ML20065U231
| ML20065U231 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1982 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20065U229 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211040042 | |
| Download: ML20065U231 (8) | |
Text
.
STAFF SAFETY EVALUATION FOR EXTENSION OF THE LATEST CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE5 FOR THE BYRON STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 INTRODUCTION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized the construction of the Byron Station, Ur.its 1 and 2 by issuing Construction Pemit No. CPPR-130 and Construction Pemit No. CPPR-131 to the Commonwealth Edison Company on December 31, 1975.
The latest date for completion of Unit I was June 1,1982 and for Unit 2 was November 1,1983.
By 1etter, dated April 19, 1982, Commonwealth Edison Company submitted an application for amendment of the construction pemits to reflect new " latest empletion dates" for each of the two units. The application requested an additional time of twenty-eight months for each unit, i.e., CPPR-130 for Unit 1 would be extended to October 1,1984 and CPPR-131 for Unit 2 would be extended to April 1,1986.
t In accordance with 10 CFR Section 50.55(b), the NRC staff, having found good cause shown, recommends that the latest conpletion dates of October 1,1984 for Unit 1 and April 1,1986 for Unit 2 be granted for the reasons stated below.
ANALYSIS Commonwealth Edison Company stated in the April 19, 1982 letter that the following factors led to the overall delay in the completion of construction of the facility:
1.
The need for an extension of time beyond the present construction pemit completion dates is a result of an extended construction period, despite the fact that constmetion has continued without interruption since its inception. The longer period has resulted principally from the need to install larger quantities of material and equipnent than originally con-l templated, as well as changes in NRC regulatory requrements, some of which resulted from the NRC's response to the Three Mile Island incident.
2.
The need for extension is also based upon improvements in the manner in which Commonwealth Edison Company is implementing NRC requirements. These changes have increased the amount of design wort and installation labor required to complete the installation of each component, pipe, cable, and structural menber.
3.
The above additional measures have been and are being implemented at a pace consistent with Commnwealth Edison's need to spread financing requirements more evenly throughout the construction period in order to keep annual financing requirements within their capabilities.
Commomcalth Edison Company also stated that the requested 28 months extension included a conservative estimate of the actual completion of the units to allow a margin for unforeseen contingencies.
8211040042 821012 PDR ADOCK 05000454
.A PM orrice >
sunname >
eare)
NRC FORM 318 (1440) NRCM 0240 OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usem i.n_us-.
, The NRC staff has reviewed the cause for the delay stated in the letter of April 19, 1982 and concludes that the applicant has shown good cause for the delay in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 5ection 50.55(b). The haC staff further concludes that the provisions of a substantial margin for unforeseen contingencies is appropriate in view of the status of construction and the possible need for design changes. The NRC staff recoauends that the construction pemits be extended an additional 28 months for Unit 1 and 29 nonths for Unit 2 to provide for schedule delays and continjencies as requested by the applicant.
As a result of the review of the Final Safety Analysis Report to date and considering the nature of the delays, the liRC staff has identified no area of significant safety consideration in connectica with the extension of the construction permit completion dates for the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2.
The only change proposed by the Permittee to the existing construction pemits is an extension of the latest construction completion dates. This extension will not allow any work to be perfomed involving new safety infomation of a type not considered by previous Comission safety reviews of the facility and that is not already allowed by the existing construction pemits. Therefore, the staf f finds 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 the requested extension of the construction completion dates, and (4) good cause exists for issuance of an Order extending the construction conpletion date.
CONCLUSION The Comission's staff has reviewed the intoraation provided in the applicant's '
submittal end concludes that the factors discussed above are reasonable and constitute good cause for delay; and that extension of the latest construction coapletion dates for the Byraa Station, Units 1 and 2 is reasonable and justifiable.
The URC staff finds that this action does not involve a significant hazards consideration, and that good cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending l
the latest completion dates in Construction Pemit Hos. CPPR-130 and CPPR-131 to October 1,19d4 and April 1,1985, respectively.
l The NRC staff has determined that this action will not result in any significant l
environmental inpact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), an environ:aental inpact l
stateaient, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal, need not be prepared in connection with this action.
i l
l Stephen Chesnut, Project Manager
- 3. J. Younjblood, Chief I
Licensing Branch rio.1 Licensing Branch No.1 l
utvision of Licensing Division af Licensing Dated: OCT 121982 *SEE PREVIOUS ORC FOR CONCURRENCES.
l
- .1.*.........D L : L.B..#.1..*........
..O..E..L. D..*...........
.D..L..: 1*
omcs)
SURNAME).............I..o,o,$,[,,1 g,$,Q,@,s g,u),,,,,,,,,S,@,),d,$t,g,,,
,QQ,Y
,]pp,d 10..../..../............
