ML20099H092
| ML20099H092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1992 |
| From: | Hasan S, Kohn M, Macktal J, Orr B, Dan Orr AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099H086 | List: |
| References | |
| CPA, NUDOCS 9208180121 | |
| Download: ML20099H092 (8) | |
Text
- ._ . .. . - . . - _ -..- .. .~.-. - . - - . . - _ . _
e
,.k EsNr; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 92 Jll 27 P1 :15
) *Sh In the Matter of ) h. *
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO., ) Docket No. 50-446 gt. AL. , ) Construction Permit Amendment
) Unit 2 (Comancho Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Unit 2) )
)
PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR !! EARING OF D. IRENE ORR, D.1. ORR, JOSEPH J. MACKTAL, JR. ,
AND S.M.A. HASAN 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 regarding Texas Utilities Electric Company's ("TUEC") request for a 36 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 Realeter.I' This will be TUEC's thjf.d_ attempt to amend construction permit CPPR-127.
t 1/ SSR 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").
9008100121 920806 PDR ADOCK 05000446 G PDR l_
Petitioners assert that good cause does not exist to allow TUEC to amend the construction completion date for CPSES Unit 2; and seeks intervention.
I. Petitioners have standing to Intervene ,
1 Pursuant to S189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA"), 42 l U.S.C. 2239 (a) (1) , and 10 C.F.R. $ 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 Steam Electric i
Station, Unit 2. B. Irene Orr resides at 606 W. Grand, Comanche, j Texas; D.I. Orr resides at 545 W. Meadowlark Drive, Granbury, 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 affected by normal and accidental releases of radioactive materials from the ,
construction rf Unit 2, and they are a part of the TUEC rate
-base.
l L 2/
i-(-- 42 U.S.C. 2239 (a) (1) (1983) states:
l- The Commission shall. admit any such person l 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 participatn as a party shall file a written petition for leave to intervene.
L 2 1
l-
_. _ . ____ _ . . _ . _ . _ ..._ _._ _.__ _.. _ _ ___ _ _ .- - - ~ . _ . . ~ . _ _ . _
I' Joseph J. Macktal is a former employee of CPSES and is currently seeking reinstatement,of his job at CPSES. Tha status ,
of his reinstatement is pending before the Secretary of Labor.
I He has been personally harmed due to management misconduct at CPSES and this misconduct directly contributed to the delny in the construction of Unit 2. He was to be a direct fact witness i in the construction permit amendment proceediras on Unit I and has information which is relevant to the determination of TUEC's e request to amend.
S.M.A. Hasan is a former engineer employed at the CPSES who i 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 3r.tervenors, he was precluded from appearing'as a fact witness before the ther.
pending construction permit arnendment proceedings with respect to Unit 1. Mr. Hasan maintains an interest in exposing the -
management misconduct.at CPSES which resulted in his removel--from-1
- 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 aLfinancial interest in
. theLgranting of TUEC's amendment request. .
t 3
r b
..-.-e. ,.A., ---,-,..w...w.i-.--, ,,.,,,--.,m.,, ,,.-,,,,_,w._m.,#, .,.,,-,,sii,.--- em,r. ,,,w..,y.e-,-._7-s..,,,-..y.-,-
_ . _ _ - _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .. _ _... _ __ _ . _ . . _ . . . ~ . .
II. Petitioners are Entitled to a Hearing i
Petitioners have standing to challenge TUEC's request for a constrsiction permit extension.3/ As cuch, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. !
5 2239 (a) (1) , the Comnission is required to " grant a hearing j l
upon the request of any_ person whose interest nay be affected by j the proceeding."
l In 1986, CASE and Meddie Gregory were granted intervonor status and an opportunity to content the isruance of a construction permit amendment for CPSES, Unit 1.9 Petitioners I find themselves similarly situated to that of CASE and Ms.
