ML19220C097

Supports Extension of Plant Const Completion Date to 770501

ML19220C097
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	01/10/1974
From:	Kniel K, Washburn B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 7904280234
Download: ML19220C097 (3)

Text

..

w p.f,]f-UNITED STATES j

i t,'. >J Y-ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION t.,.,,y# g.

wAsmscres. o c. 2:s4s

s.,

W w"n a e

vanuary

.0,

_ 9 e,.

Decke: No. 50-320 r

,a w.., w....1. _ C ~...e...L c.m.. c,..

P _=.,m...

w

_ Ai. Ai tCv., C.

=+= m = S,. =. v R :..,=v e, ~..

L, =

..~.a v

...._.w..

FOR TiREE MILE ISLA';D NL* CLEAR STATICN, I";IT 2 Introduction Metropolitan Edison Cc=pany, en oc:cber 26, 1973, filed a request f or extensicn of the construction cc=pletien date for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2.

The dates presently set for$

in the Provisicnal Cens tructica Per=it, CPPR-66, Dece:b er 1, 19 72 and December 1,1973, are requested to be extended to May 1,19 76, earlies t cc=pletion, and Maf 1, 19 77, la te s t cc=pletien.

Exp e cte d fuel loading date is September 1,1976 and expected cc= ercial operation is March 1, 19 7.

Chaa.ges to the plant as a result of more stringen saf ety rocc:-

mendatiens developed subsequent to the s tart of cons truction and construction prcblems encountered on the site have had a cu=ulative i= pact on construction progress.

Be only =cdificaticn prepcsed is the extension of the construction ccepletien date which 'ces not allov any work not already per=itted by the constructicn per:1:.

Dis cus s ien The applicant states that de following factors have contributed to the delay in ccustruction of this plant:

1.

Design Modificatiens

'he reacter building ring girder design was codified as a result of the experience in placing the cencrete in this portion of the structure in Three Mile Island Nuclear Statica, Unit 1.

This

odification 1: proved the design and f acill:ated censtructicn.

The analysis, design, f ab rication, and cons tructica of structural and piping ec=penents to eliminate concerns associated with pessible high energy line b reaks curside the reactor building introduced delays in both the design end ccus truction phases.

Tais involved backfitting in structures and the addi:icn cf walls snd supports.

fr y

z90 L80 k

. Cc=pliance with the AEC Interim Acceptance Criteria f or Emergency Core Cooling Systems required design and systens =cdificatiens to add crifices mad cross connecticas in the decav heat rencval syste=.

This introduced delays in the design, release of enginee ring data, and ccns tructicn.

2.

Ccnst ructicn S chedule The cons tructica ef f ort and productivity level for Three Mile Island, Unit 2, were originally projected f rc= constructicn practices and experience applicable to fcssil plants.

~ s proved c b e an unrealis tic b asis f or esti=ating the tatt srfor: required to produce the more cc= plex designs and construction of the nuclear p owe r plan t. In addition, tne suelear plant required i=preved s tandards an a quality assurance of the design, procure ent and ccnstruction phases which resulted in a lcwer level of everall p roductivity. Experience indicates th at the ccnstruction phase should have been fif ty percent lenger dian that period arrived at by the original projection.

3.

Flood Tropical storm Agnes produced major flooding in the Harrisburg, Penn-sylvania area during June 19 72.

At the tire of this flced a large portica of the levee around the Three Mile Island site had been constructed, but because the levee was not ec=plete, water entered the site, and flceding of the constructica area resulted.

Cen-s truction tire was los t until the area could be cleared of the effects of this flecding.

4 Other Factors One corrective =easure, taken with regard to ccepliance with QA/QC require:ents mad to resolutien of AEC/3R0 audit findings, was a reduction of the =anual craf t libor force to enable =cre effective supervisicn and centrol over the work.

This reduction in effort added to the delay.

Management has given priority to the cc=plation of Unit 1.

This approach was partly deter =ined by the need to get equipment and generation capacity into cperation.

Experience in setting the reacter pressure vessel and stes: g ene ra:c rs in Unit i led to a dsmage in the plcnned procedure fer this operatien in Unit 2.

This changed procedure, whereby these cceponents were inserted in the reactor building af ter the walls were cc ple:ed and prior :c ccns tructing the roof, also enecuntered dif ficulties, required additicnal ef fer: beyond that in the original planning, and delayed construction of the reac:cr building.

8/

1bo g

3_

Shny of the causes for delay were beyond the control of the applicant.

The applicant requested an extensica of the Provisi:nal Ccnstrue:1c1 Pe rmit, which, at the latest date, exceeds the anticipated fuel loading date by 8 =enths and which is within nor=al ccastruction schedule variances.

This conpletion estinate is based en the current estimated conpletica of 36 percent as of oc:cb er 1, 1973, the secpe of the renaining work, die productivity during the past 6 acn ths, and considera:1ca.cf the ef fect of the graater than originally projected effort expended to date.

Cenclusien The staf f has deter =ined that:

1.

The f actors contributing to the delay shew gcod cause.

2.

The acticn of extending the cenpletion date does not involve significant hazards consideration.

3.

The extensien of the lates t conpletion date to May 1,19 77, is reasonable and justified.

