ML20037A622
| ML20037A622 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River, 05000303  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1972 |
| From: | Anthony Giambusso US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Muntzing L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003250629 | |
| Download: ML20037A622 (5) | |
Text
.
.v t
I %.
,~
a-a.
Dochet No. 50-302 L. Manning Ifuntaing Director of Regulation THRUt J. F. O' Leary, Director of Licensing BACKGROUND PAPZ1 ON CRYSTAL RIVER PLAKE Enclosed is a background paper on the Crystal River plants which addrecees the causes of delay of Unit 3 and t.he effect of such on the cancellation of Unit 4.
Orgcus Q:M ef A. Sir.Pc4 A. Giaabusso, Deputy Director for Reactor Projects Directorate of Licensiag Inclosure Eackgreutd ?qer on Crystal River cc v/enel:
J. 7. O' Leary E. G. Case R. C. Dafoung A. Schwancer
]O
!!. Faulkner
?T D
DISTRIBUTION
$U v
v Ju Docket a.
r L Reading W
Rp Reading PWR-4 Reading i,Q u.rcau.
8008250[27 g
cmcz >
- . fir-C.....f..h,.r.4_..
,,,,,,,L,,;[Dgjf L*Ms L:DIR/L
'k l
/
o suwAuc >
...Er
.f.k. ne,g, emit,,,N,,,,hwenc e r RC
,,,y3 AGiambusso JF,,,25mre,
om > h 8 i lIA
.( 8.l.
l72
-- !.I2....
8l
.ll2LL.s?
.-.113 8l ror Atc-nsinev.s.s1) AzCM 0240 Coomum nmac cmz om o[ees.m
/
BACKGROUND PAPER ON CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 - FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION 1.
LICENSING SCHEDULE HIGHLIGHTS Submission of application for licenses
-August 10, 1967 Issuance of construction permit September 25, 1968 Submission 'of FSAR January 25, 1971 Prospective operating license issue date May 15, 1974 Best estimate fuel loading September 15, 1974 2.
LENGTH OF DELAY (" ROM 12/71)
To earliest fuel loading date'(5/74) 29 months To best estimate fuel loading dated (9/74) 33 months To latest fuel loading date (12/74) 36 months
)
3.
REASOMS FOR DELAY OF CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 On May 30, 1972, in applying for an extension of completion date for the construction permit of Crystal River Unit 3, Florida Power Corporation included the following sunnary as the major reasons for a 28 month delay:
Subsurface foundation work 15.5 months Material shortages and equipment breakdowns 1.6 months
~
Incomplete design information 4.6 months Labor stoppage 3.9 months Other factors (including licensing activities) 2.4 conths j
Total 28.0 months I
r.
2-A copy of the applicant's letter is provided as Attachment'1.
To the best of our knowledge there have been no pacing delays due to the formal pyocedures of licensing.
4.
LICENSING ACTIVITY The FSAR was submitted very early with respect to the applicant's i
anticipated fuel loading date. The FSAR is deficient in the extent of its coverage of many topics and would have been found unacceptabis if a preapplication review had been conducted.
Because of these reasons, a substantial nunber of additional information 4
requests were forwarded to the applicant.
Florida Power Corporation complained about the nunber and extent of coverage of these requests in-4 February 1972. As a result a meeting between AEC and the applicant was held at which we explained the bases for car requests.
Florida Power Corporation agreed te answer all of the requests.
A summary paper by Mr. Bloch and a review highlights paper describing this situation are provided as Attachment 2.
~
In requesting an extension of completion date for their construction permit in May,, Florida Power Corporation identified an additional ten-month delay in fuel loading beyond our benchmark estimate. This delay was not attributed to any specific cause, but it was the result of a reassessment of construction status and the projection of scheduling to complete the project. Because of the press of other licensing business, we postponed our review for a corresponding period'of_ time.
In informingL the applicant of our intention, we specifically stated that w
- M'a gy *g 9
y-ge D
't 7T r-w'*
M 9
e y
f
-8+M+*
'dS'PFTF F ^
'7 W
~
'N**
M*
97
'Y-
n __.. ---
'l
- ~.
- _3_
such postponement is not to interfere witn plans for plant startup.
and-cperation.- A copy of that letter is included as Attachment 3.
In reviewingathe history of the Crystal River Unit 3 application, it is our judgment that the safety review and licensing process has been handled in a responsible and timely manner by the AEC.
5.
REASONS FOR POSTPONE:fENT OF CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 4 The Crystal River Unit 3 Project Manager has published a memorandun identifying the reasons for cancellation cf Crystal River 4 as obtained from Florida ' Power Corporation personnel. A copy of this memorandum has been forwarded separately. Apparently this unit was cancelled because of the combitation of interrelated reasons. Primarily, these reasons are:
(1) the uncertainty of predicting operational availability of a nuclear plant, (2) the large capital costs associated with the construction of a nuclear plant and (3) environmentnl concerns of operating a fourth generating unit at the Crystal River site.
The recent reassessnent of the construction status and the significant delay in projected completion date of Unit 3 was a definite factor in-the decision'to cancel Crystal River Unit 4.
5 DISCUSSION WITH REACTOR OPERATIONS Discussions with Crystal River inspectors from the Region II Reactor Operations Office confirmed that the most recent delay with Unit 3 is not associated with any specific cause, but rather it is the result of
~
a reassessment of coastruction status. They had no further insights into the reascus for cancellation of Unit 4.
--___m___
~ _.
Z T_T.
T
~.
~)
~
i
-4_
7.
PERSONAL OBSERVATION OF THE PROJECT MANAGER Florida Power Corporation is a small utility in a geographic area where electrical demand is growing more rapidly than the national hheapplicanthasstatedthatthedemandisgrowingeven average.
more rapidly than predicted by projections of only a few years ago.
Also, this utility is in the process of embarking upon the construction and operation of their first nuclear plant. Most of the reasons for delay of Unit 3 are similar to those which have caused delays to other utilities in a similar situation with respect to nuclear units.
The long delay associated with the subsurface grouting was a specific problem to the marshy, swampy Crystal River sit?. Additionally, extensive demands were =ade upon the company to co= ply with recently enacted NEPA legislation, with the accompanying discovery that the
~
Crystal River site gave rise to an environ = ental concern of heated water discharge.
The impact of this concern may have been magnified by the prolonged litigation occurring over the Florida based Turkey Point site.
At the risk of oversimplifying, it is the Project Manager's opinion that this small utility is learning the sometimes painful lesson that today's nuclear and environmental power plant requirements are much more complex than those previously encountered with fossil plants, and that the company had been slow in responding to meet the demands arising from the complexity of this new technology and its associated regulatory processes.
_ _ - _ _. _ - _ _ - - _. -