ML20080D339
| ML20080D339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1983 |
| From: | Gilbert R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082380886 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090088 | |
| Download: ML20080D339 (6) | |
Text
.
\\.
<,9 UNITED STATES g)q'k,
!\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 r,,.; I( v(/
A
....+
Docket No. : 50-322 APPLICANT: Long Island Lighting Company c
FACILITY:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF AUGUST 11-13, 1982 CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL SITE VISIT Introduction Representatives of the NRC (Mr. W. Lovelace, Office of Resource Management, Mr. J. Higgins, Senior Resident Inspector for Shoreham and Dr. R. Gilbert, Shoreham Project Manager, Division of Licensing) met at the Shorenam site with representatives of the Lorg Island Lighting Company (LILCO) on August 11, 1982 to initiate a three-day evaluation of the status of construction and pre-operational testing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. A previous evaluation of construction progress was made in May 1980.
Principal partici-pants for LILCO at the August 11 meeting were W. O. Uhl, President, W. J.
Museler, Manager of Shoreham Construction and Engineering and E. J. Youngling,
-. Sttartup Nanager.. All attendees.at the initial meeting are listed in Enclosure 1.
Suma ry The applicant made a presentation en August 11, 1982 to respond to the infor-mation requests of the caseload forecast panel and attached, as an agenda, to the meeting notice issued on August 2,1982 At this meeting, the applicant's representatives still predicted, based on the data presented, a -September 20, 1982 fuel loading date. However, they stated that they were currently six (6) weeks behind schedule. Presentation material used by LILC0 is provided as.
Following a review of this material by the panel, an extensive site tour was made on August 12 and 13,1982 to evaluate the construction status and observe ongoing construction activities. Also on August 12 and 13 detailed interviews were held individually with the manager of construction and engineering, the startup manager and such other members of the plant staff necessary to furnish responses to information needs generated as a result of the plant tour. Considerable attention and time was also devoted to activities in the pre-operational testing crea.
When the tour was complete and ir.formational needs satisfied, the panel analyzed the data and determined what it believed to be a realistic fuel load date for the Shoreham facility. This analysis was based on the following list of remaining work items which are not necessarily presente.d in the order of importance:
6402090088 831031 PDR FDIA ROSENBA83-498 PDR i
2ro' -
- 4 <t C gA-1 y,1, : L.y
,,.w
<A.4
~}. c b J
l w;/I,./W rg:r ed Preop testing status and turnover to the nuclear plant staff.'
a.
.1,/ k b.
Cable wrapping program to meet separation criteria.
Total cable marking is not complete and there is no formal schedule for completion.
c.
Cable tray covers to meet separation criteria, a flu 6 / d p
a L.:f/
d.
The extensive dry well work remaining.
e [ c d. b,
Painting remaining in the reactor building.and control building.
e.
f.
Work remaining on the security system.
g.
Work remaining on the rad monitoring system.
h.
Work remaining on the Post. Accident Sampling Facility.
1.
Insulation work remaining.
j.
Fire stops and seals remaining to be completed, k.
The stress reconciliation program and associated hanger modifications.
1.
Block wall rework.
Leak Rate Testing program, m.
n.
Clean up and temporary iron, etc., removal.
Resolution of NRC outstanding items.
o.
%'6l W.O Conclusion
'u2M
,w % w u, y y
,'nigi IM O
/-' ' ' '
b Dur4ng the previous Ca eload' Forecast Panel (CFP) evaluation in Nay 1980, the applicant forecast a The CFP predicted September 1982 at-thatstine.el load September 20, 1982 The-pre
/activ4 ties =and analysis described.above,M='" t June 1003.EP__beljeves,t s
However, it C : ""
was difficult for the CFP to determine date accurately because some of t.he applicant's schedules are soft a t re are no hard installation rates available on the extensive cabl A *;r ppipg and tray over programs, lg Q
k\\
~
o
\\//
g.j' (k p Robert A. Gilbert, Project Manager Licensing Branch Ndl 2 5
i Division of Lic'ensing
Enclosures:
n,Q y /.
i cc: See next page
ATTENDEES AT AUGUST 11, 1982 MEETING AT SHOREHAM NRC LILC0 SUFFOLK COUNTY W. Lovelace W. Uhl G. Minor J. Higgins W. Museler K. Letsche R. Gilbert E. Youngling G. Fine J. Smith T. Reveley SWEC NYPSC J. Novarro E. Brabazon M. Milligan P. Eddy M. Worden F. Haag 1
l l
WHLovelace:ja f 8/19/82 PPLICANT: Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO)
FACILITY:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL SITE VISIT The applicant held a meeting for representatives of the NRC's Caseload Forecast Panel at the site of the Shoreham Station on August 11,12, and 13,1982.
The purpose of the site visit by the Caseload Forecast Panel was to assess the status of construction and to evaluate the applicant's projected construction completion date.
- ~
The list of attendees for the meeting is shown in Enclosure 1.
A copy of the meeting agenda and the presentation material used by LILC0 is provided in Enclosure 2.
During our previous Caseload Forecast Panel meeting in May 1980, the applicant stated that the Shoreham Station was 80 percent complete on l
March 31,1980 (based on earned manhours) and they forecast a fuel load date of May 1982. At this meeting the applicant's construction schedule predicted a September 20, 1982 fuel loading date.
However, they stated that they were currently six (6) weeks behind schedule.
A detailed review was made of the agenda material discussed during the August 11, 1982 site meeting. An extensive site tour to observe the construction status and ongoing construction activities was made on August ll and 13, 1982. Also, on August ll, and II,1982, detailed interviews were held with the manager of construction and engineering, the start-up manager, and a representative from the nuclear plant staff. Particular Pt?tOF Tcros5 attention and time were devoted in the*;'+' ' up area.
.. g.
After the foregoing, an analysis of the fuel load date was made which I
was based on the following:
i l
(a)
Preop testing status and turnover to the nuclear plant staff.
(b) Cable wrapping program to meet separation criteria.
Total cable 7-d marking is not complete and there is no formal schedule for compl etion.
(c)
Cable tray covers to meat separation criteria.
(d) The extensive dry well work remaining.
(e)
Painting remaining in the reactor building an'd auxiliary building.
i (f) Work remaining on the security system.
(g) Work remaining on the rad monitoring system, a
(h) Werk remaining on the Post Accident Sampling Facility.
(i)
Insulation work remaining.
(j)
Fire steps and seals remaining to be completed, j
(k)
The stress reconciliation program and associated hanger
.i' modifications.
(1) Block wall rework.
(m)
Leak Rate' Testing program.
.=
3
--3 (n)
Clean up and temporary iron, etc., removal.
l (o) Resolution of NRC outstanding items.
]
Ii Based on our review, we concluded that the Shoreham Station should be ready I
i to load fuel in June 1983.
It should be noted that some of the schedules ggy nLL5rTibra RhTES are soft and there w,3e no hardM available on the extensive cable wrappin h nd tray cover,s'. P a s e,< ~.s.
i J
J l
.1 3
i h
4 I
u 4
A i
t i
l l
l
,.,,,.