ML17053D559
| ML17053D559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1983 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053D561 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303160016 | |
| Download: ML17053D559 (8) | |
Text
~p,S AEQUI~
+
O~*n 0
0
+**++
NI UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 EVALUATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERM T NO.
CPPR-Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized the construction of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 by issuing Construction Permit No. CPPR-112 to the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation on June 24, 1974.*
The latest completion date was July 31, 1978.
By letter dated February 27, 1978, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation submitted an application for amendment of the construction permit to reflect a
new "latest completion date".
The application requested an additional time of seventy-seven months.
By letter dated June 26, 1981, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation requested the latest completion date be extended an additional
'hree years to December 31, 1987.
In accordance with 10 CFR Section 50.55(b),
the NRC staff, having found good cause
- shown, recommends that the latest completion date of December 31, 1987 be granted for the reasons stated below.
Analysis Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) stated in the letters of February 27, 1978 and June 26, 1981 that the following factors led to, the overall delay in the completion of construction of the facility.
Items 1
'hrough 7 were cited as causes of delay leading to the request for extension of seventy-seven months.
Items 8 through 11 were cited as causes of delay leading to the request for. extension for an additional 36 months.
1.
The need for extension of time beyond the present construction permit completion date was a result of the reduction in the demand for electric power in the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's service area and the resulting postponement of the need for this plant to produce power.
2.
The need for extension was also based upon difficulty in obtaining funds at a reasonable rate thereby delaying construction because of availability of funds.
3.
The need for extension was also based upon additional construction time required to implement design changes as follows, a)
Additional time has been required to implement Safety/Relief valve piping relocation required to mitigate Mark II containment dynamic loads.
- The co-holders are Central Hudson Gas 5 Electric Corporation, New York State Electric
& Gas Corporation, Long Island Lighting Company, and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.
DESIG fAT ORE XHAL car,'. t tg6 fir p Q ID Q. Pg//~
':~ 83031600i6 830228
',-".: PDR'DQCK 050004i0
"."" 'I-"I PDR l't
0 I'
/
'I, h
Ik b)
Additional time has been required because of a design change from once-through to closed loop circulating water cooling subsequent to receipt of the construction permit.
c)
Additional time has been required due to complete redesign of electrical raceway systems and major structural changes in the Reactor Building, Control Building, and cable tunnels to conform to regulatory separation requirements.
d)
Additional time has been required to implement flood protection requirements for Emergency Core Cooling System pumps.
e)
Additional time has been required to implement pipe whip protection requirements.
These requirements have impacted the schedule for completion of pipe stress analysis and liner fabrication.
4.
The need for extension of time beyond the present construction permit completion date was also a result of additional time required to study geological features and phenomena.
During Autumn 1976, "thrust" faults were exposed in the general area of the heater bay at the Nine Mile Point-2 site.
Additional "thrust" faults were subsequently encountered at excavations in several other locations.
Investigations into the origin, age," and significance of these deformations were then undertaken by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation through a number of consultants.
Additional time is required to complete construction of the plant as a result of effort expended on these investigations.
5.
Additional time has been required to complete construction of the Nine Mile Point-2 construction because of the late issuance of the construction permit.
6.
The need for extension of time beyond the present construction permit completion date also due to labor problems, including work stoppages in 1976 and 1977.
7.
Additional time required for completion of construction has been also due to a shortage of available, qualified welders and due to material procurement delays.
In addition, a shortage of Class IE Equipment Vendors qualified to meet regulatory requirements has caused additional construction delays.
i
8.
The need for extension of an addi-tional 36 months has been based, in part, on the additional time requir~ed to accomodate design changes in the PGCC (Control Room panels). affecting the delivery date to the site.
9.
The additional 36 months requested has. been; in part, a result of additional requirements imposed following the Three Mile Island accident.
10.
The additional time required to achieve an acceptable resolution of the problem caused by the Biological Shield Wall weld defects was another factor contributing to construction delays at Nine Mile Point-2.
11.
Additional time required to finalize the design criteria of Mark II Containments has also impacted construction schedules for Nine Mile Point-2 and was cited as a reason for the 36 month extension of the completion date of the plant.
Although Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation has indicated that the present commercial operation date of October 1986 is still considered attainable, they have requested a latest completion date of December 31, 1987.
The 1987 date was requested to cover construction contingencies, new regulatory requirements, and financing considerations.
The NRC staff has reviewed the factors contributing to the delay as stated in the letters of February 27, 1978 and June 26, 1981 and concludes that the applicant has shown good cause for the delay in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Section 50.55(b).
The NRC staff recommends that the construction permit be extended an additional nine years and five months to provide for schedule delays as requested by the applicant.
Considering the nature of the delays, the NRC staff has identified no area of significant safety concern associated with extending the completion date for.the construction permit for Nine Mile Point-2.
The only change proposed by the Permittee in these requests is an extension of the latest construction completion date.
This extension will not allow any work to be performed involving new safety information of a type not considered by previous Commission safety reviews of the facility and that is not already allowed by the existing construction permits.
Therefore, the staff finds that (1) this action does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) prior public notice of this action is not required, (3) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the requested. extension of the construction completion date, and (4) good cause exists for issuance of an Order extending the latest construction completion dates.-
DESX
~ TED OHIGXHAL l
ce";~.fs,e6 By dK N
~
Conclusion The Commission's staff has reviewed the information provided in the applicant's submittals and concludes that the factors discussed above are reasonable and constitute good cause for delay, and that extension of the latest construction completion date for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 is reasonable and justifiable.
The NRC staff finds that this action does not involve a significant hazards consideration, and that good cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending the latest completion date in Construction Permit No. CPPR-112 to December 31, 1987.
The NRC staff has determined that this action will not result in any significant environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4),
an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal, need not be prepared in connection with this action.
0 II I ~