ML20114A933
| ML20114A933 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1992 |
| From: | Dow R, Dow S DISPOSABLE WORKERS OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20114A920 | List: |
| References | |
| CPA, NUDOCS 9208240125 | |
| Download: ML20114A933 (6) | |
Text
.- - - . . . - _. .- . .- _ . _ - .
. m
-(. 31 1 14 l' s e sDJlt}r\
/ .w '
.,. WW &
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION th "g ?IN,EtVd h
,\ %cfh .N In the Matter of i
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO., ) Docket No. 50-446 et al., ) Construction Permit Amendment
( Cc. nan c h e Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 2)
O
)
)
(g y g j -
PETITION OF SANDRA LONG DOW dba DISPOSABLE WORKERS OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, and R. MICKY DOW FOR INTERVENTION AND REQt)EST FOR HEARINGS Comes now Sandra Long Dow dba Disposable Workers of Comanche Peu Steam Electric Station, and R. Micky Dow, hereinefter pett-tinners, and, pursuant 10 C.F.R. section 2.?14, hereby request leave to intervene in th6 above-styled and numbered matter, where-In Texas Utili ties Electric Company, hereinaf ter licensee, seeks to extend the expi rat ion date of construct ion permi t No. CPPR-127 for a parlod of an additional three years, beyond the current expira-tion date of August 1, 1992, for the Unit 2 of the facility loca-ted at Glen Rose, Texas.
Your peti tioners would show that good cause exists for a hear-to be convened on this issue, and that, at the time of said haaring petitioners, and others, will show, and demonstrate, that there is sufficient cause, and good reason to deny the licensee's request for an extension, or any other manner of modifica:lon of the afore-said construction permit, and in support of whlah would show.
I. PETITION IS TIMELY AND PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING l
This petition is timely in its filing in that iling nas' oc-l EE.IJJTION FOR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOfLSEARINGS 9208240125 920814 PDR ADOCK05000gg6
4
- cured wi thin 30 days of the appearance in the Federal Register (See Federal Register Volume 57, No. 125 Monday June 29, 1992, pages 2885-6) of the NRC staf f 's Envi ronmental Assessment and Finding of No $lgni f icant Impact of the proposed construct ion permi t amendment and/or extension.
Petitioners have standing in this matter, within the meaning of +he l anguage of 42 U.S.C. 2239(a)(1 ) and 10 C. F .R. 2.714(a), in thw; l} Petitioner R. Micky Dow owns property in Hood County, Texar, in the City of Granbury, Texas, which is within a 50 mile radius of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, and could be adverse-ly affected by any accident therein. This peti-tion ^ti has already been adversely affected by this attuation in that petitioner was forced to flee his home, in Texas, for fear of his life and safety, as a direct and proximate result of tel-ephone threats made to him by one Enri Nye, an executive officer of the licensee, ll) Petitioner organization Olsposable Workers of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station is com-posed, chiefly of persons who own property or reside within a 50 mile radius of the CPSES f ac-liity, and their affidavits attesting to this are already on file with the Commission. The Board of Directors of this organization are largely former whistleblowers who were pre-vented from testifying ~before the Commission by virtue of an lilegal settlement ag-eement
, which purchsed their silence, without their knowledge, in direct controvention of federal and state law, but had standing in past issues and reclaim it in the present matters, lii) Petitioner Sandra Long Dow is the spouse of petitioner R. Micky Dow, and would, in the normal course of events, reside with her hus-band within a 50 mile radius of the CPSES fac-liity, but has been precluded from same by the same threats as were posed to him. This estl-tioner has also already been advorsely affected by-this situation, in that, through the course PETITION FOR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING - - . . - . . - - - - - - . . - ..-. - .. . . .
4 i
of her investigations in the Glen Rose, Texas area, been detained, harassed, and molested by individuals and parties, either in the direct pay, or under the control of the licensse, in order to prevent those investigations into vio-lations at the CPSES facility, iv) All of the petitioners and parties, here-inabove, and others, either, have, do, or will live, work, recreate, travel, and raise famil-les within a radius of 50 miles of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Much of the food purchased and eaten, and all of the water used for drinking, bathing and livestock is produced in an area that would be directly and adversely affected, and is so, by and through the normal releases and/or in case of an accidental release of radioactive and/or toxic meterials from the construction of Unit 2, which the record will clearly show has already occured, and in all probability will occur again.
II. THERE ARE DISPOSITIVE MATTEPS PENDING IN OTHER COURTS There are, at present, at least two other matters pending in courts of comp 2 tant jurisdiction with regard to the construction permi t f or Uni t 2 at the CPSES f acili ty (See Pet i t ion For Temporary Restraining Order and Request For Preliminary Injunction, Case No.
