ML19206A720
| ML19206A720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1978 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19206A712 | List: |
| References | |
| SER-780116, NUDOCS 7904200379 | |
| Download: ML19206A720 (3) | |
Text
.
jg i _ m Occhet '!o. SC-320 EVALUATIO'. OF REN!:.ST P EXTENSION OF P9.0VISIORL CO.4STMCTION PPIT rPp"-66 FCP. THP.EE MILE ISL.U'D NUCLEM STATICH. m!IT 2 A.
Introcuction Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPP-65 was issueo by the Ccrnission on Fevecoer 4,1969 for construction of Three Mile Islano Nuclear Station, Unit 2, at the licensees' site in Dauphin County, ?cnnsyvvis.
By letter of " arch 28, 1977, Metro:clitan Eoisen Cc ;pany L'etEd) Pas requested that the latest ccapletion date for the constructicn rernit by extended fren May 1, 1977 to January 15, 1970. By letter of Dececber 12, 1977, Meted anendec their letter of March 22,1977 to extenc the cenoletion cate to r bruary 28, 1975. Although fuel e
loadino is presently scheculed for January 15, 1979, the recuestec extension to February 28 is to alicw for additional unfereseen celays.
A previous recuest for an extenslen of the latest ccnoletion date 0 Nay 1,1977 was granted on January 15, 1974.
Since that tine, die have been notified by letters datec Dececber 3,1976, July 3,1974, anc Septeober 6,1974, of delays totaling fif teen months.
MetEc states that delays since December 1973 are a result of manv causes, the r-ost significant of wnich are:
1.
A direct craft force reduction of 15 nercent in June 1975, resulting from bud';etinc restrictions; 2.
Increased engineering (750,000 man-hours) and labor (1,170,r:ce man-hours) resulting frcm:
a.
Significant increases in nreviously estimated cuantities of electrical cacling, conduit and trays c'e tn late availability of electrical crawings; 5.
Inc eases in caterial cuantities for process piping resultin; froc' cuantity re-evaluations; 3.
Late receipt of valves due to casting cifficulties and a strika at a nuclear valve manufacturing facility; are LWR-4 LWR-4 OELD 9
q' ^q 3
.....,, l1.?
a v,e. +.
f
~
py r n o m.c q
j,, ;
u ip'./TT t
.v
'.T'.[b / 7 7.. _...h.../, / 7L
~
o.n
&_n-9A9 7 *u=
n c ro m 31s o.76) xx oc c:4o o=
- ~ a o r ric => * - a n.a u
4.
f.cte availacility of caule pull clips as a result of a lack c: e2ectrical venUJ drawing information.
?!etEd has estimated in a secarate communication that tne causes listec a ove have resultec in apcroxi..ately tne follcwing delays, respectively:
1.
1.5 ccatns 2.12.0 untac
- 3. 0.73 cenths 9.
V./R montns.
Ine aditional celay frca January 15 cc Fecruary.!o is cue principally to tne follcwing factors:
2.
a transition was made in constructica management rosynsici.3. ties i
frca tre constructica raanager to a caintenance centracter.
he
.:aintenance contractor, cecauce of tne unaxpectacly large n=cer of conceruction items lef t to ce cea:letec at the time of tais turnover, was not cacccle of caintaining wita assurance tae previously rec,uestec January 15 ccastruction cc oletion date.
6.
Repairs and repeatad nydrcatatic tests of tne reactor cooling system were recuired. Inis effort delayeu ene start of the succequent testing oy approxi.ntely tnree weeks.
7.
Tna reactor coolant cump shaft ca Is were replacca vinien effort tccx apcroxir:ately two weeks.
3.
Reactor ccclant pumo casing to stuffing tox jcints leased and requirea gasset replacetent.
Inis effort tccs accccxi..ataly fiva wee.
+ n t.'.c
~ 'w m r.M i. G.#
".. c:
...-4
.' s..i -
m.
il ga..y.1.w 4 %,...-..-C {, a.
p~M r..,.
- w..u w v 3 ?,...c.,1. ;
i.
u y
m
.'-e.
w.4. -. ew. %
w..
a -
u.-
.w ud. "tOd 2n extensicn to t.'.e Ccnstruction ~:Or2it ir. accorcanCO M jra.
wica
,:v.aa(c).
orric s sa.
