ML20206H477
| ML20206H477 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206F987 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811230205 | |
| Download: ML20206H477 (2) | |
Text
__
p%
((% < </' g UNITED STATES q
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
W 8
W ASHING f ON, D. C. 20555 N$
EVALUATION CF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE LATEST CONSTRUCTION PERMIT COMPLETION DATE C0MANCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STAT,10N, bNIT NO. 2 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
DOCKET NO. 50-446 INTRODUCTION Uy lttter dated April 29, 1987, as supplemented on July 22, September 9, and Decemoer 3, 1987, and amended and supplemented on June 6 1988, Texas Utilities Electric Corrpany, Texas Municipal Power Agency, Brazos Electric Power Coop-erative, Inc., and Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. (Applicants) reouested that the latest construction completion date for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statier., Unit No, i, specified in Construction Permit No. CPPR-127, be extended to August 1, 199E.
EVALUATION Good Cause In their letter of April 29, 1988, Applicants state that "good cause" exists to warrant the extcrision requested.
Th2 intensive program of review and reinspection with respect to the design and construction cf Comanche Peak Units No. I and No. 2, undertaken to reapond to issues raised by the NRC staff in their licensirig review aria by the Atomic Safety anc Licensing Board (ASLS) and other sources in the operating licerse proceeding, arises frota the need to assure that all NRC regulatory r equirements for cesign and construction have been or will be nat.
Although the operating licensing proceeding was dismissed on July 13, 1988,*
this remedial pregram is r.ot yet coaleted, and its completion is essential to provicing the recuisite assurance for Unit No. 2 as well as Unit No I prior to licensing. The temporary direction of resources since mid-1985 to activities under the remedial program to Unit No.1 rather than to Unit No. 2, as well the temporary suspension of Unit ho. 2 construction for about one year beginning in April 1988 (which will allow the Applicants time to make a more complete deter-miration of any modifications that may be required for Unit No. 2 based upon the know.Mae they gain from the reinspection and corrective action program applied to Unit No.1) have caused delays which have contributed to the need for extending the latest construction completien date for Unit No. 2.
Although the Applicants temporarily suspended construction of Unit No. 2, they must maintain the con-struction permit in effect since they have not announced termination of the f acility.
In the staff's,iudgment, neither these matters nor their extent and
% ee ASLb M wcrandum anc Order (Dismissing Proceedings) dated July 13. 1966.
8811230205 881118 PDR ADOCK 05000446 A
FDC
2 ccraplexity could have been foreseen when the Applicants requested and were granted a 5-year extension of the latest construction corrpletion date for Unit lio, 2 in April 1982.
In f act, when the remedial program was first initiated in the fall of 1984, its scope and breadth was considerably narrower than the program that evolved and is being carried out today. This expansion has re-suited in a complex progran of design and hardware validation, design-hardware recenciliation, QA/QC activities, and third-party review.
The staft believes the Applicants have been assiduous in their efforts to detect and corr *ct actual and potential violation of NRC regulations and complete construction of the plant. The staff, therefore, concludes that the Applicants have demon-strated that there is goed cause for the delay which warrants an extension of l
the construction permit for Unit lio, 2.
Reasonableness of the Feriod of Time Requested By letter cated June 6, 1966, the Applicants amended and supplemented their April 29, 1988 request and requested that the latest construction completion date be extendeo to August 1, 1992.
This date was requested at a time when the operatino license proceeding was still pending. This proceeding was oismissed by the ASLB Femorandum and Order (Dismissing Proceedings) on July 13, 1968.
hevertheless, the remedial program must be completed prior to Unit No. 2 t
licensing for operation. The Applicants contemplate completing Unit Nc. 2 construction and receiving an operating license before August 1, 1992, which date ellows ample margin for contingencies and for fif.xibility of the schedule for cerrpleting the remedial program.
The staff has evaluated the Applicants' request and agrees that the period of time for which the extension of the latest construction completion datt is requested is reasoncble.
CONCLUSION Because the request is merely for more time to complete construction already authorized under Construction Fernit lio. CPPR-127 and does not seek authorization for activities not previously authorized, it does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or create the possibility of a new er different kind of accident from any ac-cioent previously evaluated, or involve a significant redur. tion in a margin of safety. Accordingly, the staff has concludeo that the action does not involve a significant hazards consideration and no prior notice of issuance of the extension to the latest construction comple**- date is necessary, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92(a).
Based on the foregoing, the staff further concludes that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(b), the Applicants have shown good cause for the delay and that the requested extension is for a reasonable period of time.
Date:
November 18, 1988
,