ML20214Q204
| ML20214Q204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214Q202 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-62941, NUDOCS 8612050035 | |
| Download: ML20214Q204 (2) | |
Text
A recg'o UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 L
\\.....]
OFFICE OF NtiCLEAR REACTOR REGflLATION EVALUATTON OF A RE0'lEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-105 FOR THE RFAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET N0. STN 50 417 Introduction Construction Pemit No. CPPR-105 for Reaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 was issued on May 3, 1974 to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Comoany, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company and Toledo Edison Company. The latest date expiration date of this pemit is December 31, 1986. By letter dated July 30, 1986, Duquesne Light Company filed a request for extension of the latest construction completion date for Beaver Valley Unit 2 to December 31, 1987.
Discussion In its application for extension of the construction completion date, Duquesne Light Company indicated that the following 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 Pemit in 1984, the projected Central Area Power Coordinating Group (CAPCO) summer peak load forecast for 1986 was 11550MW. Since that time, the demand for power in the CAFC0 area has fallen below anticipated levels. The projected CAPC0 sumer peak load forecast for 1987 (the present anticipated year of comercial availability) is 11135MW. The general decline of CAPCO load growth justifies deferral of fuel load until April, 1987.
2.
As a result of the THI-2 accident in March 1979, a large number of new reaulatory requirements applicable to the design and construction of BVPS-? have been promulgated. These requirements include the emeroency response facilities, combustible gas control, human factors review, and containment design. The implementation of these changes has significant1v 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 additional delay in schedule completion of RVPS-2.
86120SOO35 861125 PDR ADOCK 0500 2
A
d 3.
The RVPS-2 construction schedule has been affected by financial considerations.
In January of 1985, the members of CAPCO (which includes the permittees) took several steps to improve their financial position. Planned cash expenditures by the permittees for BVPS-2 were reduced by $100 million and transferred to Perry-1 in order to complete its construction program.
i This reduction in funds resulted in a 10-month delay in scheduled completion of BVPS-2, d.
The pemittees need additional time to fu11y 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 permittees' original schedule underestimated the amount of time required to complete planned activities.
Collectively, these factors have led the permittees to conclude that construction of Beaver Valley Unit 2 would not be completed within 1986 and Duquesne Light Company has requested a 12-month extension of the latest completion date to December 31, 1987.
The NRC staff has reviewed the infomation provided in the Duquesne Light Company's submittal. Based on that review, the staff concurs with the I
permittees as to the reasonableness of time estimated for the delay.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the factors discussed above constitute 4
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 i
for the construction completion date for the Beaver Valley Power Station, i
Unit 2.
The only change proposed by the pemittees to the existing construction pemit is an extension of the latest construction completion date. This extension will not allow any work to be perfonned involving new 2
safety concerns of a type that were not considered by previous Commission 4
safety reviews of the facility and that are not already' allowed by the existing construction permit. Therefore, the staff finds that (1) the i
extension of the latest completion date in the construction permit does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) prior public notice of this i
action is not required (3) there is reasonable assurance that the health i
and safety of the public will not be endangered by the requested extension of the construction completion date, and (4) cood cause exists for issuance of an order extending the construction completion date.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.3?, the staff has determined that this Order will
{
not result in any significant environmental impact (51 FR 42664, November 25, 1986).
Conclusion 5
For the reasons stated above, the staff concludes that issuance of an Order extending the latest construction completion date for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, as set forth in CPPR-105, to December 31, 1987, j
is reasonable and should be authorized.
I Dated: November'25,1986 4
-