ML20133H693

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Concerns Re Decision by PSC of Mo Concerning Inservice Criteria for Facility.Rept & Order - Phase I Re Procedural History Encl.Ack NRC Jurisdiction Over Facility Safety
ML20133H693
Person / Time
Site: Callaway, 05000000
Issue date: 11/14/1984
From: Steinmeier W
MISSOURI, STATE OF
To: Asselstine J
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20133H619 List:
References
FOIA-85-354, FOIA-85-355, FOIA-85-356 NUDOCS 8508090460
Download: ML20133H693 (9)
v • d • e


Text

,

. i.

^

.. 2.'. diuou4i @uMic fewice %mmi66 ton n.. ca. w

~

e t* g, 0

B.%p+. }

November 14, 1984 751 3234 P.O.80X360 jfr/EASONo77 9g** *...e .e * , ' MIS 50URIss t02

- Commissioner James Asselstine Nuclear Regulatory Commission C =ias n: 1717 H Street, N.W.

WILLIAM D. STUNMUER Washington, D.C. 20555 Chair-an CHARLOTTE MUSGRAVE

Dear Comissioner Asselstine:

ALLAN C MUELLER CoNNtE B HENDREN It has come to my attention that you and other members of JAMES M TISCHER the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) have voiced concerns about the decision of the Missouri Public Service Comission (Misscuri RostRTI SCainstR Comission) in Case Nos. ER-84-168 and EO-85-17 pertaining to the 5"H S= " in-service criteria, for the Callaway Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 (Callaway). In particular, it was suggested that our in-service HARVEY C. HUBS 5 Criteria for rated 3 king purposes would somehow encourage Union 5" " "'7 Electric Company to unduly expedite completion of the plant, at the expense of ssiety of the plant. I would like to address this f

KENT M. RACSDALE ConCeIn.

1 Cenen1 C.unnel First, the Missouri Comission believes that the NRC's requirecents for safeguarding the health, safety, and welfare of the public stand alone. The Missouri Comission's requirements for ,

ratemaking recognition of Callaway are not oblivious to the exclusive jurisdiction of the NRC over nuclear plant safety. The Missouri

'. Comission's Report and Order of August 22, 1984 concerning the

  • in-service criteria for Callaway requires first and foremost that the NRC-approved testing and licensing requirements must be satisfied before the plant may be included in rates.

Second, under the " file and suspend'; method of proceedings set by statute in Missouri, electric utility rates must be ruled upon by the Ccemission within a maximum of eleven (11) months after the filing of the tariffs requesting an increase in rates. Although the suspension period in which the Missouri Comission may act is constrained by law, the timing of the utility's tariff filing is

  • within its sole discretion. Thus, Union Electric Company initiated the schedule with which you are concerned. Prior to deciding the l matter of the Callaway in-service criteria, the Missouri Commission sought to address Union Electric Compcny's concern that Callaway might not be'in-service by the end of the eleven (11) month rate case period that Union Electric Company set in motion by the filing of

- tariffs on February 15, 1984. In fact, ve have established an extraordinary procedure in this case to try to assure that a whole new rate case record need not be begun even though the in-service criteria are not met by the end of the current rate case. In addition, the Missouri Comission han stated that AFUDC may continue 950BO90460 850627 FDR FOIA BELL 85-354 PDR /

I

. Connicci:ner Jams 3 Assol: tine  :

-

  • November 14, 1984 P:ss 2 - l to be accrued on Callaway for ratemaking purposes if there is any lag between the in-service date and an order giving rate recognition of 4 the plant. These devices should give Union Electric Company ample and adequate protection such that the Company has no incentive to unduly expedite plant completion and power ascension testing at the ,

expense of safety considerations. l l

Third, I would point out that Section 393.135, RSMo 1978 was adopted by popular referendum on November 2, 1976. Said section provides that the plant of an electrical corporation must be " fully operational and used for service" before any charge may be made or

demanded based on the costs of said property. While it is true that J Callaway is Missouri's first nuclear plant, it has not been singled out for the application of "in-service criteria." In-service criteria have been set and applied by the Missouri Commission to nine (9) coal-fired units in the eight years since Section 393.135, RSMo 1978'became law. Our in-service criteria for Callaway are designed to assure that the plant.is fully operational and used for service, and is safe and reliable, before the risks of the plant are shifted to ratepayers and costs of the plant are included in rates.

