ML19329B653
| ML19329B653 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1975 |
| From: | Engle L, Moore V, Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329B647 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002050762 | |
| Download: ML19329B653 (5) | |
Text
O THE TOLEDO EDISGN COMPANY e.
AND THE CLEVEI.AND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
DOCKET No. 50-346 ORDER EXTENDING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE The Toledo Edison Company and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company are holders of ' Construction Permit No. CPPR-80 issued by the Atomic Energy Commission
- on March 24, 1971, for construction of the
, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, presently under construction at the Companics' site on the southwestern shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Ohio, approximately 21 miles east of Toledo, Ohio.
On February 11, 1975, the Company filed a request for an extension of the completion date because construction has been delayed due to (1) Construction Schedule, (2) Construction Permit Delay, (3) Work Delays, (4) Design Modifications and (5) Rework. This.ction involves no, significant hazards consideration; good cause has been shown for the delay; and the requested extension 'is for a reasonable period, the bases for which are set forth in a staff evaluation, dated July 30, 1975.
~~
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE latest completion date for CPPR-80 is
?
extended from April 1, 1975 to April 1, 1977.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C05011SSION ORIGIrAL SIC;7 y
..v--
s.
Voss'ff.'& dfe, Assistant Director Date of Issuance: J.10 0 'U3 for Light Water Reactors Group 2 tj Division of Reactor Licensing s
- Effective Januar; 19, 1975, the Atomic Energy Commission became the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and permits in effect on that day continued under the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
e 3
I
, 8002050 M
,--.------.~.c:---
= _ _ _ _ -. _,
___.c._.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST FOR 'N
~
EXTu. 9 ION OF CONSTRUCTION PER:11T NO.
CPPR-80 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 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 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 ll, 1975, the Licensee advised the NRC staf f that construction cannot be completed by the latest date presently specified, namely April 1,1975.
The Licensee has therefore requested that the Construction Permit be extended to April 1, 1977.
In accordance with 10 CFR Section 50.55(b), the secff, having found good cause shewn, 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 specift: 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 fo rward, to compensate for each delay factor; in Section D, a finding as to significant hazards consideration; and in Section E, a conclusign uh'd a recommendation for an Order.
B.
Good 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 Licensee states that experience in constructing this facility indicates that original sche 9ule estimates were overly optimistic.
The current construction e
}.
.....p-.
r~'
2-s 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 different 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 receipt 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 Delavs 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 activitics.
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 building pressure relief panels to enhance safety equipment during faulted conditions and (2) reevaluation of seismic response spectra and design requirements as a result of a change in the s'eismic design criteria.
5.
Rework The Licensee has indicated low labor productivity, shortages of skilled labor and stringent quality assurance control requirements have con-tributed to extending completion of construction activities.
The Licensee has also stated that complexity of designing, procuring and constructing a large nuclear facility has exceeded previous expectations, with a resulting lag in release of design and construction details in specific areas.
. e.,
- e I
G
-9
,w
.,..g,%.
,,,.,y
.S 3_
C.
Reasonable Time 1.
Construction Schedule The Staff agrees that the Applicant significantly 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 unantici' pated delays in construction activitics. We conclude that an eight to ten = cath extension in completion of construction can reasonably be attributed to this factor.,
2.
Construction permit Delav 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 conths duc' to this factor.
3.
Work Delavs
?
We are fully awcre 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 mcnths of the overall delav can be reasonably
~
attributed to this factor.
4 '. Design Modifications The Staff finds that significant modifications to structures, piping, systems and components have been required for this f acility. We ackr"wledge that these modifications have centributed to the extension of.ne construction schedule.
In our judgetent, 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 imple=entation 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 qualifi,ed pipe fitters and welders.
In addition, in order to 4
e+*.-
~a-e
..... - ~.... _
%.w.
- o r
a
-4 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 tr five =onths 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 cocplete work already reviewed and approved for Construction Permic 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 Recommendations For the reasons stated herein, the Staff concludes that the latest com-pletion date for CPPR-80 should be extended a total of 24 months, from April 1,1975 to April 1,1977, and that the Commission should issue an Order to that effect.
K.7w L. Engle Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Division of Peactor Licensina 3
~,
y q:f 'L
.:. u u
/N s
.c A. Schwencer, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Division of Reactor Licensing
?.
OM Dated l
- t' e
I*
g 4
. ope
.==..eew
.-f-,
- ee.m*
=
9,
- e. m o e m-
- p*
+...,.--....4+
m-., '... * -
=.. + -
-