The staff concludes that issuance of an Order extending the latest ecupletten date to May 1,1977 for the construction of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Statien, Unit 2, as p res ently s e t forth in Ccns truction Permit No. CPPR-66 should be authorized.

s' A

o e

M L'

c

'3. Washburn Karl Kniel, Chief Project Manager LWR Project 3 ranch 2-2 LWR Project 3 ran ch 2-2 Directorate of Licensing Directorate of Licensing m

8/

1r'/

~

J

v s

Januarf 10, 1974 Docke

.lo. 50 -323

)

./

EVAL"ATIC'i CF FIQUEST FOR EXTEiSICi 0F PECVISIC*iAL CCSST?.UCTIC'i PE*C!!!

FOR T*IFIE MILE ISLAID NUCLEAR STATI0ii, U'i!T 2 Introducticn Metropolitan Edison Company, en October 26, 1973, filed a request for extension of the construction completien date for Three Mile Island :iuclear Statien, Unit 2.

The dates presently set forth in the Provisicnal Construction Fernit, CPPR-66, Dece=ber 1,19 72 and Dece=ber 1,1973, are requested to be extended to May 1,19 76, earlies t c:npletion, and May 1,19 77, latest completien.

Eraec ted fuel loading date is September 1,1976 and eraected coccercial operation is March 1,1977.

Changes to the plant as a result of more stringent safety recon-mendations developed subsequent to the start of construction and construction problems encountered on the site have had a cumulative impact on constructico progress.

The only modification proposed is the extension of the construction completicn date which does not allow any work not already pernitted by the construction permit.

Dis cussien The applicant states that the following factors have contributed to the delay in construction of this plant:

1.

Design Modifications The reactor building ring girder design was modified as a result of the experience in placing the ccacrete in this portion of the structure in Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1.

This nodificatica improved the design and facilitated construction.

The analysis, design, fab rication, and construction of structural and piping components to elim1nate cencerns associated with possible high energy line breaks outside the reactor building introduced delavs in both the design and ccustruction phases.

This involved backfitting in structures and the addition of valls and supports.

1,. O L:PWR-2 L:PWRg OGC[j k pf l p

3rr KKnidi CO' son ppWasa)1 t3 sus-r 7 I 12//c /73 12//C/73 12/Y/73

_.,s_..,_

87 158

. Cocellanca with tha AEC Interi= Acceptance Criteria for Energencv Care Cooling Syste=s required design and systems modificatient to add orifices cod cross ccanecticus in the decav heat renoval system.

Bis introduced dalays in the design, release of engineering data, and cons truction.

2.

Construction Schedule Be constructica effort and productivity level for nree Mile Island, Unit 2, were originally projected f rem censtructicn practices and experience applicable to fossil plants. Bis proved to be an unrealistic basis ~for estinating the total eff ort required to produce the c: ore complex designs and ecos truction of the nucicar power plant. In addition, the nuclear plant required improved standards and quality assurance of the design, procure =ent and construction phases which resulted in a lover level of overall p roductivity. Experience indicates that the construction phase should have been fif ty percent longer than that period arrived at by the original projectico.

3.

Flood Tropical storm Agnes produced major flooding in the Harrisburg, Penn-sylvania area during June 1972. At the tine of this flood a large portico of the levee around the hree Mile Isimd site had been constructed, but because the levee was not complete, water entered the site, and flooding of the ccustructico area resulted.

Con-structica cim was lost until the area could be cleared of the ef fects of this flooding.

4.

Other Factors One corrective masure, taken with regard to coczpliance with QA/QC requirements and to resolution of AEC/DRO audit findings, was a reduction of the mainal craft labor force to enable more effective supervisicxt and control over the work. bis reductica in effort added to the delay.

Manageant has given priority to the ccupletion of Unit 1.

Bis approach was partly determined by the need to get equiement and generation capacity into operation.

Experience in setting the reactor pressure vessel and steam generators in Unit 1 led to a change in the planned procedure for this operation in Unit 2.

Bis changed procedure, whereby these ce=ponents were inserted in the reactor building af ter Jae valls were completed and prior to constructing the roof, also enecentered difficulties,

requa rea acc. clon a.A errort xycaa tnat t.a tne origin < 1 pianalug, omes*

_and delayed con s tru c ticq_pf the meter %d V47 sunnamn DAfth r = Azcais ts us Azcw ouo e-o ca '. e i~. ~=+=

0

. "any cf the causes for delay were beycud the control o' the applicant.

~he applicant requested an extension of the Provisional Construction Parmit, which, at the latest date, exceeds the anticipated fuel loading date by 8 months and which is within nornal constructicn schedule variances.

This conpletion estinate is based en the current esti::.sted completien of 36 perecat as of Ceccher 1,1973, the secpe of the renaining work, the productivity during the pas t 6 =caths, and consideration of the ef fect of the greater than originally projected ef fort expended to date.

Con clusien The staff has deter =ined that:

1.

Tha factors centributing to the delay shot.r good cause.

2.

The action of extending the ce=pletion date dces not involve significant hazards consideration.

3.

The extension of the latest complation date to May 1,1977, is reasonable and justified, he staff concludes that issuance of an Order extending the latest completion date to May 1,1977 for the construction of the Three

'f f i.' Islead Nuclear Station, Unit 2, as presently set forth in Construction Perr.it No. C?PR-66 should be authorized.

ca _e

._.>q N

-[

g,g y

3. Washburn Karl Kniel, Ciief Project Manager LWR Project Branch 2-2 I!JR Project 3 ranch 2-2 Directorate of Licensing Directorate of Licensing DISTR 13CTION:

AEC PDR Local PDR Docket file L7R 2-2 Faading MService 3Washb urn omer>

susstAas(>

=

oars, r

m eia, S us e o2.o a

cas se a 'a = *- ' ~***

g/

100 e

o

_