ML20079F306
Text
'
p' '8 4g d
c, UrJ11 E D s1 AT E s
.,C NUCLE AR REGULAlORY COMMISSION
,E WASmNGTON. D C 20!M k
MAR 3 01982 NOTE T0:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, D; Robert L. Tedesco, Ahcensing, DL THRU:
c FROM:
Frank J. Miraglia, Chief, LBA3, DL
SUBJECT:
RESULTS OF MARCH 1982 CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL VISIT TO PALO VERDE On March 16-19, 1982, the Caseioad Forecast Panel (W. Lovelace and the PM, E. Licitra) visited the Palo Verde site to assess when Units 1, 2 and 3 would be ready for fuel loading.
The applicant's estinate for the past three years has been November 1982 for Unit 1; November 1983 for Unit 2; and Noverber 1985 for Unit 3.
A previous Caseload Forecast Panel visit, for Unit 1 only, was completed in October 1980, at which time the Panel projected a fuel load date of May 1983.
After the March 1982 visit, the Panel now projects November 1983 for Unit 1 (one year later than the applicant), November 1984 for Unit 2 (one year later than the applicant), and Novenber 1985 for Unit 3 (the same as the applicant).
The bases for the Panel's projections are discussed in the enclosure.
Subsequent to the March 1982 Panel visit, the PM informed the applicant on March 25, 1982, of th: Panel's tentative findings resrding projected dates.
The applicant was also informed that the dates would not be publicly released (in the form of a meeting sumary) until af ter NRR management had an opportunity to assess the Panel's findings.
The applicant is currently reviewing its schedule to incorporate the testing phase and TMI-related scope into an integrated schedule (apparently no such integrated schedule has been available to date). The applicant infomed the PM that the integrated schedule should be available in about 2 weeks (early April).
Subsequent to the March 1982 Panel visit, the PM was infomed by both Region V and the applicant that the Manager for Plant Operations has been relieved of his duties.
Until a replacement can be found, Mr. C. Andognini, Vice President for Electric Operations, has assumed the responsibilities of the Manager for Plant Operations.
Further changes below that level are anticipated by the applicant.
In light of the significant differences between the applicant's and Panel's projected fuel load dates and the recent change in management personnel, we reconmend a senior level management meeting between the applicant and NRR to review constructior, progress. Such a meeting can be arranged shortly after the applicant establishes its integrated schedule (early April).
L X
Y~
J{ o'7 o M
e m u-J L
M
~
ysA Copy Hgeen Smt to M j ___
Darrell G. Eisenhut We request your concurrence with this approach so that we can rake arrangements for the meeting.
7
[
(5[u.
]k?,. es FrankJ.M{Faglh,! Cgfe Licensing Branch #3, DL Enclos ure:
As stated cc w/ancl-
. R. Denton 3
_ J. Kerrigan W. Lovelace E. Licitra
- g-J.
L M.LOOME
., s.
l q-
~
~
1
~
a.
m..
PALO VERDE CASELOAD FORECAST
't.
N Unit 1 Fuel Load ( Anplicant date - 11/8'2)
~
previouh estimate of 05/83, given' in 10/80, was based on the following projections for 03/82:
1.
95% of cables installed (achieved) 2.
90% of terminations completed (actual amount is 79%)
3.
Preoperational Test Program well underway (actual - 1 of 268 test completed)
Other findings during 03/82 visit:
1.
Many procedures not'~ ready for use a.
64 not yet started (written)'
b.
65 are in prepdratica c.
287 still in review cycle 2.
Startup Test Group not fully staffed (currently at 79%)
3.
Dr.ly 218 out of 563 subsystems havb been transferred for prerequisite testing (In 10/80, applicant had projected that all but 65 subsystems would be transferre'd by 03/82) 4.
Construction activities in Control Room have not been completed (hence may not support completion of test program'by 05/83, the previous estimate) 5.
Integrated schedule for constructiohand testing not available 6.
Exemptions to some dated TMI requirements will be requested' Current spans -to complete preoperational testing in recent plants range between 22'- 30 months.
Based on above, and assuming the preoperational test program will start in earnest by 04/82, we project a fuel' load date no earlier than 11/83. This allows only 19 months to com51ete the preoperational test program which is 3 months less than the 22 months on the los edd of the range.
~
Other potential impacts not included in above estimate
- 3, 1.
Manaser for~ Plant Operations was; relievedslast week and a permanent replacement has not been chosen;yet.
2.
A new Bechtel Startup Manager (for prerequisite testing) was installed l
about six weeks ago.
l l
..\\
'e
~
.m.
e o.
6s, e
,.,J4y
^
_m,,
~
4 Unit 2 Fuel Load ( Applicant date - 11/83)
No previous estimate given.
Findings during 03/82 visit:
1.
Construction phase seens to be on schedule (ahead in some areas and behind in others).
2.
To date, no schedule has been established for system transfer or for prerequisite and preoperational testing.
4 3.
The same startup crew (and procedures) as used in Unit I will be used in Unit 2.
Based on above, and the projected delays in completing the preoperational test program in Unit 1, we project a fuel load date for Unit 2 no earlier than 11/84.
To meet the low (22 month) value of the preoperational testing range, this testing should start by 01/83 to meet the 11/84 date.
Unit 3 Fuel Load ( Acolicant date - 11/85)
No previous estimate given.
Findings during 03/82 visit:
1.
Construction phase seems to be on schedu.e (ahead in some areas and behind in others).
2.
It's too early to permit evaluation of testing schedule.
3.
The applicant's projected fuel load date seems reasonable. At this time, there is no basis for disagreeing with that date.
Based on the above, we agree with the applicant's projected date of 11/85.
l l
,