ML20055C628

Forwards NRC Quarterly Status Rept on Licensing Schedules for First Quarter 1990

ML20055C628
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/21/1990
From:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS
References
CCS, NUDOCS 9005290153
Download: ML20055C628 (7)

Text

,

[

$ itty g

m#o 8

g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n

[

,E wAssimoToN, D. C. 20655

%%,,,,,e May 21, 1990 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

20515

Dear Mr. Chaiman:

I am enclosing the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's) quarterly status-report on licensing schedules.

The report, which covers the first quarter of calendar year 1990, is provided in response to the direction given in House Report 97-850.

On March 1,1990, the Comission authorized the issuance of a full power license for the Seabrook Nuclear Station. On March 15, 1990, License No.

NPF-86 was issued authorizing full-power operation of Seabrook Unit No. 1.

On February 8, 1990, the staff issued License No. NPF-28 for Comanche Peak Unit 1, which authorized the loading of fuel and operation up to 5 percent of rated power. On March 30, 1990, the Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation applied to the Supreme Court for a stay of low-power operation. Justice White denied the application on the same day it was filed. After the successful completion of low-power testing, the Commission voted unanimously on April 16, 1990, to authorize the issuance of a full-power license for Comanche Peak Unit No. 1.

On April 17, 1990, the staff issued License No. NPF-87 authorizing full-power operation for Comanche Peak Unit No.1.

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.

The regulatory delays described in this report are not affected by the schedule for resolving off-site emergency preparedness issues.

Sincerely,

.b Kenneth M. Carr

Enclosure:

NRC Quarterly Status Report cc: Rep. John T. Myers fUllIg7ggggiSCAN 9005 3 /s'3x6 G?

4

. 4 ENCLOSURE NRC QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT ON LICENSING SCHEDULES FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF CY 1990 Seabrook A Commission briefing was held on January 18, 1990. On March 1, 1990, the Commission authorized issuance of a full-power operating license for the Seabrook Nuclear Station. On March 15, 1990 License No. NPF-86 was issued authorizing operation of Seabrook Unit No. I to power levels not in excess of.3411 megawatts thermal (100-percent rated power). The pic9t achieved criticality on March 20, 1990, and began its full-power ascension ;rnaram.

The program was scheduled to be canpleted in 70 days, after which the licensee would be prepared to declare the plant ready for conmercial operation. Recent turbine generator problems at the plant have introduced a potential for delay in this schedule.

Comanche Peak On February 8,1990, the-staff issued License No NPF-28 authorizing the loading of fuel and operation of Unit I up to 5 percent of rated power for start-up tests. The staff subsequently monitored the licensee's start-up activities. The licensee's Unit 2 fuel-load date is currently unscheduled because work on Unit 2 was suspended in March 1988, except in areas necessary to support Unit'l operations.

Prior to the issuance of the Unit I low-power operating license, Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc. -(" Cap Rock") submitted comments that there had been "significant changes" in the competitive situation since the issuance of the Comanche Peak construction permits. The NRC staff made a " Finding of No Significant Change" and published this finding in the Federal Re ister. Cap Rock filed a' request for the staff to reconsider the finding, 3 ~ REC staff ine did so and issued a 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 the license conditions. The petition also requests that an antitrust hearing be instituted to modify the license conditions to prevent the applicant from further abusing its monopoly power. The licensee and Cap Rock have recently begun negotiations to resolve the conflict. The NRC staff is following these 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 relating to the license conditions of the Comanche Peak construction permit.

In addition 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 staff's

" Finding of No Significant Change" pursuant to issuance of the operating license. The filing of the Court petition did not affect the licensing schedule for Comanche Peak Unit No.1.

e 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. 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 argument 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 March 30, 1990 CFUR applied to the Supreme Court for a stay of low power operation. Justice White denied the application on the same day it was filed.

