ML20154A893

Safety Evaluation Supporting Request for Extension of Const Dates for CP CPPR-107

ML20154A893
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	05/03/1988
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20154A867	List: ML20154A864 ML20154A875 ML20154A893
References
NUDOCS 8805160226
Download: ML20154A893 (3)

Text

,

e

• O e Q3MQ y

[ kg UNITED STATES -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

%; :j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%,**.../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR PEACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE RE0 VEST FOR EXTENSION E CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-107 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-353

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Two construction permits were issued to Philadelphia Electric Company (PEco or permittee) on June 19, 1974 These permits authorized construction of the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 (the facilities) at the Company's site on the Schuylkill River, near Pottstown, in Limerick Township, Pontgomery County, Pennsylvania.

On February 23, 1981, Philadelphia Electric Company filed a request pursuant to the Code of Federal Reaulations, Title 10, Part 50, Section 50.55(b) for an extension of the construction completion dates for these units. This request was granted by Order issued April 24, 1981, extending the latest completion dates for Units 1 and 2 to October 1,1985 and October 1,1987, respectively.

! Construction of Unit I was complated in conformity to Commission regulations; low power and full power operating licenses were issued to PECo authorizing operation of Unit 1 on October ?6, 1984 and August 8, 1985, respectively. For reasons discossed below, construction of Unit 2 has not been completed. By letter dated August 13, 1987, '.Co requested an extension of the earliest and latest completion dates specified in Construction Permit No. CPPR-107 for Limerick Unit 2. The extension request was filed in a tinely manner as specified in Section 2.109 of 10 CFR Part 2.

2.0 EVALUATION The change in the schedule for completion of the construction of Unit 2 results from suspension of construction by the Applicant in accordance with the terms of an order issued by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PaPUC) on Deced er 23, 1983. Such order directed the Applicant to: (1) suspend construction of Unit 2 pending operation of Unit 1; or (2) cancel Unit ? or (3) continue construction of Unit 2 solely with internally generated fundina.

Applicant advised the PaPUC on January 74, 1.984 that of the choices available, it had susoended construction of Unit ? pending operation of Unit 1. As a result o' this action all activities at the Unit 2 construction site were suspended during the period from January 1, 1984 to February 1, 1986 except essential activities required to protect the site, the public and workers and actions ranuired to allow a prompt resumDtion of construction.

The PaPUC's order of Decambar 23, 1983 and the subsecuent suspension of construction of Unit 2 resulted from an order entered by the PaPUC on October 10, 1080, which initiated an investigation into the need for and the economy of the Limerick facility. At the conclusion of this investigation, the PaPUC issued an Opinion and Order on August 27, 1982 that concluded that 8805160226 080503 PDR ADOCK 05000}]3

e either cancellation or suspension of construction at Limerick Unit ? would be in the public interest. Applicant appealed such Opinion and Order. After the affirmation of the August 27, 1982 order by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the PaPUC entered a further order on June 10, 1983 which required Applicant to comply with its Order of August 27, 1982.

On July 21, 1983 Applicant filed a response to the PaPUC Order which resulted in a series o# replies in opposition by several parties, following which the PaPUC entered its December 23, 1983 Opinion and Order discussed above. On ilanuary 24, 1984 Applicant filed its response to the PaPUC Order dated December 23, 1983 in which it advised the PaPUC that Applicant had suspended construction of Limerick Unit 2 pending operation of Limerick Unit 1. Thus, by January 1984, essentially all construction activity at Limerick Unit 2 had been suspended. In an Order entered February 22, 198a the PaPllC accepted the Applicant's response as being in compliance with the PaPUC Orders of August 27, 1992,ilune 10, 1983 and December 23, 1983.

On August 7, 1984, with construction of Unit 2 still suspended, the PaPUC commenced a further investigation of Limerick by issuing an Order to Show Cause why the completion of Limerick Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2 would be in the public interest. Following this investigation, the PaPUC entered an Opinion and Order dated December 5,1985 findira that completion of Limerick Unit 2 is in the public interest if the Applicant accepted certain cost-containment and operation incentive plans ret forth in the PaPUC's Opinion and Order. On December 23, 1985, Aeolicant notified the PaPUC of its plan to complete Limerick Unit 2 and its acceptance of the PaPUC's cost containment and operation incentive programs. On January 2, and 6,1986 two parties to the PaPUC procaeding filed petitions for review with the Pennsylvania Comrannwealth Court challenging the PaPUC Order. On January 17, 1986, the Applicant filed its own petition for review in the nature of a cross-aopeal seeking certain modifications of the PaPUC's Order in the event that one er more of the positions of the opposing parties should prevail. On February 18, 1986, the Commonwealth court affirmed the December 5, 1985 Ooinion and Order of the PaPUC in all respects.

On February 1, 1986 Limerick Unit 1 was declared to be in commercial operation and construction of Limerick Unit 2 was resumed later in that month and is continuing. At the time of suspension of construction activities in January, 1984 Unit 2 construction was approximately 30 percent completed and engineering activity was approximately 87.5 percent complete. Since the resumption of work on Unit 2, engineering has progressed to the point where it is, as of March 1988 approximately 94 percent complete and construction activities are approximately 85 percent complete.

l The events described above relating to suspension of construction have resulted from conditions which were beyond the control of Applicant and could not have been predicted at the time the construction schedule upon which the present construction completion date of CPPR-107 was established. The completion dates proposed by Applicant are considered roasonable based upon Applicant's present schedule of engineering and construction activities,

prooress in these areas since resumption of work on Unit 2, and taking into account the uncertainties involved in a major construction effort of this type.

%0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Comission has determined that extending the construction completion dates will have no significant impact on the environment (January 14, 1988, 53 FR 970).

4.0 CONCLUSION

S The NRC staff has reviewed the information provided by PEN 's submittal.

(

' Based on that review, the staff concurs with the permittee that the time estimated for the delay is reasonable. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(b), the staff concludes that the factors discussed above constitute good cause for granting the requested extension and the extension is for a reasonable period of time.

As a result of our review of the Linerick Final Safety Analysis Report to date and considering the nature of tha delays, the staff has identified no area of significant safety considerations resulting directly from the extension of the l

construction completion dates. In addition, we find that the only modification proposed by the pemittee to the existing construction permit is an extension of the completion dates. This extension does not allow any work to be l

performed of the type not previously authorized by the existina construction pe mi t . Therefore, we find that (1) this action doas not involve any significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by extension of the construction completion date, and (3) good cause exists for issuance of an order extending the completion date. Accordingly, the NPC staff has concluded that the action does not involve a significant hazards consideration and that based upon the foregoing evaluation, issuance of an order extending the latest completion date for construction of the Limerick Genaratina Station, Unit No. 2 is reasonable and should be authorized. The latest completion date for Unit 2 should be extended to January 1, 199?.

Principle contributor: R. Clark, PDI-2 Dated: May 3, 1988

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ .