ML20040A727
| ML20040A727 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040A725 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201220012 | |
| Download: ML20040A727 (2) | |
Text
.-
S G
J SAFETY EVALUATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF 4
i CONSTRUCTION PERT 11T NOS. CPPR-81 AllD CPPR-82 FOR THE ilIDLAllD PLAliT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET HOS. 50-329 AllD 50-330 l
INTRODUCTIO!!
~
Construction Permits CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 were issued on December 15, 1972, to Consumers Power Company authorizing construction of the Hidland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The original dates for completion of the construction of these facilities, as stated in the permits, were December 1,1978 and December 1,1979, respectively.
An flRC order dated November 17, 1978 extended the dates to October 1,1982 (CPPR-
- 81) and October 1,1981 (CPPR-82). On July 22, 1981, Consumers Power Company filed a request for extension of the latest construction completion dates to l
December 1,1984 for Unit 1 (26 months) and to July 1,1984 for Unit 2 (33 months).
EVALUATION In its application for extension of construction completion dates, Consumers Power Company indicated that two factors were responsible for the additional delay in con-pletion of construction activities. The following is a discussion of the cause for delay:
1.
A significant increase in the quantities of projected bulk commodities (i.e. pipe, cable tray, conduit, cable) has occurred since the previous construction permit extension request. Factors responsible for this increase include:
a) Additional or revised licensing requirements b) Design evolution c) Refinerents in projections d) Operational efficiency improvements As a result, the projected quantities of large pipe increased by (%,
small pipe by 36%, cable tray by 32%, exposed conduit by 827, and wire / cable by 110%. Installation of the additional quantities is expected to cause delays of up to 22 months in the completion of Unit 1 and up to 33 months in the completion of Unit 2.
In the t
justification for this delay provided by Consumers Power Company (Amendment 93 to the Midland operating license application), the delays caused by each type of bulk com.odity ranged from 2.5 nonths for large pipe to 22 months for exposed conduit. However, due to the interfacing of these delays with each other and with the overall schedule, the composite delay is longer.
I I
"' I 8201220012 811228 suRucue)
PDR ADOCK 05000329 G
PDR om>
..............[.............
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM Cao OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usa m m 3 uo
f
~
3 7
p.
, C i
I e
i 2.
A laborer strike which occurred in May 1978 lasted for 44 days and required layoff of certain trades. Pre-strike manpower levels were i
not re-established until 3 months after the strike began.
[
Although the :auses of delay discussed above result in a schedule. extension of 33
[
nonths, an earlier study evaluated the potential impact of continued Unit 1 con-struction during the late phase of Unit 2 testing. Because of the interferences j
identified in this study, the security requirements, and the potential for major j
inefficiencies in both the Unit I construction completion effort and the Unit 2 startup test program, the Consumers Power Company has elected to merge the Unit
[
1 and 2 pre-operational test programs. As a result, specialized test equipment and trained personnel will be *etained on site to perform the various tests in a l
tandem fashion. This integrated test schedule results in a five-nonth span between i
Unit 2 and Unit 1 fuel load dates rather than 12 months as previcusly planned.
i The seven month improvement in the Unit 1 fuel load date causes Unit 1 systens to i
be constructed in parallel with Unit 2 systems. This seven month shif t in the
[
Unit 1 fuel load date provides a schedule improvement and increased confidence
[
that the pre-operational test program will proceed with minimum interferences between the two units.
CONCLUSION f
l We have reviewed the information provided in Consumers Power Company's submittal l
j and we conclude that the factors discussed above are reasonable and constitute good l
l cause for delay. Further, the staff has evaluated each factor contributing to the l
construction delay and concurs with Consumers Power Company as to the reasonable-ness of time of each delay. Thus, the requested extension of Construction Permits CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 to December 1,1984 and July 1,1984, respectively is justified.
As a result of our review of the Final Safety Analysis Report to date, and con-sidering the nature of the delays, we have identified no areas of significant safety consideration in connection with the extension of the construction completion dates r
for the Hidland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The staff finds that because the request is solely for more time to complete work i
alreacty reviewed and approved, no significant hazards consideration is involved in i
i granting the request and thus prior public notice of this action is not required.
j We also find that good cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending the i,
construction completion dates. Accordingly, issuance of an Order extending the latest construction conpletion dates for the Midland Plant as set forth in CPPR-81 i
to Deccaber 1,1984 for Unit 1 and as set forth in CPPR-82 to July 1,1984 for i
j Unit 2 is reasonable and should be authorized.
l Dated:
DEC 2 81981 l
I UL/ Lia4 ul/LLues omce >
?.Q.;:.21.-...
........t suame > EEM1.i.a: EADE.U.SBl......
12/g5/81 12/29/81-i. anc ronu ais cio.ao3 nneu o24o.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom msm*2
..