Gregory in 1986Lwith respect to TUEC's request to amend the
. construction permit of CPEES, Unit 1. Petitioners should be !
allowed to intervene in TUEC's conding request to amend the ;
-l conttruction completion date of CPSES, Unit 2. l Il Petitioners will submit contentions for adjudication upon receipt of notice of a pre-hearing conference. ,
4 _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 requeJt to be heard to the'ASLB Panel for a hearing. In its March 13, j 1986-order, the Commirision recognized that interested parties ;
t were " entitled to_a hearing on the. construction permit extension." _23 liRC 113, 121 (1986) ;(citing Brooks y_RC, 476 924-
'(D.C.fCir.'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-_ ,
Ieyas Utilities Elec. Co., Docket No. 50-445-CPA, 23 NRC 113, 121
.(1986). l 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 tor CPSES, Unit 2; and (2) that the Commission grant petitioners leave to intervene with respect to TUEC's request ta amend the construction permit fer CPSES, Unit 2.
I
='
Respectfully submitted,
[kw_.. / ' N ,, _ -
M.cha E D. Kohn 4
Stophen M. Kohn Kohn, Fohn and Co]apinto, P.C.
517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234-4663 7.ttorneys for Petitioners July 27, 1992 -
f 5
i l
l
_ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . ~ - . . - . . _ . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _
y 1,
. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l_,('$ [ [
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the ;
'92 Jtt. 27 p1 :15 followirig par. les on this 27th day of July, 1992: ,
W4 .i : u,,.,,-
no. i h N s 3 . , y .
b h /. k e.
Document-Control Desk 4-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisolon Washir.gton, D.C. 20555 ;
chief Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety'ond Licensing Board Panel. >
Wash!ngton,-D.C. 20555 f
William J. Cahill, Jr.
Group.Vice President, Nuclear Texas Utilities Electric Company 400 H.-. Olive Street L.B. 81
-Dallas, TX 75201-
/[, [/' % ~~...-..-.- i Michael D. Kohn +
i 4
a P
5 i-t-
.g :- i I
n
, , di . .,,..a- . , - , . , _ _ . . - - _ , _ . - . . , _ - . . . . . . , . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . . _ . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ . _ , . . . _ . . . _ ~ . . . - . -
I Federal Registee / Vol. ET. NA '125 / Mond:y. }une 29,19E2 / Notices tasutg IDoc4 et sec. M-440) ,,, **%
%e UlS Identded four major environroentalimpacts due to the Another impact. the subject of a Tenas Utnitisa Elect'ic Co., et a4 construction pertnit condition. is Eintronm*ntet Assesament and construction of both unita hree of the nndtr>g of No $4gnmearrt knpset four ms}or envirvnmental constrvetion time,*non.
groundwater withdraw potable water al. At the prnent for construction irmpacts discussed in the FES beve ne UA Nuclear Regulatory already occurred and ar> not affected actisttles is being suppbed from treated Comrululon (the Commlulon)is by $1s pmposed actim , take weter.%e construtice pertnit for
- considering issuante of an etiension to Cornanche Peak Unit 2 Includes a the latest construction compledon date -Construction-related activities have condition that the annual searage specified in Construction Permit No. disturbed about 400 acres of groundwster withdrawal ratt not rangeland and 3.228 acres ofland. ncred 40 gaDons pu ininute (grimme ,
CPPb127 losued to Texas Utahties Deetric Company (the app!] cant), for have beer. used for the construction of appbcant bu connimed est cumet Squaw Creek Reservait. groundwater withdrawalrates s.re the Comanc.be Peak Steam Cectric w n the hmit established by the Station (CPSES) Unii 2. loc.sted in -De lidtial set of tranamluton hnes Somer ellCounty.Teass. and the additional planned het as ""*"" "***"
discussed in the TES am completed. * '
Environmental Asacarment -Pipelines have been relocated and the gy,ps n dwaerAs und.
