ML19263C604
| ML19263C604 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1979 |
| From: | Baer R, Tibbitts D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263C602 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902270432 | |
| Download: ML19263C604 (4) | |
Text
.
O EVALUATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-94 FOR THE VIRGIL C. SUMER NiiCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-395 A.
INTRODUCTION South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority (the permittees) are the holders of Construction Permit No.
CPPR-94 issued by the Atomic Energy Comission on March 21, 1973 for con-struction of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The plant is presently under construction at the pennittees' site located in Fairfield County, South Carolina approximately 26 miles north of Colunbia, South Carolina.
In accordance with Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U. S. C. Section 2235, and in accordance with the Comission's regulations,10 CFR Section 50.55, the Construction Permit states the earliest and latest dates for the completion of construction.
By letter dated December 10, 1976, the permittees advised the NRC staff that construction could not be completed by the latest date presently specified, namely January 1,1978.
The permittees have therefore requested in a letter dated January 14, 1977 that the Construction Pennit be extended to December 31, 1980.
In accordance with 10 CFR Section 50.55 (b), the staff, ha',ing found good cause shown, and for the reasons stated below, is extending the latest completion date to December 31, 1980.
This evaluation contains the following Sections:
Section B, the specifi-cation of " good cause" shown by the permittees for an extension, i.e.,
the specific delays which the pennittees have cited in support of their request for an extension; Section C, the staff's independent judgment as to the " reasonable time" necessary from the present forward to compen-sate L.. i:acn fcctor of delay; Section D, a finding as to significant hazards consideration; and Section E, a conclusion and recommendation for an Order.
B.
SPECIFIED DELAYS 1.
Reactor Vessel Support System When the design of the reactor vessel support system was approximatel.v 60 percent complete, the pennittees began an extensive redesign of the support for the reactor vessel. The redesign was necessitated by new design parameters for a postulated reactor coolant pf pe rupture in the reactor cavity. The pennittees estimated that the redesign and an additional delay in the procurement of components for the reactor vessel support system has resulted in approximately 16 months in delay.
790227o437-
9 2.
Geological Faults A shear fracture zone was discovered in the excavation for the reactor building on November 26, 1973. At that time all structural work was halted. Work was not resumed until February 15, 1974 when the staff concluded that none of the fracture zones exposed in the excavuation were capable faults. The permittees stated that the work stoppage resulted in a total loss of approximately five months on the completion of the reactor building base mat.
3.
Containment Liner Voids In November i975, voids in the concrete lines were discovered behind the reactor building containment plates. All work on the reactor building basement floor was suspended while the permittees undertook a study to identify, lccate and determine the size of the voids. Project work resumed in February 1976; the total time lost was approximately three months.
4.
Pipe Rupture Analysis Following issuance of the construction permit the NRC (then AEC) developed additional criteria for the protection against postulated piping failures in high and moderate energy fluid systems outside of containment. To implement the new criteria, additional analytical requirements were imposed upon the project; the additional time required delayed tne completion of the analytical work approximately ten months.
5.
Delays in Procurement The permittees stated that progress in the intermediate building and the reactor building was adversely affected for approximately 12 months due to difficulties in procuring safety-related components and materials. The permittees did not estimate the impact of the delay in procurenent on the overall delay in completion of construction.
6.
Additional Seismic Analysis The permittees stated that a change in che design of the foundation for the control building resulted in the diversion of construction resources from the critical path items.
. C.
REASONABLE COM)ENSATION TIE For the following ite:ns we agree with the permittees on the contribution each delay had on the overall delay in completion of construction:
(1) Reactor Vessel Support System - We are aware of the impact of the new design criteria that have been applied to the reactor vessel support system. The permittees prudently chose to re-design to meet these criteria even though the preliminary design on which the construction permit was based did not include these criteria. Since the erection of the reactor vessel is on the critical path, we conclude that 16 months toward overall delay can be reasonably attributed to the redesign of the reactor vessel support systems.
(2) Geological Faults - We acknowledge that the length of time required to investigate the faults found in the excavation for the reactor building has contributed to the extension of the construction schedule. We conclude that approximately five months of overall delay can be reasonably attributed to this factor.
(3 ) Containment Liner Voids - We concur with the permittees that the three month interruption in the construction in the reactor ouilding contributed three months to the overall delay of the project.
For the balance of items, we are unable to estimate each item's contribu-tion to the overalT delay of the completion of construction. However, we conclude that the combined effects of the items could contribute 12 months to the overall delay of the completion of ccastruction.
These items are:
(1) Pipe Rupture Analysis - We find that the implementation of new criteria for postulated high energy line failures would require additional design effort for high and moderate energy systems.
These criteria were not issued by the staff until after the construction permit was issued. However, we do not conclude that all of the ten month delay in completing the analytical effort can reasonably be regarded as contributing to an overall delay in,he facility.
(2) Delays in Procurement - We are aware that lack of basic material for punp castings and steel plate have caused late deliveries for critical materials and equipnent. In addition, manufacturers producing valves mesting nuclear code requirements have been unable to meet scheduled delivery dates. However, we do not conclude that all 12 months of the delay can reasonably be regarded as contributing to the overall deldy.
(3) Additional Seismic Analysis - The permittees did not identify a specific length of time for the delay attributable to the change in the design of the control building foundation.
The permittees currently estimate that construction will be completed by If July 1980; the total elapsed construction time would be 86 months.
the f acilty was completed by December 1980, the total elapsed construction time would be 93 months. The average construction time for first unit or single unit coninercial pressurized water reactors scheduled to be completed in 1979 and 1980 is 92 months.
In light of this and the above evaluation, a December 31, 1980 completion date for this facility is reasonable.
D.
SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION We find that because the request is merely for an extension of time to com-plete work already reviewed and approved, no significant hazard considera-tion is involved in granting the request, thus prior notice of this action is not required.
E.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS For the reasons stated herein, the staff concludes that issuance of an Order extending the latest construction completion date for construction of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Construction Permit. No. CPPR-94, to December 31, 1980 is reasonable and so orders.
% Z. 7%R Dean L. Tibbitts, Project Mcnager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management 5'
Robert L. Baer, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management Dated: January 30, 1979