ML20140E317
| ML20140E317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1986 |
| From: | Wooldridge R TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC), WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS & WOOLRIDGE (FORMERLY |
| To: | Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-907 OL, NUDOCS 8602030224 | |
| Download: ML20140E317 (14) | |
Text
-
s.
W
- WED Conmy,g WORSHAM, FoRSYTHE, SAMPELS 8e WOOLDRIDGE THIRTY-TwO MUNDRED.2001 BRYAN tower DALLAS, TaxAs 75201
,,j*, ",, " * "
mo af A woOLOmiOG E NCIL O. ANDERSON NA M MANSON TELEPMONC (214)979 3000 or CouNstL r
- s. DAN mOMANNAN 4
sos.rnioN wonsMAM T=Ams c. vANOta.OOL EARL A. rORsYTH E j.
JVOITM m.JOMNSON 9
"**'"eLor." GIN January 29,((1986 k,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,
A D
(*
,OMN w.M..., NOLO.
T-TMoMAS r. utLAm0 97 JAN 311936* @
. 'OT'"' ": "!M A
'*l
~ ~;, ' ' "l." ** '
- ~-
.. w mcunas 4,p/"C??M" vl
'""l.', :."L" "i,"'"* " ""* '"
Mann SCMwARTI
{
meCMAND G. MOOng V
NANCYE L.SETMURCM
- y *l.,l;*""" '"
l ;#E Q&[khb
.y lt
,t._.........-
.... M........N
,,.,. ~.
i Peter B. Bloch, Esquire Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Chairman, Atomic Safety Administrative Judge and Licensing Board Dean, Division of Engineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Architecture and Technology l
Commission Oklahoma State University
. Washington, D.C.
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory 881 W. Outer Drive P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Subj:
Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electrig Station, Units 1 & 2): Docket Nos. 50-455, 50-446
Dear Administrative Judges:
We enclose, for the information of the Board, a copy of the letter to the NRC Staff from Applicants dated January 29,1986. The letter is a request for an amendment to the f
construction permit for Unit 1 (CPPR-126) to extend the latest completion date from August 1,1985 to August 1,1988. This request was not filed at an earlier time due to an administrative oversight. We bring this matter to the Board's attention as a matter of information only, given that the construction permit amendment sought is not within the scope of this operating license proceeding (44 Fed. Reg.15813 (March 15,1979)).
Sincerely,'
0602030224 D60129
((
PDR ADOCK 05000445 PDR Robert A. Wooldridge Counsel for Applicants I
RAW /kp Attachment i
ect Service list iso 3
SERVICE LIST Mr. Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dean, Division of Engineering, Architecture and Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, C ASE 1426 South Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 Renea Hicks, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
William A. Horin, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. W. G. Counsil Executive Vice President Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower,25th Floor 400 N. Olive Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
Mr. R. K. Gad, III Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Mr. Roy P. Lessy, Jr.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Lanny A. Sinkin Christle Institute 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20002 Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. William L. Clements Docketing & Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Stuart A. Treby, Esq.
Office of the Executive Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East / West Highway,4th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Billie Pirner Garde Citizens Clinic Director Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 Nancy Williams Cygna Energy Services, Inc.
101 California Street Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111.
David R. Pigot Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Mr. Shannon Phillips Resident Inspector Comanche Peak SES c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 38 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Anthony Roisman, Esq.
Executive Director Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P. Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washington, D.C. 20036 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Suite 840 Washington, D.C. 20036 thMLD CCnnWJiivaisu Log # TXX-4680 File # 10101 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY v.u w-m==ouv.w
.r.
....o u.
.nx-n...
d'f Mcm
\\
January 29,1986 y
t JAN 3119856 <
A tocma s b N 3"
, /
Mr. Harold R. Denton Director s
gv, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
i' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION DOCKET NO. 50-445; REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-126
Dear Mr. Denton:
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 50.55(b), Texas Utilities Electric Company et al. (" Applicants"), hereby apply for an extension, nunc pro tunc, of Constructio'li Fermit CPPR-126 for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1, retroactive to August 1,1985, the ' latest completion date presently reflected in CPPR-126.