' \'
IdenuficcthmefPrepondAction ** *" #" the NRC Staff a environmentalirrpact lines between Lak e Granbury and
- PP'* \* *I I*' A'***d"*"' 3 *I
%e proposed action *ould stnend the Construction Pennit Nos. CPPb126 and Squaw Creek Reservoir have been e.onstructiori pertnit by eatendmg the cornplatsd. CPPR-1n was based upon a maximum latest construction completion date from .
withdrawal of 6.57x10' gallona during August 1.1W. to August 1.1NL The %s fourth ma}or environmenta] the construction period of five years al a proposed action le in response to impact addressed in the IT.S is the u>mmunity impset whir.h would trte of 250 gpm. For the followitis Apphtant's request dated February 3. reasons the staff's appraisalis still 1W2. as supplemented by letter dated r.ontmue with the extended construction unchanged for the total groundwater to March 16.1W2- of the facthty.%e requested extettsic; be withdrawn through August 1.15n 1 only invob es impa:ts previously rust. from 1975 through December 1960 The Needfor de Propose ' Action considered with none of these impacts approdmately 4 9't M0' gallona of
%e Applicant eleles in its request gwster than those previously groundwster hao ocen withdrawn from that the proposed action is needed to considered. These impacts Dow the two production wells. Frorn June complete the construction and pringally from the prolonged presence Its2 through December likn 452 milhon twoperational testirig for Unit 2. For of construction workers into the (M5x 10') gallons of grwdwater had appronimately 32 rnonths. R1 Electrit autrounding cominunities in 11ood and been w.thdrawn from an additional sedirected its resourtes pnncipally to Sorrerveu counties. ne current work well (NOSF well). Second, from lanuary Urut 1 in order to complete construction force jevel of approaltnotely 0650 1967 through February 1W2 and startup of that Unit. As a result. vtpresent the total on..ite work force approximately 64.3 milhon (045x108) additional time it now needed to (i.e., RI Dectric and contract personne) gallons of groundwater had been cornplete the construction of Unit 2. suppt.rting Unit I and 2 activities). his withdrawm from the two production number rep *esents a dechne of 850 from welle and the NOSF well.nird, even EnvirvnmentcHmpocts of de hopused the peak work force cesite at the end of assuming a madmum groundwater Action the construction phase of Unit 1, and withdrawal of 40 gpm from March 1, Re environmentalimpacts associsted will contlnue to dechne as the applicant 1W2 through August 1.1995, for a.ll with construction of the Comsnche Peak implements its destafhng plan as Unit 2 groundwater sources (this withdrawal facility are anociated mth both units construction nears completion. h should rate is authorized by Amendment 6 to and hine been previously es aluated and be noted that 85 percent of the total Construction Permite CFPR-1:6 and discussed in the NRC Staffs Final work force are contractors and CPpR tv), there would be Environmental Statement (FES) issued comultants who do not bve in the area approshtetely 71ha million (0.72 x10')
in lune 1974. which covered the and. in general. use only temporary gallons withdrawn.Totahna the abose constr.,ction of both units. Orie of the quarters during the work week,(1 e.,
resklts in a conservative estimate of the envirofimental itups e ts. poundw s ter esen while they are present there are no total groundwater withdrawal of withdrawul. le the subject of a extended impacts associated with the *pprodmately 6.37x10' gallona for the construction permit coruhtion and will arrival of families or services necessary dod through August 1,1W5, which is be discussed further below. to support permanent residents). In surn, the only community impacts which en than the 6.57x108 gallons originally Since the proposed action concerns . evatusted and authorued by the NRC would sceompany thle extension would staff.
