ML20080D263

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Draft Trip Rept of Caseload Forecast Panel 830222-24 Site Visits Re Const Progress Review & Estimating Resource Needs for Licensing Activities
ML20080D263
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Nine Mile Point
Issue date: 10/31/1983
From: Haughey M
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML082380886 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090063
Download: ML20080D263 (4)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.-

~~

nut LE AR RE G L L ATOR Y CD:.P.':ESION h* < r j WAS H t'J TO*.,O.C.0;!!! ,.~ Docket 1:c.: 50-410 APPLICANT: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) FACILITY: Nine Mile Point-2

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL (CFP) MEETINGS AND FACILITY TOUR AT NINE MILE POINT February 22 - 24, 1983 .c...... g v. On r trua y 22 - 21, IFE2, the NRC Cassicad Fo:ecas: Fanel (CFP), censisting e Of. liian Lovelate '."/D!'.~.), l'.ary Hau;ney (Licensing Freject Manager) and i.::er: 5:hul: {Er. F.es' cent Inspector), met v.ith the applicant and toured the 1:ine Riie Feint.2 f a:ility and site. The purpose of these neetings and tour review constru:: ion progress and collect data for the purpose of assisting was t: the t'RC staff in estimatinc its resource needs for licensing activities for t:ine rile Point 2. T,e visit was orcanized in two carts: 1. Dr. FeSruary II, a nee:ing was held with the applicant te review desien arc enpi te-S;,

urement, and constrc tion procress on Nine l'.iie
tir. -2.

2. On Februt y 23, a tour of the !:ine Mile Point-2 facility anc site v:as nace :: :: serve tn': status of construction. The CFP also held trief ciscussier.s witt. the applicant en Feb cary 22 and 24 cencerning -.. u... :. e . u... :..,.. _..... . Ce: ga y 24 a citsi-cut resting was heit. The C P statec tnat, based er tr.e re centage c' :: :'.e:icn ci se:b thir.;s as cen:vete, rice hangers, En:

E: e. Es ceternir.ed f rcm informatien provided from sne apolicant and from +.he

'aci'.i v : cur, the a::'.icant's r.cojec ec construction completion date of late Fe rcar[v 1ESE appeared ic be$timistic.

  • -"o

'" ' %w.e h...,.i e in-i n . 44.r.h w : r f-.1S ::

e e r e d..x e.' L 64y..

tac dtt:. upr *M the CFP 1 p gj.e.:. tier.it based uChan h the #011 0*; - se u ; ons-of-the-mee ti nysummarp-Althouen the CFP believed the February 1986 construction completion date was - ortinistic,12ine l'.ile Foint 2 is still approxinctely three years from construction e-cer:.e-icn ar.d cor.stry::icn completion esticates witnin a few r.onths are still unce-tain. For this reascr. it was acreec, for the present, that the licensing schedule wculd be based on tne applicant's scheduled completion date. It was fur:r.er acreed tnat ar.ctner Caselcac Forecast Panel visit would be made in the~ spring of'1954 to reassess the applicant's progress in meeting the February, 1985 ccepletion date. 8402090063 931031 PDR FOIA ROSENBA83-498 PDR / t_ d

s -2 MEETILG AK: FACILITY TOUP. DETAILS Tuesday, February 22, 19S3, at Nine Pile Point-2 Scriba, New York. The CFP met with the applicant at the KMPC offices on the Nine Mile Point-2 site. A list of attendees is included as Attachment 1. The applicant's presentation to the staff was supplied in eleven segments corresponding to the eleven items in the Caseload Forecast Panel Site Visit Meeting Agenda ( Attachment 2) which was included in the meeting notice. The MF?C rresentation incluced a general overview of project construction, raj:r -iiestones, an current and anticipated problems. As of January 31, 1952. c:r.struction otr:ent consiete was reported by MMPC as 61.59%. In 1982, EE.Ei

nstru :ic :c :le:i. was plannec; 22.45 was achieved.