92-1224, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Co'umbia Circui t and Petition por Review, Case No. 92-1069, U'.S. Cou.c f Appeals
- for the District of Columbia Circult); as well as a Request To Ins-titute Proceedings To Modify, Suspend or Revoke The License Held By
-Texas Utilities, which was filed with the Secretary on the 20th day
- of May, 1992, and is pending before the Commission at this time.
Any, or all of these actions, in which petitioners stato and aver they believe they will prevall, will moot the present proceed-ires before the Commission with regard to the construction permit amendment for Unit 2. To institute, :cavene, and/or conduct any PETITION FOR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING __ , --___ _ _ . - -
proceeding which might in some manner have an adverse effect upon those pending matters would pose some serious Due Process questions which could only be resolved by the U.S. Court upon rt/lew and/or stay. One cannot i ni t i at e a proceedi ng wh i ch wi l l c i rcumvent fnat-ters already pending in an attempt to moot or dispose of them.
This matter is already the subject of objection in that court.
III. THERE ARE MATTERS OF POTENTIAL DISPOSITION PENblNG BEFORE THE COMMISSION There are matters presently pending before the Commission, in which these petitioners aver they believe they will prevail, which will moot the present considerations (See Pet i t l t ion For Leave To Intervene Out-Of-Time, Motion To Reopen The-Record, and Request For Oral Argument Docket Nos. 50-445-01, 50-446-OL, and 50-445-CPA) and thi s Commi ssion, in good concience, and in the public interest, can not institute, convene, or conduct proceedings which will circum-vent those matters in preference to the licensee, without creating some real and reviewable Due Process concerns.
IV.- SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS AND/OR HEARING IS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND OF LAW Petitioners have shown that they hhve standing to challenge
' the request of the licensee for amendment to the construction per-mi t , and, pursuant- 42 U.S.C. 2239(a)( l ) the Commi ss ion i s requi red to grant such a hearing. Petitioners have further established, hereinabove, that suspension of these proceedings must follow until adjudication is reached in matters pending which will have a direct ef f ect on the viability of these proceedings. Petitioners can and will submit contentions, provide testimony in support of adjudica-PETITION FOR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARINQ l l
e tion upon receipt of a Notice of Pre-Hearing Conference, in the alternative, a nearing i s essent ial in order to establish the via-bl l i ty of the con 'ent ions and concerns, in the event that the Com-mission does plan to continue consideration of the amendment.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED. petitioners request:
- 1) that the CommirJslon grant petitioners leave to intervene in the matter of the request of Texas Utilities Electric Company for an amendment to the construction permit for Uni t 2 which would extend same for a period 1 t r- 7 3rt years; and
- 2) that the Commissiov ;ifffR , uv':coe.s' request for a hear-Ing to show cause whether the re:uest of the licensee should be granted or denied.
Petitioners pray for such other and f urther relief at law, or in equi ty, to which they may show themselves to be just ly entitled.
Respectfully submitted, m
sA SAtt)RA LONG DOW dbd DISPDSABLE WORKERS OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, pro se 322 Mall Blvd. #147 Monroeville, Pa. 15146
> (412) 856-7843 R. MICKY DOW, p rk 'sA 322 Mall Blvd. #147 Monroeville, Pa. 15146 (412) 856-7843 July 28, 1992 EFJJTION FOR INTERVENTLON AND REQUEST FOR HEARING -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the fore-going was sent to the parties listed below, by regular first class mail, on this the 30th day of July, 1992.
\.%L {
Affiant
~
Janice Moore, Esquire Charles E. MulIins. Escuire Office of General Counsel Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.
Il55E Rock Pike l1555 Rock Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Rockville. Maryland 20852 George Edgar Steve Kohn Newman & Holtzinger Kohn, Kohn & Calapinto 1615 L Street, N.W. 517 Florida, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20002 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ll555 Rock Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 / S.
9 ^.s[6h f(,~y #** ,h }
2 - ... ~ .e. ,_:
$ 4 su$ ott .e v'6)y_iTg[
1
', . . o u e
/ "g UNIVE D SVAVE S
/.', ,. Jj NUCLE AR PEGULAVORY COMMISSION f <-* j W ASHINGTON D C 70$$$
f'k j August 6, 1992 h ,,,,,-
OfttCE OF tat SECHETAki i
MEMORANDUM FOR: B. Paul cotter, Jr.
Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing ard Panel i FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary j :P
\
SUBJECT:
PETITION TO INTERVENE AND F tEQQEST FOR HEARING SUBMITTED BY B. IRD1E ORR, D. I. ORR, JOSEPH J. MACKTAL AND S. M. A. HASAN Attached is a petition to intervene submitted by counsel on behalf of B. Irene Orr, D. I. Orr, Joseph J. Macktal and S. M. A. Hacan.