SU 8tN AM E M saveh NRC FORM.'18 i96) NRCM 0240 W w. s. sovs awu sNT **imrtwo orric a r ete. sas.4a4
,db-3.
Ccu Cauce anc hearcnccle,7ime
- ne staff concur 3 cc.at tne eventa citec accve as reasons for tne construction celay were unforeccen, tnat tne2a reaCon3 constitute gCoc cause for tne reqJestea extension, anu that tne delays caur'.,J cy tnese factors are approximately 33.".etEC has indicatec. 3aseu ca our esticate of the time requireo to perform tne remaining vors, suppcrted oy estimates cf Office of Inspection and Enforcement per3cnnel,..e concur tnat tne requestec extensica tir-e to cc. plate tne werk is not unrea3cnable.
Ecwever, tne staff notes that:
1.
tiany itec: cf construction recain to te perforsc-5; 2.
A sig.. ficant a; cunt of system anc preoperaticnal testing nas not yet been ccapleted; and 3.
Unexpectec cifficulties and delay 3 i: ve previcualy caen encountered, requiring acditional time beycnd centingencies felt to ce adequate at tne time.
~ie enerefore cenclude that the recuestec extensica of tiue to Fecruary 23, 1973 may nct ce adecuate, anc that a reascnacle latest ccccletica date woula ce April 30, 1978.
C.
Significant.9-'rds Consiceraton Ina staff finos tnat because tne request is only for acre time to ccarlete v.crk already revie'.ed a.ic a proved, the peccabilitj or ecnsequences of accicents previcusly considerec will not.;e L creasea, nor will any safety cargins asscciatec with tnis facility be da reased.
Accordingly, no significant nacarcs ccasideraticn is involvea in granting tne recuest and prior puclic nctice of tnis action is not reqairoc.
D.
Conclusicns and Facc=endations
?cr tne rearcn3 statec herein, the staff concluc'ec anc recorrenos tnat tne latest cc. pletion cate for Provisicnal Construction Perait CPPR-65 cncula ce extended frc= ::ay 1,1977 to April 30, l'73.
3
,.,, ; _ -... g - ',';r
/7 L.
L'
- 3. Silver, Pro;ect !anager Staven.i. '.'arga, Caief Lignt nater P.eactors Lranca 4 Lignu.iat r ;eactors artg.cn 4 Civision of Prc]ect :'.2nage ent Division cf Project.!a. age.- ent OPP tCs W sunwaus h O
NRC FOfLM 318 t 9 76) NRC.M 0240 W v. s. oov s ma u swr *=ia.rt=a orric s, i,te - eme-aa4
[pn arcq*#o,
'JITED STATES
.E 7,, 7 NUCLEAR R GULATORY COMMISSION s
e 34
_ E WASHINGTON. O. C. 20555 s" M /,l s, -
J N.7 R.-,.
c:n Docket I'c. 50-320 Metropolitan Ediscn Cccpany Attn:
Mr. J. G. Herbein Vice President P. O. Scx 542 Reacing, Pe.nsylvania 19603 Gentlemen:
Sucj ect: ciCER EXTEiDING CCN5TICCTION COMPLETION CATE In response to your requests of March 28 and Decert:er 12, 1977, tne Nuclear Regulatory Centtission has issued an order extending the construction cc=pletion date for Ihree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2.
In lieu of the latest cccpletion date of May 1,1977, as soecified previcusly in Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-66, the latest completion date has ceen extended to April 30, 1976.
A copy of the Order, the staff safety evaluation, negative declaration and environmental impact apcraisal are enclosed for your informatica.
The Order and tne negative ceclaraticn have been transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for puclication.
Sincerely, s\\
a.
- l
/
.~
El%
k-
' (.
r StevenA.Varga,Chikf Lign:~.iater Reactors Branen 4 Division of Prcject Management
Enclosures:
1.
Crcer Extending Co aletion Date 2.
Staff Safety Evaluaticn 3.
Segative Ceclaration 4.
Environmental Impact A:graisal ccs:
See next page GO 245
Metropolitan Edison Company ces:
George F. Trowcridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Troweridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Wasnington, D. C.