the rstension the impscts of the inst.lved areconstruction all non- permit. be those which extend the totel time the As required by the construction radiological and are associated with local community is affected by the oermit present demand for pubbe services. As been co, erwironmental monitorir4 he a nducted, continued construction. There are no such the tunintenance of th* work force in the past, a number of groups hase new alg.ufkant impacts associated with level for the additional months the proposed action. A]! activities will identified concerns regardmg the take place within the facility, will not requested should not result in algnificant potential envirorunentalirnpacts of additionalimpacts. In addition,it should ree .lt in impacts to pieviously several closed landfills at CPSES that undisurbed areas, and will not have be noted that only 4b00 personnel are contain rela tively small amounts of -
any significant additional environrnental associated full time with the Unit 2 hasardoon wastes. Because these impact. }lowes er, there are impacts that Construction Permit estension and landfills t)re are pre edsthis conditions, any would continue danng the completion of remainder are required to support the environmentallmpacts from the landftlls facility construction. operation of Unit 1 or split their time between Units 1 and 2. willnot be attributable to the extension of the constructinn completion date for 4
6
^
k #h... . a n
2.88B6 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No.125 / Monday. June :'9. W2 / Notices Unit 2. Furthermore, any impacts from the landD!ls wiD occur regardleas of in the Mnal Envirommental Statement for NRC staff and the Westinghouse whether the constructkn completion the Comanche Peak Steam Doctric Dectric Corporalion wal participate, as Station.
date is estended, and an estensino wul appropriste, not have any adserse effect on any A ,w h ,cm h Portions of this unkn wul be dowd impacts from the landfills, hrefore, the ne NRC staff teviewed the **C'"84 to dI'C"" Prop"'t**
landfdis in quesUon have no relevance Applicanfo request and did not consult infmados sp$ caw W &ls maner, to the extension of the cortstruction other agencies or persons.
completion dela for Unit 2. I p.m-Jp.m.: Status offnspections, b conclusion. there has e beeD ta FlodWg of No $lgnl$ cant impact Tests. Anolyses. codAcce,atance artreviewed advern envirortmental N Comrnission has determined not Criteria (ITAAC) Program impsets associated with construction to prepare an envirornuentalimpact and none are antirJpated. (Open)-%e Committee wiu review statement for this action. and cornment on the status of the Based os its evolustion. the staff ha s Band upon the foregoing ITAAC program and plans for its ccncbded contmuleg tothat thewes!r.
vothdra dated impact groundwater at of environmental assessment we condade implementaticin. Representativ that the proposed actJoo wiu not have a era annual average rate of 40 gpts for the signi$ cant effect on the qua.lity of the NRC staff and the nec earindustry will site tmtil Acirtrst 1,1W5 le negligible and hurcen endronment. participate, as appropriale.
does not result in any eigrdfican Tar further details with respect to this IM p.m.-d.d5 ptr ' Sestre Accident .
additional envirortmental impact. The action, see the Applicant *& request for RutanA Pregmm f/en staffs conclusion is cubrtantiated by exteneien dated February 2. W2, as g'vandwater level data co!!ected at the supplemented by letter dated March IB, (Open)--ne Committee wtu review site during corutruction and periods of M2, which is as adable im pubhe and comment on proposed revision of large water withdra wal and provided in bspectWn at the Conwjulon s Public the Severe Accident Research Program f% Applicant's supplementalletter Document Rtiom. the Celmap Duilding. Plan (NUROC.-1365. Rev* 1) to update dated March 10.1992. 2130 L Street. NW., Washington. DC and the plan coruistent with regulatory Based on the forepoir g. the NFC stafy at the University of Tnas at Arlington developments. Reprnentatives of the has conchtded that the proposed action hibrst would han no significant Mape.y. Covernment Publicatwns/ NRC staff and the nuclear indsrstry wdi
- Mt South Cooper P.O. Box 1941r'. participate, as appropriate.
endronmentalimpact Since t}ns aetwn AthD8 ton. Tex.as ?trJ19.
would only extend the period of 4 d5pm445p.m.*Mettmp with construction activities described in the cd Dated at P.ot.kville. Maryind. thu 23d day Director, NnC Office for Anolysis aml how t 8G2' FES,it does not Intolve any different Ercluation ofOperutiona/ Data for the th, clear Regvtsiory Commis00n.
