ML19330C683

Requests Extension of 820601 Const Completion Date to Oct 1983.Summarizes Impact of Safety Review Schedule,Const Progress & Financial Considerations on Schedule Revisions

ML19330C683
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	08/06/1980
From:	Aswell D LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
LPL-14745, NUDOCS 8008110326
Download: ML19330C683 (3)

Text

%

v l OUISIANA 24a ost4acNee Srnter P O W E A & L 1 G H T[ P o Box soc 8 . NEW CALEANS. LOUISIANA 70174

• [504) 366-2345 IIliOIs hrsYEU oc aswn,.

August 6, 1980 v'c. ** . ort *** a m.cw LPL 14745 3-A1.10 3-A1.01.04 Mr. Albert Schwencer, Chief Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Waterfoi; 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 Construction Completion Extension

Dear Mr. Schwencer:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.53(b), Louisiana Power & Light hereby requests that the Commission extend the latest date for completion of construction of Waterford SES Unit No. 3 from the June 1, 1982 date set forth in construc-tion permit CPPR-103 to October, 1983.

Our estimate of licensing completion and the Waterford construction schedule has been revised after an intensive review and assessment of the status of our operating license application review, construction progress, and cash flow limitations. The following paragraphs summarize the impact each of these factors has had on the schedule revisions.

1. Safety Review Schedule The Waterford 3 FSAR was docketed on December 18, 1978. The review schedules established by the NRC in April, 1979 called for submission to LP&L of all Round 1 and Round 2 questions by June and November, 1979 respectively in order to support an SER issuance of November 28, 1980 and an OL issuance of September, 1981. The NRC staff review of our docket however was curtailed in August, 1979 due to diversions of the staff's manpower to Three Mile Island related activities. As of June 1, 1980 nine NRC Branches had submitted Round 1 questions while only the Hydrology and Quality Assurance Branches had ()() f officially submitted any Round 2 questions.

b

/ l3) 8 0 0 811g326

Mr. Albert Schwencer Page 2 Since October, 1979, LP&L has been attempting to obtain a revised schedule for resumption of this review. Because of the tremendous burden TMI has imposed on the NRC resources and the priorities operating plants and near term operating license applicants have received, this schedule has not been forthcoming. In April,' 1980, we were informed by Mr. Denton that the Waterford 3 SER' issuance would be scheduled for May, 1981. It was mutually agreed that this SER date' pre-cludes any realistic probability that the licensing process could be-completed to support-the NRC estimated fuel load date of September, 1981, due to the contested operating license proceeding pending before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Eoard.

It is extremely difficult for either the utility or the NRC to judge 'the precise impact on -schedule of the contested licensing proceeding. For our own planning purposes, however, as we discussed in April, issuance of an OL for our application cannot be expected before some seventeen months following issuance by the Staff of the SER. Thus, based on the Staff's May, 1981 schedule for SER publication, OL issuance cannot be expected before October, 1982 at the earliest and that date allows no time for licensing problems based on licensing concerns that may be required to be addressed by Waterford during its OL review but whose effect on schedule has yet to be identified or quantified. . It is prudent to allow time in the latest date for completion for considerable slippage of this type, particu-larly based on licensing experience since the. accident at Three Mile Island.

2. Construction Progress Until the present construction schedule revision, our object was to be prepared for fuel load in May, 1981. This target date was maintained even after the schedule promulgated by the NRC in April, 1979 indicated an ASLB prospective decision date of September, 1981. However, severe manpower shortages and lack of craft productivity in certain areas over the last year caused that date to slip.

Between April, 1979 and April, 1980, 3500 man-months were lost due to a lack'of productivity. This is a regional problem affecting other construction activities in the area as well.

A major factor has been the high personnel turnover rate --

reaching 35 to 40 percent per month on several occasions in the last year. Overtime competition from other construction activities in the area, the difficulties in commuting to the site from.the major source of our manpower, metropolitan New Orleans, and the hot weather have been the main contri-butors to this situation. Lack of productivity has caused

w i

Mr. Albert Schwencer Page 3 an additional critical path delay of approximately three months.

Construction related problems in and of themselves, therefore,-

have caused a total schedule slippage of six months, from May to November, 1981.

3. ' Financial Considerations Unprecendented financial conditions, i.e., inflation in early-1980 at an annual rate above 18 percent and prime interest rates topping 19 percent,-have placed the Middle South Utilities System generally and Louisiana Power & Light specifically in-a critical financial situation. The investment securities offered by LP&L -- bonds, preferred stocks, and commercial paper - have been downgraded to the lower end of the ratings among electric utilities, making capital even more costly.

The outlook for relief is not immediate. The availability of additional capital in the form of bank loans is severly limited. i This financial atmosphere' demands thsc we take steps to preserve an adequate cash' flow. The most effective action we can take is to maintain a realistic construction schedule for Waterford 3.

In view of the anticipated delays in the licensing schedule described above, construction support of a projected fuel load date of.May, 1981.is no longer warranted. We have, therefore, reduced the number of contract employees at the Waterford 3 Site from approximately 3000 to 2000. This will cause an additional eight months delay, extending our construction com-pletion from November, 1981 to July, 1982 at the earliest.

While these actions have affected overall schedule, safety has not been affected.

In summary, we are forecasting at least a fourteen month delay in actual l construction completion, from May, 1981 to July, 1982. This schedule results I in construction completion well in advance of even the most optimistic licensing schedule of October, 1982 that can be anticipated. The requested extension in Construction Permit dates is based on our expected licensing schedule assuming an SER issuance of May, 1981 and allows one year for 4 any additional as yet unidentified and unquantified future licensing problems.

Yours very truly, D. L. Aswell l

l DLA/RWP/ dde l

cc: E. L. Blake W. M. Stevenson i

l' i