ML20003H550
| ML20003H550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1981 |
| From: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105060311 | |
| Download: ML20003H550 (4) | |
Text
DUKE POWER COMPANY Powen Durwixo 422 Socin Cnuncu Stazzi.CnARWirE N. C. 28242 wn.uau o. emanca.sa.
April 30, 1981 m
p.c.....,
tctc O.c:uc. re.
$teano PaCOuCMON 373-4063
..~
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director i/ D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
{ g
kk p(,
j Washington, D. C.
20555 t h. "..,. 0 5 ;ggy Attention:
Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief E,
Licensing Branch No. 4 m
k\\ h
% 88D%,h g
..s 8k. f\\
Re: Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Nos: 50-413, 50-414 N.
Dear Mr. Denton:
On August 7, 1975 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-116 and CPPR-117 for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2.
The Construction Permits authorized Duke Power Company to construct two pressurized water reactors at a site owned by Duke on the shore of Lake Wylie in York County, South Carolina.
Fuel loading of the Catawba units has been rescheduled several times since the decision was made in 1972 to construct the units. Originally. the units were scheduled for fuel loading in December, 1978 and December, 1979. Duke's con-struction permit application reflected those dates.
In August, 1974, prior to the issuance of the construction permits but after granting of a LWA for the station, Duke announced a significant cutback in its construction program. These cutbacks were necessitated primarily because of critical conditions existing in the financial markets at that time. The company indicated that delay of construc-tion and reduction in immediate capital requirements wculd not effect the ultimate need for the units but would effect their. commercial operating schedule. The two units at Catawba were rescheduled then for fuel loading in 1980 and 1981, two years later than on the previous schedule. Work had begun at Catawba under the LWA and except where needed to protect that work construction at Catawba was discontinued until September, 1975. The construction competion dates reflected in the construction permit issued by the NRC were consistent with the August, 1974 rescheduling of the Catawba units.
On December 13, 1976 Duke announced a second rescheduling of the Catawba units.
The completion dates for the units were determined to be February, 1981 and August, 1982 for Catawba Units 1 & 2 respectively. The revisions of these schedules were based on new estimates of load growth and electrical needs made Bool 5
/o B'1050609\\
.~.
April 30, 1981 Mr. Harold R. Denton Page Two 1
by the company and confirmed by independent studies of the North Carolina Utilities Commission. Duke's intensive load management program was a major factor contributing to the reduced forecasts and the resulting changes in schedules. Other factors which contributed to this management decision to reschedule the units included a lowering of expected population growth, con-tinuation of conservation efforts by customers, and a more moderate growth by industry.
On July 18, 1979 Duke's management determined that the Catawba Nuclear Station could not be completed as scheduled in spite of the company's continuing efforts to complete the station as expeditiously as possible. Fuel loading dates for the two units were rescheduled for April, 1983 and October, 1984 for Units 1 & 2 respectively. This rescheduling was necessitated by the increase in regulation of nuclear generating plants, unprecedented engineering requirements for piping supports, and expanded preoperational testing. A combination of several situations and events which occurred in late 1978 and early 1979 led Duke to perform a schedule reassessment. Some of the more significant factors determined during 4
j that reassessment which caused a rescheduling of the fuel loading dates are:
1.
Due to past design changes, a three month delay was estimated in the com-pletion of support systems for the Auxiliary Boiler.
2.
Problems had been encountered with vendor deliveries causing a delay in the actual erection of piping supports and piping restraints, delayed install-ation of the Unit 1 Reactor Building equipment hatch, and delsy in the j
erection of the steam generator upper lateral restraints.
3.
Special projects resulting from the Three Mile Islend accident, Duke's response to NRC IE Bulletins and Notices, and the dedication of manpower i
to projects such as a total hanger reinspection program at Duke's McGuire Nuclear Station have had a definite impact.
4.
A revised preoperational test plan was developed which identified all re-quired activities, their sequence and interdependencies, and the manpower resources needed to support the plant. This revised plan in preoperational and hot functional test duration schedules was approximately 11 months longer than the previously planned schedule and the sequence of system turnovers required was significantly altered.
5.
Piping suppor't restraints had been scheduled to be erected closely following and essentially within the duration of the erection of the corresponding piping. This support restraint erection bogan to lag due initially to late design information and then later due to a shortage of key support restraint material. Later, revised seismic and thermal analysis of piping systems and additional new piping increased the total number of support restraints re-quired.
April 30, 1981 Mr. Harold R. Denton Page Three Although Duke has sizable Design Engineering, Construction, and Steam Pro-duction departments, the number of qualified personnel currently available, supplemented by a substantial number of consultant and contract personnel, i
have not been able to offset the above delays. Duke's manpower resources have been heavily taxed since 1979 in conducting special studies and in-vestigations as a result of NRC regulations applicable to all Duke nuclear projects, including Duke's operating nuclear station at Oconee. Duke has
~
had difficulty in attracting skilled craftsman for the construction process; training on site has been emphasized to raise construction skill levels. In addition, a major demand on Construction Department manpower is the need to perform as many as 75 inspections and reinspections per pipe support in order i
to satisfy revised documentation and design requirements.
In June, 1980 Duke announced a change in the completion dates of the two Catawba units. The six month rescheduling was a result of increasing work being required by the NRC.
The Final Safety Analysis Report, Environmental Report-Operating License Stage, and other information for an operating lic,ense review was originally submitted to the Staff on March 21, 1979 for an acceptance review and docketing. Follow-ing the Three Mile. Island accident, NRC-staff resources were diverted to the special studies associated with the development of action plans and reanalysis of Staff requirements. As a result of the accident, Duke's application was not reviewed.
Dr. March 31, 1981, Duke filed an updated FSAR, ER-OLS, and l'
application for Operating License review.
1 Based on the above and on Duke's experience in complacing and getting into operation McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 1, Duke requests that the completion dates specified in CPPR-116 and CPPR-117 be extended to March 1, 1984 and September 1, 1985 for Units 1 & 2 of the Catawba Nuclear Station, respectively.
These new completion dates will provide for a further delay in the licensing of the units due to the uncertainty of the status of current rules and future rules which will directly effect the Catawba Nuclear Station and are consistent
[
l with currently scheduled fuel load dates of August, 1983 and February, 1985 for Units 1 and 2, respectively.
/1 vpry truly yours j/
s' (K
/
/
/ (3.._
L), /n L.
William O. Parker, Jr. U f
cc:
P. K. VanDoorn, Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station L
I i
.e.
WILLIAM 0. PARKER, JR., being duly sworn, states that he is Vice President of Duke Power Company, that he is authorized on the part of said Company to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this request for an extension of time for completion of Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; and that all statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
G
/
f N
/Dw d.
th$ -
William O. Parker, Jr.ye President Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of April, 1981.
C. %,A' Sue C. Sherrill, Notary Public Notarial Seal My Commission Expires:
September 20, 1984
,-a n
- -- - -,,