10/8/82 10/ /82
......../. 82 10/
one>
OFFiClAL RECORD COPY usamm-m co NRC FORM 318 (10 80) NRCM 024a
r-j /
,e
/
The NRC staff has reviewed the cause for the delay stated in tt}e' letter of April 19, 1982 and concludes that the applicant has shown good cause for the delay in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR SectiopSO.55(b). The NRC staff further concludes that the provisions of a substantial margin for unforeseen contingencies is appropriate in view of th
'tatus of construction and the possible need for design changes. The NRC s f recomends that the construction pemits be extended an additional 28 : nths for Unit 1 and 29 nonths for Unit 2 to provide for schedule delays nd contingencies as requested by the applicant.
As a result of the review of the Final Safety Analysis Report to date and considering the nature of t: e delays, the NRC staff has identified no area of significant safety consideration in con 6ection with the extension of the construction pemit completion dates for/the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2.
The only change proposed by the Pemittde to the existing construction permits is an extension of the latest construcf. ion completion dates. This extension will not allow any work to be perform 6d involving new safety infomation of a type not considered by previous CoMission safety reviews of the facility and that is not already allowed by the/ existing construction pemits. Therefore, the staff finds that (1) this action does not involve a significant hazards cansideration, (2) prior public 60tice of this action is not required, (3) there is reasonable assurance tbat the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the requ/sted extension of the const'ruction completion dates, and (4) good cause exists for issuance of.an Orde'r extending the construction conpletion date.
j' ConCLUS10d
/
/
The Conmission's staff,has reviewed the infor; nation provided in the applicant's submittal and concludes that the factors discussed above are reasonable and constitute good cause for delay; and that extension of the latest construction completion dates for the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 is reasonable and justifiable.
The tiRC staff finds that this action does not involve a significant hazards consideration, ar)d that good cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending the latest conpletion dates in Construction Pemit Hos. CPPR-130 and CPPR-131 to October 1, 1 4 and April 1,1936, respectively.
The NRC staff bas' deternined that this action will not result in any significant environmental;/ npact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), an environmental impact i
statement, or negative declaration and environnental impact appraisal, need not be prepared /in connection with this action.
/
Stephen Chesnut, Project Manager
/
Licensing Branch no.1 Division of Licensing
- SEE PREVIOUS ORC FOR CONCURRENCE m/
w.en DLLB11*
OELD*
).L,;
'v D(@(f*4 Omcr >
MB.us.h1.t.h.,,,,, MMS.Ch.e.s.n.u.t...,.
.S.Ggl@.qtg.... Why 994.
suRnce>
10/.6/.82 10/.../.82 10/.. /82..
LO/...
82 ome>
NRC FORM 318 00-80) NRCMONO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom mi--am
l
.I
/
.i I
i w <..,, wr s
' [/
y ;,
.. L.l..
/
c w The NRC staff has reviewed the cause for the delay stated in the letter of
[
' ~ April 19,L1982 'and concludes that the applicant has shown good cause for the i
+ delay in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Section"50.55(b). The
.g,;
NRC staff.further concludes that the provisions of a subpfantial. margin for unforeseen contingencies is appropriate in view of the, status of construction nd th$ need for design changes. The NRC staff recommends that thF construction permits be extended'an additional 28 months for Unit /1 and 29 months for Unit 2; to provide for; schedule delays and contingencies as' requested by'the Japplicant.
As a result of the review of the Final Safety Analysis Reportcto datFand~
considering the nature of the delays, the NRC staff has identified-no area s of significant safety consideration in connection with the-extension of the construction permit completion dates for the/ Byron Station, Units 1 and 2.
~
The only change proposed by the Permittee to the existing construction permi%
A is an extension of the latest construction' completion dates. This extension will not allow any work to be performed involving'new safety information of a type not considered by previous Commiss.icn safety reviews of the facility and H
that is not already allrNed by the existing construction permits. - Therefore, the staff finds that (1) this action,does not involve a significant hasrds consideration, (2) prior public notice of this action is not required, (3) there is reas able assurance that,the health and saf ty of the public will s A
not be endan red by the requested extension of th onstruction completion (..
dates, and (4) good cause exists,for issuance of an der Extendin the constraction completion date.
/
\\
CONCLUSION
/
x, The Commission's staff has Nviewed the information prov ded in the applicant's,
- h. '
submittal and concludes that the factors discussed abov are reasonable and constitute good cause for/ delay; and that extension of he latest constructi00' l'
completion dates for the, Byron Station, Units 1 and.2 i ustifiable.
I
'^
s The NRC staff finds tha$ this action does not involyg a significa1t hazOdsn _ ' b consideration, and that good cause exists for, the issbancCof an Order ' extending i' \\
3,/
the latest completion / dates in Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-130 and CPPR-131 c.
