ML20247C011
| ML20247C011 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, Comanche Peak, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1989 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905240320 | |
| Download: ML20247C011 (8) | |
Text
___
'4
!.h
/
- o UNITED STATES "g
!N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
h,y a
WASHINGTON, D. C, 20555
%,,, g May 12, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Comittee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This quarterly status report on licensing schedules, covering the first quarter of calendar year 1989, is forwarded in response to the direction given in House Report 97-850.
On March 3, 1989, the Commission dismissed the Shoreham interveners from the Shoreham licensing proceedings for misconduct during the proceedings.
This action terminated all Commission adjudicatory proceedings on Shoreham.
Following staff presentations to the Comission on relevant issues, including emergency planning, the Comission on April 20, 1989, authorized the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue a full power license for Shoreham.
At the close of the period covered by this quarterly report, the Seabrook Decomisssioning Funding Assurance Plan and information provided by the applicant in response to NRC Bulletin 88-11 were being considered by the staff. The Comission must address stay motions following the staff's review of the plan before a low power license may be issued. The Commission is unable to forecast the full power licensing schedule for Seabrook because of emergency preparedness issues that remain unresolved.
In the Comanche Peak proceeding, the intervenor filed a petition on February 15, 1989, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to review Comission order CLI-88-12, which denied the intervenor's petition to intervene.
TVA is continuing to implement the Nuclear Performance Plan for Watts Bar.
Volume 4 of the plan is expected to be submitted in early sumer 1989.
With the exception of Seabrook, regulatory delays in this report are not affected by the schedule for resolving off-site emergency preparedness.
Sincerely,
&Lo W.
(n.
l Lando W. Zech,..
l
Enclosure:
Qf
{
NRC Quarterly Status Report to Congress F
l l
cc: The Honorable John T. Myers i
8905240320 890512 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC E__ __ _
NRC OVARTERLY STATUS REPORT Shoreham On February 28, 1989, the Long Island Lighting Company and the State of New York signed an agreement providing for LILC0 to sell the Shoreham plant to the State, which would close and decommission it.
By April 15, 1989, all necessary State approvals had been obtained, and the LILC0 Board of Directors had approved the plan.
The plan will not become final until and unless it is approved by the LILC0 shareholders in mid-June,1989.
On March 3, 1989, the Commission (Commissioner Curtiss not participating) voted unanimously to dismiss Suffolk County, New York State, and the Town of Southhampton from all pending Commission proceedings, citing misconduct in the proceeding:
failure to comply with orders of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and failure to meet discovery obligations.
Dismissal of the interveners meant that the decision on Shoreham's readiness for a license became the responsibility of the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
In a Commission briefing on April 17, 1989, the Director of NRR summarized his findings on those emergency planning issues which had not already been decided in the Shoreham adjudication.
His conclusions, set forth in Supplement 10, Section 13, Subsection 13.3 of the Safety Evaluation Report and in the " Director's Findings on Shoreham Emergency Planning Contentions," was that all outstanding issues had been resolved satisfactorily, and that there was " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken" in the event of an accident.
On April 20, 1989, the Commission voted 4-0 (Commissioner Curtiss not j
participating) to authorize the Director of NRR to issue a full power
]
operating license to the Shoreham plant, and a license was issued the following day.
LILC0 has stated that the tenns of its agreement with the
{
State of New York bar it from operating the plant pending the shareholders' vote in mid-June.
i
e 2
Seabrook Low Power Before a low power license could be issued, the following issue needed to be addressed. The status of this issue is as follows:
On December 21, 1988, in CLI-88-10, the Commission decided that a low l
power license may be issued on satisfaction o' 'No conditions:
1) that the applicants must provide reasonable assurance that $72.1 million dollars will be available to decommission Seabrook in the event that a comercial operating license is not granted after low power testino has been done, and 2) that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) resolve the pending motion to litigate additional on-site emergency exercise issues.
q Upon satisfaction of those conditions, the applicants would be pennitted no more than 0.75 effective full power hours of operation without additional Commission approval.. With regard to the first condition, the applicants provided a Decommissioning Funding Assurance Plan on March 20, 1989.
With regard to the second condition, the ASLB denied the pending motion to admit an on-site exercise contention.
Full Power On December 30, 1988, the Licensing Board issued its Partial Initial Decision on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP). The Board concluded that the NHRERP, subject to modifications of certain portions of that plan proposed by the State of New Hampshire or imposed by the Board, satisfied the Comission's regulatory requirements and criteria and provided reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken within the 1
New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook EPZ in the event of a radiological emer-gency at Seabrook. However, the Board retains jurisdiction of the evacuation time estimate issue to permit further consultation with the parties regarding subsequent refinements in the Applicants' evacuation time estimates.
l The following items need to be addressed before issuance of a full power license:
l 1)
Litigation of the Seabrook Plan for the Massachusetts Comunities and l
litigation of the full participation graded exercise must be completed and a decision rendered by the Licensing Board. The hearing began on March 21, 1989.
