ML19249E953
| ML19249E953 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1979 |
| From: | Houghton T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910020771 | |
| Download: ML19249E953 (5) | |
Text
-
s.
p %,
UNITED STATES
[
[h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 gj
/. j
. [,h SEP 12 i979 DOCKET NOS. 50-416 AND 50-417 APPLICANTS: MISSISSIPPI POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY; MIDDLE SOUTH ENERGY, INC.
FACILITY:
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF AUCUST 21-22, 1979 CASE LOAD FORECAST PANEL MEETING AND SITE VISIT Un August 21 and 22,1979, the panel met with representatives of the applicant (Mississippi Power and Light Company), their architect-engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation, and their NSSS supplier, General Electric Company, to review the construction and preoperational testing progress at tme Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) Unit I and to estimate the most likely fuel load date.
The previous caseload forecast panel visit in May 1978 (report dated June 7, 1978) had predicted a fuel load date of March 1981, compared to the applicant's estimate of October 1980. The forecast panel's estimate was influenced by con-cerns about:
(1) the lack of qualified electricians and (2) the potential pro-blem of conflicts between the actual construction schedule and the startup test program schedule needed to support the fuel load date. The applicant met with NRC staf f on January 9,1979 (report dated January 23,1979) to state their belief that they had overcome these problems, had identified and solved other potential problms, and were still predicting a fuel load date of October 1980.
It was agreed to conduct another caseload forecas~t panel visit in August 1979.
The panel met at the construction site on August 21, 1979 and was briefed on the plant's status during the morning.
In the afternoon the panel toured the plant and inspected the status of construction. An exit meeting was held on at the applicant s offices in Jackson, Mississippi.
The August 22, 1979 meeting agenda and attendees are listed in Enclosures 1 and 2 respectively.
The handouts prcvided at the meetings are available from Dr. Cecil Thomas, the LPM.
By way of introduction, the applicant reiterated the company's financial and resource comitment to their predicted fuel load date of October 1980. Their need for power from Grand Gul f Unit 1 is based upon a reserve capacity goal of 16% of annual peak load, and a projected growth rate of 6.7% per annto.
(Their actual 1978 growth rate was 8.9%). With the station in operation in 1981, their reserve would be 22%; without it, only 12.4%. They hoped to show the panel that they would be able to meet the October 1980 date although their latest startup testing milestone chart showed November 21, 1980 for fuel load.
The status of plant design, procurement, manpower, const ruction, and the startup preoperational test program is discussed below.
1073 353 4910020 7 7.1
,g
. SEP 11,1979 Plant Design Plant design is being handled by Bechtel Power Corporation both at Gaithersburg, Maryland and at the plant site. Bechtel estimates the design effort is 90% com-plete on Unit 1 and common f acilities required for Unit 1 operation. They have shif ted their emphasis to three items:
(1) an acceptability analysis of installed equipment that vary from design parameters; (2) Mark III containment questions; and (3) the testing pr% ram. The applicant anticipated little diffi-culty in complying with the applicable requirements of NUREG-0578, "TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force:
Status Report and Short-lenn Recommendations,"
but expressed concern and a strong desire that long-term requirement: : or boiling water reactors, especially BWR6/ Mark III systems, be identified as soon as pos-sible to permit them to meet their fuel load date.
P rocurement Procurement of bulk quar.tities appears to :
in good shape and is estimated now dt 90% overall. This represents a reductiu in the applicant's esti.nate made during the last panel visit due to a significant increase in required wire and cable, conduit, and cable tray. The applicant steted that the lead time for cable has doubled and is beginning to restrain them. To minimize the impact,
they have scoured the country and all dealing with other companies to reduce lead times. They currently have enough cable on hand to meet the condensate and feedwater flush milestone of Septem>er 1979 and feel that the problem is well in hand. HVAC equipment is a concern of the applicant. They have replaced their previous subcontractor in this area and have found that not only was procurement behind, but also the subcontractor had not even designed some fire daapners and registers. This will impinge on instrument installation but again they feel confident they can overcome the problem. Some equipment shortages are being met by substituting Unit 2 items.
