ML20028D344
| ML20028D344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1982 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028D343 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301190006 | |
| Download: ML20028D344 (4) | |
Text
. _
4 g
\\
V 4
1 STAFF SAFETY EVALUATION FOR EXTENSIGH OF THE LATE $T C01STRUCTION COMPLETION DATES FOR THE PERRY HUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 INTRODUCTION Construction Permit Hos. CPPR-148 and C;?R-149 were issued to the Cleveland Electric Illuminatina Company (CEI) for Perry Units 1 and 2 on May 3,1977 In a letter dated July 21, 1982 (O. R. Davidson to H. Denton), CEI requested that the Construction Permits be chanced to extend the latest construction completion dates for Unit i from December 31, 1982 to Hovember 30, 1985; fron June 30,1984 to November 30, 1991 for Unit 2.
At the tine this request was received, Unit I was approximately 85% completed and Unit 2 was about 45%
completed. By letter dated December 1,1982 (M. R. Edelman to B. J. Youngblood),
CEI supplenented its July 21, 1982 letter further amplifyino the factors which necessitate extending the Perry plant construction completion dates.
DISCUS $10H The factors identified by CEI for extending Unit 1 and 2 construction completion dates are summarized as follows:
i 1.
Reduced Growth in Electricity Demand t
In January 1980, the Central Area Power Coordinatinn Group (CAPCO), a group i
comprised of CEI and other utilities which are financial partners with CEI in the Perry Project, completed a thorough analysis of the electrical power aeneration needs of the area they service. Based on the power demand esti-nates concluded at that time, the commercial operation of Perry Units 1 and 2 was projected to be May 1984 and May 1988, respectively. However, reduc-tion in power demand which occurred in the area serviced by CEI s1nce January 1980 has resulted in the cancellation and/or delay of several proposed power generating facilities, including a delay in the need for Perry. This factor is alleced to have delayed Unit 1 by one year and Unit 2 by four years.
2.
TMI-2 Accident and Resultina HRC Inposed Reouirements HRC renuirements ipnosed on Perry as the result of TMI-2 involved najor desion, construction and operation changes in the areas of emergency response, combustible gas control, human factors reviews, containment design, ATWS, control rod drive system design, and equipnent qualification. The need to implement the chances required has had a sionificant impact on Perry critical path construction activities, the cumulative affect of which has delayed Unit I construction by about one year, and Unit 2 by about four years.
i 8301190006 821229 PDR ADOCK 05000440 A
PDR OF FICE )
n.
a su m ue>
DATE )
...........+.......a..
.a...................
.......* a.
.a.a OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usa mi-m+o nac roau sis tio-soi s7u o
. BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS Difficulty has been experienced by CEI, and CAPC0 in general, in obtaining capital funds, primarily because of the high interest rate economic climate which has prevailed up until the last few months of 1982. This capital investraent scenario has necessitated CEI to choose a course of budgetary constraint which had a direct effect on construction schedule activities, This factor is alleged to have delayed Unit I work by about one year and Unit 2 activities by about 4 years.
In addition to these factors, certain contingencies have been considered by CEI in makina the requested CP schedule changes. Contingencies identified include the possibility of future new NRC requirements being inoosed, delays in completing the Board hearing process, future labor problems, the need to continue to maintain budgetary constraints, and the possibility of further 1
reduction in power demand. CEI estinates that these contingencies could further delay completion of Units 1 and 2 by one to two years.
Evaluation Findings The project manager has evaluated the factors identified by CEI in its letter of July 21, 1982, in light of the additional information provided in CEI's supplemental letter of December 1,1982, and has infornally consulted other NRC staff involved in the Perry OL-Proceeding. Based on this coordinated assess-ment, it has been determined that:
1.
The factors contributing to the extension request represent conditions heyond the control of CEl's ability to maintain initial schedule comple-tion dates for Units 1 and 2; and that CEI has therefore shown good cause for the delays and continoencies identtfied in their letters of July 21 and December 1, 1982.
2.
The CP change nertains solely to Unit 1 and 7. construction completion dates which will involve the presence of the work force for a longer period of time at the site. The presence of the construction work force at the site was considered by the staff to have nininal environnental impact during the CP-Licensing period review, which is documented in the CP-Final Environmental Statement.
As a result of this review, and consideri:tg the nature of the delays, the HRC staff has identified no area of significant safet_y considera-tion in connection with the extension of the CP completion dates for 'erry, Units 1 and 2.
To reiterate, the only change proposed by CEI for the existing CP's is an extension of the latest construction completion dates. This extension will not allow any work to be p?rformed involving new safety infor-mation of a type not considered by the previous Connission safety reviews of the facility; and that is not already allowed by the existing CP's.
1 orrica p suRmue)
DATE)
RRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFlCIAL RECORD COPY usam e-am
i J
In sumary, the staff therefore finds that (a) this action does not involve a significant hazards considerations, (b) prior public notice of this. action is not required, (3) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endannered by the requested extension of the construction con-pletion dates, and (d) good cause exists for issuance of an Order extending the latest construction completion dates.
CONCLUSION i
It is recomended that an Order be issued authorizing the chant:es requested in the Construction Permit (CPPR-148) to reflect a November 30, 1985 construction i
completion date for Unit 1, and the change requested in Construction Permit (CPPR-149) to reflect a November 30, 1991 construction completion date for Unit 2.
I$!
I i
g i
4 John J. Stefano, Project Manager B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Licensing Branch Ho.1 Division of Licensing Division of Licensinq Dated:
DEC 2 91982 l
l 1
l l
t l
l 1
l i
4 e
i
/
1 n
omchUP.ghs.,,,,,
,% ),1,,,,,,,
l suou = > J. te..J.ng :c,g., w. tun,,,gg,4,,
....././..G.../.8. 2....l..'.................
1 o4n >
' nnc ronu sia <io-so3 uncu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom mi-mm
O DEC 2 91982 DISTRIBUTION FOR ORDER EXTENDING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATES FOR PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DocumentfC6stS1/55244'0/50i4417 PRC PDR L PDR~
PRC System NSIC LB#1 Rdg JStefano MRushbrook Attorney, OELD DEisenhut/RPurple ELJordan, DEQA:IE JMTaylor, PRP:IE LJHarmon, IE File (2)
JSauder WMiller IDinitz WJones, 0A TBarnhart (4)
BPCotter, ASLBP ARosenthal, ASLAP ACRS (16)
FPagano, IE
.