2)
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards must review emergency planning.
3)
The Licensing Board must render a decision on the applicants' motions for sumary disposition of the Massachusetts Attorney General's public alert i
and notification system contention (filed September 17,1986). On March 3, 1989, the Board granted summary disposition on part of the moticn and set the remaining issues for a hearing to commence on May 2, 1989.
3 Comanche Peak The staff is continuing to monitor the implementation of the applicant's Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) and corrective action program plans, approved by the staff on January 22, 1988, and is proceeding with other scheduled activities necessary for Comanche Peak licensing.
According to the applicant's last publicly announced schedule, Unit I will be ready to load fuel in June 1989; however, the NRC staff has determined that with the applicant's current working schedule, fuel loading would occur in October 1989. The applicant's Unit 2 fuel load date is currently unscheduled because work on Unit 2 was suspended in March 1988 for approximately ona year pending the completion of Unit 1.
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 proceedings, which were terminated by ASLB order on July 13, 1988.
CFUR supplemented its filing on September 12, 1988. The applicant and staff opposed the original petition in filings dated August 26 and 31, 1988, respectively. The applicant and staff also opposed CFUR's supplemental filing in filings dated September 28 and October 3, 1988, respectively.
Both the staff and the applicant recommended that the Connission deny the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to show, in both filings, that the factors of 10 CFR 2.714(a) weigh in the petitioner's favor. CFUR filed a second supplement on December 19, 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.
On December 16, 1988, Mr. Joseph Macktal filed a motion for limited interven-tion.
In a letter dated February 8, 1989, the Chairman of the Licensing Board which previously presided over the Comanche Peak licensing proceedings referred i
this motion to the Commission for action. On December 30, 1988, Mr. Macktal filed a motion before the Commission for reconsideration of CLI-88-12. The applicant and staff both opposed his motion for reconsideration in filings dated January 9 and 11, 1989, respectively. Mr. Macktal filed another pleading on January 13, 1989, in which he supported his motion for reconsideration, requested that he be permitted oral argument on that motion, and also sought status as an intervenor. The applicant and staff opposed this January 13, 1989 pleading on January 26 and February 1,1989, respectively.
Both Mr. Macktal's motion for limited intervention and his motion for reconsideration of CLI-88-12 were denied in CLI-89-06, issued by the Commission on April 20, 1989.
On January 19, 1989, Mr. Macktal filed a motion before the U.S. Court of t
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn CLI-88-12. The Commission has moved that the Court dismiss his petition.
The Commission's motion is presently under review by the Court.
i I.
4 Watts Bar On November 14, 1986, the Tennessee Valley Authority (applicant) announced that its priorities for the startup of its nuclear facilities were as follows:
Sequoyah Units 1 and 2, Browns Ferry Unit 2, and Watts Bar Unit 1.
With the restart of Sequoyah Units 1 and 2, TVA is in the process of restaffing Browns Ferry Unit 2.
The applicant has established a December 1990 fuel load schedule for Watts Bar Unit 1.
A completion schedule for Unit 2 has not been established. The staff is still awaiting the applicant's Watts Bar-specific response to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter dated September 17, 1985. The applicant has stated its intention to provide its plan for licensing Watts Bar as Volume 4 of the TVA Nuclear Performance Plan (NPP).
By letter datad November 9,1987, the applicant stated that an independent team consisting of TVA employees and assisted by nationally recognized nuclear power experts had been established to define the necessary actions to successfully demonstrate the licensability of the Watts Bar units. On May 27, 1988, the Watts Bar Program Team (WBPT) submitted the Watts Bar Program Plan for NRC review. The NRC staff endorsed the program plan and provided comments in a letter dated June 27, 1988. At present, the NRC staff is reviewing the corrective action program plans, and TVA is in the process of implementing portions of the program plan. The WBPT is responsible for the development of Volume 4 of the TVA NPP. The current schedule for submitting Volume 4 to the NRC is for early summer 1989.
no i
s
/_
S i
0 c
f
/
A A
e f
1 N
/ /
D E
C C
C C
N N
mmo C
n l o e
e ai
/
S n
n s
0
/
B iti 1
N C
C C
N N
o o
L i c S
ne A
I D f
- og e
e n
n n
ti o
o rr C
C C
C C
N N
aa t e SH S
f N
2 9
O e
8 S
S I
u R
/ / /
T s E C
C C
C 5
N N
A s S C
I S
I NL DP I P TA R
D A
E P
LL S
l 9
UO S
a o 8
S S
G c
t
/ / /
6 E g C
C C
C 5
N N
R n f i t n
Rdi f h u
ac p O n t e n T e ST I
CP A
El Rl A R
e A r u
S S
E o s S
/ /
Lf s E C
C C
C C
N N
C I F U s N e F lu Od e 9
Eh S
E U
8 S
S C c R
M3
/ / /
I S C
C C
C C
5 N
N F
A F g O in sne e
ic u
S S
s R
/ /
L s E C
C C
C C
N N
I S
D P
l a o S
S c
t
/ /
i C
C C
C C
N N
f n t fh u
ac p t e n ST I
R E
S e
u S
S s S
/ /
s E C
C C
C C
N N
I D
)
s h
y t a n tl o
0 O
O 0
O 0
0 se M Y
(
/
H E E M
- R
)
3 2 D 1
1 2
f s
1 o
1 1
a h 2
e e
x t
t 1
m k
e 2
k n
n
(
a o
T c
o o
h o
e i f
f E
t e
r h
l r
e e
L n
r b
t t
e l
l B
a o
a u
g m
l l
A l
h e
o o i e
e T
P S
S S
V L
B B
[!