Applicants request that the latest completion date be extended to August 1,1988.
Applicants further request that this app!! cation be handled on an expedited basis.
The Atomic Energy Act, NRC regulations, and the public Interest support ex-pedited issuance of the requested extension.
Applicants submit that good cause exists for the construction permit ex-tension, and that the extension is for a reasonable period of time. Thus, Applicants submit that the requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. Section 50.55(b) for issuance of the extension have been met.
Physical construction on Comanche Peak Unit I was essentially completed in early 1985. However, major efforts to reinspect and reanalyze various structures, systems, and components have been ongoing since the fall of 1984 in order to respond to the questions raised by the NRC Staff's Technical Review Team
("TRT"), by the Board and parties in the ASLB operating license proceedings, and raised by other external sources.
The TRT was formed by senior NRC Staff managernent in March of 1984 to consolidate and carry out the various reviews necessary for the Staff to reach its decision regarding plant Ilcensing. App!! cants formed the Comanche Peak Response Team and submitted a Program Plan to respond to the TRT's questions, the ASLB issues, and the other external sources,,
issues.
That Plan is presently being implemented.
It is anticipated that such implementation will not be complete before the second quarter of 1986.
A DEVERION OV TEXAB UTildT1ES ELEC13 tic COMPANY
j l
i Mr. Harold R. Denton January 29,1986 Page Two Based upon the foregoing, Applicants submit that the delay which neces-sitates the construction permit extension was not the result of dilatory action by Applicants; that is, there was no intentional delay of construction without a valid purpose.
Matter of Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1), ALAB-771,19 NRC 1183,1189 (1984); Matter of Washington Public Power Su) ply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-722,17 NRC 546,553 (1983). Further, the ultimate good cause finding should " encompass a judgment about why the plant should be completed and is not to rest solely upon a judgment as to the applicants' fault for delay." ALAB-722,17 NRC at 553.
It scarcely bears mention that Applicants here have not delayed placing Comanche Peak Unit 1 in operation intentionally without valid purpose. The delay has been necessitated by the performance of the reinspections and reanalyses described above. Obviously, Applicants would not delay operation of Comanche Peak Unit I any longer than is necessary to demonstrate the safety of the plant to their own satisfaction and that of the NRC.
Further, the extension sought is "for a reasonable period of time." 10 C.F.R.
Section 50.55(b).
The purpose behind this requirement is to ensure that an applicant does not select a completion date that frustrates the NRC's. regulatory oversight. ALAB-771, supra,19 NRC at 1191. NRC has numerous personnel both on-site and off-site overseeing Comanche Peak, and will have an active oversight role at least until the operating license is issued. A latest completion date of August 1,1988, will not in any way frustrate this NRC oversight.
Accordingly, App!! cants' request for an extension of the construction permit fulfills the requirements in 10 C.F.R. Section 50.55(b), and thus the mandate in Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2235, which the NRC regulation implements. Matter of Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos. I and 2), CLI-82-29,16 NRC 1221,1225 (1982). Prompt issuance of the requested extension will further the public interest in the completion of the licensing review for this facility in accordance with the terms and stated purposes of the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S.C. Sections 20i3(d) and (f).
A proposed Environmental impact Appraisal prepared by Applicants is attached hereto.
This appraisal would support a determination that this con-struction permit extension will result in no significant environmental impact.
That this request was not flied at an earlier time was due to an adminis-trative oversight, of which we were not aware until late yesterday af ternoon. The efforts of both the Staff and the Applicants over the last year and a half have concentrated on addressing outstanding operating license issues, including the questions raised by the TRT, the ASLB, and the other external sources. Applicants have devoted substantial resources, both from within TUEC and through outside, consultants, to establish and implement a massive program to address those outstanding issues.
During the same time period, TUEC was involved in the restructuring of its management organization.
