ML19254E035
| ML19254E035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1979 |
| From: | Tibbitts D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910300572 | |
| Download: ML19254E035 (14) | |
Text
R-w
~-
.m,
.34" 4 f(
$\\,
UNITED STATES y $ s,(J j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. q%7
.a E
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 7
SEP 2 51979 e
DOCKET NOS. 50-352 AND 50-353 APPLICANT:
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
~
FACILITY:
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD.ON AUGUST 6-7, 1979 WITH PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CCMPANY REGARDING THE CASE LOAD FORECAST FOR.THE LIMERICK PLANT Cn August 6-7, 1979 we met with representatives of the Philadelphia Electric Ccmpany (PECO) at the construction site of the Limerick Generating Station.
The purpose of the meeting and subsequent tour of the plant was to gather information for an incependent assessment of when Unit No.1 of the Limerick plant would be ready for fuel loading. The persons attending the meeting are listed in Enclosure 1.
The meeting agenda is shown in Enclosure 2.
In the meeting PECO addressed, point by point, the items in the meeting agenda.
In PEC0's presentatien, a large number of handouts were used; copies of the hand-outs can ce obtained frca the project manager. After the initial discussion with PECO, we teured the plant, met among ourselves, and discussed our conclusions with PEC0.
In brief, we were in agreement with PEC0's estimate of the percentage ccm-pletion fer Unit No.1 and the structures and c:mponents ccmmon to both Unit Nos.
1 and 2; PECO's estimate was 54%.
Howver, we disagreed with ?ECO's fuel lead date of 10 /82. The bases for this conclusion and a sumary of the major points in the meeting are presented below.
Status of Ccnstruction PECO's estimate of percentage ccmpletion of Unit No.1 and common was calculated cn a man hour basis; it was not weighed by bulk ccmmedity usages. However, ?ECO had performed analysis of labor productivity and had concludad that to-cate pro-ductivity had been equal to the original estimate.
The approximate amcunt of work complete in key categories (as or 5/79) is pro-vided belcw:
Small pipe 12%
Large pipe 65".
1237 149 Concrete (1, 2 and ccmmon) 32%
Cable Tray 57".
1 Conduit 20" N R Wire and Cable 1 ".
7910800 8
. st? 2 5 '979 The cable pulling is scheduled to begin in October 1979. The work force report given to us showed 1736 craft werkers were ensite for Bechtel and subcontractors.
A histogram of manpcwer requirements indicated a peak of 18k' craft workers.
The crafts are werking a single a0 hcurs per week shift. Unless construction lagged in a part.icular area, PECO does not intend to add a second shift.
The staff had two general comments on this:
One, the bulk quantity listed for cable (4.5 million feet) for Limerick appeared to be low relative to other plants such as Susquehanna and Grand Gulf which estimated 5.5 million feet for Unit 1 and ccmmon. Two, the total numoer of craft personnel was significantly less than that emoloyed at cther projects which are trying to achieve a 1 1/2 percent per month completion rate for a single unit or first unit and ccmmon.
PEC0!s response to the first cement was that based on their experience at Peach Bot:cm the cable estimate was correct.
In addressing the second ccmment, ?ECO stated that their monitoring of labor pecductivity and their experience with cable installation rates at, Peach Bottom indicated to them that the cable installation could be ccmpleted on time with the projected manpcwer. ?ECO also stated that a seccnd shift could be added if cable installation fell behind.
?ctential Areas of Delay PECO identified three areas that had the potential for delaying the fuel load.
These areas are:
1.
Licensing - At the ccnstruction permit phase, the hearings tack 21/2 years to ccmplete. The applicants predict the hearings at the ocerating license stage will exceed the standard hearing time usec by the NRC in scheduling.
2.
Three Mile Island - While ?ECO stated that they were folicwing the results of the NRC's task forces working on TMI; ?ECO cculd not creclude delay due to changes required by the Icng term studies of TMI accident.
3.
Financial Limitations - Based on the past load grcwth, ?EC0 may not recuire Unit No.1 in ccmmercial cperation until 1985 (fuel load in 1984). Hcwever, the construction budget fcr 1979 was increased in alicw a construction schedule that would continue to support ccmmercial operation in 1983 (fuel load in 1982).
The ccnstruction budget for 1980 had not been determined yet. Approximately 5142 millien wculd be required to support fuel lead in 1982; $117 million would be required fcr fuel lead in 1984 The staff ccmmented.that final resolution of the Mark II centainment reassessment may be a potential preolem.
PECO stated that since construction of the Limerick containment did not begin until after the reassessment of the Mark II began, they were able to add extra steel and emedments to acccmmodate the ultimate design fixes.
The final potential preolem icentified by PEC0 might have an imcact en ccmmercial operation of the facility but not on fuei loading. Currently, ?ECO will ce restricted frcm taking make-up water frca the Schuylkill River wcen the river 1237 150
~," ~
$EP 2 51979 flow goes below 550 cubic feet per second or when the water temperature gces above 59 degrees Fahrenheit. PECO is working on:
(1) an agreement with two counties for a diversion of water frcm the Celaware River and (2) a prap-in reservoir to be built next to the Delaware River in conjunction with ten other utilities.
Engineerino, Procurement and St2rtua The engincering for the project is 86 percent ccmplete. PECO did not identify any major precurement problems, aside frem the recirculation piping for the reactor. A redesign of the piping was rcquired after PECO decided in early 1979 to replace existing piping with piping that was made with 316L.
