ML20004E721
| ML20004E721 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004E720 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106150108 | |
| Download: ML20004E721 (2) | |
Text
.
kB EfCg fo, UNITED STATES
') > g,q/ j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- . p 7 - gj[. g WASHINGTON, Q. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NOS. CPPR-97 AND CPPR-98 FOR THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-361 AND 50-362 INTRODUCTION Construction Permits CPPR-97 and CPPR-98 were issued on 0
- :tober 18,1973 to Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company authorizing construction of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3.
The latest dates for completion of the construction of these facili-ties, as stated in the permits, was January 1,1979 and January 1,1980, respectively. On March 31, 1978, Southern California Edison filed a request for extension of the construction completion dates to June 1,1980 and June 1, 1961, respectively. On December 28, 1978, the Comission issued an Order granting the requested extension. On April 23, 1980, Southern California Edison Company filed a second request for extension of the construction comple-tion dates to April 15, 1981 for Unit 2 and to June 15, 1982 for Unit 3.
On August 5,1980, the Commission issued an Order granting the requested extension. On March 16, 1981, Southern California Edison Company filed a third request for extension of the construction completion dates. This request is to extend the dates to October 15, 1981 for Unit 2 and to November 15, 1982 for Unit 3.
EVALUATION In its application for extension of construction completion dates, Southern California Edison Company indicated that three factors were responsible for the delay in completion of construction activities. These are:
A.
Regulatory and licensing delays following the TMI incident.
(Six month delay) l B.
Changes and/or additions to the facility design associated with TMI modifications necessary for an Operating License.
(Four month delay)
C.
Strike by the Boilermakers.
(Two month delay)
Southern California Edison Company states that the resultant total delay to the r
project based on the above three reasons was six months owing to the fact that Items B and C occurred in parallel with Item A.
Construction management actions such as use of extensive overtime, etc. were not utilized to overcome the construction delays associated with Items B and C in light of the permittees lack of control over Item A.
Accordingly, the Southern California Edison Company states that tne schedule for completion of Unit 2 has been changed to October 15, 1981.
In order to decrease the startup interval between the two units, the scheduled interval between the construction completion of Unit 819615e108
. 2 and of Unit 3 has been decreased from 14 months to 13 months. Therefore, the schedule for completion of Unit 3 has been changed to November 15, 1982.
CONCLUSION We have reviewed the infonnation provided in Southern California Edison Company's submittal and we conclude that the factors discussed above are rea-sonable and constitute good cause for delay. Further, the staff has evaluated each factor contributing to the conctruction delay and concurs with the per-mittees as to the reasonableness of time of each delay. Thus, the requested extension of Construction Permits CPPR-97 and CPPR-98 to October 15,1981 and November 15, 1982, respectively is justified. As a result of our review of the Final Safety Analysis Report to date, and considering the nature of the delays, we have identified no areas of significant safety consideration in connection with the extension of the construction completion dates for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3.
The staff finds that because the request is solely for more time to complete work already reviewed and approved, no significant hazards consideration is involved in granting the request and thus prior public notice of this action is'not required. We also find that good cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending the construction completion dates. Accordingly, issuance of an Order extending the latest construction completion dates for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station as set forth in CPPR-97 to October 15,1981 for Unit 2 snd November 15, 1982 for Unit 3 is reasonable and should be authorized.
Dated: MAY 1313g; i
I i
, _ ~., - + -,
.-~
--,- -, --,