This restructuring has involved numerous personnel changes and changes in responsibilities of persons in all facets of the organization. Recognizing this situation, Applicants have made a concerted effort to track outstanding technical commitments and issues. (See Texas Utilities
Mr. Harold R. Denton January 29,1986 Page Three Electric Company Comprehensive Action List, April 24, 1985.)
Tracking of licensing milestones was to be maintained separately.
Unfortunately, this par-ticular milestone was overlooked.
The Commission has full authority under the Atomic Energy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act to grant the requested extension of the construction permit nunc pro tunc. The legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act indicates that the construction permit provisions of Section 185 were patterned after similar I
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. Section 319. See, eg, Proposed Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1946: Hearings on S.3323 and H.R. 8862 Before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,83d Cong.,2d Sess.116 (1954)(Representative Hinshaw).
Section 319(b) of the Communications Act provides that a construction permit for a broadcast station:
"shall show specifically the earliest and latest dates be-tween which the actual operation of such station is expected to begin, and shall provide that said permit will be auto-matically forfeited if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified or ' ithin such further time as the '
w Commission may allow, unless prevented by causes not under the control of the grantee."
(47 U.S.C. Section 319(b).)
The courts have held that the Federal Communications Commission has broad discretion under Section 319 to allow additional time for construction, even when an extension application is filed out of time. Mass Communicators, Inc. v. FCC, 266 F. 2d 681, 684 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.5. 323 0939), is a case directly in point. In that case, the applicant filed a request for extension of a construction permit af ter the date specified for completion of construction. Nevertheless, the FCC granted the extension, finding that the applicant had exercised due diligence in carrying out construction and that the work had been substantia!!y completed by the specified construction completion date. 266 F. 2d at 683.
A competing applicant sought judicial re. view and argued that under Section 319(b) of the Communications Act, there had been an automatic forfeiture of the construction permit on the date of its expiration. The D.C. Circuit rejected this argument, stating: "It is clear... that an expiration of a permit was by no means to be considered an automatic forfeiture of the permit." 266 F. 2d at 684. In addition, despite FCC regulations stating that an extension application must be filed at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the permit, the Court ruled that l
"the regulations cannot be read to limit the statutory grant of power" and affirmed the FCC's order extending the construction permit. 266 F. 2d at 685.
l In sum, Mass Communicators, supra, stands for the proposition that an agency does not lose its discretion to grant additional time for the completion of construction simply because the app!! cation for extension of time was not timely l
filed. This is so even where the agency's organic statute provides that the permit i
will be " automatically forfeited" if the deadline in question is not met. The FCC exercised its discretion to grant the extension because the holder of the putatively
Mr. Harold R. Denton January 29,1986 1
Page Four l
4
" expired" permit had demonstrated some diligence in pursuing activities under the i
permit and construction was substantially complete.
Compare MG-TV Broad-casting Co. v. FCC, 408 F. 2d 1257,1261 (D.C. Cir.1968) (reversing FCC order granting extension because "no significant progress toward construction had been j
made," 408 F. 2d at 1262,) citing Mass Communicators, supra, and United Detroit Theatres Corp. v. FCC,178 F. 2d 700 (D.C. Cir.1949). Similarly, here, Section 183 i
i of the Atomic Energy Act grants broad discretion to the Commission to allow an extension of a construction permit upon a showing of " good cause" and, like Section 319(b) of the Communications Act, contains no requirement that an extension i
application be filed prior to the expiration date.
Given the result in Mass i
Communicators, supra, the Commission has full statutory authority to extend the i
Comanche Peak construction permit nunc pro tunc.
Further, 10 C.F.R. Section 50.55(d) requires that the operating license application be filed "(a)t or about the time of completion of the construction or modification of the facility.
