ML20202D931
| ML20202D931 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202D887 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604110627 | |
| Download: ML20202D931 (3) | |
Text
' reg'6 p
UNITED STATES
~g 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g
- p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\,.....,/
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION EVALUATION OF A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-105 FOR THE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. STN 50-412 i
Introduction Construction Permit No. CPPR-105 for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 was issued on May 3,1974 to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company and Toledo Edison Company. The latest expiration date of this permit is December 31, 1984. By letter dated November 8, 1984, Duquesne Light Company filed a request for extension of the latest construction completion date for Beaver Valley Unit 2 to December 31, 1986.
Discussion In its application for extension of the construction completion date, Duquesne Light Company indicated that the foll,owing factors are responsible for the delay in completion of the construction activities:
1.
At the time the permittees applied for the earlier extension of the Construction Permit in 1979, the projected Central Area Power Coordinating Group (CAPCO) summer peak load forecast for 1984 was 13563MW. Since that time, the demand for power in the CAPCO area has fallen below anticipated levels.
The projected CAPC0 summer peak load forecast for 1986 (the present anticipated year of commercial availability) is 11550MW. The general decline of CAPC0 load growth justifies deferral of fuel load until June 30, 1986.
2.
As a result of the TMI-2 accident in March 1979, a large number of new regulatory requirements applicable to the design and construction of BVPS-2 have been promulgated. These requirements include the emergency response facilities, combustible gas control, human factors review, and containment design.
The implementation of these changes has significantly delayed the critical path construction schedules. Although it is difficult to assess their individual impact, the permittees estimate that the cumulative effect of these changes resulted in more than one (1) year of delay in completion of BVPS-2 from the permittees' schedule at the time the Construction Permit completion date was extended.
t 3.
Since the time of the original extension, the BVPS-2 construction schedule has been affected by financial considerations.
In April of 1980, the members of the CAPC0 (which includes the Permittees) took several steps to 8604110627 960314 PDR ADOCK 05000412 A
PM g-
---u--
improve their financial position.
Four nuclear plants in the design stages were abandoned, and the construction schedules of three nuclear plants, including BVPS-2, were extended. The completion date for BVPS-2 was moved from May 1984 to May 1986.
4.
The permittees need additional time to fully test and evaluate completed portions of the project as they are turned over by the contractors. The permittees believe additional time spent on evaluation and testing is necessary to ensure that the plant will perform as specified. The pemittees' original schedule underestimated the amount of time required to complete planned activities.
5.
Consideration should also be given to construction schedule impacts that have been experienced as a result of activities necessary to meet updated regulatory requirements. These activities, such as additional technical analysis, engineering, and reconfirmation of completed work were not included in the project scope at the time the present schedule was adopted.
Collectively, these factors have led the permittees to conclude that construction of Beaver Valley Unit 2 would not be completed by December 1, 1984 and Duquesne Light Company has requested a 24-month extension of the latest completion date to December 31, 1986.
The NRC staff has reviewed the information provided in the Duquesne Light Company's submittal. Based on that review, the staff concurs with the permittees as to the reasonableness of time estimated for the delay.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the factors discussed above constitute good cause for granting the requested extension.
. As a result of the staff's review of the Final Safety Analysis Report to date, and considering the nature of the delays, the staff has identified no areas of significant safety consideration in connection with the extension for the construction completion date for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2.
The only change proposed by the permittees to the existing construction permit is an extension of the latest construction completion date. This extension will not allow any work to be performed involving new safety concern of a type that was not considered by previous Commission safety reviews of the facility and that is not already allowed by the existing construction permit. Therefore, the staff finds that (1) the extension of the latest completion date in the construction permit 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 date, and (4) good cause exists for issuance of an order extending the construction completion date.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the staff has determined that this Order will not result in any significant environmental impact (51 FR 8922
,fiarch 14, 1986).
Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the staff concludes that issuance of an Order extending the latest construction completion date for the Beaver
1.
s' Valley Power Station,. Unit 2, as set forth in CPPR-105, to December 31, 1986,
.is reasonable and should be authorized.
j Dated:
March 14,1986 i
t r
i I
i i
i
.i i
i e
(r i
-