February 1989. Unit I construction was approxi-mately 3 months behind the schedule announced in March 1988. Consequently, i
the applicant had expected Unit I would not be ready to load fuel until 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 NRC staff performed an Operational Readiness Assessment Team (ORAT)
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 confirm the applicant's assessment that Unit 1 is operationally ready. After notification by TV Electric, the ORAT conducted a follow-up inspection on January 22-February 2, 1990. Based in part on the favorable findings of that inspection, a license was issued on February 8,1990, authorizing the loading of fuel and operation up to 5% of rated power for start-up tests. 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.
Prior to the issuance of the Unit 2 low power operating license, " Cap Rock" Electric Cooperative, Inc. submitted comments that there had been "significant changes" in the competitive situation since the issuance of the Unit 1 operating license. The NRC staff made a " Finding of No Significant Change" and published this finding in the Federal Register.
Cap Rock filed a request for the staff to reconsider the finding.
The NRC staff did so and issued a l
decision confirming the finding. The staff has also received a petition filed by Cap Rock pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, requesting that the 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, coordination, and other essential electric power services provided by these license conditions. The petition also requests that an antitrust hearing be
(
instituted to modify the license conditions to prevent the applicant from l
further abusing its monopoly power.
In its petition, Cap Rock asserts that the l
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 l
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 purchases from supply sources other than the applicant. The applicant l
+
and Cap Rock have recently begun negotiations to resolve the conflict. The NRC staff is following tMe negotiations and will issue a decision on the petition, taking into account the resolution reached between the two parties.
The petition is considered by the staff to be a compliance issue relatina to the license conditions of the Comanche Peak construction pemit.
Inaddition to this petition Cap Rock filed a petition in the U. S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on November 30, 1989, to review the i
staff's " Finding of No Significant Change" pursuant to issuance of the operating license. The filing of the Court petition does not affect the licensing schedule for Comanche Peak Unit 2.
On August 11, 1988, the Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR) filed a request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene in the Comanche Peak operating license and construction permit amendment hearing proceedings, which were terminated by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) order on July 13, 1988. CFUR supplemented its filing on September 12, 1988. The applicant 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 argued that the Commission should 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 20, 1988. On December 21, 1988, the Commission issued a memorandum and order (CLI-88-12) denying CFUR's petition to intervene on the grounds that the petition failed to satisfy the five-factor test for 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.
Oral argement was held on February 5, 1990. On February 6,1990, the Court denied the petitioner's request for a stay of the license and indicated that it would issue a decision on the merits later.
On October 16, 1989, CFUR filed a motion asking the Commission to stay the issu-ance of the Unit 1 low-power license that CFUR anticipated would be issued to the applicant in the near future pending judicial resolution FT 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 handlingallegations.
In a letter dated January 30, 1990, the staff responded to CFUR s concerns.
Mr. Joseph Macktal filed a motion on December 16, 1988, seeking " limited intervention" in any proceeding established as a result of the CFUR petition and another motion on December 30, 1988, requesting the Commission to recon-l.
sider CLI-88-12. Mr. Macktal's motions for limited intervention and his motion for reconsideration of CLI-88-12 were denied in CLI-89-06, which was issued by L
the Comission on April 20, 1989.
l l
On January 19, 1989, Mr. Macktal filed a motion before the U.S. Court of Appeals l
for the D.C. Circuit to overturn CLI-88-12. The Comission moved that the I
Court dismiss the petition, but the Court denied that motion in an Order dated October 6, 1989. The Comission then moved that the D. C. Circuit transfer this case to the Fifth Circuit for consolidation with the litigation pending there. The Comission's motion is presently under review by the Court.
l l
\\
1.
.t In May 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 l
Circuit consolidated that petition with the petition to review CLI-88-12. The applicant and Mr. Macktal joined that case as intervenors.
Mr. Macktal's 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 known to the 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 provided 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 order on June 13, 1989, which was denied in CLI-89-12; a July 5, 1989 motion 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 Commission 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 01 investigation is still open.
The NRC staff has reviewed Mr. Macktal's safety concerns and has concluded that they do not prevent the licensing of Comanche Peak.
Mr. Macktal was an electrical foreman who lost his job at Comanche Peak in 1986. Mr. Macktal filed a complaint against Brown & Root with the Department of Labor, 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 Se::retary of Labor when Mr. Macktal requested that the Secretary of Labor overturn the settlement agreement because he believed that 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 a witness in the agencies' proceedings, was void but that the rest of the settlement agreement remains in effect.
I A
Watts Bar i
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 WNBPP was prepared in response to the issues raised by the NRC in a letter dated September 17, 1985, pursuantto10CFR50.54(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 Watts 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.
The staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the WBNPP was forwarded to TVA by a letter dated December 28, 1989. The staff's review of the various CAPS is continuing and a number of team inspections are under way. The staff has also developed a licensing plan that includes both technical review and inspection activities to be conducted by the staff for licensing of Unit 1.
.This plan will be updated when TVA completes its reevaluation of the schedule for the completion of Unit 1.
l l
l 1
l l
we
- 3 y,
c. -.
- -- ~ = _
n.
._7y :- - :-
q: g:-
g.,m m4
- ^
J
~-
0 4
(jg
.g
~
~
~6
.p -
v 1
~7.-
. 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR. REGULATION Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL APPLICATIONS-TABLE (1 of 3) 1/91/98 SER SSER
' Ceem. Decisten Est
-Staff' Staf f :
A5tB Appl.
Delay Issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Iss e /. Start of Initial
. Eff.**:
9ecc 2
Com Constr.
-CaelJ Mt FES
. Input to PD SSER ~
Nearina Decisten Plant (Months) DES Input to PD SER j
I#
C C"
Shorehae l O
C C
C C
C-
' C..
C C
-I#-
C S c rook 1 0
C C
C C
C
' C C
-C 11/13/89 3/90*
3/90*
C.J South Texas 2 0
C C
C C
C
' C C
'C C
- C C
C' 8/
vogtle 2 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C-
- C C
Limerick 2 0
C C
C C
C.
C C
.C C
C.
C-C Ballefonte 1 1# 0 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 None None N/A L N15
-- N/5 I#
0 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 None Mone N/A N/5 N/5 ; '
Balfefonte 2 Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date Commission decision on ef fectiveness of AStB decision -
N/S: Not Scheduled N/A: Not Applicable 7
+i-
.,y,--.w.--3 e
s--p v
g*
p-rw g-.g4
.w+.-
~,.m,,.
g-,,-<
y s
w-m,,
m-r,-y,y,,m
,ymd r.yy,,s,,.,
g-.
,-,w.,m,.%i,,,,,
,n,,,ry
.M,
w, n,,,,m,-
,.y%y 3
3, r-.,y, y
3
~
~
~
.0ff CE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION ~
^
-I^
l Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL APPLICATIONS -
j TABLE (2 of 3)
.~
1/01/90 '
SER SSER Comm. Decision b-Est Staff Staf f '
Ast8 Appl.
Delay issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical ~
Issue 2/-- Start of Initial' Comm.-
Constrg Mt FES Input to PD' 5~5 W 1 Hearing
' Decision Eff.**
95.'
Capt.
Plant (Months) DES Input to PD SER j
E C
C C
C C
C
- C C
N/A*
M/A*
4/90*.
~C*
Comanche Peak 1 Comanche Peak 2 0 C
C C
C C
M/S N/5 C
N/A*
N/A N/5
'N/53 1
0 C
C C
C C
C C
Mone None N/A N/5*-
' N/5* -
Watts Bar 1 W:tts Bar 2 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C Mone None' N/A N/5 N/5 '~
3/
Grand Gulf 2 0
C C
C C
C
' N/5 N/5 Mone.
None N/A N/5 N/5 2
0 C
C C
C C
N/5 N/5:
C C
'C N/5 '
N/5 Perry 2 Seabrook 2 5 0
C C
C C
C N/5 N/5 N/5 C
N/5 N/5 N/5 WNP-3 3/
0 C
N/5 N/5' N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/S N/5 N/5 -
3/
WNP-1 0
N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 MIS
- M/S
. N/5
' N/5
' N/5 '
N/5 Indicates changes tros last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date
- Commission decision on effectiveness of ASLB decision N/S: Not Scheduled N/A: Not Applicable w.
s.
- - +
.,,,.a, n
..,~.-w,....-n-a
-,n,..~,.,m,.
,,..v-a n.
4-
H i
i TABLE (Page3of3)
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 applicant and the 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-tion report supplement (SSER) after the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) meeting on the application. A "C" indicates that this r
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 i
established.
U A license was issued on February 8,1990, for Comanche Peak Unit I authorizing the loading of fuel and operation up to 5% of rated power for start-up tests. The current Unit 2 fuel load date has not been estab-lished. The Comission is unable to predict whether licensing will be delayed.
E The ACRS report of April 19, 1983, recommended 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 recomendations.
E 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 had no intention of requesting an extension to the permit expiration date.
U 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.
The construction completion i
schedule is being evaluated and a revised date will be announced in early 1990.
8/
The ACRS considered Unit 2 during its review of Unit 1.
At the December
~
1988 ACRS meeting, the ACRS concluded that it did not need to further I
review Unit 2.
l y
On March 3,1989, the Comission voted to dismiss Suffolk County, the 1
State of New York, and the Town of Southampton as parties from all l
proceedings pending before the Comission on any of its adjudicatory l
boards.
.