Applicants have diligently proceeded with activities under the construction permit and timely filed the application for an 3
l operating license in satisfaction of 10 C.F.R. Section 50.55(d). Applicants also have pending a motion for a low power operating license filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 50.57(c) in August 1984. In such circumstances, an agency such as I
the Commission, in its discretion, may elect to treat the operating license l
application not only as evidence that the license is being diligently pursued, but also as tantamount to an application for extension of the construction permit.
l Indeed, the operating license application here constitutes an application for i
"a new license" (an operating license) within the meaning of the final sentence of
}
Section 558 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 558, and thereby could be considered to automatically extend the existing construction permit. The Supreme Court in Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.,353 U.S. 436 (1957), a case involving the extension of temporary l
transportation authority, held that under Section 558 of the APA, an application for permanent authority to carry on the regulated activity operated to extend automatically the temporary authority even though the statute expressly limited temporary permits to one hundred eighty (180) days in the aggregate.
Justice i
Douglas, for the Court, held that once the conditions of Section 558 are satisfied, l
Including the filing of a timely application.for a new (permanent) license to continue the ongoing business activity, "an extension in the interests of economy l
and efficiency is authorized."
353 U.S. at 439.
Under the reasoning of Pan-Atlantic Steamship, the filing of the operating license application for Comanche Peak could be viewed as automatically extending the construction permit under l
Section 558 of the APA.
4 I
It should be noted that in Pan-Atlantic, the one hundred eighty (180) day j
period of temporary authority had run by the time the timely application for j
permanent authority was acted upon, but the agency had treated the temporary, authority as still in effect while the application was pending and the Court affirmed, holding that the application for the long-term license was, under Section 558, to be treated, "in the interest of efficiency," as an application to extend the temporary authority. Accordingly, since Applicants filed a timely application for an operating license under 10 C.F.R. Section 50.55(d), Pan-Atlantic suggests that the construction permit is automatically extended pending disposition of the
Mr. Harold R. Denton January 29,1986 Page Five operating license application. The Commission need not employ this rationale, however, if it exercises its discretion to grant Applicants' extension request out of time. Mass Communicators, supra.
In any event, the overall purpose of NRC regulations has been served, even though there has been a delay in filing this request for extension. Applicants have assumed that they were always obligated to comply with the terms and conditions of the construction permit, have conducted themselves toward that end, and will continue to do so. The Staff has inspected and audited Applicants' activities in a most intensive oversight role, presumably also assuming that Applicants were obligated to comply with the construction permit. These actions by Applicants and the Staff provide a high level of assurance that public health and safety has been protected.
The requested extension of the construction permit involves no significant hazards considerations because it does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident, create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any previously evaluated, or involve a significant decrease in safety margin.
Rather, it simply extends the completion date.
Accordingly, Applicants request that the Staff dispense with prior notice of issuance of the extension, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Section 50.92(a).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, I have earlier this date ordered an immediate suspension of all physical on-site construction activities on Unit 1, which sus-pension will remain in effect until further notice to you, which notice will be given at least seventy-two (72) hours before work will resume. Not included within the scope of this shutdown are:
1..
Design and other engineering activities, whether on-or off-site. These activities, which include but are not limited to activities being under-taken to support the CPRT activities, are the type of activities that are routinely undertaken prior to issuance of (and, indeed, prior to appli-l cation for) a construction permit.
2.
The ongoing CPRT activities, exclusive of any physical corrective actions. These activities include no physical construction work, extend l
to both units, and are not activities undertaken under the authority of l
the construction permit.
i 3.
Corrective maintenance of systems open at the time of the shutdown. If in our engineering judgment continuation of such work is necessary to l
protect and preserve installed hardware.
We believe this to be consistent with the Commission's handling of the analogous situation in Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 513-14 n.10 (1977). In addition, while.
preventative maintenance h included within the scope of the sus-pension, we reserve judgment to undertake preventative maintenance if necessary to protect and preserve installed hardware or systems.
4.
Systems presently in operation, such as the energized transmission lines and chemistry supply systems.
o 9
Mr. Harold R. Denton January 29,1986 Page Six In accordance with 10 C.F.R. Section 170.21, enclosed herewith is a check for
$150.00 for the construction permit extension application. Further, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Section 50.30, three (3) signed originals and nineteen (19) copies of this extension request are enclosed.
