ML19319D936
| ML19319D936 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1973 |
| From: | Buckley B, Schwencer A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319D925 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003270612 | |
| Download: ML19319D936 (2) | |
Text
-
~
g DEC 141973 EVALUATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
. PROVISIONAL CONSTRUCTION PEFl41T NO. CPPR-56 FOR THE RANCHO SECO UNIT 1 NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET No. 50-312 Introduction-On' October 8, 1973, the Sacramento Municipal District filed a request for an extension of the completion date for the construction of the Rancho
_Seco Unit 1 Nuclear Plant. The applicant states that the completion of construction is estimated to be delayed from December 31, 1973 to June 1, 1974, and requests an extension of the expiration date to September 30, 1974.
The staff' finds that the significant delays in the Rancho Seco Unit 1 construction were due to, among other things, the following:
1.
The significant underestimation of the original construction schedule when compared to present knowledge of actual construction schedule time and experience gained in making more realistic estimates.
2.
The lower productivity of labor than anticipated for nuclear construction.
This lower productivity is attributed to the increased complexities of nuclear construction and the increasing c phasis en quality control.
3.
The lack of sufficient numbers of qualified welders. Due to the high standards imposed on the project, fewer numbers of welders are being qualified to work on the project.
4.- Design modifications which included a changeover from mechanical forced draft cooling towers to natural draft hyperbolic cooling towers and increasing the capacity of the radioactive waste system.
5.
Issuance of new AEC safety guides and regulations during the construction phase required that additional testing and reanalyses.of components be performed resulted in a delay in the delivery of equipment which in turn caused a delay in the construction schedule.
We conclude that the above factors are beyond the applicant's control, are reasonable and constitute good cause for delay. The staff finds that an extension of nine months is a reasonable period of time to allow for i
contingencies in construction beyond the scheduled fuel loading date of i
June 1,'1974.
As a result of the staff's review of the FSAR to date and considering the nature of the delays, we have identified no area of significant safety considerations in' connection with the extension of the construction permit completion date.
g o os 270h1
~
DEC 1 4 y The staff finds that this action does not involve a significant hazards consideration, and that good cause exists for the issuance of an order extending the completion date.
Accordingly, issuance of an order extending the latest completion date for the construction of the Rancho Seco Unit 1 Nuclear Plant as presently set forth in Construction Permit No. CPPR-56, to September 30, 1974, is reasonable and should be authorized.
B.c. mL.lmf B. C. Buckley, Project Manager Pressurized Water Reactors Br. No. 4 Directorate of Licensing
) 6M A. Schwencer, Chief Pressurized Water Reactors Br. No. 4 Directorate of Licensing l
. -.