~
g g s,fn to October 1,1984 anil April 1,1986, respectively.
1 A
ac// '
,/
N 1
/
l x
~
jew W W#y
/
/
s h/ W
/
Stephen Chesnut, Project Manager \\
l
'a) [#
^
/
Licensing Branch No. 1
- 7
}
t
/
Division of L1 censing l
w
[
Dated:
~
~
m.\\M\\.)r\\
[
d-
[
Q
/
wgfa m A qJ d, fb&W a n ag e w g - -_s a asa p + -
MduWib ~ d t,wuw%,,.d b q r eq'nnAeds., d h
l:%wwe-%Ak a&.
6
/ The GC staff has reviewed the cause for the delay stated in the letter p April 19, 1932 and concludes that the applicant has shown good cause foy the delay in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Section 50.55(b)./The i.RC staff further concludes that the provisions of a substantial narjfin for unforeseen contingencies is appropriate in view of the status of cphstruction dnd the need for design Changes. The.NRC staff recoamends that t/fe construction pemits be extended an additional 28 nonths for Unit 1 and 29 ra;;hths for Unit 2 to provide for schedule delays and contingencies as requeste y the applicant.
As a result of the review of the Final Safety Analysis P.ep9tt to date and considering the nature of the delays, the itRC staff has ipentified no area of significant safety ::onsideration in connection with t,he extension of the construction pemit co spletion dates for the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2.
Tne only change proposed by the Pemittee to. the exist'ing construction permit is an extension of the latest construction completipli dates. This extension 9111 not allos any crk to be perfonned ' involving eu safety infomation of a
. type not con::idered bj previous Comnission safet reviews of the facility and that.is not already allowed by the existing cor) truction permits. Therefore, the ~ staff finds trrat (1) this action does not/ involve a significant hazards
- notice of t is action is not required, (3) consideration,,(2) prio.-
- i. hat the heal);th and safety of the public will there is reasonable asr
.qot be endanagereg by t..,. cequested extcpdion of th econstruction completion date(, and (4) kod cause exists for issuance of an Order extending the construction completion date.
s
'CONCLUSI0tl.
x Tha Co..niss)on'*. Staff has reviewed the information provided in the applicant's sabaittal and: concludes that *tfie f(Otors_ discussed ' bove are reasonable and a
<onstitute good cr.use for delay; aild that extension of the latest construction cypletion dates for the B ion Station, Units 1 and 2 is justifiable.
kee NC staff finds thaf this action does not involve a significant hazards coasideratica, and tm good cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending
~
the latest?completioJi^dstes in Construction Pemit Nos. CPPR-130 and CPPR-131 to Oc4ober,1,1934,4nd April 1,1980, respectively.
. Stephen Chesnut, Project Manager 3
- - Licensing Branch No.1 j
3f 40fvision of Licenr.ing k
oated: p.
- Set previous ye'llow.
g.,
r 5 ^ 1-DL:LBf1
' OL: fi DL:LB#1
- 5. 6 ~ 3*
ornce>
......@.............)".....$t W 6Yit".
"M6Uyig61'666 3
1Ruj BET)
.-m U.Y.l.82..
9hd.U...
.9ffl.82...
../..'
ouny anc ronu aia M 'N> uncu cM
\\ OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom --aw*o 2
~
/
/
/ '
/
~
The NRC staff has reviewed the cause for the delay stated in the letter of April 19.1982 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 HRC staff further concludes that the provisions of a substantial margin for unforeseen contingencies is appropriate in view of the status of construction and the need for design changes. The NRC staff reccamends' that the construction permits for Units 1 and 2 be extended an additional 28,ronths to provide for schedule delays and contingencies as requested by the/ applicant.
As a result of the review of the Final Safety Analysis Report to date. and considering the nature of the delays. the NRC s,taff has identified no area of significant safety consideration in connection with the extension of the constmetion pemit completion dates for the' Byron Station. Units 1 and 2.
The only change proposed by the Permittee,th the existing construction permit is an extension of the latest construction completion dates. This extension will not allow any work to be performed' involving new safety information of a type not considered by pervious Commis'sion safety reviews of the facility and that is not already allowed by the, existing construction permits. Therefore.
the staff finds that (1) this action does not involve a significant hazards consideration. (2) prior public,n'otice of this action is not required. (3) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endanagered by the requ,ested extension of th econstruction completion dates and (4) good cause exists for issuance of an Order extending the construction completion date.
CONCLUSION The Commission's staff has reviewed the infomation provided in the applicant's l
submittal and concludes that the factors discussed above are reasonable and l
constitute goo %ause for delay; and that extension of the latest construction completion dates for the Byron Station. Units 1 and 2 is justifiable.
