ML20072D666
| ML20072D666 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1983 |
| From: | Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | Bright G, Grossman H, Harbour J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8306230364 | |
| Download: ML20072D666 (7) | |
Text
.
" M taw orriccs or j['
DEB EVOIS E & LIBERMAN / N' g gM 3 200 sovr~ recurs srascr. u w WASHINGrON. O C. 2 003 6
'/- !/ TELEPHONE (202) 857- e800
-5 y xm June 21, 1983 Herbert Grossman, Esq. Mr. Glenn O. Bright Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1)
Docket No. 50-460 CPA Gentlemen:
On June 16, 1983, the NRC Staff issued an Order ex-tending the latest construction completion date for WNP-1 from January 1, 1982 to June 1, 1991. A copy of that Order and the accompanying safety evaluation are attached hereto.
l The Licensee submits this information in order to keep the Board and parties in this proceeding fully apprised of developments bearing on matters within the jurisdiction of
. the Board.
Sincerel li f.
Nichol S[ Reynolds Counsel for Licensee V
l Attachment cc: Service List 8306230364 830621 PD
@ R ADDCK 05000460PDR -
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEv.
NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.1 D'OCKET NO. 50-460 ORDER EXTENDING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE Washington Public Power Supply System is the current holder of Construction Permit No. CPPR-134, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on December 23, 1975, for construction of the WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1. The facility is pres-ently under construction at the applicant's site on the Department of Energy's Hanford Reservation in Benton County, Washington, eight miles north of Richland, Washington.
On July 21, 1981, the Washington Public Power Supply System (the applicant) j filed a request for an extension of the completion date. On January 11, 1983, the applicant submitted additional information and requested a revision to the date requested in the original submittal. The extension has been requested because con-struction has been delayed by the following events:
1
- 1. Changes in the scope of the project including increases in the amount of material and engineering required as a result of regulatory actions, l
in particular those subsequent to the TMI-2 accident;
- 2. Construction delays and lower than estimated productivity, which resulted in delays in installation of material and equipment and delays in completion of the systems necessitating rescheduling of preoper-ational testing;
- 2. Strikes by portions of the construction work force; 1 Changes in plant design; l -;
_2
- 5. Delays in delivery of equipment and materials; and
- 6. Recommendations of the BPA to WPPSS that the construction on WNP-1 be delayed for an additional period of two to five years (beyond June 1,1986) due to load / response balance changes and economic factors identified in the BPA's report " Analysis of Resource Alternatives" dated April 19, 1982.
This action involves no significant hazards consideration; good cause has been shown for the delays; the causes were beyond the control of the applicant; and the requested extension is for a reasonable period, the bases for which are set forth in the staff's evaluation of the request for extension.
The Commission has determined that this action will not result in any signifi-cant environmental impact, and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal, need l not be prepared in connection with this action.
'The NRC staff safety evaluation of the request for extension of the construc-tion permit is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W. , Washington, D. C. 20555 and the Richland Public Library, Swift and Northgate Streets, Richland, Washington 99352.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the latest completion date for Construction Pennit No. CPPR-134 is extended from January 1,1982, to June 1,1991.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
' /
. s , ector Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: June 16, 1983
U. . :.. -.:s
^
' J L E ' R R E G U L ~, 3 V COMMISE
- , s -
p v.,s e cTo . : c ::sss
=
, :. . . a, SAFETY EVALUATION FOR EXTENSION OF THE LATEST CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE FOR WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM'S NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-460 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(b), the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS or pemittee) requested an amendment to the WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1 (WNP-1)
Construction Permit No. CPPR-134. By a letter dated July 21, 1981, the permittee requested an extension to the currently specified latest construction completion date of January 1,1982, to June 1,1986. The permittee presented five reasons for the proposed amendment, and indicated that the stated reasons (1) caused delay which was beyond the permittee's control, and (2) involved no significant public health and safety or environmental concern. -
Subsequently, by a letter dated January 11, 1983, WPPSS requested that its pend-
, ing amendment request of July 21, 1981, be modified to reflect additional WNP-1 l construction completion delays dictated by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) infoming the WPPSS that the power from WNP-1 would not be needed until the
! early 1990s. The WPPSS has requested that the earliest construction completion l
date be modified to June 1,1988, and the latest construction completion date be modified to June 1,1991.
This evaluation examines the WPPSS reasons for construction completion delays to detennine if the delays and deferrals were beyond the control of the permittee and if the requested amendment constitutes any significant safety or environmental Concern.
EVALUATION The staff has evaluated the reasonableness of the following factors which the per-mittee has cited in the requests for amendment of the latest construction comple-tion date:
(1) Changes in the scope of the project including increases in the amount of material and engineering required as a result of regulatory actions, in particular those subsequent to the TMI-2 accident; (2) construction delays and lower than estimated productivity, which resulted in delays in installation of material and equipment and delays in completion of the systems neces-sitating rescheduling of preoperational testing; (3) strikes by portions of the construction work force;
l (4) changes in plant design; (5) delays .n delivery of equipment and materials; and (6) recommendations of the BPA to WPPSS that the construction on WNP-1 be delayed for an additional period of two to five years (beyond June 1,1986) due to load / response balance changes and economic factors identified in the BPA's report, " Analysis of Resource Alternatives" dated April 19, 1982.
