ML20052F423
| ML20052F423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1982 |
| From: | Burwell S, Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052F420 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205120448 | |
| Download: ML20052F423 (3) | |
Text
SAFETY EVALUATICH OF RE00EST FOR EXTENSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT COMPLETION DATES FOR THE COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UHITS 1 AND 2 Introduction The Atonic Energy Commission
- authorized the construction of the Comanche Peak Stean Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, by issuing Construction Pemit Hos.
CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 to the Texas Utilities Generating Conpany, et al, on Decenber 19, 1974. The latest date for completion of Unit I was given as August 1,1981 in CPPR-126, and the latest date for completion of Unit 2 was given as August 1,1983 in CPPR-127.
By a letter dated June 19, 1981 the Texas Utilit:es Generating Conpany submitted an application for amendment of the construction permits to reflect new " latest conpletion dates" for each of the two units. The application requested an additional time of 48 nonths to complete Comanche Peak Stean Electric Station, Units 1 and 2; i.e., CPPR-126 should be extended to August 1,1985 and CPPR-127 should be extended to August 1,1987.
In accordance with 10 CFR Section 50.55(b), the URC staff, having found good cause shown, reconnends that the latest completion dates of August 1,1985 for Unit 1 and August 1.1987 for Unit 2 be granted for the reasons stated below.
Analysis The Texas Utilities Generating Compnny stated in the June 19, 1981 letter that the following factors led to the overall delay in the completion of construction of the facility.
1.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected by approxinately 24 conths due to extended delivery of naterials and components. Delays have ranged from three to 50 nonths beyond originally scheduled delivery dates.
2.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected by approximately 18 nonths due to design rodifications resulting from revised or addi-tional regulatory requirements. Significant design codifications include new requirements for an alternative shutdown systen capable of naintaining Mt shutdown or standby in the event of a major control j
room or cable spreading room incident. TMI related issues have also I
imposed extensive nodifications to najor (installed) equipment in conjunction with additional systems.
- Ef fective January 20, 1975, the Atonic Energy Connission becane the Huclear Requlatory Connission and Permits in effect on that day were continued under the authority of the Huclear Regulatory Connission.
8205120448 820430 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A
PDR cmce >
sunuwe>
om)
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM ONo OFF1C1AL RECORD COPY usamen-m.oso
l 4
' 3.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected by approximately 30 nonths due to difficulties encountered in the installation of various components, primarily pipe hangers and restraints.
Imposition of new requirements based on IEEE-323-1974 and associated standards have resulted in the late subnittal of acceptable plans, reports, and certification packages. Code certification of the conponent support system and the cultiplicity of criteria inposed on associated support systems, have expended massive engineering efforts. This has also inpacted the procurement of code fabricated pipe.
The Texas Utilities Generating Conpany also states that the requested 48 months extension " included considerable margin for unforeseen contingencies."
The NRC staff has-reviewed the causes for the delay stated in the letter of June 19,1981 and conciudes that the applicant has shown good cause for the delay in accordance with the requirenents of 10 CFR Section 50.55(b). The HRC staff further concludes that the provision of a substantial margin for unforeseen contingencies is appropriate in view of the status of construction and the inconplete deliveries of equipnent. The HRC staff recommends that the construction pernits for Units 1 and 2 be extended an additional 48 months to provide for schedule delays and contingencies as requested by the applicant.
As a result of its review of the Final' Safety Analysis Report, and considering the nature of the delays, the HRC staff has identified no area of significant safety consideration in connection with the extension of the construction permit completion dates for the Comanche Peak Stean Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.
The HRC staff finds that because the request is nerely for core time to complete work already reviewed and approved for Construction Permits CPPR-126 l
and CPPR-127,'no significant hazards consideration is involved in granting the request and thus prior notice of this action is not required.
Conclusion 1
j The Ccemission's staff has reviewed the infornation provided in the applicant's subnittal and concludes that the factors discussed above are reasonable and con-stitute. good cause for delay; and that extension of the latest construction conpletion dates for Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, is justifiable.
i emerp sunName >
enep NRC FORM 318 (10-80) edRCM 0240 OFFlCIAL RECORD COPY usos mi_m.m t
The HRC staff finds that this action does not involve a significant hazards consideration, and that good cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending the latest completion dates in the Construction Permit Nos.
CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 to August 1,1985 and Auc;ust 1,1987, respectively.
/
2 1Spottswood D. Burwell, Project Manaqer Licensing Branch flo.1 Division of Licensing
}
B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch tio. 1 Division of Licensing Da ted:
APR 3 01982 jf
/JOjqhb')
1h11 I
DL:LB#1 Dij 'Lil#1_
OELD'..
O,nC.,
.S..B. u. r.w/. e..l..l./..l.9.
.u..n. 9.b..l..o..o..c MR..o..h..s....H..i..l..d...
n tuRuaue >
3/29 82.
/82
/ /82 cney OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi-me r NRC FORM M OO-80) NRCM 024o
SAFETY EVALUATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT COMPLETION DATES FOR THE COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 f.ND 2 ptroduction The Atomic Energy Commission
- authorized the construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, by issuing Construction Pennit Nos.
CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 to the Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al, on December 19, 1974. The latest date for completion of Unit I was given as August 1,1981 in CPPR-126, and the latest date for completion of Unit 2 was given as August 1,1983 in CPPR-127.
By a letter dated June 19, 1981 the Texas Utilities Generating Company submitted an application for amendment of the construction permits to reflect new " latest completion dates" for each of the two units. The application requested an additional time of 48 months to complete Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2; i.e., CPPR-126 should be extended to August 1,1985 and CPPR-127 should be extended to August 1,1987.
In accordance with 10 CFR Section 50.55(b), the NRC staff, having found good cause shown, recommends that i.he latest completion dates of August 1,1985 for Unit 1 and August 1,1987 for Unit 2 be granted for the reasons stated below.
Analysis The Texas Utilities Generating Company stated in the June 19, 1981 letter that the following factors led to the overall delay in the completion of construction of the facility.
1.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected by approximately 24 months due to extended delivery of materials and components. Delays have ranged from three to 50 months beyond originally scheduled delivery dates.
2.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected by approximately 18 months due to design modifications resulting from revised or addi-tional regulatory requirements. Significant design modifications include new requirements for an alternative shutdown system capable of maintaining hot shutdown or standby in the event of a major control room or cable spreading room incident. TMI related issues have also imposed extensive modifications to major (installed) equipment in conjunction with additional systems.
- Effective January 20, 1975, the Atomic Energy Commission became the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Permits in effect on that day were continued under the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
' ~
. 3.
The construction schedule has been adversely affected by approximately 30 months due to difficulties encountered in the installation of various components, primarily pipe hangers and restraints.
Imposition of new requirements based on IEEE-323-1974 and associated standards have resulted in the late submittal of acceptable plans, reports, and certification packages. Code certification of the component support system and the multiplicity of criteria imposed on associated support systems, have expended massive engineering efforts. This has also impacted the procurement of code fabricated pipe.
The Texas Utilities Generating Company also states that the requested 48 months extension " included considerable margin for unforeseen contingencies."
The NRC staff has reviewed the causes for the delay stated in the letter of June 19,1981 and concludes that the applicant has shown good cause for the delay in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Section 50.55(b). The NRC staff further concludes that the provision of a substantial margin for unforeseen contingencies is appropriate in view of the status of construction l
and the incomplete deliveries of equipment. The NRC staf f recommends that the construction permits for Units 1 and 2 be extended an additional 48 months to provide for schedule delays and contingencies as requested by the applicant.
As a result of its review of the Final Safety Analysis Report, and considering the nature of the delays, the NRC staff has identified no area of significant safety consideration in connection with the extension of the construction permit completion dates for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.
l The NRC staff finds that because the request is merely for more time to complete work already reviewed and approved for Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127, no significant hazards consideration is involved in granting the rrygest and thus prior notice of this action is not required.
Conclusion The Commission's staff has reviewed the information provided in the applicant's submittal and concludes that the factors discussed above are reasonable and con-stitute good cause for delay; and that extension of the latest construction completion dates for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, is justifiable.
l l
l
, The NRC staff finds that this action does not involve a significant hazards cor. sideration, and that good cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending the latest completion dates in the Construction Permit Nos.
CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 to August 1,1985 and August 1,1987, respectively.
. Ic$
kb pottswood B. Burwell, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing Y'
B.
. Y ungblood, Chief Licens ng Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing Dated:
April 30, 1982 i
i s
I