/
l The NRC staff finds that this action does not involve a significant hazards l
consideration. and that good cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending I
the latest completion dates in Construction Pemit Hos. CPPR-130 and CPPR-131 to October 1.1984 and April 1.1986. respectively.
/
I l
1
/
?
/
l
/
Stephen Chesnut. Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing i
j Dated:
- See previous yellow.
DL:LBel*
DL:LBel DL:LBel OFFICE )
sunu E6 thshbr.aak/3t..SChasnu.t......dXaungbland.
.../....../. 8 2........
7 7/....../. 82....
7../.... /82 emy OFFICIAL. RECORD COPY usam mi-swa Nac ronu sie tio-soi sncu oua
e iel a n
j 1
/,
i The NRC staff has reviewed the cause for the delay stated in the letter of April 19,1982 and concludes that the applicant has shown good cause for the NRC staff further concludes that the provisions of a stbstaptf.55(b).
delay in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Section 50 The j
al margin for l
unforeseen contingencies is appropriate in view of the st3tus of construction and the need for design changes. The NRC staff recommerpfs that the construction permits for Units 1 and 2 be extended an additional 28 months to provide for 7
schedule delays and contingencies as requested by t applicant.bh.
} d considering 1%
V g
As a result of t)is review of the Final Safety Apthe nature of the delays, the N sls Report an d
safety consideration in connection with the extension of the constructio p\\,', -pemit completion dates-for_the Byron Stati. oft, Units 1 and 2.
7he staffIn~l 7
that this proposed action does not:
l i
/
![
(1)
Involve a significant increpse in the probability or consequences of an accident proviously valuated;
/
i
/,r.* g ;
i (2) Create the possibility an accident of a type different from any F ).
j evaluated Treviously; or Y
(3)
Involve a signific, ant reduction in a margin of safety.
d The NRC staff finds that cause the request is merely for more time to complete i
N work already reviewed a approved for Construction Pemits CPPR-130 and CPPR-131, i
\\
no sianificant hazards / consideration is involved in grjting the request and thus
/
/
prior notice of thi ction is not required.
g i
l
'" CONCLUSION The Commission' aff has reviewed the information provided in the applicant's submittal and neludes that the factors discussed above are reasonable and l
constitute gop cause for delay; and that extension of the latest construction completion dates for the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 is justifiable.
The NRC staff finds that this action does not involve a significant hazards considerption, and that good cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending the latest completion dates in Construction Pemit Nos. CPPR-130 and CPPR-131 to October 1,1984 and April 1,1986, respectively.
l l
4 I
Stephen Chesnut, Project Manager Licensing Branch No.1 Division of Licensing Dated:
i
- See previous yellow.
kn WhQ2c - au%.....,.......... -
..un-.......-......
~~
SURNAME)
DAT:y.6/../82.........6/h82......... 6/..../82.......
I
- - ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - -
- - - - - ~ ~ - - - -
NRC FORM 316 (10-80) NRCM CNO OFFiClAL RECORD COPY usaco: mi-us m
6... l.
. The NRC staff has reviewed the cause for the delay stated in the letter o April 19,1982 and concludes that the applicant has shown good cause f he delay in accordance with the requirenents of 10 CFR Section 50.55(b).
he NRC staff further concludes that the provisions of a stbstantial myg,in for unforeseen contingencies is appropriate in view of the status of onstruction 4
and the need for design changes. The NRC staff recmmends tha the construction permits for Units 1 and 2 be extended an additional 28 month to provide for schedule delays and contingencies as requested by the appl ant.
As a result of this review of the Final Safety Analysi) Report, and considering the nature of the delays, the NRC staff has identif fd no area of significant safety consideration in connection with the exten n of the construction pemit completion dates for the Byron Station, U ts 1 and 2.
The NRC staff finds that because the request s merely for more time to complete work already reviewed and approved for Con ction Pemits CPPR-130 and CPPR-131, no significant hazards consideration is i olved in grating the request and thus prior notice of this action is not requi CONCLUSION The Commission's staff has revi d the infomation provided in the applicant's submittal and concludes that th factors discussed above are reasonable and constitute good cause for dela ; and that extension of the latest construction completion dates for the Byr9n Station, Units 1 and 2 is justifiable.
/
The NRC staff finds that is action does not involve a significant hazards consideration, and that od cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending the latest completion tes in Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-130 and CPPR-131 to October 1,1984 an April 1,1986, respectively.
Stephen Chesnut, Project Manager Licensing Branch No.1 Division of Licensing
/
Dated:
l
/
- Oma,
..nu L........nuten.........
Ru o
SC
....../........JYoungblood g,k.. j.g..o..../.yt sun m e>
6
...!8 2..... 6L...i.ez.........
om>
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 02c OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uscs o: mi m.m
- - - - - - -.