4 I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of our Report and Order on in-service criteria for Callaway, for your reference.

In summary, let me say that we have the utmost confidence in the quality and adequacy of the NRC's safety requirements for the Callaway (and Wolf Creek) nuclear plants, and fully recognize your exclusive jurisdiction over the safety of those plants. Your safety requirements must be fully met before those plants may operate commercially, regardless of the criteria we have established for rate '

recognition of the plants. In fact, our in-service criteria for ratemaking purposes include successful completion of the NRC's safety '

requirements. Therefore, I can conceive of no manner in which our

! in-service criteria could adversely affect the safe completion of Callaway.

- If the Missouri Commission can be of assistance regarding this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

f Si c,erely.

ll.7 . y. *

(jl40%$

liam D. Ste nue e i Chairman Enclosure ec: Chairman Nunzio Palladino Commissioner Thomas h. Roberts Commissioner Frederier M. Bernthal l Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr.

i l j t

t

' '. i BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE ColMISSI0tt 0F THE STATE OF MISSOURI

.i CASE NO. ER-84-168 l In the matter of Union Electric Company of St. Louis, Missouri, for authority to file tariffs increasing rates for electric service provided to cusi,cmers )

in the Missouri service area i of the Company. I CASE NO. 80-85-17  !

l In the matter of the determination of in-service criteria for the Union Electric Company's Callaway l Nuclear Plant and Callaway rate base and related issues. I i

i APPEARANCES: Paul A. Asathen, Attorney at Law, and Gerald Charnoff Attorney at Law, P. O. Box 149, St. Louis, Missouri 63166, '

I i for Union Electric Company.

William Claric Kelly, Assistant Attorney General, P. O. Box 599, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, for the State of Missouri. -

William M. Barvick, Attorney at Law,124 East High Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101, for the City ,

of Jefferson, et al.

Richard V. French, Assistant Public Counsel, P. O. Box 7800, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, for the Office of the Public .

Counsel and the Public. l Villiam C. Harrelson, Deputy General Counsel, P. O. Box 360, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, for the Staff of the Missouri l Public Service Commission j REPORT AND ORDER - PHASE I PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 15, 1984, the Union Elgetric Company (hereinafter Company) 1 filed revised tariffs seeking authority to increase rates for electric service

provided to custcaers in the Missouri service area of the Company. The tariffs bore an effective date of March 16, 1984.

I

1 , .

Th3 Company has proposed fsur criterin while the Staff has proposed six criteria. Missouri Retailers Association, which participated in the prehearing

conference only, supports Staff. The Public Counsel and the City of Jefferson, et al., support Staff's criteria 1 through 5 but oppose Staff's criterion 6. All parties argue that their respective positions propose criteria which necessarily must I

be satisfied to support a finding by the Commission that the Callaway Nuclear Plant 1

is " fully operational and used for service" within the meaning of Section '93 135, RSMo 1978.

The Company takes the position that the plant should be declared "in-service" when the plant is providing safe and reliable power. The Company's "in-service" criteria is as follows:

Criterion 1. The Company as granted an operating license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate the plant at high power levels.-

Criterion 2. The turbine generator and nuclear steam supply system have demonstrated the capability to sustain reliable power operation.

Criterion 3 The plant has supplied electricity to the Company's system with output scheduled by the system load dispatcher.

Criterion 4. All components of the plant needed to generate at 100 percent of capacity are capable of operation.

