ML20104A739

Advises of Util Completion of Annual Review of Const Program.Unit 1 Will Not Be Placed in Commercial Operation Before Early 1986.Form 8-K Filed W/Securities & Exchange Commission Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20104A739
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/30/1985
From:	Reynolds N BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Bloch P, Johnson E, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#185-319 OL, NUDOCS 8502010482
Download: ML20104A739 (5)

Text

'

1 CELATED CORRESPONDEMB 4

law OFFICES OF pcWE ED

'f3hRC BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS

- 12 0 0 S F.VE N T E E N T H STR E CT, N. W.

WASHINGTON, D.C.2OO 36 85 3 30 Eh,N NEW v0Rn

<,E...N. COO, (202)857-9800 ses5 AVENyg QF THC AMgp3CAg N E,W Y O R M, N E W Y O R n 8 0 0 3 6 TELEX 440574 INTLAW US ,L"

• g[r ,1282) 704*Ot00

" i .' J ' TELEX 222?6 7 WRITE R'S OiR ECT OI A L

'2

857-9817 January 30, 1985 Peter B. Bloch, Esq. Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Chairman, Atomic Safety and Dean, Division of Engineering, Licensing Board Architecture & Technology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oklahoma State University Commission Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Washington, D.C. 20555 Elizabeth B. Johnson Dr. Walter H. Jordan Oak Ridge National Laboratory 881 West Outer Drive Post Office Box X, Bldg. 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Subj: Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2); Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 O b Gentlemen:

Mindful of our obligation to apprise the Board of develop-ments which bear on matters before it, including estimated schedules for commercial operation, this will advise the Board that Applicants recently completed their annual review of their construction program. That review considered several factors, including the present status of licensing for Comanche Peak.

Based upon this review, Applicants now estimate that Unit 1 of Comanche Peak will probably not be placed in commercial operation before early 1986.

A copy of the Form 8-K recently filed by Applicants with the Securities and Exchange Commission is attached for your information. It will provide the oa d with further details.

Sinc aly a l Nicho] S.

Counse for/Reynolds 1pplicants cc: Service List t

Herbert.Grossman, Esq.

F5020LO482 850130 PDR ADOCK 05000445

$h

( Q PDR

f t

4 t SEttRITIES MC DQiME (DMISSIW

^

Maahington, D.C. 20549 EH assuwr nooser Pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchasse Act of 1934 a DATE OF EMLIEST EM REPORTED - J40RY 16.1985 TEthS UTILITIIB EE25 TIC 53GNff i

I.R.S. Employer A Texas Comission File No. 75-1837355 Corporation No. 0-11442 2001 BRYAN TOWER. DALLAS. TEXA5 7i201 (214) 653-4600 1 of 4

. - . ..- ._ . . - - . . - . . . -._.......__-.-.:_.~.......___.__._._.-- _.- . - . . - - . - . . _ . - .

r -

l

. l s

ITEM 5 OTHER EVENT 3.

Reference is made to the Registrant's 1983 Form 10-K in item 1 under Fuel Supply-Nuclear and Regulation and in item 2 under Construction Program. Reference is also made to the Registrant's reports. on Form 8-K dated May 2, 1984, October 22, 1984, and January 11 1985 The Registrant, a subsidiary of the Teams Utilities Company (Texas Utilities), is constructing two nuclear-fueled generating units at the Comanche Peak Steam Elactric Station. Each unit has been designed for a capability of 1,150 megawatts. This project is subject to the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NRC regulations govern the granting of licenses for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants.

The NRC has been reviewing the Registrant's application for

'7

' operating licenses for the Coment.he Peak units. As a part of that review, initiated before ~ en Atomic Safety and I.icensing Board (ASLSa proceeding )wasand hearings on various issues have .bsen ,

ongoing since December 1981. Af ter completion of the ASL8 pro-

- coedings, the ASLB will make recommendations to the NRC regarding the issuance of operating I! censes for the Comenche Peak units.

The principal remaining issue before the ASL8 relates to the Regis-trent's quality assurance / quality control (GA/QC) program for the

- design and construction of the plant. In December 1983, the ASL8 issued a memorandum questioning the QA program for design of certain portions of the plant and requested that the Registrant offer addi- The tional_ proof of adequate design and design review procedures.

Registrant has been -responding to that request and, in accordance with the ASL8's suggestion, has employed an independent engineering firm to perform studies of the plant's design adequacy. Reports on some of these studies have been submitted to the ASLS. Additional

. reports from this firm are expected to be submitted in February 1985 and additional ASL8 hearings on design issues are expected to take y s place during the spring of 1985. The ASL8 is also reviewing several

! other related -Issues and has Indicated its intent to review the

.results of the NRC!s Technical Review Team (TRT) Investigation l

i discussed below.

In July 1984, a separate ASL8, including two of the three members on the original ASL8, was convened to receive testimony on allegations that'QC inspectors at the plant have been subjected to an atmosphere of harassment and intimidation which is alleged to have af fected the implementation of the Registrant's QA program. Hearings are also s

' continuing on this part of the proceeding and are expected to be concluded in the spring of 1985.

