TXX-6322, Application for Amend to CP CPPR-127,extending Completion Date to 900801.CP Extension Arises from Need to Detect & Correct Potential Violations of NRC Regulations.Applicant Proposed Eia Encl.Fee Paid

Application for Amend to CP CPPR-127,extending Completion Date to 900801.CP Extension Arises from Need to Detect & Correct Potential Violations of NRC Regulations.Applicant Proposed Eia Encl.Fee Paid

ML20209H026
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/29/1987
From:	Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
TAC-R00175, TAC-R175, TXX-6322, NUDOCS 8705010122
Download: ML20209H026 (8)

Text

r _ _ _ _

.A v

==

P7 Log # TXX-6322 9 g File # 231

1. 10101 1 1

7UELECTRIC Ref. # 10CFR50.55(b)

%illiam G. Caumil emwi- ne nnaro, April 29, 1987 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)

DOCKET NO. 50-446 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-127 Gentlemen:

Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.55(b), TV Electric Company et. al. (" Applicants"),

hereby apply for an extension of Construction Permit CPPR-127 for Comanche l Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2. The latest completion date presently reflected in CPPR-127 is August 1,1987. Applicants request that the latest completion date be extended to August 1, 1990. Applicants submit that good cause exists for the construction permit extension, and that the extension is for a reasonable period of time.

The Commission has held that good cause for a construction permit extension arises from the need to detect and correct potential violations of NRC regulations. Thus, the Commission has stated:

If a permit holder were to construct portions of a facility in violation of NRC regulations, when those violations are detected and corrections ordered or voluntarily undertaken, there is likely to be some delay in the construction caused by the revisions. Nonetheless, such delay, as with delay caused by design changes, must give " good cause" for an extension.

[Washinaton Public Power Sucoly System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. I and 2),

CLI-82-29, 16 NRC 1221, 1230-31 (1982).]

Further, the Commission recently applied its WPPSS decision to Comanche Peak Unit 1 in addressing the admissibility of a contention relating to the requested extension of the latest completion date for that unit. After noting that " good cause" may be shown with regard to good cause for p_u.t delay, the i

61 P 0 'Ak

.H)0 North Olise Street LH.81 Dallas, Texas 75201

TXX-6322

. April 29, 1987-Page 2 of 5 Commission found, as follows:

On the other hand, a permittee may also demonstrate good cause for a CP extension-by.

showing not that there was good cause for the past delay, but that-there J.i now good cause for the NRC to allow more time for plant completion. . . . WPPSS addressed efforts to correct safety. deficiencies in relation to this second method to show good cause.

[ Texas Utilities Generatino Co., d d.

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit.1), CLI-86-15, 24 NRC 397, 401 (1986).]

l The " good cause" test in CLI-82-29, as elucidated in CLI-86-15, is clearly satisfied in this case. The program now being undertaken by Applicants began in the fall of 1984 when TU Electric commenced an intensive program of review-and reinspection with respect to the design and construction of Comanche Peak

, Units 1 and 2. This effort was undertaken to respond to issues raised by the

] NRC Staff in the course of their licensing review, and by the Licensing Board and the parties in the operating license proceeding. As a result of this i extensive investigation, TU Electric has undertaken extensive measures to assure and provide evidence of the safe design and construction of Comanche Peak. These measures include major reinspection efforts and development of essential documentation regarding the adequacy of design and construction, as well as, where necessary, redesign and/or modification of affected structures, systems and components.

In sum, this program is intended to address the issues presented by the NRC i

Staff and raised in ths operating license proceeding. The program also

' addresses issues identified independently by TU Electric in the course of

+

their investigation. It is precisely the type of remedial program contemplated by the Commission in the WPPSS decision as " good cause" for an i

extension.

J Further, the need to complete this remedial program, and the temporary -

allocation of resources to activities under the program related to Unit 1,. are the causes for the present request to extend the construction completion date for Unit 2. The program is an essential element in providing the requisite ,

assurance regarding satisfaction of NRC requirements. Both the NRC Staff review and operating license proceedings before the Licensing Board are an integral part of the licensing scheme under the Atomic Energy Act. It is the i responsibility of the Applicants for an operating license to satisfy both the l NRC Staff and the Licensing Board that applicable regulatory requirements have been or will be met. This program is intended to satisfy that-responsibility.

In addition, for a period of time Applicants concentrated resources for this

, program on activities related primarily to Unit 1, rather than Unit 2. From mid-1985 to present, TV Electric has diverted a significant number of 4

personnel from Unit 2 to Unit 1-related activities. Thus,. some delay is also 4

attributable to this allocation of resources. Accordingly, this program is

' still ongoing and the extension requested is necessary to permit completion of that program within the period allowed in CPPR-127 for construction completion.

