TXX-3432, Advises That Revised Estimated Fuel Load Date for Facility Is June 1983.Certificate of Svc Encl
| ML20032B056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1981 |
| From: | Schmidt H TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032B051 | List: |
| References | |
| TXX-3432, NUDOCS 8111040334 | |
| Download: ML20032B056 (1) | |
Text
..
ATTACHMENT 1 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
2001 BHYAN TOM C;t D AIJ A% TEXAS 76203 October 29,1981 1
Log No. TXX 3432 File No.
10105 9
Mr. Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director, Division of Licensing Unitec States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D.C.
20555 Re: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Schedule
Dear Mr. Tedesco:
ConfirminD my recent discussion with your staff, we have completed.
our review of the Comanche-Peak construction schedule. Our revised estimated fuel load date for Comanche Peak Unit #1 is now June, 1983.
i 1-q H.C. Schmidt Manager, Nuclear Services I
/sk I
i 0$bbblfy PDR
~
ATTACHMENT 2 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.TIPANY TXX-3312 2001 BRYAN TOWER a DALLAS.TEXA8 76201 fiIe No. 10101
'afhhd $[*;=l,*
June 19,1981
.) ' '* * ! Q-8
(('e h
"g\\ '2, b ggS\\# ('[l Mr. Harold R. Denton
$b c6 --
Director
/, -
i Nuclear Reactor Regulation
.]
7/
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g\\ *#
,Ce' Washington, D.C.
20555 N Qi
'a.
J
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION DOCKET NOS. 50-445 and 50-446 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS NOS.
CPPR-126 AND CPPR-127
Dear Mr. Denton:
Enclosed are three (3) signed and sworn original letters and affidavits and twenty (20) copies of a request to amend the captioned construction pemits to extend the " latest dates for completion".
Because the proposed amendments are pro forma, administrative in nature and have no safety or environmental significance we have detemined the amendment class should be class II ($1,200) for Unit 1 and Class I (400) for Unit 2.
We have therefore enclosed a check fcr $1,600 as payment of amendment fee.
Sincerely, R. J. Gary RJG:grr enclosure l
ol go 5
g/J.N f-pga oo 81oenselgG
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-445
)
50-446 (Camanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT R. J. Gary being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says that he is Executive Vice President and General Manager of Texas Utilities Generating Company, the Applicant herein; that he is duly authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission this request to anend the Construction Pennits (CPPR-126 and CPPR-127) for the captioned facilities; that he is familiar with the content thereof; and that the matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, infonnation and belief, h
R. J.# Gary Executive Vice President and General Manager STATE OF TEXAS
)
)
ss COUNTY OF DALLAS )
~
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for 6du.twb on this /9 d day of I' ' ' '.
, 19 8 V
Notary Public My comission expires M. / 7
,19/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, eti al.
)
50-446
)
i (Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS TO REFLECT NEW LATEST COMPLETION DATES Texas Utilities Generating Company ("TUGC0") is presently the holder of NRC Construction Permits Nos. CPPR-126 and -127 for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (CPSES). The construction permits presently reflect the " latest date for completion" of August 1, 1981 for Unit 1 and August 1,1983 for Unit 2.
For the reasons listed herein, TUGC0 requests that the subject construction permits be amended to reflect the " latest date of completion" of August 1,1985 for Unit 1 and Augyst 1, 1987 for Unit 2.
While we anticipate the units to be completed well in advance of thesa " latest dates of completion", we have, nevertheless, included considerable margin for unforeseen contingencies.
1.
Additional Time Requested An additional time of 48 months is requested to complete CPSES Unit 1 and Unit 2.
As stated above this additional time includes
_ considerable margin for unforeseen contingencies.
ene sd%
1.
F ctors Contributing to Delay 2.
f A. Construction delays due to extended delivery of materials and components The summary sample below comparing scheduled vs. actual receipt dates from major-equipment indicates delays impacting the construction sequence. All referenced contracts were issued between Jan.1,1975 and June 1,1976.