Tnis activity is on the critical path for the containment ccmpletion.
ine instal-lation of the redesigned piping is scheduled to start in January 1980. With regarc to the startup schedule, PECO is just beginning to assess the details required to support the startup schedule.
Staff Evaluation and Fuel Lead Date Tne staff concluded that overall Unit I and ccmmon were 54 percen: ccmplete; this was in agreemen; with PECO's estimate. However, based en PECO's proposed allecation of rescurces, the staff cercluded that PECO wcule not be able tc meet a Cctcber 1982 fuel load date.
Instead fuel load would be Novemcer 1933 or later.
Over the past 43 months, the construction rate has averaged cne percent ::er month.
In orcer to ccmplete Unit 1 by Cctcber 1982, the construction rate would have to increase to greater than 1.5 percent per month. We concluded that this would recuire an increase of the construction werk force to 20C0 or more craft ;er-scnnel working on jus: Unit 1 anc cccmon. ?ECO insistec that their monitoring of lacor prcductivity and their experience a: Peach Ect:cm incicated tha: the construction would be ccmpieted by Cc:cter 1932.
We sta:ed that industry experience as evicenced in manscwer levels and ccmaletion rates argued against the prccuctivity assumed by ? ECD, especially for caole pulling and termination.
PECO asked what impac cur conclusion would have en ?ECO's plans to submi the FSAR for Limerick in March 1980.
We stated tna we would prefer to visit the plant again prior to tendering of the FSAR.
If at that time. we conciuced met they cculd not demonstrate that they had cccmitted the rescurces to meet the March 1982 fuel lead date, then we would recuest that they delay submittal of the FSAR. PECO stated that folicwing issuance of tnis meeting summary they would requested a meeting with NRC management to ciscuss this :atter.
e,~-
sm Dean L. Tibbitts Light Water Reac:crs Branch No. 2 D Nision of Project Managemen Encicsures :
1.
Attendance Lis:
2.
Meeting Agenda
~
ccs w/ encicsures:
See nex: page
Mr'. Edward. G. Bauer, Jr.
SEP 2 5 ;979 Vice President & General Counsei Philacel phia Electric Company 2201 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 cc :
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
2000J Ceputy Attorney General -
Room 512, Main Capitol Euilding Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
SpecI'al Assistant Attorney General Rocm 218, Towne fbuse Apartnents P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Honorable Lawrence Coughlin House of Representatives Congress of the United States Washington, D. C.
20515 Roger B. Reynolds, Jr., Esq.
324 Swede Street Norristown, Pennsylvania 19:01 Lawrence Sager, Esq.
Sager & Sager Associates 45 High Street Pottstown, Pennsyi vania 19464 Joseph A. Smyth Assistant County Solicitor Ccunty of htntgomery Courthouse Norristown, Pennsyl vani a 19404 Eugene J. Bradley Philacel phia El ectric Company Associate General Ccunsel 230 T Market Street '
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 e
1237 152
ENCLOSURE 1 ATTENDANCE LIST MEETING WITH PRILACELPHIA ELECTRIC CCf.PANY AUGUST 6-7, 197E PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY R. Mulford R. Logue T. Gottis R. Scott J. Smugeresky J. Franz NRC - STAFF B. Kirschner T. Houghton
- 3. Lovelace J. Mattis D. Tibbi tts e
e 237 153
/
_ ENCLOSURE 2 LD1ERICK GENERATING STATICN, UNIT NO.1 CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL SITE VISIT AGENDA 1.
Overview of project construction schedule including construction progress, major' milestones comoleted, current problems and antici-pated problem areas and schedule for licensing.
2.
Overview of construction management organization and activities.
3.
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 Bore Pipe 2 1/2" and larger
- Small Sore Pipe 2" and smaller c.
Yard Pipe d.
Large Bore Hangers, Snubbers, etc. (ea) e.
Small Sore Hangers, Snubbers, etc. (ea) f.
Cable tray (LF) g.
Conduit (LF) h Cable (LF) 1.
Tenninations (ea)
J.
Circuits (ea) k.
Instrumentaticn 4
Detailed review and current status of pipe hangers, snubbers, restraints, etc., including design, fabrication, delivery and installaticn.
5.
Review and current status of preep tests precedure writing, integrati.on-of preop testing activities with censtruction schedule, system turncver schedule, preop testing and current preap test program manpcwer.
6.
Review of schedule identifying critical path items, amount of float for
~
various activities, the current critical cath te Fuel Loading and methods for implementation of corrective action for activ. ties with negat ve i
float if any.
7.
stimaced cercent comolete for Unit I and needed ccmmon facility as of July 1, 1979.
- ) 2 3 ~i
\\ b 4
7-8.
Site tour and observation of construction activities.
9.
Utility commitments on power.
10.
Anticipated financial problems.
11.
Engineering organization and current status of design / engineering activities.
12.
Procurement management and current status of major ccmponents including hangers, snubbers, pipe ahips, valves, piping and etc.
13.
Actual and proposed craft work force, craft avaflability, productivit'y,
~
potential. labor negotiations and problems.
14 Construction scheduling staff:
a.
Method of calculation of percent ccmplete b.
Method of monitoring rate of completion, identifying critical path items and implementation of corrective actions.
c.
Critical path activities, logic network and ccmputer printcut of critical and/or near critical items.
e 1237 155