ML20038A793
| ML20038A793 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1981 |
| From: | Kane W, Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A784 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111160453 | |
| Download: ML20038A793 (3) | |
Text
g,
's W
.W
.3 p?
if s
-y_
EVALUATIO.4 0F REQUEST FOR EXTEMSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERflIT 110. CPPR-94 FOR THE VIRGIL C. SUf BER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKE.T NO. 50-395 A.
INTR 000CTI0ll South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority (the permittees) are the holders of Construction Pemit No.
CPPR-94 issued by the Atanic Energy Conrnission on flarch 21, 1973 for con-struction of the Virgil C. Sumter f.uclear Station. The plant is presently under construction at a site located in Fairfield County, Scuth Carolina approxicately 26 niles north of Columbia, South Carolina.
In accordance with Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U. S. C.
Section 2235, and in accordance with the Commission's regulations,10 CFR
-Section 50.55, the Construction ~ Pemit states the earliest and latest dates for the completion of construction. By 1etter dated ibvember 26, 1930, the pemittees advised the NRC ' staff that construction could not be complete by the latest date presently specified, namely December 31, 1980.
The pemittees have therefore requested in the November 26,19ED letter that the Construction Permit be extended to Decenber 31, 1980.
In accordance with 10 CFR Section 50.55 (b), the staff, having found good cause shown, and for the reasor.s stated below, is extending the latest cotpletion date to June 30, 1982.
This evaluation contains the following Sections: Section D, the specifi-cation of " good cause" shown by the pemittees for an extension, i.e.,
the specific delays which the pemittees have cited in support of their request for an extension; Section C, the staff's independent judgaent-as to the " reasonable time" necessary from the-present forward to compen-sate for each factor of delay; Section D, a finding as to significant hazards consideration, and Section-E, a conclusion and recommendation for an Order.
s m
pgq g u g" DATEk
........... 8.....,..................... e........................................
NRC FOR3 318 810<80) NRCM O240 OFFICIAL-RECORD COPY "e - 2*e2.
L
e*
,3' 7 Q
,1 3
V W
J g
ap>Q.
. B.
Specified Delays The permittees stated in the November 26, 1980 letter that the fnllowing factors led to the overall delay in the coupletion of construction of the facility.
1.
The diversion of HRC Staff resources from normal review assignments on the Suaner application, among others, to 1111-related assignments and the associated reorganization of the NRC Staff, have resulted in an extended Staff safety review schedule for Sumer.
In addition, the permittees did not receive certain questions which cennonly lead to design changes during the operating license review process until much later in the process than is normal. As an example, there das no reactor systens branch reviewer assigned to the Su ner review for over 15 months during the aftermath of THI.
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-1:aposed program to assure that these hangers and supports meet design requireacnts.
3.
A number of additions and modifications to design have been nade late in the construction schedule to meet recent and changing NRC requireraents in the aftermath of TMI.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected approximately 12 months by the additional work to implement plant nodifications required as a result of reassessments made following the Titi accident.
4.
The construction schedule has been adversely 1ffected =pproximately six months by delays in turnover of systens 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 Iten 5.
5.
The co struction schedule has been adversely affected approximately six months by such probleus as hanger rework, noted in Item 2, related to readying systems for full hydrostatic tests as required to code stamp A5fiE code piping systc7s.
6.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected approximately six months by delays in coupleting stress analyses (which again involves hangers noted in Item 2) required by tt's ASME code.
7.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected by six months by additional work to upgrade the plant security systen to meet HRC requirenents.
'"c'>
"^"'>
NRC FOiM 318 10/ 80) NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECOFiD COPY e - imm2.
n n
)
yn
&y
~
9 a
a
{f
\\
fe f-
-e
- w-
- C.
REASONABLE C0!PENSATIO!1 TIE We concur with the applicant that the construction permit should be extended an additional 18 months to account for schedule delays and contingencies.
Uc find that the overriding justification for this extension is the effect of the accident at l'11-2.
We agree with the reasons given by the applicant for the impact of the accident on the schedule, i.e. Iack of staff manpover in certain review areas and audificaticas due to the new requirements resulting from the accident. We acknowledge that schedule delays of at least six months would have occurred due to the other reasons cited by the applicant which are unrelated to the accident at Dil-2.
We have also examined the construction times for comparable comercial pressurized water reactors constructed during the sa1e period. We find that the construction time for this facility is slighty above average but, nevertheless reasonable. Because of this and the above reasons, we find June 30, 1982 acceptable as the latest date for conpletion of construction for this -facility.
D.
SIGNIFICANT HAZA'tDS CONSIDERATION We find that because the request is merely for an extension of time to con-plete work already reviewed and approved, no significent hazard considera-tion is involved in granting the request, thus prior notice of this action is not required.
G L.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS For the reasons stated herein, the staff concludes that issuance of an Order extending the latest construction completion date for construction i
of the Virgil C. Sumer Nuclear Station, Construction Permit No. CPPR-94, to June 30, 1982 is reasonable ed so ordered.
/
/
William F. Kane, Project flanager Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing c/
/
- 8. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing 1981 SEP?['1)
Dated:
n
\\
.W>.0Lh#1 DL
$b
.pnw - um i w g
..g g1......
EATEk.. g. g.....
NRC FORM 318 (10/80l N RCM O24 0 OFFICIAL RECOFiD COPY
" " 'Sa
- 32582*
,