4 Description Delivery Scheduled Actual Generator Step-Up Transformers Oct. 77 Oct. 78 345KV Start-Up Transformers Oct. 77 June 78 138KV Start-Up transformers Oct. 77 Jan. 78 138KV Unit Auxiliary Transformers Oct. 77 June 78 Turbine Generators June 77 Incomplete Diesel Generators Sept. 76 Nov. 80 Centrifugal Water Chillers Nov. 76 Oct. 79 Service Water Pumps Feb. 77 Oct. 78 Nuclear Pumps Nov. 76 April 79
- Delays range 3 to 50 months beyond original scheduled delivery dates.
B. Design modifications resulting from revised or additional '
regulatory requirements Several significant design modifications include:
New requirements concerning the incorporation of an a'.ternative shutdown system capable of maintaing hot shutdown or standby in the event of a major control room or cable spreading room incident. Mandatory objectives were issued
,,--4..,,_.,
.,.,,,a,
,.w,,.,,-,
,,, + _. _..
--_g--a
^
3 Feb. 1980. Final design issued March 1981.
THI related issues such as the Post Accident Samnling System imposed extensive modifications to major (installed) equipment in conjunction with additional systems. Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities required design of a complete data acquisition and display system including revised facility requirements and the upgrade / replacement of instrumentation.
C. Construction delays fue to difficulities encountered in the i
installation of various components, primarily pipe hangers and j-rf,traints Difficulties have been ' encountered in going from analysis to installation of various components because of compliance with equipment environmental qualification and pipe support cr'.teri a.
Imposition of new requirements based on IEEE-323-1974 and J
associated standards has resulted in the late submittal of acceptable plans, reports, and certification packages as evidenced by the following sampling:
Original Description Submittal Sch. Anticipated Switchgear May 80 Oct. 81 1E Lighting & Misc. Transformers March 80 Oct. 81 Miniature Recorders March 80 Oct. 81-Main Control Bd. & Hot Shutdown Panel March 80 Oct. 81 Mainsteam Isolation Valves March 80 Oct. 81 2 Section X-Core Neutron Detectors March 80 May 82 Source Range Pre-Amplifier March 80 May 82
.,- =
Due to the impact of code certification of the component support system and the multiplicity of criteria imposed on associated support systems, including seismic and non-seismic categories, project and vendor organizations have expended massive engineering efforts in the definition and implementation of design, installation and analysis activities including as-built verification. This has also impacted the procurement of code fabricated pipe which was originally scheduled for complete delivery in Dec.1979 but deliveries mere not completed until April 1981.
3.
Contribution of Each Factor Contributing to Delay Factor A - 24 months - based on extended procurement requirements to support factor B.
Factor B - 18 months - based on design, rework and construction of facilities.
Factor C - 30 months - based on current schedules and subsequent I
certification activities.
~
4.
Critical Path or Pacing Factor 4
The pacing factor is the aesign, analysis and installation of l.
pipe supports as discussed in C above. The critical path will be tracked by the implementation of a system turnover schedule.
This schedule will establish priorities based on systems but will address an " area concept" where feasible.
e e
I i
1
_n,,
5.
Environmental Impact Appraisal A proposed Environmental Impact Appraisal prepared by TUGC0 is attached.- The result of this appraisal is a " Finding of No Significant Impact" to address the negative environmental impact of this construction permit extension request.
6.
Request to Dispense With Advance Notice Since the requested amendments of the construction pemits involve no significant hazards considerations, it is requested that the NRC dispense with advance notice and publication requirements as pemitted under Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,42U.S.C.2239(a).
7.
Comunications All NRC communications pertaining to this request should to be sent to:
R. J. Gary Executive Vice President and General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 In addition, it is requested that copies of each such communication be sent to:
H. C. Schmidt Manager, Nuclear Services Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201
.. ~.
_.=.
1 and to Texas Utilities Generating Company Counsel:
Spencer C. Relyea, Esquire Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Debevoise & Libennan 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 e
e e
2
..-e.e-._
..__.g..w,_,y-y.
,-,.m_,,
..,,.,-,.y..v.,y,,,-..,-.rw,_y.y y...,,, -m.-.- -.. _..p7.
--y
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENTION OF THE DATES FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC UNITS 1 AND 2 CPPR-126 AND CPPR-127 DOCKET NOS. 50-445 and 50-556 1.