20036 Chauncey R. Kepford, Esq.
Chairman York Cc:mtittee for a Safe Environment 433 Criando Drive State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Mr. Richard W. Heward Project Manager GPU Service Corporatien 260 Cherry Hill Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Mr. T. Gary Broughton Safety and Licensing Manager CPU Service Corporation 260 Cnerry Hill Roac Parsippany, iiew Jersey 07054 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Office Attn:
EIS Cecrdinator Curtis Building 6tn and Walnut Streets Pniladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Direc:cr, Office of Radiological Health Cepar: rent of Environmental Rescurces P. O. Ecx 2063 Harriscurg, Pennsylvania 17105 Mr. Welden B. Arenart, Chairman Boarc of Sucervisors Lcnconderry Townsnip RFD #1, Geyers Cnurch Rcad Micdletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Mr. Earry 3. Reese, Jr., Chairman Scard of Ccunty Cc=issioners of Caupnin Ccunty Daupnin County Courtncuse
?. C. Scx 1:35 Harriscurg, Pennsylvania 17120 60-246
a S
UNITED STATES Ih
't NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION
' b.
S WASHINGTON, D. C. 2C555
- ??
/
JERSEY CENTRAL PO'dR & LIGHT COMPANY AND METROPOLITAN EDISON CC'MPANY THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-320 ORDER EXTENDING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE Jersey Central Power & Light Ccmpany and Metropolitan Edison Company are the holders of Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-66 issued by the Atomic Energy Commission
- on November 4,1969, for construction of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, presently under construction at the licensees' site in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
On March 28, 1977, Metropolitan Edison Company filed a request for an extension of the ccmpletion date because construction his been delayed due to:
(1) A direct craft force reduction of 15 percent in June 1976 resulting from budgeting restrictions; (2) Increased engineering (750,000 man-hours) and labor (1,170,000 man-hours) resulting from:
(a) Significant increases in previously estimated quantities of electrical cabl'ng, conduit and trays due to late availability of electrical drawings; (b) Increases in material quantities for process piping resulting, from quantity re-evaluations; "Ef fective January 20, IN5, the Atomic Energy Ccmmission became tne Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission and Pernits in effect on that cay were continued under the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Ti s
- (3) Late receipt of valves due to casting difficulties and strike at a nuclear valve manufacturing facility; and (4) Late availability of cable pull slips as a result of a lack of electrical vendor drawing information.
On Decemoer 12, 1977, Meted amended the request of March 28 to again extend the completion date for the following additional reasons:
(5) A transition was made in construction management responsibilities frcm the construction manager to a maintenance contractor. The maintenance contractor, because of the unexpectedly large number of construction items lef t to be completed at the time of this turnover, was not capable of maintaining with assurance the previously requested January 15 construction completion date.
(6) Repairs and repeated hydrostatic tests of the reactor cooling system were required.
(7) The rea: tor coolant pump shaf t seals were replacec.
(8) Reactor coolant pump casing to stuffing box joints leaked and required gasket replacement.
(9) An inspection program of the steam generator tubes has been undertaken.
This action involves no significant hazards consideration; good cause has been shown for the delay; and the extension is for a reasonable period, the bases for which are set forth in a staff evaluation dated J anuary 16, 1978.60-248
.o Copies of the aMve documents and other related material are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Doct=ent Rocm,1717 H Street, ti. W., Washington, D. C. 20555, and at the State Library of. Pennsylvania, Comonwealth & Walnut Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the latest ccmoleticn date for Provisicnal Constructica Permit CPPR-66 is extended from May 1,1977 to April 30, 1978.
ECR THE NUCLEAR REGULAZ RY CCl@lISSICti C.-2;ir..-3 fO!d h7 D.C.iGLUIG D. B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Division o'f Project Managercent cate of Issuance:
January 16, 1978 GO-249
[f M%q'o UNITED STATES
,.. Q, g '.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON msmucros. o. c. :os s s s 82twi
% Aj JAN 1 e ~373 Occket No. 50-320 EVALUATION OF REOUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROVISIONAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CPPR-66 FOR THREE MILE ISLAND HUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 A.
Introduction Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-66 was issued by the Ccmmission on November 4,1969 for construction of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, at the licensees' site in Dauphin County, Pennsyvania.
By letter of March 28, 1977, Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany (Meted) has requested that the latest completion date for the construction permit by extended from May 1,1977 to January 15, 1978.
By letter of December 12, 1977, Meted amended their letter of March 28,1977 to extend the ccmpletien date to February 28, 1978.
Although fuel loading is presently scheduled for January 15, 1978, the requested extension to February 281s to allow for additional unforeseen delays.
A previous request for an extension of the latest ccmpletion date to May 1, 1977 was granted on January 15, 1974.