Company's four criteria will be satisfied at 50 percent power although the Company intends to complete all testing required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter NRC) and complete full power ascension to 100 percent power prior to i

j declaring the plant "in service". The minimum standard for declaring the plant "in service" under the Company's criteria is at the 50 percent power level after having operated at that level for 25 to 30 days. The company desires to retain the flexibility to declare the plant ain-service" somewhere between 50 and 100 percent power in the event the Company is restrained at some power level between 50 and 100 percent. Such restraint could be imposed by the NRC or it could be self-imposed 1

because of some equipment problem.

[

.- - - - . _. ._,- -. , , . . . - . . . .m, , _ , - , . . , , , . , - - - - , - . - -- , ,w--

moittura carricd over with the cteam, cinc3 it is important to renovo as su:h moisture as possible so as not to endanger the turbine generator. A high noisture carryover could affect design efficiency and turbine longevity.

l Although the Company intends to complete testing at all power levels prior to declaring the plant "in service" if everything goes well, it does not intend to complete the above-referenced warranty testa prior to declaring the plant "in-I service" since these tests are not required by the NRC.

The Staff includes both warranty tests in its criteria as well as the l l

requirement that the plant be operated for 100 continuous hours at full power (95 to 100 percent) to demonstrate the performance of the entire plant at the full power level. The 100-hour test proposed by Staff any or any not be satisfied during the NSSS acceptance test depending on the circumstances.

The Company maintains that the plant need not reach full power in order to be determined "in-service". In addition, the Company argues that the Staff's Criterion 1 is overly stringent since it not only requires that the plant reach full power but requires ths completion of warranty tests. In the Company's view these warranty tests are not necessarily related to a determination of whether the plant is operational and are based solely on the specific contract entered into by the Company and the annufacturer.

With respect to the moisture test, the Company further argues that it should not be required since the Company asserts it has no near term significance with respect to the operability or reliability of the steam generator.

Criterion 2. The preoperational test program shall be successfully completed. -

The preoperational test program consists of a series of tests which verify that plant components and systems fulfill their designed intent, demonstrate proper system and component response to postulated accidents and familiarize plant staff with the plant operations.

t 1

[ 1

_ . _ ~,

Th3 purpobo cf thic criterin 10 ts dem:nstrate that Comptny pers:nnal ora l

capable of operating the plant in a competent manner and that no hardware problems exist which interfere with reliable operation of the plant. Staff maintains that Criterion 5 in conjunction with Criterion 1 assures reliable plant operations.

The Company objects to Criterion 5 on the ground that it is inappropriate for the Staff to duplicate the role of the NRC. In addition, the Company argues that the reporting requirments for each delay of over 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> is too burdensome. If l such a requirement is imposed on the Company, the Company recommends that it report l

any single event which causes a delay of 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> or more in a milestone event or in the overall schedule. The Company asserts that only milestone events are reviewed by management and, therefore, restricting Criterion 5 to milestone events will focus on possibly significant events. Events other than milestone events can be altered at will by test schedulers and do not require management approval. The Company argues that scheduled alterations are inevitable and are not necessarily significant.

Milestone events are designated by black circles and arrows on Exhibit A4, Schedule A.

In addition, the Ccapany contends that the requirement to report each 100-

., hour delay is overly stringent since the NRC requires a,pproval for modification to the test program of delays that exceed 30 days regarding tests occurring at below 50 percent power level and 14 days when the power level exceeds 50 percent.

Company states that it is willing to meet with Staff and other interested parties on a rsgular basis to explain the progress of the start up schedule. The

'. Company is concerned that Criterion 5 in and of itself could delay the "in-service" date because of the time involved in the preparation and Staff review of the information required.

Criterion 6. Exemptions from Criterion 1-5 may be granted or the determination made that the plant is fully operational at some power level less than the rated full power originally proposed

,' for good cause shown.