Description of Proposed Action The action requested is the issuance of an amendment to the captioned construction pemits for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES). The amendment would extend for 48 months the latest dates for completion of Units 1 and 2 respectively.
The construction pemit for Unit 1 (CPPR-126) would by extended from a latest completion date of August 1,1981 to August 1,1985; the construction pemit for Unit 2 (CPPR-127) would be extended from a latest completion date of August 1,1983 to August 1,1987.
2.
Sunnary Description of the Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action The environmental impacts associated with construction of CPSES have been previously addressed in the NRC staff's final environmental statement, construction pemit stage 'FES-CF) issued J une,1974.
The FES-CP identified the following four major impacts and effects due to construction:
a.
Construction-related activities on the site will disturb about 400 acres of rangeland, not including the 3228 acres of land
. inundated by Squaw Creek Reservoir, which will be constructed in conjunction with the station. The land inundated includes 8108250l4}
about 8 linear miles of Squaw Creek and the adjacent riparian comunities, and 940 acres of cropland, which is considered irreversibly lost. About 200 acres of this land not to be used for the reservoir, plant facilities, parking lots, roads, switchyard, evaporation pond, etc., is to be restored by seeding and landscaping to prevent erosion.
b.
Approximately 15 miles of transmission line corridors will require about 439 acres of land for the rights-of-way.
c.
Relocation of the current pipelines as proposed will involve about 100 acres. A railroad spur 10.2 miles long will affect 185 acres of land. Diversion and return lines between Lake Granbury and Squaw Creek Reservoir will affect about 100 acres.
d.
Station construction will involve some community impacts. As many as 8 fann residences will be displaced. Farming, hunting, and grazing on the site will be suspended. Traffic on local roads will increase due to construction and commuting activities. Influx of construction workers' families (1150 peak work force) is expected to cause no major housino or school problems. There will be a demand for increased services in Somervell and Hood counties.
The first three effects have already oc' urred. The reservoir was constructed and filling was completed in May of 1979. Landscaping has not been completed but there has been seeding to prevent erosion. Construction of the transmission lines has been completed; the railroad spur and diversion and return lines between Lake Granbury and Squaw Creek Reservoir have been completed.
The fourth construction impact, community impacts, has already peaked and is now declining. The construction ek force peaked during the second quarter of 1979.
3 Another impact.,.the subject of a construction permit '.ondition, is groundwater withdrawal. At the present time most construction water is being supplied from treated lake water. As a result continued construciton will have little impact on groundwater.
A= required by the construction penmit environmental monitoring has been conducted. There have been no unreviewed adverse environmental impacts associated with construction and none are anticipated.
3.
Conclusion and Basis for Finding of Not 31gnificant Impact On the basis of the above, it is concluded there will be on significant impacts attributable to this requested action other than those already predicted and described in the FES-CP issued in June, 1974.
G O
O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL.)
Docket Nos. 50-445 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, 1
60-446 Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' AND CASE'S MOTIONS TO POSTPONE HEARING in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system (*) or by hand delivery (**) or by express mail (***), this 2nd day of November, 1981.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Chairman **
Mrs. Juanita Ellis ***
Administrative Judge President, CASE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX 75224 Washington, DC 20555 David J. Preister, Esq. ***
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Administrative Assistant Attorney General Judge ***
Environmental Protection Division Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station Dean, Division of Engineering, Austin, TX 78711 Architecture and Technology Oklahoma State University Mr. Richard Fouke ***
i I
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 1668-B Carter Drive l
Arlington, TX 76010 l
Dr. Richard Cole, Administrative Judge **
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board J. Marshall Gilmore, Esq. ***
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1060 W. Pipeline Road Washington, DC 20556 Hurst, Texas 76053 i
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman l
1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Y
l l
. 1 ~ "N.1
2-O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing and Service Section (1)*
Panel
- Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (5)*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Ild k n a k w 0< (k.g h fd Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff I
+
1,
-,ey-,-.--
e
, n wn.,
, - - - - -.,-nver--,
-4w-
,,1+y
~g e, ep p-
-,.w-n
-,,--w---.-w
--vnnwy-,-
,e
,, - - -,, -