ML20041C397

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests That Expiration Dates of CPPR-148 & CPPR-149 Be Extended from 821231 & 840630 to 880101 & 890630, Respectively.Supportive Info Encl
ML20041C397
Person / Time
Site: Perry  FirstEnergy icon.png
Issue date: 02/18/1982
From: Davidson D
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
To: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8203010278
Download: ML20041C397 (3)


Text

.,

y ', j

[ c" I.k-*' -l g{

\ 'I ,5 *

! $) Ih #, I '

(

{ l l ff ,k .~. '[

{

} >iC '

![ Nf "* .b} i i k"l [. L f.'. - } !5 / iI L'k Uit i ! l 2~.  ! 4 I' lJ s 1: #

i 's I P O BOX 5000 e CLEVELAND, OHIO 44101 e TELEPHONE (216) 622-9800 e ILLUMINATING BLDG e 55 PUBLICSOUARE Dalwyn R. Davidson ng m t ca e nintm i ar/on viCE PHE SIDENT SYSTE M ENGINE E HlNG AND CONSTRUCTION February 18, 1982

. :; <; o ca -( 4 {

o) %i Mr. Ilarold R. Denton, Director F,g ;g'. ,,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation g, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington, D. C. 20555 EfB 9,,' .N2 - f5' U ng .

gj % -

Dear Mr. Denton:

4 \

us\\0 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Construction Permit Numbers CPPR-148 and CPPR-149 We have attached a request for an extension of the expiration date of the construction perinits for Perry Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 from Det m-ber 31, 1982 and June 30, 1984 to January 1, 1988 and June 30, 1989. Detailed information to support this request is also provided.

Very truly yours, n i Ad/

Dalwyn Davidson Vice-President System Engineering and Construction DRD: bas cc: Mr. Jay Silbert, Esq.

Mr. John Stefano b

9' 8203010278 820218 O(

PDR ADOCK 05000440 A PDR

4 k

l r

Dalwyn R. D$vidson who, being duly sworn, deposed and said that (1) he is Vice President, System Engineering and Construction of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Comyany, (2) he is duly authorized to execute and file this report on behalf of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and as duly aut.horized agent forF Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Powe,r ' Company and the. Toledo Edison Company,' and (3) the statements set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

[1wynR.Davidson f

J Sworn to and subscribed before me, this /Y day of 7_c/kicW ,/ffl a d % WL/ '

CAROUNE M. WILDE Notary Public Stat of Ohio My Commission Dpires Aprij 17, Jggj (Recorded in tale Coun;y) s-s F

i f

,4 s

~

ATTACllMENT TO REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION FOR PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 The application for a construction permit for Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, was filed in March,1973; indicating an initial fuel load dete in A'ril, p 1979.

Construction a,ctually began on October 21, 1974, when the NRC issued the first Limited Work Authorization allowing preliminary site prepara-tion, construction of temporary facilities, and excavation for plant facilities. Additional work authorizations were received December 31, 1975; May 12, 1976; and September 17, 1976, with the full Construction Pe rmit issued by the NRC on May 3, 1977.

In August, 1976, the Perry Plant construction schedule and cost estimate was updated. Unit I was scheduled to be in service in December, 1981; and Unit 2 in June, 1983. At this time, the plant's total estimated cost was increased s to over $2 billion dollars. Among the reasons cited for the revised schedule and cost were delays and additional time required for licensing approvals, higher cost of labor, materials and equipment due to these delays, increased interest charges for capital funds during construction and additional facilities necessary to meet NRC safety requirements.

The effect of regulatory review and the modifications resulting from lessons learned at TMI-2 continue to be identified. These considerations included more det niled seismic design considerations for safety-related plant components and piping, expanded environmental qualification requirements; additional electrical cable separation, greatly expanded fire protection and plant security equipment design and installation, shielding and access design for as low as reasonably achievable plant persongel radiation exposure, design provisions for plant automatic protection features for delaying required operator action, additional safety related instrumentation, and expanded FSAR and ER information requirements.

Additional design requirements have caused substantial increases in construe' tion time and costs. As the interest in capital investment has increased, so too has construction labor rates and material costs. Th e present estimate of total plant costs based on commercial operation in May,1984 is approximately $4 billion dollars, alnost four times the original estimate. i' Further, recent studies of electric service requirements have resulted in the CAPCO annual peak, demand forecast being revised downward. A comparison of the original (1973) projected CAPCO summer peak load for 1980 to 1983 with the current forecast shows,an appreciable reduction in load growth. For'1983, the earlier forecast shows a demand of 18,259 MWe versus the current forecast of 12,768 MWe, Th ere f ore , based on'the added complexity of plant design and construc tion, increasing financing requirements, and slower then anticipated load growth, the Construction Permit' extension for Perry Nuclear Power Plant ,

Units 1 and 2, is justified. -

.