The petition was filed in response to an " Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact" issued by the NRC staff as a part of staff's consideration of a request by Texas Utilities Electric Co. for an amendment of the construction permit for Comancho Peak Unit 2 .(50-446). The amendment would extend the completion date for Unit 2 from August 1, 1992 to August 1, 1995.
The Finding was published in the Federal Reaister at 57 Fed. Reg. 28885 (June 29, 1992) (copy attached). No other Federal Register notice of the proposed action was published. Additionally, the requested extension of the completion date was issued on July 28, 1992 (copy attached).
The petition to intervene is being referred to you f or appropriate action in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Soc. 2.772(j).
Attachments: as stated cc: Commission Legal Assistants OGC CAA EDO NRR Wil?.iam J. Cahill, Jr.
Group Vice President, Nuclear Texas Utilities Electric Company G. Edgar, Esquire Newman & Moltzinger Counsel for Licensee Michael D. Kohn, Esquire Stephen M. Kohn, Esquire-Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto, P.C.
Counsel for petitioners C
- y\ .
0 4 \%
T A
s!w; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 92 at 27 P1 :15
) '
In the Matter of ) ,,
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. , ) Docket No. 50-446 et alt, ) Construction Permit Amendment
) Unit 2 (Comancho Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 2) )
)
PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF D. IRENE ORR, D.I. ORR, JOSEPH J. MACKTAL, JR. ,
AND S.M.A. RADAN Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.714, petitioners B. Irene Orr, D.I.
Orr, Joseph J. Macktal and S.M.A. Hasan hereby request leave to intervene in the above-captioned proceedings. Specifically, petitioners seek leave to intervene in proceedings regurding Texas Utilities Electric Company's ("TUEC") request for a 36 i month extension to August 1, 1995 to construction permit No.
CPPR-127, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ("CPSES"), Unit 2.
On June 29, 1992, the NRC staff's Environmental Assessment and
< Finding of No Significant Impact of the proposed construction permit amendment was placed in the Federal Renister.1/ This will be TUEC's third attempt to amend construction permit CPPR- +
127.
1/ Eeg 57 FR 28885 (June 29, 1992) ("The proposed action would amend the construction permit (CPPR-127] by extending the latest completion construction date from August 1, 1992 to August 1, 1995").
l 9)/ 0I A'(
f6
't Petitioners assert that good cause doen not exist to allow TUEC to amend the construction completion date for CPSES Unit 2; and seeks intervention.
I. Petitioners have Standing to Intervene Pursuant to 5189,3) of the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA"), 42 U.S.C. 22 39 (a) (1) , and 10 C.P.R. 5 2.714 (a) ,l/ petitioners have standing to intervene. Ms. B. Irene orr and Ms. D.I. Orr reside within a 50 mile radius of the Comanche Peak Steaw Electric Station, Unit 2. B. Irene Orr resides at 606 W. Grand, Comanche, Texas; D.I. Orr resides at 545 W. Meadowlark Drive, G ra. .bu ry , i Texas. The health, safety and personal finances of Ms. B. Irene orr and of Ms. D.I. Orr could be affected by an order granting TUEC's request for amendment. They live, work, recreate and travel in the environs of Comanche Peak. They eat food produced in an area that would be adversely af fected by normal and accidental releases of radioactive materials-from the construction of Unit 2, and they are a part of the TUEC rate i base.
~ ,
Z/
42 U.S.C. 2239 (a) (1) (1983) states:
'The Commission shall admit any such person '
whose interest may be affected by the proceeding as a party to the proceeding.
10 C.F.R. 5 .2.714 (a) (1) states:
Any person whose interest.might be affected by a proceeding and who desires-to .
participate-as a party shall file a written petition for leave to intervene.
2 j
. - - - - - - - - . - - - ~. ._.---. . -.-.-. - - - .- -. - - .
Joseph J. Macktal is a former employee of CPSES and is currently seeking reinstatement of his job at CPSES. The status of his reinstatement is pending before the Secretary of Labor.
He has been personally harmed due to management misconduct at CPSES and this misconduct directly contributed to the delay in the construction of Unit 2. He was to be a direct fact witness in the construction permit amendment proceedings on Unit i and has information which~is relevant to the determination of TUEC's request to amend.
