ML20101E842
| ML20101E842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1984 |
| From: | Owen W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20101E837 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8412260422 | |
| Download: ML20101E842 (6) | |
Text
'-
0 l
i, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0 a H!U:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D'E BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICf.NSING APPEAL BOARD E 04 Y bNiY&f[
In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-41'4
)
50-415 (Catawba Nuclear Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF WARREN H. OWEN My name is Warren H. Owen.
I am employed by Duke Power Company as Executive Vice President, Engineering, Construction and Production Group.
I have held this position since July 1,1984.
I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University.
I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the states of North and South Carolina.
I have served in responsible positions in industry-related organizations such as the Electric Power Research Institute, the Edison Electric Institute, the Atomic Industrial Forum and the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations.
Currently I am serving as a member, and am the former, Chairman of the AIF Policy Committee on Nuclear Regulation.
I have worked for Duke Power Company since 1948.
After assignments at two of the company's coal fired generating stations and the Steam Production Department General Office staff, I moved to the Design Engineering Department in 1961.
In 1966 I was appointed the e
Principal Mechanical Engineer in the Design Engineering Department.
I served in that capacity until 1971 when I was appointed Vice President of the Department.
In 1978 I became the Senior Vice President for 8412260422 841221 PDR ADOCK 05000413 9
Engineering and Construction and was elected to the Board of Directors of the company.
I served as Senior Vice President through April 1982, when I was elected Executive Vice-President, Engineering and Construction.
In June 1984 I was appointed Executive Vice President, Engineering, Construction and Production Group, the position I hold today.
In my capacity as Executive Vice President, Engineering Construction, and Production Group, I have overall responsibility for the construction and commercial operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station.
Included within this responsibility is assuring that the plant is brought to commercial operation on schedule in May of 1985.
The purpose of this affidavit is to explain the testing sequence which must be followed to bring Catawba Unit 1 into commercial operation, and to demonstrate that any delay which would result from a stay granted by the Appeal Board would translate into an equivalent delay in commercial operation.
The schedule of testing activities which regulations require to be performed during the initial ascension to full power operation is a phased progression, with specific required activities performed at various sequential power levels (plateaus).
Logic dictates that the activities must be performed in a certain sequence in order to complete the entire sequence of tests in a reasonable amount of time. Once the sequence of power ascension tests is begun, the unit must be escalated in power immediately following completion of testing at a given plateau, in order to allow completion of the entire sequence of such tests on schedule.
2-
30-day delay in achieving criticality recently-announced in a Westinghouse The improperly installed component found i h might have existed because of an reactor in South Korea has removed any margin wh c During that delay, corrective in the schedule as it previously stood.
including on plant equipment, will be performed only during shutdown, maintenance which can be performed surveillance of systems l operation.
to lessen the impact of the delay on commercia I
i-must be completed prior to
?
schedule and sequence The following commercial operation:
1 The time from entering Mode II to occurrence of initial Mode II_:
criticality is three days.
Following initial criticality the scheduled sequence of I
activities is:
days of testing to measure Thirteen Zero Power Physics Testing:
ters.
reactor core parameters and verify core design parame primarily consisting Three days of testing, 10% Powe'r Testing:
verification of plant the main turbine generator and of operation of j
response to a change in unit load.
including vertftcation i
Six days of testing, 20% Power Testing:
feedwater flow path, response to a change in l
of steam generator,
testing of the response of the station to loss of A.C. power and verification of the ability to operate the station from auxiliary control stations.
including of activities, Twenty-nine days 30% Power Testing:
d level control verification of nuclear steam supply system pressure an control rod systems, testing of the reactor
(
operation, operation and and further verification of reactor core physics parameters verification of plant transient response.
l of testing, including Twenty-seven days 50% Power Testing:
onse, further core verification of plant process radiation monitor resp flow testing and transient physics parameter determination, precision response tests.
twenty-four days in This testing plateau is 75% power Testing:
(trip) of the a transient induced by shutdown duration, and includes testing planned at from 68% load. Other unit main turbine generator coolant flow test, and precision reactor this plateau includes a
testing to verify reactor core physics parameters.
activities, focusing on An eight day set of 90% Power Testing:
and response reactor core physics parameters further verification of of the plant to a rapid change in feedwater temperature.
Nineteen days of testing, including tests of 100% Power Testing:
response to a parameters, verification of plant reactor core physics full loss of electrical load at the main generator.and transient response testing.
The net effect of the 127-day period of tests and work described above will be to place Catawba Unit 1 in maximum readiness for reliable commercial operation.
This schedule of activities is a challenging schedule with no contingency for idle time due to delays in power ascension.
It has been compared in detail with the actual times required to conduct the power ascension testing on Duke's McGuire Units 1 and 2.
The comparison shows that the cumulative duration of 127 days (four months and one week) for power ascension testing is very close to that found necessary to perform similar testing on both McGuire units. Minor differences in the duration of such testing are directly attributable to changes in the scope of testing required by regulation.
In conclusion, we are faced with a large amount of work which must be completed in an orderly sequenced fashion, which demands that we have the ability to achieve criticality and move unencumbered a
through the various levels of plant output which I have discussed, in order that we will be able to complete the required testing program and place the unit in commercial operation on schedule. At this point, any delay in achieving initial criticality will result in a commensurate delay in commencement of the testing program, which results in a day-for-day delay in commercial operation.
As the - -
r
_'D.,
e affidavit of Mr.
W. R.
Stimart shows, any such delay will impose substantial costs on Duke, its co-owners, and its customers.
IA.'blCN lllit a Warren H. Owen Subscribgdayof and swo tobeforeme th s jfL_,
c4AtR L 1984.
N30h'
' hb Asthul I
%i y//
Notary Public
/
sMy Commission Expires 'Ic28-8d>
s
.