In a letter, dated March 9,1983, the WPPSS summarized the estimated delays contri-l buted by the first five factors to range from about 39 months to about 66 months.
(Delays attributed to these factors were; factor 1. 8-15 months; factor 2.14-24 months; factor 3.16-24 months; factor 4. delay included in the delay for factor 1; and factor 5.1-3 months). These delays are beyond the control of the pennittee, and are comparable to the delays estimated by others for plants subjected to similar constraints (e.g. Yogtle Electric Generating Plant - Units 1 &2). ,
Therefore, the staff finds that the first five factors constitute a reasonable delay and good cause for the July 21, 1981, request for the extension of construc-l tion completion date from January 1,1982, to June 1,1986.
The sixth factor was cited in support of an' additional extension of the latest construction completion date dictated by BPA's recomendation to WPPSS that the power from WNP-1 will not be needed until 1991. The staff has reviewed WPPSS's letter and its enclosure, dated April 30, 1982, providing the BPA analysis of l resource alternatives and the conclusions derived from that analysis. The follow-l ing discussion provides the summary of staff findings. .
l
! BPA, which is charged with the responsibility of providing electrical energy to l the northwest region and is the designated recipient of all WMP-1 power output, j has performed analyses of load / resource characteristics, conservation and renew- ;
able resources, economics of WPPSS Projects #1, #2 and #3 alternatives, and j financial and rate analyses including evaluation of legal and political implica- ,
tions of available options. Based on the results of these analyses, the BPA l advised the WPPSS to defer the completion of WNP-1 "from 2 to 5 years". WPPSS states, and the staff agrees, that BPA support is essential to financing of all three nuclear projects. Recognizing these realities the KPPSS Board on April 29, 1982, accepted the BPA recommendations and deferred the construction of WNP-1 for 2 to 5 years. The staff finds that the above circumstances were indeed beyond the control of WPPSS, the additional delay is reasonable and adequately consti-tutes good caust for delay in completion of the construction of WNP-1.
The staff has considered the public health and safety significance of mothballing of WNP-1 which is more than 60 percent constructed and has reviewed (1) the WPPSS construction delay management plan (WPPSS transmittal dated December 29, 1982, ew+- ~ ---
t from R. h. Root, Jr. :o Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region ., for the atten-tion o' R. M. Engelken) and the proposed engineering considerations to adequately maintain the equipmen:/ materials / structures in a licensable concition, and (2) a draft report issued by the Northwest Power Planning Council on " Regional Conserva-tion ard Electric Power Plan 1983" which states that its task force of nuclear experts has concluded that it would be difficult to mothball a nuclear plant for more tran five years. The staff finds that the Northwest Power Planning Council's statement based on the Nuclear Resource Task Force Report was related to the con-sideration of economic and commercial risks and not the public health and safety risks associated with long term mothballing. The staff concludes that, since the permittee will meet the staff requirements regarding licensable maintenance of the plant and the site, and since the staff will exercise the inspection / enforcement functicns, the proposed WNP-1 mothballing is not likely to result in any signifi-cant increase in the public health and safety risks.
The permittee, in a letter dated June 11, 1982, has made the commitment that the final WNP-1 designs will satisfy the requirements of present regulations and any requirements of future regulations promulgated between the date of docketing and the resumption of the construction. The staff, therefore, does not expect that the proposed delay in completion of WNP-1 construction would result in any sign.ifi-cant puolic health and safety risk issues associated with the permittee's final designs.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The staff has also considered the environmental impacts of the extension of con-struction pennit, and has detennined that the proposed action does not entail any
- significantly different construction activities from those which were considered in the Final Environmental Statement for WNP-1 and 4 (NUREG-75/012), dated March 1975. The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed action will not alter the conclusions reached in NUREG.75/012 regarding the environmental impacts and I cost / benefit balances of construction of WNP-1. Having made this determination, I we have concluded that the extension involves an action which is insignificant from the stancpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4),
l that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this Order.
CONCLUSIONS The staff, based on the above evaluation, concludes that the factors, which have prompted the permittee to delay the completion of construction of WNP-1, were beyond the control of the permittee, and constitute good cause for the delay in com;1stion of construction under 10 CFR 50.55(b). Therefore, the staff finds that tre requested amendment to the construction completion date is reasonable. The staff fr-her concludes that the proposed delay would not result in any significant increase 4 ;.;blic health and safety risks or environmental impacts. The only
.modifi:a ics prcposes by the permittee to the existing construction permit is an
.4.
extension of the latest completion date. The extension does not allow any work to be perforned involving new safety information of a type not considered by the staff prior to issuance of existing construction permit.
Therefore, the staff finds that: (1) the requested extension period is reasonable and good cause exists for issuance of an order extending the completion date; (2) the proposed action does not involve a significant hazards consideration; and (3) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public and the quality of the environment will not be endangered by extension of the construction completion date. Accordingly, issuance of an Order extending the earliest construction completion date to June 1,1988, and the latest construc-tion completion date to June 1,1991, should be authorized for WNP-1.
Principal Contributcr: M. Thadani, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL Date: June 16, 1983 :
l l
i l
t
.