ML20148T396
| ML20148T396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1978 |
| From: | Hood D, Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148T395 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812050094 | |
| Download: ML20148T396 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _.
Docket Nos:
50-329 NOV 171978 50-330 EVALVATION OF A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERM!TS CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 FOR MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 A.
Introduction Construction Permits CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 were issued on December 15, 1972, and were further amended on May 23, 1973, for construction of Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 in Midland Township, Midland County, Michigan.
The permittee, Consumers Power Company, requested in its letter of August 29, 1977 that Construction Permit CPPR-81 be amended to change the earliest and latest dates for completion of Midland Plant Unit I from December 1, 1977 and December 1,1978 to October 1,1981 and October 1,1982.
The permittee also requested that Construction Permit CPPR-82 be amended to change the earliest and latest dates for completion of Midland Plant Unit 2 from December 1,1978 and December 1,1979 to October 1,1980 and October 1, 1981.
The permittee's letter of August 29, 1977 forwarded a "Genefal Information" volume, stating that the delay in the original construction schedules is due to delaying factors beyond the permittee's control and stating the reasons for the delay.
The permitee also provided additional:information in response to our requests during meetings dated March 21 and 22,1978, May 2, 1978, August 31, 1978 and November 6,1978. The delaying factors are stated to be:
~78/at650594
u 2
1.
Reevaluation of Construction Time Due to Changing Project Scope and Industry Experience Project scope changed principally because of changed design ar.d construction criteria for safety-related systems and structures.
Experience from the industry indicated that more time was needed to dtsign and construct Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
2.
Switching Unit Completion Sequence Midland Plant Unit 2 was rescheduled to be completed one year ahead of Midland Plant Unit 1 because of the engineering complexities I
of Unit 1 (which is the combined electric and process steam unit) and the earlier need for Unit 2 (which is the all electric unit) due to projected electrical load demand and the projected need for process steam.
c 3.
Adverse Financial Conditions Adverse financial conditions affecting the utility industry in 1974 and 1975 required adjustment of construction and engineering activities for Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 to match projected available financing.
4.
Mobilization of the Architect - Engineer Mobilization of the architect - engineer was rescheduled to begin after issuance of the Construction Permits to limit costs which could not have been recovered at a different site.
l l
Ib 3
B.
Good Cause and Reasonable Time The NRC staff finds that the delaying factors cited above as reasons for the construction delay were unforseen.
The staff also finds that these factors constitute good cause for the requested extension.
Based upon the estimate of the time required to perform the remaining work by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and by the Caseload Forecast Panel, we believe the permittee's earliest estimate of the time to complete construction of the remaining work is not unreasonable, though slightly optimistic based on the past history of labor productivity.
- However, l
I we concur that the construction permit extension request ref?ects a reasonable i
estimate of the time required to complete the remaining work, plus a reasonable allowance for additional delays which might result from the same or similar delaying factors cited above. However, in the event s
of unusual difficulties in correcting the settlement of certain structures recently discovered to be occurring at tht site, this estimate may have to be revised.
In regard to the remaining work the NRC staff notes the following factors to be considered:
1.
Many significent items of construction remain to be performed (e.g.,
the canpletion of the piping systems and the installation of the the safety-related electrical cables);
l 1
I
' 2.
Almost none of the systen and preoperational testing has been initiated; and 3.
Similar facilities have experienced long delays in the resolution of technical problems associated with major systems.
While it is difficult to assess the potential impact of these factors, we conclude that the requested extension of the construction pennits, barring unusual difficulties due to structural settlement recently observed at the site, provides' sufficient margin for the permittee's estimate of the completion dates.
C.
Significant Hazards Consideration The staff finds that because the request is only for additional time to complete construction of a facility whose general design and det.ign criteria have already been reviewed and approved, neither the probability nor the consequences of postulated accidents previously considered will be increased, nor will any safety margins associated with this facility be decreased.
Accordingly, no significant hazards consideration is involved in granting the request and prior public notice of this action is not required.
. D.
Conclusions and Recommendations For the reasons stated herein, the NRC staff concludes that the latest completion date for Construction Permit CPPR-81 should be extended from December 1,1977, to October 1,1982 and that Construction Permit CPPR-82 should be extended from December 1,1979 to October 1, 1981.
E
/hTLf a.:/
Darl Hood, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management
\\
I QQL i
Steven A.
arga, Chie Light Water Reactors Br och No. 4 Divison of Project Management 1 1 \\970 HOV 1
l l
7590-01 r
flEGATIVE DECLARATIO:1
?
