ML20028B924

Amplifies Justifications Provided in 820721 Application for Amend of CPPR-148 & CPPR-149 to Extend Const Completion Dates.Reduced Demand,Increased Regulations & High Interest Rates Delayed Need for Capacity Supplied by Facilities

ML20028B924
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	12/01/1982
From:	Edelman M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
To:	Youngblood J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8212070237
Download: ML20028B924 (2)

Text

,

THEClEVELAND E L,E bT R I C I L L U M I N AT I N G C O M P A N Y P.O. BOX 97 s PERRY. OHIO 44001 5 TEL EPHoNE (216) 259 3737 s ADDRESS-10 CENTER ROAD Semng The Best Location in the Nation December 1,1982 Mr. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. I Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Perry Nuclear Power Tnt Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441 Extension of Construction Permit Numbers CPPR-148 and CPPR-149

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

In a letter dated July 21, 1982, to Mr. Harold Denton, an application for amendment of Construction Permits Nos. CPPR-148 and CPPR-149 to extend construction completion dates was submitted. Subsequent discussions with the Perry Project Manager, Mr. John Stefano, indicated that further clarification was needed to evaluate this application. The purpose of this letter is to amplify the justifications provided in the subject application.

The Construction Permits in question were issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on May 3,1977. The dates for construction completion were specified as:

Unit 1 Unit 2 Earliest Date for Completion April 1,1981 October 1,1982 Latest Date for Completion December 31, 1982 June 30,1984 These original dates will not be met for the reasons set forth in the application

! for extension, and are further amplified here:

1. Reduced growth rate in the demand for electricity has delayed the need for l the capacity to be supplied by the Perry units. In January 1980, CAPCO completed a thorough analysis of its generation needs. As a result of this analysis, several proposed generating units were cancelled and others delayed.

The Perry Units were considered to be required for commercial operation to serve the load and maintain our standard of reliability by May 1984 for Unit I and by May 1988 fer Unit 2. This was a delay of about 1 year for Q@f L.)

Ur.it I and about 4 years for Unit 2.

0212070237 821201 PDR ADOCK 05000440 A PDR

4 e' , hir. J. Youngblood, Chief

,, ' December 1,1982 Page 2

2. As a result of the TMI-2 accident the NRC has imposed a large number of requirements on the design, construction, and operation of nuclear power reactors. In the case of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant these requirements included major design and construction changes such as Emergency Response Facilities, Combustible Gas Control, and Human Factors Reviews. These changes along with other changes in the areas of Containment Design, Anticipated Transients Without Scram, Control Rod Drive System, and Equipment Qualifications have significantly impacted the critical path construction schedule. These changes have been incorporated into the design and construction schedules for the Perry units. Although it is difficult to assess their individual impact, we estimate that the cumulative effect of these changes resulted in more than a one year delay in completion of Unit I from our schedule at the time the Construction Permit was issued.

3. Construction schedules were controlled by budgetary restraints. These restraints were necessitated by the difficulties in obtaining capital funds due to the high interest rates prevailing until the last few months. The delay of 4 years in the Unit 2 schedule is heavily affected by this factor.

Therefore, the above factors in total have resulted in a delay in the commercial operation dates for the Perry Units to May,1934 for Unit I and May,1988 for Unit 2. This represents a total schedule slippage of approximately 1 year for Unit I and 4 years for Unit 2.

The request for extension allows for an additional contingency to the above scheduled dates. The extension application requests that the latest date for completion of construction for Unit I be November 30,1985 and for Unit 2 be November 30, 1991. This contingency is based on the possibility that currently unforeseen problems could cause a delay in completing one or both the Perry Units.

Many things could happen to delay completion of the units. These range from new NRC requirements, ASLB hearings, labor problems, continued financial constraints, and further reductions in demand. Since Unit 2 completion is farther in the future, more contingency was allotted to it. We feel that a contingency of 2 years for Unit I and 4 years for Unit 2 is reasonable and prudent.

It is hoped that the above information will aid your staff in review and approval of the subject request for extension.

Sincerely, l W Murray R. Edelman Vice President Nuclear Group MRE:kh cc: Jay Silberg, Esq.

John Stefano Max Gildner

. - . - - _ - . _- _