ML19323A201
| ML19323A201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1980 |
| From: | Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323A202 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004180070 | |
| Download: ML19323A201 (3) | |
Text
p Kro 8
h UNITED STATES 8
'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.,
aE WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 E
o
%...../
EVALUATION OF A REQUEST FOR EXTENDING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-73 (UNIT 2)
DOCKET NO. 50-328 INTRODUCTION The Tennessee Valley Authority requested on March 7,1980, an extension of the latest completion date for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2 to May 1981.
Fuel loading could occur as early as November 1980; however, an allowance for contingencies was suggested. Unit No. 1 is currently licensed for fuel loading and special low power testing.
DISCUSSION The applicant's letter stated the delay en completion of construction for the Sequoyah Unit No. 2 was due to the following factors:
1.
Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Plant Incident - As a direct result of' additional TMI scope items and the concentration of manpower which was required on Unit 1 to implement TMI modifications required for Unit 1 fuel loading, the Unit 2 construction schedule has been delayed six months.
2.
Modifications Resulting from Changes in Design Scope - The construction schedule has been delayed for five months because of continuing problems in completion of pipe, ductwork, and conduit hanger construction, and in resolution of problems encountered during preoperational testing.
i
.5 8004180 d78
t 2-3.
Reassessment of Plant Schedule - In addition to these factors which are directly affecting the construction schedule, there continue to be additions to the scope of the project which have a material but indirect impact on plant schedule.
a Based on our review of the applicant's request, we find the above factors constitute good cause for the delay in completion of construction. Also, we agree with the applicant that it is prudent to allow some contingencies in the schedule in view of the ongoing efforts to fully implement all of the modifications to the plant as a result of the TMI accident.
As a result of our review of the Sequoyah Final Safety Analysis Report to date and considering the nature of the delays, we have identified no significant hazards considerations in connection with the extension of the construction completion date.
In addition, we find that the only change 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 censidered by a previous Commission safety review of the facility and that is not already allowed by the existing construction permit. Therefore, 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 construction completion date, and (4) good cause exists for issuance of an Order extending the completion date.
2 l'.2 i
3-CONCLUSIONS Accordingly, issuance of an Order extending the latest completion date for construction of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2 to May 1,1981 is reasonable and should be authorized.
h LY Carl R. Stahle, Project Manager L. S. Rabenstein, Acting Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management Division of Project Management Dated:
April 4,1980 i
i i
l 6
l t
4 I
~4 s.
- 5 e
T
~
DISTRIBUTION Docket File bcc:
LWR-4 File J. Scinto, ELD C. Woodhead, ELD S.Kebiusek, EP C. Stable M. Service D. Ross S. Varga L. Rubenstein IE (3)
MPA M. Jinks (4)
H. Berkow/W. Russell R. Diggs I. Dinitz A. Toalston J. Rutberg S
O I
cuusAgg w j