S.M.A. Hasan is a former engineer employed at the CPSES Who was to be a fact witness before the ASLB panel convened to adjudicate the merits of TUEC's request to amend the construction completion'date of CPSES, Unit 1. Due to secret hush money dealings between -TUEC's counsel and counsel for the intervenors, he was precluded from appearing as a fact witness before the then pending construction permit amendment proceedings with respect to Unit 1. Mr. Hasan maintains an interest in exposing the management misconduct at CPSES which resulted in his removal from the CPSES site and which directly contributed to the delay in the construction of Units 1 and 2. Moreover, Mr. Hasan continues to seek reinstatement at-CPSES, and he has a financial interest in the granting-of TUEC's amendment request.
3
4 l
II. Petitioners are Entitled to a Hearing Petitioners have standing to challenge TUEC's request for a construction permit axtension.I' As such, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
$ 2239 (a) (1) , the Commission is required to " grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding."
In 1986, CASE and Meddie Gregory were granted intervenor status and an opportunity to content the issuance of a construction permit amendment for CPSES, Unit 1.6/ Petitioners find themselves similarly situated to that of CASE and Ms.
Gregory in 1986 with respect to TUEC's request to amend the construction permit of CPSES, Unit 1. Petitioners should be allowed to intervene in TUEC's pending request to amend the construction completion date of CPSES, Unit 2.
3/ Petitioners will submit contentions for adjudication upon receipt of notice of a pre-hearing conference.
!/ Specifically, in 1986, CASE requested a hearing regarding TUEC's request to extend the CPSES construction permit for Unit 1. 23 NRC 113, 116 (1986). After the NRC issued its significant hazards determination and approved the amendment to the construction permit, the. commission referred CASE's request to be heard to the ASLB Panel for a hearing. In its March 13, 1986 order, the Commission recognized that joterested parties were " entitled to a' hearing on the construction permit extension." 2 3 NRC - 113, 121 (1985) (citing Brooks v AEC, 476 924 (D.C.-Cir. 1973) (per curiam). The Commission instructed the Chairman of the ASLB Panel to constitute a new licensing board to consider whether TUEC had established that " good cause" existed
- for the delay in construction of the CPSES. In the Matter of Texas Utilities Elec. Co., Docket No. 50-445-CPA, 23 NRC 113, 121 (1986).
4
. . - _ . . _ _ . _ . _._. _ _ __._ _ ._____ _= _ . _ _.__ _ _ _ __._. _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ ..
. i 4
WHEREFORE, petitioners request:
(1) that a hearing be convened to determine whether good ,
cause exists.for-an extension of the construction permit completion date for CPSES, Unit 2; and (2) that the Commission grant petitioners leave to intervene
-with respect to TUEC's request to amend the construction permit i for CPSES, Unit 2. j Respectfully submitted,
[mm -
Michael D. Kohn Stephen M. Kohn.
! Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto, P.C.
517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234-4663 Attorneys for Petitioners July-27, 1992 I
a
't s
d I 5 t
o aa . ., _ ; -,,:_.-- _ _._ __ . .__-,_._-_,_--____.____.2_ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ . _ , - _
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .,g I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following parties on this 27th day of July, 1992:
92 JL 27 Pi '15
. .*P,. . .
tu i4t . ,, _j ,, , " ,
Document 9ontrol Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chief Administrative Law 7udge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 William J. Cahill, Jr.
Group Vice president, Nuclear Texas Utilities Electric Company 400 H. Olivu Street L.B. 81 Dallas, TX 75201
~
By: V "- '
Michael D. Kohn 8
l
. , i red:ral Re1:ister / Vol. 57. N2.125 / Monday. lune :s. Tw2 / N:tices
- saas iDocaet No. so-aael . *- '
%e TES identified four msfor Another impact,the sub}ect of a Teese tithitnes Doctric Co et a4 - environmentalimpacts due to the construction permit condition. La EstWonrnental Assesment and e.unstruction of both units.%ree of the finding of No Sagnificant impact groundwster withdrawal At the present four impaetema)or envimnmental discussed in the FES have construction ' time. non potable wster for cons ne U.S. Nudest Regulatory stready occurred and are not affected activities is tving strpplied from tnated Commission Itbe Commission)is by this proposed action: . laka water.%e construction permit for
- considerms issuance of an eatension to Comanche Peak Unit 2 includes a the leteet construction completion date --Construction-related activities have cond tion that the annual s earage specified in Construction Permst No. disturbed about 400 acres of smundwster withdrawalreis not rangeland and 3.22a acres ofland.
CPPR-127 issued to Texas Utillbes esceed 40 gallons per minute (gpm) ne ,
Dectnc Company. (the appbcant). for have teen used for the constmetion ofappbcant bas connimed that curnnt Squaw Creek Reservoir, groundwater withdrawal rates are the Comanche real Steam Electrte Sta taon ~ne initial set of tranarnission lines wtthin the limfI established by the Somenu County.
s(CPSES).