Since that time, s.e have been notified by letters dated December 3,1976, July 3,1974, and September 6,1974, of delays totaling fif teen months.
Meted states that delays since December 1973 are a result of many causes, the most significant of wnich are:
1.
A direct craft force reductic.i of 15 percent in June 1976, resulting frca budgeting restrictions; 2.
Increased engineering (750,000 man-hours) and labor (1,170,000 man-hours) resul ting f r 'm:
a.
Significant increaset in previously estimated quantities of electrical cabling, conduit and trays due to late availability of electrical drawings; b.
Increases in material quantities for process piping resulting from quantity re-evaluations; 3.
Late receipt of valves due to casting difficulties and a strike at a nuclear valve manufaci.uring fac';ity; and 60 250
, 4.
Late availability of cable pull slips as a result of a lack of electrical vendor drawing informaticn.
Meted has estimated in a separate communication that the causes listed above have resulted in approximately the following delays, respectively:
1.
1.5 months 2.12.0 mnths
- 3. 0.75 months
- 4. 0.75 m nths.
.te additional delay frem January 15 to Fecruary 28 is due principally to the following facters:
5.
A transitien was made in construction management responsibilities from the construction manager to a maintenance centractor. The maintenance centracter, because of the unexpectedly large number of construction items lef t to be completed at the time of this turncver, was not capacle of maintaining with assurance the previously requested January 15 construction completion date.
6.
Repairs and repeated hydrostatic tests of the reactor cooling system were required. This effort delayed tb,e start of the suhsequent testing by approximately three weeks.
7.
mhe reactor coclant pump shaf t seals were replaced which effort.
took approximately two weeks.
8.
Reactor coolant pump casing to stuffing box joints leaked ard required gasket replacement. This effort tock approximately five weeks and further disrupted the testing program.
9.
An inspecticn prcgram of the steam generator tuhes has been undertaken. This effort will delay the test program by approxi-mately two weeks.
mese prcblems do not directly affect the constructicn critical path although they do disru=t the schedule and divert effor ' fr.
the critical path items.
Meted states that they believe that they have asked for a reascnable and justifiable extension of the latest ccm=letion date; that they have adequate reascns for delay of tne project; that with ccnstruction of S1I-2 97 percent com=lete, it is unlikely tnat they will encounter major centingency delays in the short period of time lef t until ccmcletion of the project; and that they shculd therefore be granted an extension to the construction permit in acccrdance with 10 CFR 550.55(b).60-251
- /
E G cd Cause and Reascnacle Time The staff cencurs that the events cited above as reascns for the construction delay were unforeseen, tnat these reasons ccnstitute good cause for the requested extensica, and that the delays caused cy these factors are approxicately as Meted has indicated. Based en our estirate of the time required to perform the remaining work, supported by estimates of office of Inspection ard Enforcement personnel, we cencur that the requested extensicn tire to cceplete the work is not unreascnable.
Ecwever, the sta2f notes that:
1.
Many items of construction remain to be performed; 2.
A significant arount of system and precperaticnal testing has not yet been ec=pleted; and 3.
Unexpected difficulties and delays have previcusly been encountered, requiring additicnal time beycnd contingencies felt to be adequate at the tica.
We therefore cenclude that the requested extension of time to Fecruary 28, 1978 may not be adequate, and that a reasonacle latest ecmpletion date would be April 30, 1978.
C.
Sicnificant Hazards Ccnsideratcn Tne staff finds that because the request is only for more time to ccmplete work already reviewed and approved, -he precability or censequences of accidents previcusly considered will not be increased, nor will any safety margins asscciated with this facility be decreased.
Accordingly, ncs significant ha:ards consideration is involved in granting the request and prior puclic notice of tnis action is not required.
D.
Conclusiens and reccarendations For the reascns stated herein, the stutff concludes and recccmends that the latest ccmoletion date for Provisional Construction Permit CPPre-66 should be extended frca May 1,1977 to April 30, 1978.
.\\
!/[
0 l-
/
I.