ircracts or sigmficant changes to thate impacts descnbed and analyzed in the sun oe C.Irtaci. (Open)--ne Committee will hear a enginal enyttonmeotalimpact Dnecter.hefect
- Dacmfe /V-2. Division y brirling and hold a discuseion on iteens statement. Consequently, an . nrrtor Mcjent /////YN, O$ce 4#Nuclect of mutual intereat. Includmg use of (teocser Argulofien **eitpert systerns" An the accident envircrimentalimpact statemtet addressing the prvposed action is noi (FR Ibc. 92.t$2m Fded B-:rket. a es are) management process, use of simulatoes regatred- euswa cca rem +a at the NRC Training Center, and the Alternative to the hepasedA,ctim status ofimplementation of the Etiergy ne NRC staff han ersmdered that a yg ,,,,, g , ,ng,,,, ,n g ,,,,,, W" We 5%
Saeegua,rde; Meeting Aguds possi.ble alternative to the pmposed g gpg4 gP,, h we ACRS actico vmuld be far the Commissloa to b andams with the purposes of-deny tbc request.lf this alternative were rections 3 and 182b. caf the Atomic ann executed the Apphcant would not ba Energy Act B2 USC. M Ebh the (Open)--he Committee wi!! discuss ch}e to cuciplete the construction of the Adytaory Comndttee on Reactor topics proposed for consideration by the faculty, resultmg in the denial of Saharda d W s me% on Ny fuD Cmit'u benebis to be dertnd imm the 9-11, mA in mom P-im 7920 Norfolk proA tion of electric power. %fs Avenue. Bethesda, M land. Notice of a Upm-a 45p.m.:Pivpamfloa ofACRS clientin would int eliminato the this antmg was puhus b the RWru erwironmentalimpacts of cons'rurUon Federal Regtster on Ma y 21.199;.
wbch have already been inrmrred. Lf (Open)--ne Committn will disean nursday, Jely 9,19t2 proposed Committee comments and ccnstructics were not coanpleted on CPSES Unit 2 the amount of site redrese AN am-d(3 cm ' @enig Reast recommendations regarding itema ar.tivitire that could be undertaken to by A CBS Chairman considered during this snectieg.
restore the area to its natural state (Open)--De ACRS Chairman will would be minimal due to the ope:rstian Friday, }uly te.19st make opering remarks and comment of CPSE.S Unit 1.~11us slight environtr.e3tal beoeLa teould be much bcie0y segartkng ilmms of curnst interest.
"." "" ~ *# " #Al N#@l""
I'# #"8I'aumry QAther Reoctm n ft : ofale ty a aOam a sm/SWem (OpenF-Me Cmniun wW dw nearly comple e. Ntefore, the NRC TestUtgforthe WeMinShoun AA100 staff has rejected tMs aherrative. and report on propowd EpRI design
- -(Open/Coaci)--ne Committee wiD requLrements kn evolutionarylight-Afternative the of Reman" review and repcet os proposed notegral water reac> ors and the associated NRC systam testing programs for ce.rtification stafra safety evaluation report.
%ia ac.tico dcae aat c..olve the use of of the Westbghouse AP900 standasd Represent tme of the NRC staff and cny aesources nel previously com.aktued plant design. Represcotathes of &
EPRI will participate.as appropeiate.
1
7590-1 NUCLEAR E ULATORY COMMISSIQB IRAS UTIllllES ELEC1_R_l( CCMPANYmEL AL .
C.Q!iA3CHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 2 DOCKET N0. @-446 Q@lL(11L@JNG LATES.LCONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DALE The Texas Utilities Electric Company (TV 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, 1U Electric filed a request for extension of the latest construction 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 TV 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 l 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, y
$UM
- . _. . - - . _ . - . . -. .~ . - . . . . -
The NRC staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment and finding of No Significant Impact which was published in the federal Register on June 29, 1992 (57 FR 28885). The NRC staff has concluded that this action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human enviror. ment, t.nd therefore, no environmer.tal impact statement need be prepared.
