ML19345B407
| ML19345B407 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1980 |
| From: | Nichols T SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012010108 | |
| Download: ML19345B407 (6) | |
Text
- m-U yt>, P i,n ? % ra - -
t u..,
Ubus uab.
south CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY I E i 3I7:UIfCN s
i 15 li cos,c,,,cc.o.,..
CotuMaiA, Soutw CAROLINA 29218 T. C NicHets,JR.
ec q' p' p,, G, p..
l
f.,
e Ut ' '
bet Per sect =t.no Geous Decuews November 26, 1980 u.. o..
Mr. II.
R.
Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20535 RE:
V.
C.
Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1 NRC Docket No. 50-395
Dear Mr. Denton:
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company on behalf of itself, nr.d as agent for the South Carolina Public Service Authority, being the holders of Construction Permit No.
CPPR-94 (issued March 21, 1973 and amended January 30, 1979, to extend the completion date from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 1980) hereby requests a further extension of the " latest completion date" pursuant to 10 CFR 50. 55 (b).
For the reasons delineated below, completion of construction, testing and necessary approvals has been delayed beyond the presently specified " latest completion date" and good cause exists to revise the " latest completion date" to June 30, 1982.
This amendment does not,- in the judgement of the Applicant, involve a significant hazard consideration.
The revised completion dates reflect a conservative construction schedule clus some margin for potential future delays suffi-cient to avoid the need for further requests.
The "causes
for the delays experienced are set forth below:
1.
The diversion of NRC Staff resources from normal review assignments on the Summer application, among others, to T.M.I.-related assignments and the associated reorganiza-tion of the NRC Staff, have resulted in an extended Staff safety review schedule for Summer.
In addition, Applicant did not receive certain questions which commonly lead to design changes during the operating license review process until much later in the process than is normal.
As an example, there was no reactor systems branch reviewer assigned to the Summer review for over 15 months during the aftermath of T.M.I.
8012010/07 g
Mr. H.
R.
Denton, Director Page 2 November 26, 1980 2.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected by approximately five months by the increased quality control activities, rework due to these inspections, and delays-in the installation of pipe hangers and supports.
Additional quality control inspections were a result of a self-imposed program to assure that these hangers and supports meet design requirements.
3.
A number of additions and modifications to design have been made late in the construction schedule to meet recent and changing NRC requirements in the aftermath of T.M.I.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected approximately 12 months by the additional work to implement plant modification required as a result of reassessments made following the T.M.I.
accident.
4.
The. construction schedule has been adversely affected approximately six months by delays in turnover of systems to plant start-up for preoperational testing, because of such pacing factors as hanger rework, noted in Item 2, and the hydrostatic tests, noted in Item 5.
5.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected approximately six months by such problems as hanger rework, noted in Item 2, related to readying systems for full hydrostatic tests as required to code stamp ASME code piping systems.
6.
The construction schedule has been a?cm.sely affected approximately six months by delays in completing stress analyses (which again involves hangers noted in Item 2) rcquired by the ASME code.
7.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected by six months by additional work to upgrade the plant-security system to meet URC requirements.
The attached Bar Graph Schedule (Figure 1) indicates the interrelation of the various schedule factors which have contributed to the schedule extension request.
It has been stated in the body of this request, and should again be emphasized that the requested extension does not involve a significant hazard consideration.
It is requested that the Commission so determine.
Attached is information to assist you with any necessary environmental review in the form of an environmental impact appraisal to support a " Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI).
South i
M r. II.
R.
Denton, Director Page 3 November 26, 1980 Carolina Electric & Gas Company has prepared this informa-tion to demonstrate the absence of adverse environmental impact of this construction permit extension request.
Three (3) signed originals and thirty-seven (37) copies of this letter transmitting the subject request are provided for your use.
Very truly yours, 7 f AMA T.
C.
Nichols, Jr.
Vice President & Group Executive, Nuclear Operations SWORN to before me this o74 day of November, 1980.
AN/A,b, /
Min (L.S.)
Notary Public for $6uth Carolina
~
My Commission Expires:
j f,[., /9, / 9 9g RRM/dg.5 Enclosures
._,..=
FIGURE 1 I
Txisting Permit Revised Permit Latest Completion Date Latest Completion Date December 31, 1980 June 30, 1982 1.
NRC' Reviews 15 months 2.
IIangers and Supports 5 months 3.
TMI 12 months 4.
Preoperational Testing 6 months 5.
ASME Piping 6 months 6.
Stress Analyses 6 months 7.
Security.
6 months 3
6 9
12 15 18 Schedule Delay (Months) f I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE DATES FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF V.
C.
SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1 (CPPR-94)
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY AND SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY DOCKET NO. 50-395 1.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The action requested is the issuance of an ORDER per-taining to the V.
C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The ORDER would extend for 18 months the latest date for comple-tion of Unit No.
1.
The construction permit for Unit 1 (CPPR-94) would be extended from a latest completion date of December 31, 1980 to June 30, 1982.
2.
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The environmental impacts associated with construction of the V.
C.
Summer Nuclear Station have been previously addrecscd in the NRC's cha f's Final En';ironmental Statement, Construction Permit Stage (FES-CP) published in January 1973 and the Draft Environmental Statement published in September 1972.
The Final Environmental Statement for the Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station issued in January 1973 includes an assessment of potential environmental, economic, and com-munity impacts due to site preparation and plant construc-tion.
The only environmental impacts possibly resulting from the requested extension would be those due to trans-posing the impact in time or extending the total time the regional community is subjected to temporary construction impacts.
The environmental impacts associated with construc-tion of the plant and described in the FES, i.e.,
- housing, school facilities, and transportation are not affected by the proposed extension.
The remote location of the construction site results in the commuting of essentially the entire work force from larger towns in the region, such as Columbia and Greenville.
This will have little or no economic impact on the local community or the larger nearby cities in terms of overall employment and aggregate tax revenues and expenses.
Minor and temporary effects due to direct construction ~ activities
will be extended over the delayed construction period on a diminishing basis as the plant approaches construction completion.
However, no ill effects would be expected of significance with the mandated control procedures set forth in the Final Environmental Statement for the construction stage.
No significant change in socio-economic impact is i
expected to result from the requested extension of the term of the construction permit.
3.
CONCLUSION AND BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT On the basis of the above, it is concluded that there will be no significant impacts attributable to the requested l
action other than those already predicted and described in the FES.
J 1
1 1
9..
. -.