The Unit 2 Power Genera-tion Control Complex is expected in September from General Electric and must be in place before the common control building can be closed and HVAC installed.
The applicant is now sending their own representatives to any supplier which they feel could impact on the plant schedule.
Manpower Manpowr problems appear to be solved. Three actions have been taken by the applicant which have improved the quality and quantity of manual labor:
(1) the wage rate was raised from the Jackson, Mississippi rate to an "eight city average" wage rate; (2) this rate will be adjusted annually each January, thereby satisfying local unions; and (3) the work week was increased to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />, consisting of four ten-hour days and one eight-hour day with additional overtime up to a total of 55 hours6.365741e-4 days <br />0.0153 hours <br />9.093915e-5 weeks <br />2.09275e-5 months <br /> permitted. This third action attracts the more skilled labor which seeks overtime work, and also allows the company to get a forty-hour work week prior to Friday when severe absenteeism cuts the work force by 15 to 25%.
The current job site population now totals 4400 (Bechtel 2945) with several hundred additional manual workers.
Installation bt 1073 351
. SEP 12 ggp) rates have increased significantly (wire and cable 59%, conduit 132%) with the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> week. Productivity, as measured by Bechtel and the applicant, appears to have improved and remains within their manhour budget as adjusted for the increased bul k quantities.
In this panel'.s opinion, the concern over the craft workforce, expressed during the last caseload panel visit has been resolved.
Construction Construction progress was reported as 82% overall with an average rate of 1.75%
per month from December 1978 to June 1979 and ?.25% from June 1979 to August 1979.
At these rates, the applicant and Bechtel stated that they expected to be completed with construction in June 1980 or April 1980 respectively. How-ever, they acreed with the panel that these rates will slow as construction nears completior oecause of interferences, nearly filled trays and conduits, and testing raquirements. A more realistic projection, they stated, was that the plant would be 94% to 98% complete in October 1980, at which point fuel could be loaded. The panel considers this optimistic, particularly considering the conflicts which will arise with respect to preoperational testing while completing systems.
Concrete work is 98% complete with the steam tiinnel being the major job left.
Pipe hangers are 72% complete, not including any modifications, or additions required by reanalysis of the Mark III containment. Wire and cable is only 63% complete, with conduit at 73% and connections at 52%.
The applicant is vigorously attacking this difficult area. The unit one cocling tower repairs were j ust com.aencing during the panel's visit. Other construction problems were identified by the applicant, including placement of the main turbine and the hydrostatic test of the service water system; however, they felt neither would impact on the fuel load date. The HVAC subcontractor problem discussed previously is causing scheduling problems which the applicant agdin feels they have under control.
Startup Preoperationai Test Program The startup preoperational tesu program and milestones were outlined by the applicant.
They consider a period of eighteen months, from plant energization in May 1979 until November 1980, sufficient to accomplish this, despite their original estimate of two years. The actions taken by the applicant to achieve this are:
(1) more careful planning of preoperational tests to dovetail together in a shorter schedule; (2) a shift f rom bulk installation of commo-dities to a systems completion approach, (3) the establishment of task forces called " Systems Completion Groups" to oversee systems and critical path mile-stones; (4) the addition of ten more startup engineers from consulting firms; and (5) hiring a new assistant plant manager with ten years of BWR experience.
The panel considers the preoperational test schedule as the major delaying item for plant fuel load. Our reasons are as follows:
1073 355
~4~
SEP ' : 1979 1.
Recent experience with other new generation plants indicates that a two-year test schedule (beginning at plant energization) is average.
In addition, the period from reactor pressure vessel hydro to fuel load for recent BWR's has taken, on average, ten months, whereas Grand Gulf is planning on only seven.
These time spans would place the applicant's fuel load between February and May 1981.
2.
Because construction is not further along, the applicant has made a late start considering their November 1980 target date.
For example, they do not plan to meet with the Region II inspectors to discuss test procedures until early October and the bulk of testing does not commence until early 1980.
3.