As a separate part of the WRC's review of the Registrant's operating license application, in March 1984 the NRC established a task force to consolidate and carry out the various reviews necessary for the NRC Staf f to reach its decision regarding the operating licenses.

a z or er

- _ . , _ _ - . - _ _ . _ _ . _ - . _ _ ~ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . - . . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - - - _ _ _ _ - . .

--- = - - - -

s i

Th'Is ef fort involved the establishment of the 'TRT which' began an Intensive on-site- investigation 'in July 1984 and subsequently has issued reports requesting additional information from the Registrant

- with respect to several functional areas of the plant's construction program.

4 to the questions The Registrant.has submitted to the TRT a plan to respond raised by' those reports which provides for the

' appointment of a special team, including independent experts in each area addressed by the TRT. Such plan is presently being leptemented.

In January programs 1985, thePeak.

at Comanche TRT issued a report on its review of the QA/QC The report states that although the QA program documentation met NRC requirements, the laptementation of the QA program mitment to ag demonstrates that the Registrant has lacked the com-several' areas.gressively implement an effective QA/QC program in The TRT indicated that it has found evidence of faulty construction and ineffective QA and QC inspections. Ques-tions were also reised concerning the training and qualification of QC personnel and in the reporting of deficiencies. The TRT further found that prior to July 1984 problems had existed in the control of

~ documentation.

were described. In addition, deficiencies in several other areas The Registrant has been requested to submit to the NRC a program and schedule for completing a derelled and thorough assessment of these QA/QC issues presented by the TRT. The Regis-trent also has been asked to consider the use of management personnel with a fresh perspective to evaluate the TRT findings and implement corrective action, and to consider the use of an Independent >

i consultant to oversee the corrective action program. The Registrant l

is presently address as_sessing the questions the TRT (report 'and Intends to promptly it raises.

(-~ 1985, the Registrant suggested to the original ASLS that it consid deferring further hearings until March 1985 and take no immediate l action on the Registrant's pending application for authority to load fuel, in order to give the Registrant an opportunity to complete this process.

i in a separate January 1985 that but related action, the Registrant was also notified in the NRC's Executive Director of Operations has recently directed the formation of two panels, each consisting of NRC senior staff management, to prepare the NRC Staff's positions on issues presently being considered by the ASL8.

In December 1983, the completed cost of the two units at Comanche Peak was estimated to be $3.89 billion, including the allowance for funds used during construction (AFU0C), of which $3.313 billion was allocable to the 87 5/68 of the plant owned by the Registrent. These amounts were based on an estimated commercial operation in early 1985 for uni t I and mid-1986 for Unit 2. As a result of the Registrant's regular annual review of its construction program,

'which has- included consideration of the present status of the licensing effort described above, the Registrant now estimates that Unit 1 of Comanche Peak will probably not be placed in commercial operation.before early 1986, and Unit 2 is now esi:Imated to become l operational in mid-1987. Based on this schedule, the total cost of l

l 3 of 4

a ,

n.

)

the plant, including AFU0C, is now estimated to be $4.564 h{Ilion, of which the Registrant's share is estimated to be $3.898 billion, ilncluding AFUDC, or $1.930 per kilowatt. -

Although construction of Unit I of Comenche Peak is virtually complete, no assurance con be given that the scheduled commercial

. operation date.s of these units can be met or that the estimated completion costs thereof will not be exceeded. Failure to secure timely and favorable regulatory approvals or any further delay occadoned by reinspections or possibleJrework resulting therefrom will increase financing the cost of .the plant end would likely increase requirements.

In a related development, in January 1985 Texas Utilities announced the completion of its.annualfcomprehensive review of its construc-tion program for each of the years 1985 through 1987. Construction expenditures (net of participation by others) for utility property,

- including as follows:AFU0C but not including nuclear fuel, are projected to be

$1.125 billion for 1985, $1.150 billlon for 1986 and

$1.225 billion for 1987. The not effect of revisions in the con-struction schedule. . Including the cost increase of Comanche Peak. Is no change in the estimate for 1985 and a $150 allifon decrease for 1986 from those announced in December 1983; there had been no previously announced estinstes for 1987.

In addition to the delay in the In-service dates for the Comenche Peak units Indicated above, operating dates for four Ilgnite-fueled units were rescheduled as follows: Twin Oak 1 was rescheduled from 1989 to 1991, Twin Oak 2 from 1990 to 1992. Martin Lake 4 from 1991 L -

to 1994 and Forest Grove from 1989 to 1993. Texas Utilities also l announced the addition of 190 megawatts of combustion turbine units to be completed in 1988. i SIGNATURE Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. the Registrant has- duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

i TEXA5 UTII.ITIES El.ECTRIC COMPANY l H

)

Date: January 23, 1985 By l l

/s/ Erie Nye 1

Erie Nye Executive Vice President l

t

= ys e --g--- p -,e-v