ML19289C510
| ML19289C510 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1978 |
| From: | Novarro J LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SNRC-348, NUDOCS 7901170216 | |
| Download: ML19289C510 (4) | |
Text
/
+
J g.
d u
/
LON G ISLAN D 'LIG HTI N G C O M PANY 0-
.e..u.g,fgy,,,,,O,,f SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION
' SEC P.O. DOX G18, NORTH COUNTRY RO AD e W ADING RIVE R. N.Y.11792 SNRC-348 December 18, 1978 Fk. Steven A.- Varga, Chief Light Water Reactors, Branch 4 Division of Muclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Mualear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR PO'.TER STATIO" - 1".!IT 1 Docket No. 50-322
Dear Mr. Varga:
to Title 10. Code of Federal Regulatiens 50.55(b), Long Pursuant that the Cornission extend the Island Lighting Cenpany requcsts
(])
latest date for completion of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, fron.'2y 1, 1979, to July 1, 1960.
The forcer expira-
- 50. C??R-95, is sued tion date appeared in the Construction ?erni:
on April 14, 1973, by the United States Atonic Energy Cc =iscicn.
The delay in the co=pletion of the Shorehas nuclear Power Station is due to a number of factors bevond the control of the Lon Specifically, this delay is attri5utec
~
Island Lighting Ccr..pany.
to the following factors.
1.
Strikes 2.
Insufficient Craft Manpower 3.
Severe Weather conditions 4.
Regulatory Changes 5.
Late Delivery of Critical Equipment A brief explanation of each of these causes of the olant's delav further detailed infor ation'is required' follows.
In the event by the Co==ission for the evaluation of this extension request, it will be provided upon request.
18e
\\
790117.02((3
b d
Mr. Steven A. Varga g~
December 18, 1978 Page 2 1.
STRIKES The site underwent a 10-week steanfitter strike in 1975 at the beginning of the piping installation effort.
This strike, occurring as it did at the very start of effort.
the piping installation, effectively delayed that Also it resulted in additional, though unc.uantifiable, delays due to the necessary re=obilication of the large steamfitter vork force after the strike.
While this steanfitter strike has been the only major orolonted strike during the construction of the Shorehan plant, we have also experienced numerous short-term work actions by boilernakers, iron workers, and dock builders, as well as stea= fitters, which cumulatively have resulted in sig-nificant additional delays.
pu S L r. r. T C r_ e..u.m.
C 0. 3.r. m_
v..e.u. Ot.. r n.s 2.
3 Since October 1977 there has been a shortage of qualified steanfitters.
Since the piping and pipe support in-(])
stallation effort is on the critical path to fuel load, the absence of these craftscen has had a direct impact on the schedule.
We estinate that this situation alone has resuitcd in a 25-week celay.
Further, rhile not directly related to a ceficiency in manpover, progress on the critical path to fuel load was delayed due to the inability to institute a second shift on the jobsite.
The construction schecule had called for a second shif t to begin in 1975.
However, due to prolonged contractual negotiations on this catter uith the labor unions involved, the seconc shift Jas, in f a c t, not initiatec until.ugust of 1977.
An additional factor that has centributed to the schedule delay has been lower than projected craft utili-zation rates.
3.
SEVERE WEATHER CO.!DITIO::S Severe weather during the winters of 1976 and 1977 caused significant delays in the construction schedule because the reactor building had not yet been fully enclosed.
Construction work on the upper elevation of the reactor building ceased for several weeks during those years due to unsafe working conditions caused by ice, snou, and high winds.
Heavy ice and snou storts during the ' inter of
(])
197S resulted in several weeks of far below normal craft management attendance resulting in further delays in that year.
/
~_f*
Mr. Steven A. Varga
())
Dece=ber 1S, 1975 Page 3 4.
REGULATORY CHA"GES Pricarily because of the four-year time span between the filing of the original Shorehan Applicarica and the granting of the Construction Percit in April of 1973, Shorehan has been exposed to a far greater number of regulatory changes than rould a plant which had not experienced such a delay in licensing.
During this period the Staff revised a number of safety standards that resulted in significant design changes with the attendant delays in specifying, procuring, and installing new or codified equipment.
In additicn, there have been regulatory changes that have occurred during the construction phase of the Shorehan plant that have also caused delays.
Changes due to the Mark II Containment pool swell and Safety Relief Valve discharge phenomena have 'oeen extensive.
For example, bracing for the 88 downconers in the sup-pression pool has been 7.cdified and the Safety Relief
({}
Valve discharge devices, which had alreacy ~oecn installed, are curren:ly being renoved and replaced uith the "I"
geencher devices.
5.
LATE DELIrdRY OF CRITICAL EQUIPME"T The late delivery of certain critical components, and the "out-of-secuence" delivery of others, caused major delays and inefficiencies in the construction process.
This situation was rost vividly illustrated by the serious delays encouncered in the precurement of nuclear-grade valves and large bore piping.
The reasons for the late deliveries fall into the following general cate-
~
gories:
A.
Code changes due to both regulatory developments and industry requirements (ASME Section III for example).
B.
Delays in the placecent of orders caused by the require =ent for re-engineering and upgrading specifications to accommodate new codes and standards.
O
'. I$..
I s
Mr. Steven A. Varga December 18, 1978 Page 4 C.
Intense competitien for piping and valves duringin the period 1974 througn 1976 caused by a spurt refinery constructica and oil exploration as well as in utility ordsrs.
The construction schedule has been rearrcnged, wherever possible, to compensate for the unanticipated delays described chove.
and construction LILCO has taken a myriad of design, procurement LILCO has assumed neasures to conpensate for these delays.
direct responsioility for construction canagement of the project in order to insure that all possi' ole schedule recovery ceasures are taken.
The net result of the above delays, however, has been to extend the exoected fuel load date from December 197S to March 1980 as rt>orted in cur letter to Mr. Karl Kniel dated
^
September 14, 1977.
Accordingly, and in order to provide a suitable margin for the it is requested that the latest comple-completion of Shoreham, tion date be extended from May 1, 1979, to July 1, 1930.
O Very truly yours, m,
. j ]TbM J. F. Novarro Project Manager Shorehan Nucle r Power Station WJM:jv 9