Te ta s. Urui11ocated inthe additional planned line as and natmem pennit. Hus, contmd djacursed in b FES are completed. [p* '
Environroental Assessment --Pipeline Lcve been reloc4ted and the [ro dwater Aa e und.
/ dent >fication of rmposed Action isLlroad 8pur and diverslon and return the NRC Staffs environmentalimpact bnes between tale Cranbury and - apprstaal for Amendment 2 of ne proposed actics would amendthe Squaw Creek Construction Permit Nos. CPpR-construction permit by entendmg the completed. , Reservolt have beenCPPR-127 was based upon a ma126
. imum and latest tonstruction completion date from withdrawal of 6.57x10* ga!!ons dunna August 1.1992 to August 1.1995. The De fourth major environmental impact addressed in the FES is the the construction period of five years el e proposed a cuon is in response to .
ta te of 250 rpm. For 6 following Applicant's request dated February 3. cornmunity impact which would reasons the staffs appraisalis st1D 1992. as supplemented by letter dated continue w th the extended construction unchanged for the total groundwater to Manh 16.1991 of the facihty.ne requested estension be withdrawn through August 1.1995.
only invotres impacts previously First. from 1975 through December 1980 Ths Needfor the PmposedAction constdered, with none of these tmpacts approximatel 4.96x108 gallons of De Applicant sistes in its request greater thea those prestously considered. nese impacts flow groundwater ad been withdrawn from that the proposed action is needed to complete the construction and pnncipally from t'he prolonged presence the two production wella. From lune 1982 through December 1986. 442 million preoperational testing for Umt L For of construction workers into the (.043x108)geUons of groundwster had approximately 32 months. TV Electric surrounding communtties in flood and Somerveu counties. De current work bun withdrawn from an additional todirected its tesources pnncfpsUy to well. (NOSF weU). Second. frotn january Unit 1 in order to complete construction force level of approximately 6650 1987 through February 1992 and startup of that Unit. As a result. represent the total on site work force approxima tely 64.5 million 10.85 x 108) additional time is now needed to fl.e TU Electric and contract personnel gallona of groundwater had been complete the construction of Uniti supporting Unit 1 and 2 activities). His withdra wn from the two product on number represents a decline of a50 from wells and the NOSF well. Third, even En rironmental/mpacts of LAe rmposed the peak work force on site at the end of assuming a maximum ground Act the construction base of Unit 1. and withdrawal of 40 gym from March 1, The ennronmental trnpacts associated will continue to ecline as the appbcant 1992 through August 1.1945, for all with constsvetion of the Comanche peak implements its destaffing plan, as Unit 2 groundwater sources (this withdrawal iscility are associated with both uruts construction nears completion. lt should rate is authonzed by Amendment 6 to and hase been previously essluated and be noted that 85 percent of the total Construction Perouta CPPR-126 and discussed in the NRC Staffs final work force are contractors and CPPR-127). thers would be consultants who do not live in the eres a pproxims tely 71.88 million (0.72 x10s in June 1974, which covere(d theEnvironmental and. in general use only Statement temporery TT.S), gaDons issuedwithdrawn. Totahna the above) quarters during the work week. (i.e.,
conuruction of both units. One of the even while they are present there aretotal no results in a conservative estimate of the ensaronmentalimpacts groundwster groundwater withdrawal of w!thdrawat is the subject of a estended impacts associated with the 8pproximately 6.37x108 gallons for the construction permit condition and will amval of f amilies or services riecessary Pen a through August 1.1985, which is ve discussed further below. to support permanent residents) la sum. lesi than the fL57x108 gauous orig.na the only community impacts which Since the proposed action concems evaluated and authorized by the NRC would accompany this extension would staff.
the entension of the construction the impacts involved are au non. permit. be those which extend the total time the As required by the constructxm radiological and are associated with local community is affected by the present demand for pubhc services. As rmit. environmental monitoring has continued construction. nere are no conducted.
such, the maintenance of the work force new significant impacts associated with level for the edditional manths in the past, a number of groups base the proposed action. AU activities will take place within the facility, wdl not requested should not rediin significant identified concerns regardtng the additional impacts. In addition. 61 should potential environmentalimpacts of r:sult in impacts to previously be noted that only 4500 personnel are several closed landfills at CpSES that undisturbed areas. and wtU not have contain relatively small amounts ole associated full time with the Unit 1 any significant addiUonal environmental Construction Permit extension. and thehatardoos wastes. Becaun these impact. llowever, there are impaeta that landfilla are pre-existing conditions any remainder are requirci to support the w:uld continue during the completion of operation of Unit 1 or split their time environmental Impacts from the landfiUs f;cility construction. ,
between Units 1 and 1 wilinot be attributable to the extension of the construction completion date for 8
as C
i 23888 T*deral Register / Vol. !J. No.115 / Mcrnday. June 71. 1992 / Notices Unit 2. Furtherreore. any impacts from the landnlls wiD occur regardless c4 in the final Emisorumental 9tste snent for NRC staff and the Weatmghouse the Comanche Peak Steam E.loctnc Dectric Corporsuon will participate, as whether the construction completion StatJon.