On October 16, 1989, CFUR filed a motion asking the Commission to stay the issuance of the Unit 1 low-power license that CFUR anticipated would 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. The staff responded to CFUR's concerns in a letter dated January-30, 1990.

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 reconsider 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 the Comission on April 20, 1989, i

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 Comission then moved that the D.C. Circuit transfer this case to the Fifth Circuit for consolidation with the litigation pending there.

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 settle-ment was under review by the Secretary 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.

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 Circuit consolidated that petition with the petition to review CLI-88-12. The applicant and Mr.

Macktal joined that case as intervenors.

1

)

In a decision issued on April 12, 1990, - the Fifth Circuit affirmed the NRC decision. The court ruled that the NRC did not abuse its discretion in rejecting CFUR's alternative argument that it had made a compelling showing on the other late-filed contention standards sufficient to overcome the lack of good cause.

In the same decision, the court rejected as moot the claim by Macktal (whose petition for review was consolidated with CFUR's) that he should have been permitted to intervene in the CFUR proceeding to correct statements made by the NRC concerning his settlement agreement.

i p

In a letter dated April 12, 1990, CFUR filed allegations with the Connission concerning the adequacy of emergency planning information. At about the same i

time, the Commission received late-filed allegations concerning management l-integrity issues from a district manager of Texas Power and Light, a subsidiary of Texas Utilities. The staff reviewed both sets of late-filed allegations and concluded that they did not contain issues that need be l

resolved prior to a decision on a full-power license.

1 On April 16, 1990, the Connission voted unanimously to authorize the staff to issue the full-power license for Comanche Peak Unit No. 1.

Accordingly, on April 17, 1990, the staff issued License No. NPF-87 authorizing full-power l

operation for Comanche Peak Unit No. 1.

Connercial operation of Comanche Peak l

Unit No.1 is expected to begin in July 1990.

Watts Bar On May 22, 1989, the applicant submitted its plan for the licensing of Watts Bar i

Unit No. 1 [the Watts Bar Nuclear Performance Plan (WBNPP)] as Volume 4 of the TVA l

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 to identify, document, investigate, and correct problems at the Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant. The l

WBNPP also makes reference to the corrective actions program (CAP) plans prepared for Watts Bar. Since the last quarterly report, TVA has completed its reassessment of work and schedule. The applicant has developed a revised schedule for implementing portions of the program plan and the completion of the Watts.Bar Nuclear Power Plant by the fall of 1991.

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 is being updated based on TVA's revised schedale for the completion of Unit 1.

3,.

~; c.

..m c,,.

7^.

' K52

~

+[-K.

< v -f y.:

• T

.LD -

e b,_

- n

~

7

, f:7.;

O 'l

Of f ICL OF NUCLEAR RE ACIOR 'REGUi AIION

.['

. 3

, gf p

-=.

~ Licensing $chedules f or All Pending OL APPLICAll0NS ' -

1

}[

~

IABLE (1 of 3) s

~4/0l/9G'7

^

SER SSER Comm.' Decision'- -

-[ -

~

z..j Est Staff

' Staff Issue /-

. ASLB' 1Appi;

-. 2 Delay issue

. Technical-Issue:

ACRS-

. Issue Technical Start of Initial.

C'oem.-

I Constr.

Plant (Months) DES

. Input to PD SE R -'

Mtg.

f ES -

Irvut to ID SST R

. Hearing Decision-.

JEff.**;

Dec.

L(..

I C3t W rcham 1 0

C C

C C

C C

C ~

-C-I E#{

C C

LC i

~

C.

"CE

'C-C C

^C

~C*

C*

C*'

_'Ci Seabrook 1 0

C C

i South lexas 2 0

C C

C~

C-C C

ft C..

~C'-

C

' C i-C

_e 8/.

Vogtle 2 0

C C

C C

C-C C-C

-C ~

'C:

.C C.

