ML19224D466
| ML19224D466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1979 |
| From: | Varga S, Joshua Wilson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224D457 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907120241 | |
| Download: ML19224D466 (4) | |
Text
~
[
4,t r
UNITED STATES f'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION yV3 d M) h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- bRMlJ E
o
\\.~...*
1 EVALUATION OF A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROVISIONAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-95 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION - DOCKET NO. "' s22 I ntroduction A provisional construction permit was issued to Long Island Lighting Company (applicant) on Ap-il 14, 1973 for construction of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (.acility) on the north shore of Long Island in the town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York.
The constructien permit specified May 1,1979 as the latest date for completion of construction of the facility.
In a letter dated December 18,1978 (SNRC-348), the applicant requested an extension of the latest completion date pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.55(b).
The applicant requested tha.! construction per-mit No. CPPR-95 be amended to extend the latest date for campletion from May 1,1979 to July 1,1980.
Discussion i
{
The applicant's letter (SNRC-348) stated that the delay in coc.pletion of construction of the Shorehem Station was due to the following factors i
which were beyond the control of Long Island Lighting Company:
l.
STRIKE 3 The site undermnt a 10-week steamfitters strike in 1975 at the beginning of the piping installation effort.
This strike, occurring as it did at the very start of the piping installation, effectively delayed that effort. Also it resulted in additional, i
I though unquantifiable, delays due to the necessary remobilization of the large steamfitter work force after the strike.
While this steamfitter strike has been the only major prolonged strike during the construction of the Shoreham plant, the applicant also experienced numerous short-term work acticns by boilermakers, iron workers, and dock builc'n, as well as steamfitters, which cmiulatively have resulted.n significant additional delays.
2.
INSUFFICIEN1 CRAFT PANPOLER Since October 1977 there has been a shortage of qualified steam-fitters. Since the piping and pipe support installation effort is on the critical path to fuel load, the absense of these ccaftsman has had a direct impact on the schedule.
The appl i-cant estimates that this situation alone has resulted in a 25-week del ay.
Further, while not directly related to a
?: g deficiency in manpower, progress on the critical path to fuelJ lu j (jlj 790712OM/
1 '
load was delayea due to the inability to institute a second shift on the jobsite. The construction schedule had called for a second shift to begin in 1975.
However, due to pro-longed contractual negotiations on this matter with the labor unions involved, the second shift was, in fact, not initiated until August of 1977. An additional factor that has contri-buted to the schedule delay has been lower than projected craft utilization rates.
3.
SEVERE LEATHER CONDITIONS Severe weather during the winters of 1976 and 1977 caused signi-l ficant delays in the construction schedule because the reactor building had not yet been fully enclosed. Construction work j
on the upper elevation of the reactor building ceased for several weeks during those years due to unsafe working condi-tions caused by ice, snow, and nigh winds.
Heavy ice and snow storms during the winter of 1978 resulted in several weeks of far below normal craf t management attendance resulting in further delays in that year.
4.
REGULATORY CHANGES Primarily because of the four-year time span between the filing of the original Shoreham Application and the granting of the Construction Permit in April of 1973, Shoreham has been exposed to a far greater number of regulatory changes than would a plant which had not experienced such a delay in licensing. Du ri ng this period the NRC Staff revised a number of safety standards j
that resulted in significant design changes with the attendant
}
delays in specifying, procuring, and installing new or modified equipnent.
In addition, there have been regulatory changes that have occurred during the construction phase of the Shoreham p1/.nt that have also caused delays. Changes due to the Mark Il Containment pool swell and Safety Relief Valve discharge phenomena have been extensive. For example, bracing for the 88 downcomers in the suppression pool has been modified and the Safety Relief Valve discharge devices, which had already been installed, are currently being removed and replaced with the "T" quencher devices.
3i3 30:
5.
LATE DELIVERY OF CRITICAL EQUIP KNT The late delivery of certain critical components, and the "out-of-sequence" delivery of others, caused major delays and in-efficiencies in the construction process. This situation was 1
most vividly illustrated by the serious delays encountered in the procurement of nuclear-grade valves and large bore piping. The reasons for the late deliveries fall into the following genaral categories:
a.
Code changes iue to both regulatory developments and industry requirements ( ASME Section III f or example).
}
b.
Delays in the placement of orders caused by the re-i quirement for re-engineering and upgrading specifi-cations to accommodate new codes and standards, Intense completion for piping and valves during the c.
period 1974 through 1976 caused by a spurt in re-finery construction and oil exploration as well as in utility orders.
Based on our review of the applicant's request, we find that the above factors were beyond the applicant's control and constitute good cause for the delay in completion of construction. However, we bsileve that the applicant's revised estimate for completion of construction of the Shoreham f acility may be optimistic. During a review of construction progress at the Shoreham site by the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel in January 1979,* the applicant projected a fuel load date of June 1980.
The Caseload Forecast Panel arrived at a more conservative estimate for a neminal fuel load date at Shoreham of October 1980.
In order to provide a suitable margin for completion of Shoreham, which takes in-I to account a reasonable allowance for additional delays from the same or similar delaying factors cited above, the latest date for completion of the f acili ty should be extended from May 1,1979 to Cecemoer 31, 1980.
As a result of our review cf the Shorehm1 Final Safety Analysis Report to date and considering the nature of the delays, we have identified no sig-nificant hazards considerations in connection with the extension of the construction completion date. In addition, we find that the only change
- A summary of this meeting, dated January 22, 1979, was distributed to the public document rcom and all parties of the Shoreham proceeding.
3 0 T.'
I proposed by the applicant to the existing construction permit is an extension of the latest completion.date. This extension will not allow any work to be performed involving new safety information of a type not considered by a previous Comission safety review of the f acility and that is not already allowed by the existing construction permit.
There-fore, we find 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 extension of the constructio empletion date, j
and (4) good cause exists for issuance of an Order ext...ng the comple-tion date.
Conclusions Accordingly, issuance of an Order extending the latest completion date for construction of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to December 31, 1980 is reasonable and should be authorized.
5
}
, Jerry. Wilson, Project Manager 3teven A.
g Ch.
Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Light Water Reacto Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management Division of Project Management Dated: May 14, 1979 i
i
" h) J 7
Q
)
0
.