For further details with respect to this action, see the applicant's request for extension dated February 3, 1992, as supplemented by letter dated March 16. 1992, and the staff's evaluation of the request, which are available for public inspectior. at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the University of Texas at Ar 'ngton Library, Government Publications / Maps, 701 South Cooper, P. O. Bov 19497, Arlington, Texas 76019.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the latest construction completion date for CPPR-127 be extended to August 1,1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NA Bruce A. Boger, Director Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28thday of July 1992.
t o
, ,. - ~ , .
f I
pny !
- !Q ki i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WAsunknTON O C w>s s, &v$l,}
1AFETY EVALVATION OF PE0VLST FOR Ell [t(1103 QLIL!LMIL11_G.01(11RVC T 10N _ P E RM I T.10M Pt E T 101(..QalE IEXAS V11L1LLEr fif1TEJC COMPANY. ET AL.
COMANGLPEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT &
QQC_KET NO. 50-446
\
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i By letter d'ted 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 Electric Station, Unit 2. TV Electric requested that the lattst completion date be extended for up to three years, ta August 1, 1995 TV Electric previously requested an extension to tne latest construction completion date in the 1987 - 1988 timeframe. This extensien request was necessary to complete an intensive progr:m of review and reinspection to provide evidence of the safe design and construction of Comanche Peak Steem 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 l' test construction c.ompletion 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, tne 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 teased on the criterion specified in 10 CFR 50.55(b) and has provided the following evaluation.
2.0 EVALUATION Dood Cause In their February 3, 1992, submittal TV Electric states that good cause e(ists to warrant the construction ccmpletion date 2xtension request. TU Electric's previous request for an extension of the latest construction completion date was predicted based upon an estimated one-year wspension in construction, beginning in April 1988. The purpose of the suspension was to all u TV Electric to concentrate its resources on the completion uf '.' nit 1. Unit I was net licensed untti February 1990. As a iesult of cencontrating on Unit i i
i 00$ b n (3 o 7::s
,V
. t ..
construction completion, licensing, and initial power operation, TU Electric did not resume significant design activities for Unit 2 until June 1990, 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.
In the staff's judgment, TV Electric has been assiduous in their efforts to detect and correct actual and potential violations of NRC regulations and complete the construction of the plant. Although their intensive program of review and reinspection lasted longer than predicted, it was essential to providing the requisite assurance of proper design and construction prior to Unit i 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 hks demonstrated good cause for the delay which warrants an extension of the tcnstruction permit for Unit 2.
Reasonableness 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 fcr any unanticipated delays.
1U Electric currently estimates completion of construction in December 1992.
The Applicant is maintaining relatively close to its planned construction and testing schedule. The three year extension request provides an adequate contingency period, and sets an acceptable end date where the construction permit would reed 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 ENVIRON!iENTAL CONSIDERATION The staff has aisc considered the environmental impacts of the construction permit, and has determined that the propored action does not entail any construction activities significantly different from those that were '
considered in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) for Comanche Peak Units I and 2. The NRC staff requested and reviewed a supplemental submittal l
---____ __----- a
e
'V dated March 16, 1992, which clarified groundwater usage. The staff verified that conservativa estimates of groundwater use are within those limits originally evaluated and authorized by the NRC staff. The 0.1C staff concludes that the proposed action will not alter the coeclusions reached in the FES.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that extending the construction completion date will have no significant impact on the environment (57 FR 28885).
4.0 g/CLyS103 The ittff, based on the above evaluation, concludes that pursuant to 10 CFR SG.ES(b) the applicant has shown gocd cause for the delay and that the requected extension is for a reasonable period of time. Fince the request is merely for more time to complete construction already authorized under Construction permit No. CPPR-127 and does not seek authorization for 4ctivities not previously authorized, it does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences-of an accident prr<1ously evaluated, or create the p6ssibility of a new or different k.ind of accidtnt from any accident previously evaluated, or involve a signiiicant 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 his concluded that tne 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 l
l l
l l
,