Limerick 2 0

C C'

C C

'C

.C1 C,

.C' C

~C C'

"CE ~

Bellefonte 1 E O

N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S'

-N/S"

.N/S"

-Hone

. None N/A N/S...

N/S Bellefonte 2 1/ 0 N/S N/S N/S N/S N/5' N/S

'N/S:

None.

'None N/A -

N/{

' N/S s o

p n..

Indicates changes f rom last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date Commission decision on effectiveness of A5tB decision N/S: Not Scheduled N/A: Not Applicable

.r-p

~

.M

._i

l

.____..a___m,_

a 1.

cn a

- - _., _ _,,. a..

.., _. _., - a w_,a

m M 'g = m - + + r

:=::y act m},3yw+w;: n V:

' ;; ~.

f;C(.gf:5

g. - -

I

'^

f;

.g.y 7

'c~

M..

. :._f _'

'1.F.m$ sri

_ ]

]J

17

{

r

&p

~

3:, T y ; r:7 ~

~~

W 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REAC10R REGULAIlON...,

2 5 [ ~" fj

..m

- Licensing Schedules for All.Pending OL APPLICATIONS -

IAB'tE (2 of,'3)'

...n 1.-

.-"4/01/90?

i

^3

..j-

1. 1/

SER SSE R '

~

2Comm.' Decision-

': - d

$p ASt B..

. Appl.

Est Staff

' Staff

- Issue 2/.: start of^

Initial

- Comm.

-Constr2 Delay

' Issue

. Technical issue ACRS

Issue Tecimical

.~55 T

? Hearing' Decision-

Eff.**-

-Dec.

'Coupl. Jj

~

P t s nt (Months). DES Input to PD

'SER MJ.

FES.

Input to PD

- Comanche Peak I N C

C-C C

C C.

C

'C.

N/A

' N/A 4/90 i C' Comanche Peak 2 0 C

C C

C C-N/S -

N/S

.C N/A '

N/A -

N/S'

'N/S 4/':

Watis Bar 1 0

C C

C C.

.C, LC-

~C JNone None N/A1 9/91*'-

.9/91*=

W.it Is flar 2 b 0

C C.

C C:

~C C'

C None' Mone N/A N/S

N/Si Grand Gulf 2 3# 0 C

C C

C C.

ft/S t4/5 None None

'N/A N/S.

1 N/S --

2#

Perry 2 0

C C

C C

C N/S N/S

C' C

C

. N/S

' N/S ~..

Seabrook 2 6/

0 C

C C

C C-N/5-N/$

" N/S

. C:

N/S-N/S -

N/S WNP-3 3'/

O C'

N/S N/S N/5' N/S N/S N/S-N/S'

'N/S' N/5'

' N/S -

N/S WNP-1 3/

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 effectiveness of AStB decision N/S: Not Scheduled il/ A: Not Applicable 9>

9 su

.s.

4 m

Y r:

,. ~..,

T

^

'[. ' '

TABLE (Page 3 of 3) 1 FOOTNOTES M

Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional potential delay from emergency preparedness review.

For plants with construction 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 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 l

Safeguards (ACRS) meeting on the application. A "C" indicates that this SSER has been issued. Additional SSERs wiii be issued to close out remaining open items.

3_/

Construction has been halted; a construction completion date has not been established.

O A full-power operating license was issued on April 17, 1990, for Comanche Peak Unit No. 1.

A Unit 2 fuel-load date has not been established. The Comission is unable to predict whether licensing will be delayed.

5/

The ACRS report of April 19,1983, recomended issuance of a low-power license.

By letter dated September 13, 1989, the ACRS recomended issuance of a full-power license, subject to adequate resolution of issues related to low-power testing and FEMA recomendations.

5I Construction has been halted; the constructior, 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.

-8/-

The ACRS considered Unit 2 during its review of Unit 1.

At the Decembe.P 1988 ACRS meeting, the ACRS concluded that it did not need to further review Unit 2.

~9/

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.

,