date is extended, and en extension will appropriate.
not hose any adverse effect on any Aprece and A nons Consulted Portiorts of th'Is session mil be closed impsets from the landah. Wrefore & & NRC staff reviewed the as occusan to &scun Propnetan landhlis in question have no televance Appilcants request and did not consult Irtfortnation applicable to this anatter.
to the entension of the construction other ageocles or persons.
c.ompletion date for Unit 1. ; pm.pp.tna Status of ferspections.
la conctueion. there have been no nading of No Signiftunt impg Tests. Analyses. and Acceptance
! trrtreviewed adverse envirottmental De Coenraission has determined not Criteno(ITAAC) Pin;rcm 1mpects associated with construction to prepan an envirurxrnental impact and none are anticipated, (OpenH%e Committee will review statement for tNs actkat. -
Desed on its evalustion, the staff hse Based upon the foregoing and comment on the status of the conchrded that the calnlated impact of environm ntal assessment. we conchie ITAAC program and plans forits continutng to withdraw grounttwa tet at th64 the proposed action will not have a implementation. Representatives of the en armsel average rate of 40 rpts for the significant effect on the qdity of the NRC staff and the naciear indostry mil site trrrtil Atprst 1,1995 la neghgible and human envirortmertl participate, as appropris te.
does not rnuh in arry eigndicant Tar further details with respecJ to this 2np.trt-4#p.inaSever, Ace 2 dent ,
additional environmentalimpact. N acuen. see the Applicant's request for Research Progroin Plon staff a conclusion is rubetantiated by extenvien deled February 3.1992. as groundwatet level data ecDetted at the su le ed by I t d ed h arch 16 (OpenHne Committee will review ud ed a pmposed rWsiM e r wN w) r ed in inseect)on at t Comrnission a Public the Seven Accident Resaarch Program the Applicant's supplementafirtter Document Room, the Celman Dallding. Plan (NUREG-1MS. Ree.1) to update dated March 16.199L 1130 L Street. NW. Ws ehington. DC and tha plan consistenI with regulatory Besed on the forepoirtg. the NHC staff at the Untecisity of Texas at Arlineton developments. Representatives of the ben conch,ded that the propesed action L.ibrary. Covemment PublicatensT would have no sigMncant '
NRC staff and the nuclear industry will
- Maps. 701 South Cooper. P.O. Box 1MW, participata. aa appropriate.
envrronmentalimpact. Since this action Arlington. Tenas ya019.
would only extend the period of g yp 3g g construct >on activities desenbed in the Deted d hnw Iset-at Rockvt!!e. Msrytst.d. this Esd day Dif,etor. NRC Office for Ano/ysis and FES. It does not involve any diffetent Eroluotion c/Operchona/ Doto for the Hveker Regvletory Conumasiert tropacts or segmficent changes to those Bunane C. Isted. (OpenHns Committee *.Q bear a tropects deombed and analyved in the enginal enytronmentel impset pjf,crer. hoject Directorote N-J. Division of briefing and hold a djacursion on items stateinent. Consegeently. an Reactor Pre / ens MMWV, C@ce of Nuclear of mutual interest. Includ 'ig use of Reoctor Aegu! creon.
enyttertmental tmpoet atalement '*6xpert systems" La the avident addresstng the proposed action to imt (yg occ e215200 nled 6-2&et e as aro) management process use . i almulators reqsued- o m .oeca m .a at the NRC Training thren t..d the Alternative to Lhe ProposedAction status ofimplementation of ths 8;nergy mq , Rnponn Data Bysteau posb r,e rn trv i A'MP a 4#pmfuture ACRS actum would be for the Commission to lo accordance with the purposes of.. ACMee deny tbs request.lf h alternative were sections 29 and sc.h. of the Atornic
^ IOpnHh Cminee 4 hs fbb leta e of b d e on tepta p for canalderation by the facihty, revultmg to b dental of Safeguards wiu hold a meeting on g g m .y ; g ~w, & , "
altamative would tot eliminale the W a!"h this meehng was p3 %uhusTNot-s intre g-A nP~ r-~uc#
ermranmentalimpacts of construction Federal Ragtster ca May 21.19et what have stready been inaarred. If (Openbh Committee wiu discuss constructina me, not completed on m e,4.y,).h s,1302 proposed Committee commerrts and CPSES Unit 2 the amount of site redsees & am--J by ACRS CAcma
..m W Ra M s recommendations repert!irig itema considered dattr6 this meeting.