I

. TXX-6322 April 29,~ 1987 4

_Page 3 of 5 In addition, extending the construction completion date for Unit 2, as requested, is consistent with the policy underlying the Comission's i decisions. The Comission firmly established, both .in CLI-82-29 and in CLI-86-15, that an applicant must be afforded the time either to demonstrate i

compliance with regulatory requirements or to detect and correct violations of those requirements.- In CLI-82-29, the Comission described the fundamental policy considerations which compel providing for such extensions, as follows:

To consider it otherwise could discourage permit holders from disclosing and correcting improper. construction for fear that cor-

rections would cause delays that would result

, in a refusal to extend a construction permit, a result obviously inconsistent with the Commission's efforts to ensure the protection of the public health and safety.

[WPPSS, suora, CLI-82-29, 16 NRC at 1230-31.]

In CLI-86-15 the Comission further explained its holding in CLI-82-29, stating:

Our holding in WPPSS was intended to encourage licensees to conduct vigorous internal investigations and remedial safety actions by

not oenalizina them for any completion delay caused thereby. itg 16 NRC at 1230-31.

1 (Comanche Etak, supra, CLI-86-15,.24 NRC at 401 1 (emphasis added).] ,

• These policy considerations compel a finding of good cause with respect.to the requested extension for Comanche Peak Unit 2. As already demonstrated, Applicants here have diligently pursued and devoted substantial resources to a

" vigorous internal investigation" and undertaken " remedial safety actions" to assure and demonstrate satisfaction of licensing requirements and to address 4

outstanding licensing issues. Efforts such as these are plainly of the kind contemplated by the Commission in CLI-82-29 and CLI-86-15 as constituting good cause for an extension of the latest completion-date.

The requested extension of the latest date for completion of construction is i for three years, from August 1, 1987, to August 1, 1990. This extension is "for a reasonable period of time" in accordance with 10CFR Part 50.55(b).

Applicants note that the purpose behind this requirement is to ensure that an applicant does not select a completion date that frustrates the NRC's r::gulatory oversight. Matter of Washinaton Public Power Suoolv System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1), ALAB-771, 19.NRC 1183, 1191 (1984). In this regard, 4

the requested extension will afford full opportunity for the NRC to conduct its oversight activities. NRC has numerous personnel both on-site and off-i site overseeing Comanche Peak, and will have an active oversight role at least until significant activities essential for comencement of operation are completed. The Comission also has established a new Office of Special l

. 'TXX-6322

' April 29, 1987 Page 4 of 5 Projects, reporting to the Executive Director for Operations, with responsibility for, inter dia, resolution of licensing matters related to Comanche' Peak. The period requested will in no way frustrate this NRC oversight of design validation or construction activities.

In addition, inherent in the Commission's holding in CLI-82-29, suora, is the recognition that not only can the process of developing information and satisfying both the NRC Staff and a Licensing Board be time-consuming; but also that .it is somewhat unpredictable. While Applicants contemplate completing the ASLB proceeding and receiving an operating license well before August 1, 1990,' we have allowed a margin for contingencies such as the unpredictability of the hearing and decision schedule, and the necessary flexibility of the schedule for a program such as that being undertaken at Comanche. Peak. Thus, the extension. requested is consistent with NRC practice, with statutory and regulatory objectives, and with prudent allowance. for contingencies.

Accordingly, Applicants' request for an extension of the construction permit fulfills the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50.55(b), and thus the mandate in i Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2235, which the NRC regulation implements. Washinoton Public Power Suoolv System (WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos. I and 2), CLI-82-29, 16 NRC 1221, 1225 (1982); Texas Utilities Generatina Co., d d. _(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), CLI-86-15, 24 NRC 397 (1986). Prompt issuance of the requested extension will 4

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 2013(d) and (f).J/

Finally, 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 CFR Section 50.92(a).

l l

4 i

l J/ At the time this request is filed there remain three appeals (two to the NRC Appeal Board and one to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

4 Circuit) relating to the request to extend the construction completion date for Unit 1. Applicants reserve the opportunity to amend this i request, if appropriate, in light of any of those decisions, should such be issued prior to final action on this request.

i l

.._- _ . -- __ _- _ . . , . _ _ . . - - . _ - - - - - - _ . - _ , - - _ _ . _ . . _ . - . ~ , - _ ,

.-a i .4.# , a-. + a.. a 4

e TXX-6322 April 29, 1987.

Page 5 of 5' A proposed. Environmental' Impact Appraisal prepared by Applicants is attached hereto. This appraisal would support a determination that this construction

. permit extension will result in no significant environmental impact.

