ML19329F258
| ML19329F258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1976 |
| From: | Crocker L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329F251 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006230775 | |
| Download: ML19329F258 (9) | |
Text
_
Wp a-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3._,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
--2
- u-
-CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY l
Docket-Am-329 - s-2-
3.
)
50-330 m(Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2)
)
x-
.. 4~
- .t--
- n : 4,. <.
,3 :
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE P. CROCKER RELATING TO DELAY OF CONSTRUCTI0il AND MAKE-UP OF LOST TIME
==
Introduction:==
This testimony provides my estimate of the time required to shut down and subseouently to re-start the construction of the Midland Plant in the event
. l.
of a'. nine-month suspension of construction.
I also-discuss the question of whether Consumers Powei' Company could make-up for time Tost d0 ring a sus-pension of construction.
Discussion:
Construction activity at the Midland Plant now is in full progress, with about 1200 workmen on site. Construction of both reactor containment
.+: -
buildings is underway and work is in progress on the auxil.iary'bui-1 ding. -- --:
- turbine building and associated plant structures. At the present time,.the principal activities consist of placement of reinforcing steel..and struc tural steel, and pouring of concrete.
8006230 7 7 E
.,,,.,, - - -. ~, --
' 2-
.,7: 7 order of 3600-3800 Megawatts, thennal.
In recent years, the other reactd vendors in the United States also have been offering nuclear steam-supply-systems in the range of 3000-3800 Megawatts, thennai. This no doubt is due in part to the emphasis of recent years on standardization of nuclear i~
- plant designs at or close to the maximum authorized p6ivef le dUof'380d w
g..
Meagwatts, thennal.
~
Nuclear plants smaller than the Midland design have been construci.ed in
~~
the United States 'and I would judge that if a utility really wantePto order a smaller size unit today, any of the reactor vendors would-be--'
capable of supplying a NSSS of whatever size desired.
I doubt, however, that purchase of a smaller unit is a realistic alternative.. Since recent utility and vendor efforts have concentrated on larger. units, both a time and a cost penalty would be incurred if a utility ordered a smaller plant.
The entire cost of developing the design probably would have to be charged to the single smaller unit or the pair of smaller unirsince there apparent-ly is no market for additional smaller units. Further, since units in a smaller size range have hot been ordered for a number of years, extra time probably would be required for design, and it is likely that additional licensing effort would be required since the NRC staff would not be familiar with the design.
The Midland plant now is about 15% complete. We have been infonned by the licensee that the bulk of the NSSS components are now on-site await-.
ing in:tallation. Similarly; many of the balance-of-plant components
ire eitheV on-site or on order. 'dork on the reactor containment struce
+wi--
tQres, the auxiliary building and the turbine hall is well-underway.
Under~these circumstances, even though a smaller plant might be available
'for purchase, such cction does not represent a viable alternative. The c
IN' engi6eering and construction have thus far proceeded on the basis of.the particular design for Midland. A change to a smaller untemutd require
-za
--essentially a complete new design with a consequent loss of the bulk of z-the engineering and construction efforts expended to date and a probable
~
loss of a great portion of the component procurem'ent to date.
If for~some reason it should be determined that less power is needed from the Midland units, the present construction could be continued and the units ultimately could be operated at whatever power levels are desired up to the rated capacity. This continued construction of the current design would provide for ultimate expansion to meet increasing power n
ndeds; 'In 'my view, completion of constructiorr of the present designs -
even thougir the forecasted power needs might be less than the plant rated capacity, would be far preferable to any attempt to redesign the station to accept smaller units.
==
Conclusion:==
l Continued construction of the Midland plant to the current design does tend to further preclude a subsequent change to a plant with a smaller catput. However, for the. reasons stated above, I consider such. -a change to be an infeasible course of action at the present time, so continued construction would not affect my conclusion.
_-.