l
C N
N N
N N
N
~
no
~
i s
i S
A A
A A
S S
S c
f e
f
/ / / / /
/
/ /
D E
N N
N N
N C
N N
N
~
numo C
n l o ai i s e e e
Bti S
S n
n n
S S
Lic
/ /
o o
o
/ /
S ne N
N N
N N
C C
N N
AI D fog e
e e
n n
n n
S S
S ti o
o o
/
/ /
rr C
C M
N N
C N
N N
aa t e SH S
N O
/
I 2-TA e
S S
S S
S S
S C
uR
/ /
/ / /
/ /
I sE C
N N
C N
N N
N N
NL sS OP IS I P TA A
LL UO R
D G
E P
E g S
l R i S
ao n
Rd ct S
5 S
S S
S S
i
/ /
/ I
/
/ /
O n f nt C
N N
C N
N N
N N
T e fh u CP acp e
A t en t
El STI a
Rl D
A RA r n
E o o
i Lf e
t C
u-
/ /
l S
S e
ds sS h e sE C
C C
C C
C C
N N
p l
IF F u m
Od o
e C
Eh n
C c IS o
F S
S S
i t
F g R
/ /
c A NJ C 0 n C
C C
C C
C C
N N
u i
r s
t n
s e
nn c
oo i
Ci L
e s
u.
S S
ri sR
/ /
oc sE C
C C
C C
C C
N N
e IS nd o
iB sL iS D
cA P
e l
Df ao o
ct S
S n
fint C
C C
C C
C C
N N
s
/ /
i s fhu t e acp rn t en oe STI pv ei rt R
c E
t e S
sf e
af u
l e sS S
sE
/
mn ID C
C C
C C
C C
C N
oo r
f n
)
o s
si h
es
)
yt gi 3
an I nc tl o $
0 0
0 O
0 0
0 ae f
seN
[d#
9 hd o
ED(
c 1
2
(
n 2
/ / 2 g
I so 6
d
(
k 8
8 ei I
a 2
e 1
2 T b s
t s E
4 h0 as L
P P
f #
2 A
e e
a a
u k
ici B
r r
l 2
'3 nu d m T
h h
B B
G 2
o 5 2 no c
c o
I C l
t n
n s
s d
y r
1 n
a a
t t
n r
b a
m m t
t a
r a
P l
o o
a a
r e
e N
P C
C W
W G
P S
W
TABLE (Page 3 of 3)
FOOTNOTES U
Licensing schedules ano decision dates do not reflect additional potential delay from Emergency Preparedness Review.
For plants with construction completed, the Comission decision detes 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 tasis of a favorable ASLB decision (if applicable) and a preliminary design verification by the applicant and staff. Construction completion dates and Comission decision dates are based on the applicant's estimate of construction completion.
2/
The date shown is the date for issuing the first Safety Evaluation Report l
Supplement (SSER) after the ACRS meeting on the application. Additional SSERs will be issued to close out remaining open items.
Construction has been halted; a construction completion date has not been established.
O The applicant's last publicly announced schedule for Unit 1 is to be ready for fuel loading in June 1989; however, the NRC staff has determined that the applicant is working to schedules with fuel load in October 1989.
The current Unit 2 fuel load date has not been established.
The Commission is unable to predict whether licensing will be delayed.
El The ACRS report of April 19, 1983 recomended issuance of a low-power license.
Further ACRS review is required before a full-power license is issued.
SI Construction has been halted; the construction permit expired on October 31, 1988, and the applicant stated in a letter dated September 22, 1988, that it had no intantion of requesting an extension to the permit expiration date.
E ACRS did not consider Unit 2 when they reviewed Unit 1, since at the time, construction on Unit 2 had been halted with no schedule for resumption.
The staff will issue an SER supplement prior to the ACRS meeting, since the SER issued for Unit I did Mt cover some aspects of the Unit 2 review.
U On June 29, 1988, TVA announced deferral of Bellefonte 1 and 2.
Schedule for completion will be considered at a later time. Work on Watts Ber will be primarily focused on Unit I which is now targeted for operation in FY 1992.
E The ACRS considered Unit 2 during its review of Unit 1.
At the December 1988 ACRS meeting, the ACRS concluded that it did not need to further review Unit 2.
10/ 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 Commission on any of its adjudicatory Beards.
___