3 f

Criterion 1. .The UE's Startup Testing Program, which is outlined in Exhibit 14, Schedule A, shall be successfully completed. This shall include a successful uninterrupted run of at least 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> during which power is furnished to the grid at a level between 95 percent and 100 percent. 100 percent is 3425 Mw thermal with a gross turbine output of 1185.8 MWe.

Since the Moisture Carryover test will demonstrate design efficiency and turbine longevity, the Commission detemines that the test should be completed. The Company is confident that the unit will have a low moisture carryover. Although the Company maintains that the moisture carryover is an efficiency concern rather than a reliability concern and is therefore not a near-tem problem, Company witness did state that a very . great moisture carryover would be quite serious.

The Commission determines that it is appropriate to require the completion of the NSSS warranty test since the test demonstrates the capability of sustained operation at the rated themal output. The Company expects to operate the plant when available at full load and therefore completion of the NSSS test will provide a high level of assurance that the steam supply system can perfom as expected and as warranted by the manufacturer.

If all goes well, the moisture test, the NSSS test and the 100-hour test I

can be completed simultaneously. The Company plans to complete these tests and '

' \

according to the Company's test schedule contained in Exhibit A4, Schedule A, the l tests will be completed ta to 15 days after the completion of power ascension. The Company proposes to declare the plant "in service".when power ascension is complete absent some restriction. In the Commission's opinion, the delay of 14 to 15 days is well worth a high level of assurance that the plant has demonstrated the capability of sustained operations at full power as warranted.

Criterion 2. The Prooperational Test program shall be successfully completed. ,

I Criterion 3 The plant and associated transmission facilities have been tested capable of supplying to the Company's Missouri customers their full share of its rated power and can do so with the single most critical transmission line out of service.

i

operations. -

Criterion 6. Exemptions from Criterion 1-5 may be granted or the determination made that the plant is " fully operational" at some power level less than the rated full power originally proposed for good cause shown.

The Commission believes that flexibility is important since these criteria are being established absent evidence of facts regarding the operating experience during start-up testing.

Criterion 7 The plant is supplying electricity to the Company's system with output scheduled by the system load dispatcher. l The Commission has added Criterion 7 to ensure that the electricity is being supplied to customers.

The Commission deterinines that the criteria established herein provide ,

protection to the Company's customers against the risk of paying for a plant that turns out to be seriously defective. In the Commission's opinion the satisfaction of

, Criteria 1 through 5 clearly will provide the greatest assurance that the Callaway Plant is capable of providing safe, adequate, reliable a'nd efficient service.

. Therefore, Criteria 1 through 5 set an optimal standard for determining when the Callaway Plant will be eligible for inclusion in rate base, but are not necessarily the minimum legal standards required to support a finding of " fully operational and used for service" under Section 393 135, RSMo 1978. l

, Prior to receiving any evidence regarding the operating experience of the

.' plant the Cummission is not prepared to make a finding at this juncture that a demonstration of safe and reliable plant operations at some power level less than 100 percent will never constitute " fully operational and used for service" within the meaning of section 393 135, RSMo 1978.

Section 393 135, asMo 1978, prohibits charges based on costs associated with property before the property is fully operational and used for service. The statute does not mandate that such oosts be included in rates upon a minimum showing that the statutory requirements have been met. Therefore, the Commission has Exh5 bit A4, Schedule A constitute tests required under Criterion 1. If Staff and

' Company cannot reach' agreement as to which events constitute tests, the issue should be brought to the Commission's attention.

ORDERED: 4. That this Report and Order shall becces effective on the

, 27th day of August, 1984.

BY THE C0t94ISSION m k.,h A$ L HarveyG(Hubbs Secretary (S E A L)

Steinmeier, Chm., Musgrave, Mueller, Hendren and Fischer, CC., Concur.

C.ortify ocupliance with the provisions of Section 536.080, RSMo 1978.

De,ed at Jefferson City, Missouri, this 22nd day of August,1984.

6 7

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20133H693&oldid=2879901"