The Susquehanna 1 plant, also a BWR with Bechtel as the architect-engineer, is ahead of Grand Gulf 1 in both construc:; ion and test schedule, and yet it is now listing March 1981 as its fuel load date.
4.
The completion of electrical work will almost certainly interfere with and delay preoperational testing.
Conclusion The applicant has made dramatic progress in actual construction since the last caseload forecast panel meeting and has used aggressive managerial techniques to overcome labor and material problems. The applicant now predicts a November 1980 fuel load date and is pressing for October 1980. However, the panel feels this prediction is overly optimistic.
Ignoring the possible delays which could be caused by TMI-2 related requirements, Mark III containment questions, and HVAC or PGCC problems, we estimate a fuel load date of April 1981 based on the length of time required for preoperational testing, the probable adverse impact on the test schedule resulting from final electrical work, and unforeseen delays whicF :aay develop in the construction work that still must be completed. At the exit interview the panel discussed these conclusions with the applicant.
In addition, the panel stressed the conmit-ment of the NRC Staff to complete its licensing review in a timely but thorough manner so as not to delay plant operation unnecessarily.
M [d
(
Thomas C. Houghton
.)
Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
1.
Site Visit Agenda 2.
Attendance List ccs w/ enclosures:
See next page 1073 356
SEP 12 Egg Mr. N. L. Stampley Vice President - Production Mississippi Power and Light Company P. O. Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 cc:
Nr. Robert B. McGehee, Attorney Wise, Carter, Child, Steen &
Caraway P. O. Box 651 Jackson,(4ississippi 39205 Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Mr. Adrian Zaccaria, Project Engineer Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Bechtel Power Corporation Gaithersburg, Moryland 20760 1073 357
S ENCLOSURE 1 SEP 121979
_ AUGUST 21-22, 1979 SITE VISIT AGENDA GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 1.
Overview of construction progress since June 1,1978, including construction progress, major milestones completed, current problems and any anticipated problem areas.
2.
Review of current status of design and engineering efforts including any potential problems that ma / arise.
3.
Review and current status of procurement activities.
4.
Review of actual and proposed craf t work force, craft availability, produc-tivity, potential labor negotiations and problems.
5.
Review and current status of bulk quantities for Unit 1 and needed common facility including current total estimated quantities, quantities installed to date, quantities scheduled installed to date, current percent complete for each and average installation rates.
(A) Concrete (CY)
(B) Process Pipe (LF)
- Large pipe 2 1/2" and larger
- Small pipe 2" and smaller (C) Yard pipe (LF)
(D) Large Bore Hangers, Restraints, Snubbers, etc. (ea)
(E) Small Bore Hangers, Restraints, etc. (ea)
(F) Cable Tray (LF)
(G) Conduit (LF)
(H) Cable (LF)
(I) Terminations (ea)
(J) Circuits (ea)
(K' Instrumentation 6.
Detailed review and current status of pipe hangers, snubbers, restraints, etc., including design, fabrication, delivery and installation.
7.
Review and current status of preop tests procedure writing, integration of preop testing activities with construction schedule, systems turnover schedule, preop testing and current preop test program manpower.
Review of construction schedule iden'.ying critical path items, amount of 8.
float for various activities, the current critical path to Fuel Loading and methods for implementation of corrective action for activities with negative float if any.
Estimated percent complete for Unit 1 and needed common facility as of 9.
~
August 1, 1979.
10.
Site tour and observatior of construction activities.
11.
Exit Meeting:
NRC Staff conclusions 1073 358
SEP 12 $79
_ ENCLOSURE 2 ATTENDANCE LIST GRAND GULF SITE VISIT AND MEETING AUGUST 21-22, 1979 MISSISSIPPI POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
- N. Stampley W. Shanks J. McGaugby A. Smith L. Dale C. Morris K. McCoy T. Reaves H. Morgan
- NRC - STAFF R. Hutchinson*
P. Skinner
- T. Houghton W. Lovelace J. Rausch, Region II
_BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION J. Ward R. Lamb A. Zaccaria M. Brooks D. Lake
- H. Weber *
- Did Not Attend August 22 Meeting 1073 3$9