ML20002B493
| ML20002B493 | |
| 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 |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002B483 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012110682 | |
| Download: ML20002B493 (4) | |
Text
_
y y-L.
/ a.
n..
i.-
a south CAROLINA Et.ECTRic & gas CoHPANY
- post orrecc e-a re.
CeLuns A, south C4dollNA 292t8 t'~
T. C. NICHOLs, Jn.
""~d"o DI" November 26, 1980 u..
Mr.
I', R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation-U.~S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 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, and 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 judgeme"t of the Applicant, involve a significant hazard consideration.
The revised completion dates reflect a conservative' construction schedule plus some margin for potential future delays suffi-cient to z. void the need for further requests.
The "causes" for the Jielays experienced are set forth below:
l.
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 Su=ner review for over 15 months during the aftermath of T.M.I.
i801-2110 RA
?
4 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 irecent and changing NRC requirements in the aftermath lof T.M.I.
The constructiod schedul. 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 adversely affected approximately six months by delays in completing stress analyses (which again involves hangers noted in Item 2) required by the ASME code.
7.
The construction schedule has F"en adversely affected.
by six months by additional work to upgrade the plant security system to meet URC requirements.
The attached Bar Grapi. 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
Mr.'H. R. Denton, Director Page 3 Novemb'er 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, f(
h T. C. Nichols, Jr.
Vice President & Group Executive, Nuclear Operations SWORN to before me this
_$6 day of-November, 1980.
-l.I g', M
. /77#41 (L.S.)
N
. l
?, Notary Public foFSouth Carolina l
t.
'.. 'My' Coinmission Expires:
8M. /9 /994
,)
3 -
)
g g ['\\
'4 RRM/dgs Enclosures 4
~
['IGUR2 1 y
t 4
Existing Permit Revised Permit Latest Completion Date Latest Completion Date December 31, 1980 June 30, 1982
~
i.
g.
1.
NRC Reviews 15 months 2.
Ilangers and Supports 5 months I
3.
TMI i
Contingency 4.
Prcoperational Testing 12 months 6 months 5.
ASNE Piping 6 m nths 6.
Stress Analyses 6 m nths 7.
Security 6 months' 3
6 9
12 15 16
- I Schedule Delay (Months) e I
~
.