In accordance with 10 CFR Part 170.21, enclosed herewith ~is a check for

$150.00 for the construction permit extension application. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.30, one.(1) signed original and thirty seven (37) copies of this extension request' are enclosed.

Very truly yours, SW W. G. Counsil RS8/mlh Attachment c - Mr. E. H. Johnson, Region IV Mr. D. L. Kelley, RI - Region IV Mr. H. S. Phillips, RI- Region IV THE STATE OF TEXAS :

l COUNTY OF DALLAS  :

There personally appeared before me W. G. Counsil, who, being duly sworn did a state that he is Executive Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations, of TU Electric; that he is duly authorized to sign and file with the Nu:: lear Regulatory Commission this request to amend Construction Permit CPPR-127 for

, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2; 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.

W i

eLaw Natary Pubile My Commission Expires:

slak , .

l

'S r-m- , . , , _ , - . _ . , , . - , - - - - , , , _,- , - , , . , ,, - , , , ,r- a c~w'r--*--'

- Attachment to TXX-6322 April 29,l1987.

Page 1 of 3' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 2 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CPPR-127 DOCKET N0. 50-446

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

2. This would extend for 36 months the latest date for completion of Unit 2. The need for the proposed action arises from the requirement in NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 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. In particular, a comprehensive reinspection and corrective action program is being undertaken by Applicants to address outstanding licensing issues.

Additional time is needed to complete that program.

2. Summary Description of the Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action The environmental impacts associated with construction of CPSES Unit 2 have been previously addressed in the NRC Staff's Final Environmental Statement, Construction Permit Stage (FES-CP) issued June, 1974.

The FES-CP identified the following four major impacts and effects due to construction:

1

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 for the initial set of transmission lines 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 Lake Granbury and Squaw 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. .

l 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.

Attachment'to TXX'-6322-

. April 29,:1987 Page 2 of 3 '

The first three effects have-already occurred. The reservoir was ,

~

constructed, and filling was completed in May of 1979. Post- -

construction landscaping at the power _ plant site has of course not

, yet been completed, but there has been seeding to prevent erosion.

Construction of the initial set of transmission lines and the additional. planned line (Comanche Peak Comanche Switch) is complete. The railroad spur and diversion and return. lines between-Lake Granbury and Squaw Creek Reservoir have been completed.

Therefore, those effects were associated with previous authorizations, not this requested extension.

1 i

Regarding community impacts, the requested extension does not-involve impacts not previously considered or any impacts significantly greater than those previously considered. These 4

impacts flow principally from the prolonged presence of construction 4 workers into the, surrounding communities in Hood and Somervell

! counties. - Recent activities related to the program to respond to outstanding licensing issues and design verification efforts have.

resulted in a temporary increase in workforce (primarily engineering j and technical rather than construction per. se). The current peak workforce level of approximately 7500 represent the total on-site a

workforce (i.e., TU Electric and contract personnel supporting Unit I and 2 engineering and construction activities). This represents an increase of 2200 from the previous site workforce. The workforce will begin to decline again as these programs near completion in 1987. It should be noted that 85% of the total workforce are contractors and consultants who do not live in the area and use only temporary quarters during the workweek (i.e., even while they are ,

present there are no extended impacts associated with the arrival of I

families or services necessary to support permanent residents). In sum, the only community impacts which would accompany this extension

would be those which extend the total time.the local community is i

affected by the present demand for public services. The maintenance of the workforce level for several additional months should not i result in significant additional impacts. In addition, the work ,

activities associatiated with the Unit 2 Construction Permit '

extension would only require a projected peak workforce of 3500 l personnel. The remaining workforce is required for Unit I design,

construction and testing.

Another impact, the subject of a construction permit condition, is groundwater withdrawal. At the present time, most construction-4.

water is being supplied from treated lake water. The construction

! permits for Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 include a condition that the annual average groundwater withdrawal rate not exceed 40 gpm. This will confirm that current groundwater withdrawal rates are within the limit established by the construction permits. In fact, the cumulative average groundwater withdrawal rates for 1985 and 1986 i were less than half the limit set forth in the construction permits.

j Thus, continued construction will have no significant impact on

groundwater.

)

1 1

1

. , _ _ - _ . , , . _ - - . , _ _ _ _ _ - . __. . _ _ . . . . _ - . - - . _ _ . _ , . _ _ , _ , _ . ~ _ _ _ _ . - -

- Attachment to TXX-6322

+

April 29, 1987.

Page 3 of 3 As required by the construction permit, environmental monitoring has been conducted. There have been no unreviewed adverse environmental impacts associated with construction and none are 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 CFR Part 51.53), those are not viable alternatives.for plants already constructed. 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.

)

i 1

)

!