activities that oosid be undertaken to restors the arm to its natural stase (OpenHh ACRS Chabinan will would be minimal due to the operstiqn TAday, July it,19e3 make openi rieaarks and oceament of CPSES Unkt 1.nis slight bere0y ses ^
enysronmental benent would be much itenas of current a.m am-tax aina 4PRIRequirementa laterest. fxT.ra/uccoayldphs& der Reoctors the as f a fa a la ACMh niegmDem (OpanHb Comminee wm umw nearty complete.hrelore the NRC Terungfor 6e Wsatinhouss Aft @
staff has ryecwd h ahernative. and report on proposed EP93 Lies \gn
-(Open/CosedH%s Comrninee wtil requirements kr evolutionarylight-Afremorre, Pre ofResents:re reyww and report os proposed htegral water rescaors and the associated NRC systam testas progrwe for cartrocahon taffa salsty evaluatmn repoet.
%1a action does sat ineolve the use al of the Westmshouse AP903 standaad Repenentahyn el the NRC stall and any suources not previously W~d plant design. Representsthes of time EPRI will participa te. as approprsa te.
I
4 7590-1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TEXAS UTILITIES E ECTRIC COMPANY. ET AL.
COMANCHE FEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-446 QRDER EXTENDING LATEST CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE The Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) is the holder of Construction Permit No. CPPR-127 issued by the Atomic Energy Commission on December 19, 1974, for construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2, a nuclear facility utilizing a Westinghouse Electric Corporation nuclear steam supply system, at the Applicant's site in Somervell County, Texas. ,
By letter dated February 3, 1992, as supplemented on March 16, 1992, TU Electric filed a request for extension of the latest ccnstruction completion date specified in Construction Permit No. CPPR-127 to August 1, 1995. In its justification for the extension request TV Electric stated that the estimated one-year suspension of Unit 2 construction, which began in April 1988, was necessary to allow TU Electric to concentrate its resources on the completion of Unit 1. The completion and startup of Unit I took longer than anticipated, forcing TV Electric to delay significant design activities on Unit 2 until June 1990, followed by the resumption of significant construction activity in January 1991.
As discussed more fully in the staff's evaluation of the requested extension, we-have concluded good cause has been shown for the delay and that the requested extension is for a reasonable period. We have further concluded that the requested extension involves no significant hazards consideration, and therefore no prior public notice is required. '
o . N / -~
b d
The NRC staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact which was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 1992 (57 FR 288B5). The NRC staff has concluded that this action will not l
have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, and I l
therefore, no environmental impact statement need be prepared. ;
For further details with respect to this action, see the applicant's i request for extension dated February 3, 1992, as supplemented by letter dated ]
March 16, 1992, and the staff's evaluation of the request, which are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the University of Texas at Arlington Library, Government Publications / Maps, 701 South Cooper, P. O. Box 19497, Arlington, Texas 76019.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the latest conscuction completion date for CPPR-127 be extended to August 1, 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M
Bruce A. Boger, Director D 51sion of Reactor Projects Ill/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockvillo, Maryland this 28thday of July 1992.
p %,,,
/ 3 3 . UNITED STATES
- j. /' i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'dg .s /,_f WASHINGTON. O C. 20%E
..... I 1
SAFETY EVALUATION OF RE0 VEST FOR EXTENSION 0F THE LATEST CONETRUCTION PERMIT COMPLETION DATE TEXAS UTillTIES ELECTRIC COMPANY. ET AL. i
.(OMANC4E PEAK STEAM El[{TRIC STATION. UNIT 2 QOCKET NO. 50-446 1.0 INTRODUCTIQfi By letter dated February 3, 1992, as supplemented March 16, 1992, Texas Utilities Electric Company (TV Electric) applied for an extension of the construction completion date for Construction Permit CPPR-127 for Comanche Peak Steam F.lectric Station, Unit 2. TV Electric requested that the latest completion date be extended for up to three years, to August 1, 1995.
TV Electric previously requested an extension to the latest construction completion date in th? 1987 - 1988 timeframe. This extension request was necessary to complete an intensive program of review and reinspection to provide evidence of the safe design and construction of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. This program, along with the concentration of TV Electric resources on completing Unit 1 (necessitating a temporary suspension of Unit 2 construction), resulted in the Applicant's request to extend the latest const M tion completion date to August 1, 1992. As established by Commission Order on November 18, 1988, the Applicant's request was approved.
