ML20058E185
| ML20058E185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058E167 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207280087 | |
| Download: ML20058E185 (3) | |
Text
_-
?
V.!
EVALUATION OF A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROVISIONAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-95
- SHOREHAM NUCLEAR PDWER STATION - D0'CKET NO. 50-322' l
Introduction A provisional construction pennit was issued to Long Island Lighting Company (applicant) on April 14, 1973, authorizing construction of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (facility) on the north shore of Long Island in the town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York. The construction permit specified May 1,1979 as the latest,date for cmpletion of construction of the facility.
In an Order, dated May 14, 1979, the lastest completion date for Construction Pennit No. CPPR-95 was extended from May 1,1979 to Deceber 31,1980. The applicant requested that this date be extended to March 31, 1983, i.n their letter of NQvember 26,1980 (SNRC-517).
Discus'sion I
The applicant's letter (SNRC-517) stated that the. delay in completion of l
l construction of the Shoreham Station was due to the following factors which were beyond the control of Long Island Lighting Company:
" 1.
New Regulatory Requirements As a result of the accident at Three Mile Island and the subsequent investi-gation of that accident, a significant nunber of new regulatory requirements have been adopted or are in the process of being adopted. According19, LILCO has had to factor additional time into the construction schedule to accommodate:
A.
The time required for the promulgation of final regulatory requirenents; f
B.
The reworking of systems where existing equipment must be modified and/or replaced; and C.
The design, procurenent and installation of new systems and equipment.
Significant new requirements include the Technical Support Center (TSC), Post-Accident Sampling Facility, and the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF). Each of these necessitates the modification of existing buildings or the construction of new buildings. Additional sampling capability and instrumentation are also being developed to meet the functional reqLirements of these facilities.
Moreover, these regulatory requirenents are still in various stages of devel opment.
82072800e7 820723 PDR ADOCK 05000 G
i i.
2.
Evolving ~-Interpretation of Existing Regulatory Requiremen.ts
- NRC regulations are primarily stated in general tenns. -Using all available guidance, LILCO and its contractors designed Shoreham such that, in their judgment, compl.iance with these general requirements was achieved.
In exercising its review responsibilities, the NRC staff, on occasion, has questioned compliance with the general Commission regulations.
In most ihstances, LILCO has been able to present sufficient information to resolve these NRC staff concerns.
In a number of cases, however, LILCO has elected to ir. corporate modifications requested by the NRC staff. An example of such modifications is the,eddition of a new systen for loose parts monitoring.
- 3.
Late Delivery of Equipment late delivery of components has contir.ued to cause delays in the completion of.$horeham. A significant example is the delivery date for the 480 volt LPCI motor generator (MG) sets.
To addr'ess the NRC staff's concerns raised during preparation of the Shoreham SER, MG sets were incorporated in the design of the LPCI system power supplies. Difficulties in meeting the specifications have caused the vendor's expected delivery date to be delayed from December 1979 until March 1981.
The unavailability of small bore piping valves, orifices, and hanger materials has slowed the completion of piping work in the Main Steam Tunnel. The absence of this equipment not only delayed completion of the systems for which it is needed, but it also had an adverse impact on the completion of other efforts in the area.
4.
Unexpected Difficulties in Completing Plant Modifications There have been unexpected difficulties in modifying systems to meet regulatory requirements.
For example, system designs within the Main Steam Tunnel were modified to meet NRC pipe whip, jet impingement, and separation criteria which evolved subsequent to the original design effort. This work has proceeded more slowly than anticipated because of space constraints in the tunnel.
Additionally, the delays in completing the piping systems have resulted in secondary delays in electrical conduit and instrumentation installation as noted above.
Another example of the unexpected difficulties in completing the construction ef fort is reflected in the motor control centers / cable / conduit design and installation difficulties resulting from the imposition of final pipe break analysis criteria. "
- This system is the subject matter of Suffolk County Contention 5, still under NRC staff review, and subject to further litigation.
9
E t,l Based on our' review of the applicant's request, we find that the' above factors were beyond the applicant's control and constitute good cause for the delay in
.- l completion of construction.
Since the issuance of the Order extending the latest date for completion of construction to December 31, 1980, the applicant has maintained a construction effort at the Shoreham site and has revised the design of the facility to meet changing regulatory requiremer.ts. Based on our evaluation of the causes for the delay, we have determined that the requested extehsion is for a reasonable period of time.
As a result of our review of the Shoreham Final Safety Analysis Report to date and considering the natur,e of the delays, we have identified no significant hazards considerations in connection with the extension of the construction completion date.
In addition, we find that the only change proposed by the applicant to the existing construction permit is an extension of the latest
.This extension will not allow any work to be performed completion date.
involvidg new safety information of a type not considered by a previous Commis'sion safety review of the facility and that is not slready allowed by the existing construction permit. Therefore, we find that (1) this action does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) prior public notice of this action is not required, (3) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by extension of the construction completion date, and (4) good cause exists for issuance of an Order extending the completion date.
Conclusion Accordingly, issuance of an Order extending the latest completion date for construction of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to March 31,1983 is reasonable and should be authorized.
e 8
4 s
4
_ _. _. _ _ _. _. _. _.. _