Current

r: ie s i.clude:
r. *acter ;srformance affecting s:hedule, nctabiy the rechanical/
i in; c
ntractor.

l 2. iimited engineering lead time to construction.

uture
ctential scr.Edular problens include:
Er pe erati:n ::,trei :ceplex (PGCC) rodifications 2'
.t-acter :e-fernance, notably the najor rechanical c:ntractor 2'

truionent :;aiification concerns "T* rive Sv!!i 5thedule i craf: avaiiatility. n :ani) weicers d' conversien fr:n bu'.k basis project to a systen based ccnstruction P.ajor ccnstruction milestones completed in 1982 were: 1) set spent fuel pool liner l 2) .omplete set spent fuel pool liner I' cooling tower shell conplete 41 intake and discharge tunnels complete

3 !*.ajor construction milestones scheduled for 1983 are: 1) 115Y switchyard ready to energize ?) cable trays 80% complete 3) set main PGCC console 4) large process pipe 80% complete (hang in place, tacked in place)

5) ' polar crane operational 6) ciesel cenerator building enclosure 7'

screenwell buil:in; enti:sure cocplete E) cooling tower com;iste Ei rea::or buiicin; en:lesure complete 10) walsh concrete 9B% complete The status of bulk cuantities installed is indicated in Attachment 3. The ns 'ec uses by U";C for cetermining partial credit for installation is indicated

  1. -,At h:rTent 1 E pi seri ; a. ces4 Cn ef forts Gers estimated by N" C to De about S2% CoFDiete at tre er cf 1952.

Engineerin; -iles enes cer;iete; in 1951 were a) corpie:e s:-es ca'.1 strue:u-a'. : asings anc' ti con;1ste reatt:r building cen: rete and s t e E ", r adi r.g s. iiste; ecui: er neec ca:es ano sta us of ceiivery as f FeLrcary 21, "EE3. T-is its-incica e: 2 2:di:~ent a sas are experie'.ci g sr:-t. err delivery

retiers cf 1 to 3 c
nths.

The bulk cf the ecuipnea.: ir.:icated on-sits need de:es in 1953. 1, NF.3C noted a large craft work force is available in the Oswego area and cratt. workers are often used from the Nine liile Point, Unit 1 and Fitzpatrick plants. The availability of cualified welders however was indicated as a continuing p roblem. T.e Nine ".ile Pcint-2 prcject has recently undergone a maior schedule revision :: evaluate the pctential for improvir.; the fuel icad date. Preser.: N".30 schedules are targeted for an August 1925 early fuel load date. Critical path i ens for each area were identified by N".?C. These itens have float times (extra time available for contingencies before impacting the schedule) of between zero to 4 weeks before impacting the August 1955 fuel load date. This schedule allows little or no time for unexpected contingencies. An extra six nonth period is built into the total project float time, however, when con-l sidering the February 1986 official fuel load date. 1 / = ~

.c. SE:a a:s #'.ca; is icenti#ied in 1:ine t'ile Ocint-2 schedules for engineering, ccnstrc:-icn, anc test and startuo. Itens are consicered negative when they exhaust the float in any one of these areas, not the total project float. Inis systen calls attention to schedule pecblems before they impact the total proje:t. Of the 1213 pre-op and acceptance test procedures identified by NMPC as required for fuel load, 263 were identified as approved, 81 in review, 286 started, and 583 not yet started. (The number of procedures required in the areas of In Service Inspection, Operations Surveillance and Preventive Maintenance, Start-up Tests and Special Operating Procedures have not yet been identified and are not included in this total). A :::ai cf 3CC vc-kers vers icentified by N!*.FC as recuired resources for the Ore-cc a-d Accec.ance Tests :rograr. Of these,125 are already employed by '":C.

vis i*:i:ated by r";C that tne re aining cersonnel (nainly in the cceratin;, tecnnician, anc tes engineer categcries) could be drawn fro
.s
::1 f verkers ir :ne Oswe;: area presentiy working at Nine Mile Point, Uni

~. and Fitc;atrict. vednescay. February 23. 1953, at Nine l'.ile Point-2 The CFF toured the Nine Mile Point-2 site en Wednesday to observe the status of cor.structicn. Amcng the areas cbserved were tne containment building (inci;;ir; the dryvell and suptression peol), tne turbine building, the con ^ ol ecr :.C.c'ng, the racwaste building, the ciesel generator building, and the . =. :.... : - - :

e. :..

I. :-tef estin;..as neic af ter the cur c ciscuss adcitional information recess:, f: the FEC staff to nake its estinate of the Mine Mile Point-2

  1. uel ":sf C2!e.