Due primarily to the unanticipated delay in completing construction and licensing efforts on Unit 1, the Applicant has requested an extension of the construction completion date for Unit 2. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(b) the Applicant's request must show good cause for the extension and be for a reasonable time period. The staff has reviewed TV Electric's request based on the criterion specified in 10 CFR 50.55(b) and has provided the following evaluation.
2.0 EVALUATION Good Cause in their February 3, 1992, submittal TV Electric states that good cause exists to warrant the construction completion date extensicn request. TU Electric's previous request for an extension of the latest construction completion date was predicted based upon an estimated one-year suspension in construction, beginning in April 1988. The purpose of the suspension was to allow TU Electric to concentrate its resources on the completion of Unit 1. Unit.1 was not licensed until February 1990. As a result of concentrating on Unit 1
~._7 } 0 0 %
t t
construction completion, licensing, and initial power operation, TV Electric I did not resume significant design activities for Unit 2 until June 1990, 1 followed by the resumption of significant construction activity in January 1991. Thus, the period of suspension of Unit 2 work lasted much longer than :
originally estimated (close to three years versus the one year originally estimated). The longer period reflected the time needed to complete construction and startup of Unit 1.
t in the staff's judgment, TU Electric has been assiduous in their efforts to detect and correct actual and potential violations of HRC regulations and complete the construction of the plant. Although their intensive program of review and reinspection lasted longer than predicted, it was essential to i providing the requisite assurance of proper design 3nd construction prior to Unit 1 licensing. Design and construction work on Unit 2 was appropriately .
deferred-to allow-for the knowledge gained from the reinspections and corrective action program to be applied to Unit 2.
- The staff believes that neither the extent nor the complexity of the reinspections and reverifications could have been foreseen when the Applicant previously requested, and was granted, an extension of the latest construction completion date to August 1, 1992. . The unanticipated prolonged suspension in the construction of Unit 2, for the purpose of reverifying design and completing Unit--I construction ~and initial operation, warrants an extension of the construction permit for Unit 2. The staff, therefore, concludes that the
. Applicant has demonstrated good cause for the delay which warrants an i extension of the construction permit for Unit 2.
Etasonableness of the period of Time Reauested
-TV Electric has requested to extend the construction permit for three years, from August 1,1992 to August 1,1995. TV Electric states that this time period-is needed to provide a period of continuous construction and testing, plus a contingency period for any unanticipated delays.
TU Electric currently estimates ccmpletion of construction in-December'1992.
The Applicant is maintaining relatively close to .its planned construction and testing schedule. The three year extencion request provides an-adequate contingency period .and sets-an teceptable end date where the construction
- permit would need to be reevaluated for environmental impacts.
' The staff has evaluated TU Electric's request and agrees that the period of time requested for_ the extension of-the latest construction completion date is reasonable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL Corbf ;/2[@
The: staff has'also considered _the environmental impacts of the construction permit, and_has determined that the proposed action does not entail any construction activities significantly different from those that were ;
considered in the final Environmental-Statement (FES) for Comanche Peak nJnits 1 and 2.- The.NRC staff requested and reviewed a supplemental submittal !
dated March 16, 1992, which clarified groundwater usage. The staff verified that conservative estimate. if grountaater use are within those limits originally evaluated and au srized by the NRC staff. The NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will not alter the conclusions reached in the FES.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Comission has determined that extending the construction completion date will have no significant impact on the environment (57 FR 28885).
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff, based on the above evaluation, concludes that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(b), the applicant has shown good cause for the delay and that the requested extension is for a reasonable period of time. Since the request is merely for more time to complete construction already authorized under Construction Permit No. CPPR-127 and does not seek authorization for activities not previously authorized, it does not involve a signific:at increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. _Accordingly, the staff has concluded that the action does not involve a significant hazards consideration and no prior notice of issuance of the extension to the latest construction completion date is necessary in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92(a).
Based upon the above evaluation the staff has concluded that the issuance of an Order extending the latest completion date for construction of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2 is reasonable and should be authorized.
The latest completion date should be extended to August 1,1995.
Principal Contributors: Scott Flanders Brian Holian Date:. July 28.1992
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No.(s) 50-446-CPA (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 2)
CERl!FICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing SJC MEMO TO LB - 8/14/92 have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Morton B. Margulies, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission- Atomic Safety-and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge James H. Carpenter Peter S. Lam Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Marian L. Zobler, Esq. George L. Edgar, Esq.
Michael H. Finkelstein, Esq. Counsel for T U Electric Office of.the General Counsel Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036 Michael D. Kohn, Esq.
Counsel for Petitioners Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P. C.
517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001 Dated at Rockville, Md. this , C, 14 day of August 1992 ,
' rdu .nks j As .ZM OfTice of the Secretary of thlrT[ommilslon f ,- , - , , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . .. - _ _ - _ - - -