ML19317F645
| ML19317F645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1975 |
| From: | Engle L, Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317F642 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001220928 | |
| Download: ML19317F645 (4) | |
Text
i EVALUATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO.
cPPR-80 p)
(s FOR DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346 A.
Introduction Toledo Edison Company (the Licensee) is the holder of Construction Permit No. CPPR-80 issued by the then Atomic Energy Co= mission on March 24, 1971 for construction of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 presently under construction at the Licensee's site located on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio approximately 21 miles east of Toledo, Ohio.
In accordance with Section 135 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as cmended, 42 U. S. C. Section 2235, and in accordance with the Commission's regulations,10 CFR Section 50.55, the Construction Permit states the earliest and latest dates for the completion of construction.
By letter dated February 11, 19 75, the Licensee advised the NRC staf f that construction cannot be completed by the latest date presently specified, namely April 1,1975.
The Licensee hs.s therefore requested that the Construction Permit be extended to April 1, 1977.
In accordance with 10 CFR Section 50.55(b), the stcff, having found good cause shown, is extending the latest completion date to April 1, 1977 for the reasons stated below.
This -Evaluation will set forth the following:
in Section B, the " good cause" shown by the Licensee for an extension, that is, the specifi: delays which the Licensee has cited in support of its request for this extension; in Section C, the staff's independent judgement as to the " reasonable time" necessary from the present forward, to compensate for each delay factor.;
in Section D, a finding as to significant hazards consideration; and in Section E, a conclusica ah'd a recommendation for an Order.
B.
Cood Cause 1.
Construction Schedule The Licensee's original construction schedule estimated fuel loading in June 1974, whereas the schedule presently estimates fuel loading no sooner than April 1976, a twenty-two month delay.
The Licensec states that experience in constructing this facility indicates that original sche 3ule estimates were overly optimistic.
The current construction D
D
<v mv fl t
mp_g_
0
_U3_
A v
_a e
4
- e
<-e..
- ..ene e., Tf " * * * * ' * * * * * * * * * * *
-- +
8001220,,
schedule for this facility with projected delays is 72 months from Construction Permit exemption to anticipated commercial operation.
Current construction time' for _similar facilities is not greatly dif ferent from the present schedule for this facility.
The Licensee has indicated a delay of an unspecified degree is due to this underestimation of construction schedule.
2.
Construction Permit Delav The reccipt of a Construction Permit for this facility was five months later than the original schedule called for.
This delayed work on the containment vessel which was not included in the Construction Permit exemption.
3.
Work Delays The Licensee has indicated that lack of basic material for valve forgings, pump casing castings and steel plate have led to equip-ment deliveries being 12 to 18 months late.
These late deliveries have caused varying delays in construction activities.
4.
Design Modifications The Licensee has indicated two areas where significant design -
modifications have contributed to an unspecified, degree to the' requested schedule extension:
(1) inclusion of additional high-energy pipe restraints and associated b'uilding pressure relief panels to enhance safety equipment during f aulted conditions and (2) reevaluation of seismic response spectra and design requirements as a result of a change in the seismic dqsign criteria.
5.
Rowork The Licensee has indicated icw labor productivity, shortages of skilled labor and stringent quality assurance control requirceents have con-tributed to extending completion of construction activities.
The Licensee has also stated that compicxity of designing, procuring and constructing a large nucicar facility has exceeded previous expectations, with a resulting lag in release of design and construction details in specific areas.
t i;
- O
[)
D c.> c S g,
_ ej
_ ]L a
w
d 3
m
_3-4 C.
Reasonable Time 1.
Construction Schedule The Staff agrees that the Applicant significtntly underestimated the construction schedule for this nuclear facility.
This is not unusual-for nuclear plants of this vintage where schedules had been based on experience gained in constructing fossil fuel power plants. We find, therefore, that the above factor contributed to unanticipated delays in construction activities. We conclude that an eight to ten month extension in completion of construction can reasonably be attributed to this f actor.,
2.
Construction Permit Delay We concur with the Licensee that issuance of the Construction Permit
~
was five months later than had been anticipated in the original schedule. However, this delay was partially offset by the granting of a Construction Permit exemption.
Since the exemption did not allow work on safety related structures such as the containment vessel, we conclude the Licensee's overall construction schedule may have been extended by two to four months due to this factor.
3.
Work Delavs
[
We are fully aware that lack of basic material for pump castings and steel plate have caused late deliveries for critical materials and equipment.
In addition, manufacturers producing valves meeting nuclear code require-ments have been unable to meet scheduled delivery dates. We conclude that between three to five months of the overall delay can be reasonably attributed to this f$ctor.
4.
Design Modifications The Staff finds that significant modifications to structures, piping, systems and components have been required for this facility.
We acknowledge that these codifications have contributed to the extension of the construction schedule.
In our judgement, the modification having the greatest i= pact on schedule was the high-energy line break pro tection. We find it reasonable to attribute a schedule extension of four months for the implementation of these design modifications.
5.
Rework The Staff is aware that the unavailability of skilled craftsmen has contributed to decreased productivity resulting in schedule delays.
In'particular, this facility has had and continues to have shortages of qualified pipe fitters and welders.
In addition, in order g
1r D
0 Oo
~
q q? }
e
.. b S J W
?
.s
c r
comply with the requirements of its quality assurance programs, the Licensee is known to have expended a significant amount of unanticipated additional work. We conclude that between three to five months of the overall delay can be reasonably attributed to this factor.
D.
Significant Hazards Consideration The' Staff finds that because the request is merely for more time to complete work already reviewed and approved for Construction Permit CPPR-80, no significant hazards consideration is involved in granting the request and thus prior public notice of this action is not required.
E.
Conclusion and Recom endations For the reasons stated herein, the Staff concludes that the latest com-pletion date for CPPR-80 should be ex. tended a total of 24 months, f rom April 1, 1975 to April 1,1977, and that the Commission should issue an Order to that effect.
.g L. Engle7 Project Manager l
Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Division of Reactor Licensing f
A.
>Q' l;,.. J ' > U' L -
,c A. Schwencer, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Division of Reactor Licensing
.., a
^ 0 LT
Dated
.e e
4 o
I OO D
D<l a a l'
o
~ 9
~ I
~
D
_ J..
. k.
a...
.....m J