Very truly yours,
'f
,/l,,/llCh'[t^ %'
s William G. Counsil Executive Vice President Texas Utilities Generating Company THE STATE OF TEX AS COUNTY OF DALLAS There personally appeared before me W. G. COUNSIL, who, being duly sworn, did state that he is Executive Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations, of Texas Utilities Generating Company, a division of Texas Utilities Electric Company; that he is duly authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this request to amend Construction Permit CPPR 126 for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1; that he is familiar with the content thereof; and that the matters of fact set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.
Notary Puqic My Commission Expires:
~\\'
e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CPPR-126 DOCKET NO. 50-445 f-1.
Description of and Need for Proposed Action The action requested is the issuance of an extension to the captioned construction permit for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Unit
- 1. This would extend for 36 months the latest date for completion of Unit 1.
The need for the proposed action arises from the requirement in NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. Section 50.55 (a)) that each construction permit state the latest date for completion, and from the fact that operating license reviews and proceedings have not yet been completed.
2.
Summary Description of the Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action The environmental impacts associated with construction of CPSES Units 1 and 2 have been previously addressed in the NRC Staff's final environmental statement, construction permit stages (FES-CP) issued June,1974.
The FES-CP identified the following four major impacts and effects due to construction:
d
--n_
--_,..--_,_.n-
- - _ _ _ _.. _ -. -.. - - - ~, -.. -. - -,.
a.
Construction-related activities on the site were expected to disturb about 400 acres of rangeland, plus 3,228 acres of land inundated by Squaw Creek Reservoir, constructed in conjunction with the station.
The land inundated was expected to include about 8 linear miles of Squaw Creek and the adjacent riparian communities, and 940 acres of cropland, which was considered irreversibly lost. About 200 acres of this land not to be used for the reservoir, plant facilities, parking lots, road switchyard, evaporation pond, etc., were required to be restored by seeding and landscaping to prevent erosion, b.
Approximately 15 miles of transmission line corridors were expected to require about 439 acres of land for the rights-of-way.
c.
Relocation of certain pipelines was expected to involve about 100 acres. A railroad spur 10.2 miles long was expected to affect 185 acres of land. Diversion and return lines between 1.ake Granbury and Squaw y'y Creek Reservoir were expected to affect about 100 acres.
d.
Station construction was expected to involve some community impacts.
As many as eight farm residents were expected to be displaced.
Farming, hunting, and grazing on the site were to be suspended. Traffic on local roads was expected to increase due to construction and commuting activities.
Influx of construction workers' families was expected to cause no major housing or school problems. A demand for increased services in Somervell and Hood Counties was expected. - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The first three effects have already occurred.
The reservoir was con-structed, and filling was completed in May of 1979. Post-construction site landscaping has of course not yet been completed, but there has been seeding to prevent erosion. Construction of the initial set of transmission lines is complete and construction is in progress for an additional planned line. The railroad spur and diversion and return lines between Lake Granbury and Squaw Creek Reservoir have been completed. Therefore, those effects were a
associated with previous authorizations, not this requested extension.
Regarding community impacts, the requested extension encompasses no change in the scope, or significant change in the duration, of the construction activities, most of the physical construction (exclusive of any corrective actions) having already taken place for Unit 1.
Another impact, the subject of a construction permit condition, is ground-water withdrawal. At the present time most construction water is being supplied from treated lake water. As a result, continued construction will have little impact on groundwater.
As required by the construction permit, environmental monitoring has been conducted. There have been no unreviewed adverse environmental impacts associated with construction and none is anticipated.
3.
Alternatives As the NRC has recognized in not requiring consideration of alternative energy sources or alternative sites at the operating license stage (10 C.F.R.
Section 51.53), those are not viable alternatives for plants already con-structed. Alternatives were considered in the FES-CP issued in June,1974.
The alternative selected was to authorize construction, and such course remains the alternative of choice.
4.
Conclusion and Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the above, it is concluded there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to. this requested action other than those already predicted and described in the FES-CP issued in June,1974.
_4