2 3' h M 'I k
k. O g'
~'
H. Silver /, Project Manager StevenA.Varg'a,\\Clief r
Lignt Water Reacters Brancn 4 Lign Nacer Reacters Brancn 4 Division of Project Management Divi.sion of Project Managecen:
60-252
NEGATIVE DECLARATICN SUPPORTING:
EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-66 EXPIRATION CATE FOR THE THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 00CKET NO. 50-320 The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission (the Ccmmission) has reviewed Metrocolitan Edison Ccmpany, Jersey Pcwer and Light Comcany, and Pennsylvania Electric Ccmpany's (permittee) request to extend the expiration date of the construction permit for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (CPPR-66) wnich is located in Cauphin Couaty, Pennsylvania.
The permittee requested a ten tohth extension to the permit thrcugh February 23, 1978, to allcw for ccmpletion of construction of the Three Mile Island plant.
The Commission, based on its analysis of the constructicn work and testing remaining to be done, concluded tnat a mere reascnable latest ccmoletien date would be April 20, 1978.
The Ccmnission's Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis has preparec an environmental imcact appraisal relative to tnis change to CPOR-66.
Based on this aporaisal, tne Ccmmission has concluded that an environmental impact statement for this particular action is not warranted because there will be no envircnmental impact attributacle to the propcsed action cther tnan that wnich nas alreacy been described in the Ccenissicn's rinal Envircrmental Statement related to cceration cf Three Mile Island, Unit Nos.1 and 2 and tne Ccmmission's. inal Supple-ent :: tre Tinal Ervircnmental Statement related to cceration of Three Mile Islanc, Unit Nc. 2.
ii0l-;?fiCl
2_
The environmental impact appraisal is a/ailable for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Rnem,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. and at the Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Education Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Cated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 27:5 day of December 1977.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
&/ 7,.
R. W. Freelich, Acting Chief Environmental Projects Branch 2 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis GO-254
/
ENVIRCNMENTAL IMPACT APPRAIS &
BY THE DIVISION OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUPPORTING EXTENSION OF CONS'RUCTION PERMIT CPPR-66 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-320 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL Descriotion of Procesed Action By letter dated December 12, 1977 the applicant, Metrepclitan Edison Cxpany, Jersey Central Pcwer and Light Ccepany, and Pe.. aylvania Electric Ccapany filed a request witn the Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission (NRC) to extend the ccmpletien date specified in Construction Pemit No. CPPR-66 for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2.
The action prcposed is the issuance of an order providing for an extensien of the latest ccmpleticn date of the construction pemit from May 1,1977 to April 30, 1978.
The NRC staff has reviewed the applicaticn and found that goed cause has been shewn for the requested extension of the ccepletion date specified in Ccnstruct:en Permit No. CPPR-66 for.Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (see attached Safety Evaluation by the NRC staff).
Environmental Imcact of the Procosed Action A.
Need for Pcwer The Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2, is new scheduled to begin ccmercial coeration in May 1978.
This date is unchanged from the staff's last reappraisal of the need for the plant made in April 1977 in conjunction with tne public hearings.
The discussion of the need for pcwer presented it. the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement published in r.ce r 1976 is still valid.
The overall staff's cenclusion that tdolant should be cperated is unaffected by the extension of thp fenstruction permi
/
B.
Comunity and Ecenemic Imcacts The Final Environmental Statement fcr the Three Mile Island, Unit No. 2 includes an assessment of potential envircreental, ecencmic and ccmunity imoacts due tpa te preparation and plant ccnstruction.
,./,/
,/'
60 255
, In additicn, staff's discussions with individuals and local and State officials held at the time of preparation of the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement did not identify any substantial impacts on the surrounding ccmmunity resulting from plant construction (Final Supplement to the Final Envircnmental Statement Section 4.S, p. 4-4).
The Final Supplement to the FES further indicates that almost all major building activity has been ccmpleted and that the remaining ccnstruction activity will focus en building interiors.
(Section 4.2) The only envircnmental impacts possibly resulting frca 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.
Mcwever, dur to the shortness of the extension period requested and the stage of construction, the staff does not believe that any additional impact will result.
The staff concludes that environmental impacts associated with constructicn of the plant and described in the FES, are not affected by the proposed extension.
Thus, no significant change in impact is expected to result frcm the extensicn.
Cenclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing analysis and the NRC staff evaluatien, it is concluded that there will be no environmental impact attributable to the preposed action other than that already predicted and described in the Ccmmission's FES issued Cecember 1972 and in the Final Supplement to the Final Envircnmental Statement issued in December 1976.
Having made this conclusion, the Commission has further concluded that no envircn-mental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared, and that a negative declaration to this effect is apprcpriate.60-25G