SUPPORTING:
EXTEf!SI0ft 0F C0flSTRUCTI0fl PERMITS fl0. CPPR-81 AND CPPR-82 EXPIRATIOS DATES FOR S
THE MIDLAfl0 PLANT UflIT fiOS 1 Afl0 2 DOCKET fl0S. 50-329 AfiD 50-330 The U. S. huclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has reviewed the Consumers Power Company (permittee) request to extend the expirat. ion date of the construction permits for the Midland Plant, Unit hos. 1 and 2 (CPPR-81 and CPPR-82) which is located in Midland County in the State of Michigan. The permittee requested a forty-six month % tension to permit CPPR-81 through October 1, 1982 and a twenty two month extension to permit CPPR-82, through October 1, 1981, to allow 4
for completion of construction of the plant.
The Commission's Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis has prepared an environmental impact appraisal relative to these changes to CPPR-81 and CPPR-82. Based on this appraisal, the Commission has concluded that an environmental impact statement for this particular action is not warranted because there will be no environmental impact attributable to the proposed action other than that which has already been described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statenent -
Construction Permit stage.
-7 819 0 F 0 0 97-
. The environmental impact appraisal is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, fl. W., Washington, D. C. and at the Grace Dow Memorial Library, 1710 W. St. Andrews Road, Midland, Michigan.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 17thday of tiovember 1978.
FOR T!iE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10tl
{'n.
Wm. H. Regan, Jr.M Ch.f Environmental Projects Granth 2 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis s
I
6.
EtlVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE DIVIS10tl CF SITE SAFETY Atl0 EtiVIR0tlMENTAL ANALYSIS SUPPORTIflG EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS tl0, CPPR-81 Atl0 CPPR-82, MIOLAND PL/,NT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2
[NVIRONMENTALIMPACTAPPRAISAL D_escription of Proposed Action 8:' apolication of August 29, 1977 the applicant, Consumers Power Company (CPC), filed a request with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to extend the completicn dates specified in Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 for the Midland Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2.
The action proposed is the issuance of an order providing for an extension of the latest completion date of construction permit CPPR-81 from Occember 1, 1978 to ano including October 1, 1932 and of Construction Permit CPPR-82 from December 1, 1979 to October 1, 1981.
The NRC staff has reviewed the application and found that good cause has been shown for the requested extension of the complction dates spccified in Construction Permits CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 for the Midland Plant, Unit flos. I and 2.
(See attached Safety Evaluation by the NRC staff).
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action A.
Need for the Facility The Miciand Plant, Unit No. 1 is now scheduled to begin commercial operation in March 1982', Unit No. 2 is scheduled to begin commercial operation in March 1981. As part of the operating licensing review f
of this plant the staff has closely followed CPC's need for generating capacity.
Examination of the most recent information regarding loads and resources indicates that the conclusion reached in the Final Environmental Statement - Construction Permit stage (FES-CP) published in March 1972 (and supplemented in June 1977) regarding need for this plant is still valid.
The overall staff's conclusion that the plant should be constructed is unaffected by the extension of the construction permits.
B.
Community and Economic Impacts The FES-CP and the Final Supplement to the FES-CP for the Midland Plant include an assessment of potential environmental, economic, and community impacts due to s-ite preparation and plant construction.
In addition, (1) the staff's review of the inspection recorts prepared by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement as a result of periodic inspection visits to the Midland site, and (2) staff's discussions 78/ @@6@@@
' with individuals and local and state officials held at the time of the Operating License stage environmental review site visit did not identify any adverse icpacts on the environment or the surrounding community which were not anticipated and adequately discussed in the FES-CP and its final supplement or walch were significantly greater than those discussed in the FES-CP or the supplement.
The only effects possibly resulting from the requested extension would be those due to transposing the impacts in time or extending the total time the local community is subjected to temporary construction impacts. This in the staff's view will not result in any significant additional impact. The staff concludes that environmental impacts associated with construction of the plant described in the FES-CP and the final supplement to the FES-CP, are not affected by the proposed extension. Thus, no significant change in impact is expected to result from the extension.
Conclusion and Basis for llegative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing analysis and the NRC staff evaluation, it is concluded that, with the exce tion of impacts noted above, which r
are judged insignificant, the impacts attributable to the proposed cction will be confined to those already predicted and described in the Commission's FES-CP issued in 1972 and the Final Supplement to the FES-CP issued in June 1977. Having made this conclusion, the Commission i
has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared, and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
1 i
l
)
l 1
_