2 t,

g 5 - :

. --{ef ee in;.15 " Sic.ith the ap;iicant cr Th;rscay Crning c cbtain the acciti:nzi '-fc a: ice re:;ested cy the NRC staff. At 10:30 Thursdav norning, a 5;- ary nesti ; vas heic with the applicant. The attendance list Tor this restin; is incluced in Attachment 1. At.this nee ing, the applicant was advised a by the CFP that the applicja_t's official scheduled construction completion date of February 1986, appeared 6p'Yimistic and-comp 1sticr utn-th; 'th goa Ler vi 1986 n >+ppece: d

:-l i k C.y.

Discussion of a licensing review schedule was de. erred pendin; further evaluation by URC staf# management. i-T-wC.... M. Haugbef', Pro / ject Manager Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing Attachments: As stated cc: See next page

Jun i / ,8 UNITED STATES yj (y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j s4 Aj WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 s %.s [ef g jug 111982 DOCKET NOS. 50-528/529/530 APPLICANT: Arizona Public Service FACILITY: Palo Verde, Units 1, 2 and 3

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF SITE VISIT BY CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL ^ On March 16-19, 1982, the Caseload Forecast Panel conducted a visit of the Palo Verde plant site to assess construction progress for each of the three uni ts. (A previous visit was conducted in October 1980 for Unit 1 only.) The visit initially included a presentation of construction status by the applicant (the Agenda is shown in Enclosure 1) on the morning of March 16. The attendees for that presentation are listed in Enclosure 2. An exit interview was conducted on the morning of March 19 following a tour of the construction site '.he previous days. The attendees for that meeting are listed in Enclosure 3. A sumary of the Panel visit is presented below. Sumary The applicant made a presentation on the status of construction for all three units. The presentation covered each of the Agenda items shown in Enclosure 1. At the meeting, the applicant continued to project fuel load dates of November 1982, Novenber 1983 and November 1985 for Units 1, 2 and 3, respectively. However, the applicant stated that it was in the process of reassessing its schedule to integrate the construction activities and the testing and startup phases into an overall schedule. The applicant expected to complete this assessment in a few weeks. After the presentation, we toured the facilities for each of the units. As a result of the presentation and the tour, we learned the following: Unit 1 As of February 1982, overall construction was about 96% complete. Cable installation was about 95% complete, while teminations were about 79% complete. Construction activities were still in progress in the control room. Of the 563 subsystems in the plant, 218 had been transferred from construction to prerequisite testing. Only one of the systems had been released to startup (for preoperational testing). The total nunber of procedures required for fuel load are 614 (includes 268 oreoperational tests). Of these,198 were approved for use, 287 were prepared and in the review cycle, 65 were in preparation,and preparation of the remaining 64 was not yet started. Only one of the 268 preoperational tests had been completed. I 1 {% a se h an em o

e Meeting Summary J'JN 111982 The startup test group was still staffing up and was at the 79% level. (The same group will be used for startup testing of Units 2 and 3). Units 2 and 3 As of February 1982, overall construction was about 80% and 35". complete for Units 2 and 3, respectively. The construction phase for each of the two units (2 and 3) was approximately on schedule (ahead in some areas and behind in others). Since the same startup group will be used on all three units, and the first two units are scheduled a year apart, any delay in Unit 1 preoperational testing would also affect the schedule for Unit 2. Exit Interview At the exit interview, we informed the applicant that we would make an assessment of the status of construction after returning to Bethesda and then present the results to NRR management. We would then inform the applicant of our findings. Subsequent Actions After returning to Bethesda, we performed an assessment of the status of construc-tion and informed NRR management of our findings. Based on this assessment, we concluded that the fuel load dates for Units 1 and 2 would be later than the applicant's projected dates. This conclusion was based primarily on the status of the preoperational test program which normally has taken about two years to complete on other plants. For Unit 3, we concur with the applicant's projected fuel load date. Upon completion of our assessment, we verbally informed the applicant of our findings. On April 22, 1982, the President of APS announced at the stockholders annual meeting that the schedule for Unit I will slip by a few months. He added that the precise length of the slip would nst be known until an in-depth review is completed in July 1982. Current NRR policy provides for a management meeting between NRR and an applicant when there is a difference between the applicant's and the staff's projected fuel load date, in order to get a better understanding of the difference. In keeping with this policy, and in light of the recently announced slip in the Unit 1 fuel load date by the applicant, a management meeting of this type will be arranged. G f L E. A. Licitra, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

1. Meeting Agenda 2. Meeting Attendees, March 16, 1982 3. Meeting Attendees, March 19, 1982 i ~. - _}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20080D263&oldid=4383054"