ML20080D375
| ML20080D375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, River Bend |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1982 |
| From: | Remick F NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE) |
| To: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082380886 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090100 | |
| Download: ML20080D375 (5) | |
Text
"g gp1EuG MY h4AU
' %}
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M
c E
( oj WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20$55 j
l July 14,; 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: John F. Ahea
,C ' issioner V
. c, Director Forresp
- Policy Evaluation FROM:
Of{cp
SUBJECT:
RIVER BEND-1 CONSTRUCTION TIME As requested by your memo of June 16, 1982, we have examined the construction schedule for River Bend-l and possible explanations for the short construction time.
In responding to your request, we have discussed River Bend canstruction with the Caseload Forecast Panel (CFP) and the previous and present resident inspectors.
At the present time the staff is in basic agreement with the fore-cast of a 1985 fuel load-date. You should note however, that the CFP has not been to the site in at least 18 months and construction is only approximately 50% complete -- both circumstances which suggest that the forecast could still change significantly before actual completion.
It is probably too early to te'11 whether or not the plant will actually become a plant completed in less than average time.
Neither the Caseload Forecast Panel nor the previous resident inspector believe there is anything exceptional about the management of construction although they believe the utility is doing a good job given that this is their first nuclear plant. The present resident inspector stated that construction appears to be going well and that work preparation, in particular, dry run exercises for cabling and welding, is exemplary.
However, two other factors may have more significance in terms of influencing the. apparent rapid construction at River-Bend-1.
- First, design work and site preparation were substantially completed before actual start of construction -- an LWA had been issued in September, 1975. The previous resident inspector estimates that 60% of design.
~ Secondly, the work was complete by the ' time construction started.
construction which is complete is primarily non-safety related and structural and hence the easiest part of the construction process to complete on time. Historically, the most substantial slips in con-struction time occur in the later. parts of the process.
Contact:
John Montgomery X43295
~
8402090100 831031 PDR FOIA ROSENBAB3-498 PDR
r
- :. l As to factors listed in the Nucleonics' Week article and their probable causal effect on.the construction period, both the no strike construction and special work scheduling have been factors at other plants which j
took relatively long periods to build. One can assume that the large degree of direct utility involvement in construction activities has played some role in keeping construction on track. Hopefully it may
~
have a larger impact on subsequent construction quality. The timing of River Bend construction such that TMI generated requirements did not cause backfitting delays may also have been a factor, however we have no specific information to either support or refute that claim.
If one refers to construction schedule. tables used by the CFP one finds that the median curve indicates a plant should be approximately 46%
complete after the first three years of construction. The 50% completed construction reported for River Bend-l for that time period is essentially average. However, the 50% itself may be overly optimistic. After the last CFP visit, the staff estimated the plant was' 18-20% completed when the utility was estimating 29% completed. The utility's construction timetable also indicated that 79% of construction would be complete by A9 gust 1982 to meet the 1985 fuel load date, when in fact 50% is reported complete now.. In summary, we do not believe that the short construction period p cdection is firm enough to warrant considering River Bend-l as an example of efficient construction.
If you are interested in further pursuing identification-of factors leading to efficient construction periods, St..Lucie-2 may be a better case to explore.
It has a similiar 6 year construction schedule but is approximately 90% complete and hence more certain of being completed on schedule, cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine L. Bickwit S. Chilk W. Dircks s
l 9
e
r).,
~
p
--.u..
-- *~-
'-= =*---* -- **" * ^ - * " ^ " * * * * -**
..-%~.. _.. -. - - -
- " "** --'" ' * '~- ~ ~ " '
-. ---- - - ~ - - + + - - * * ~ ~ * = - - - -
- O
+
-e M.
gi g.-
,a-.p-.-e.
ee*
-ma
-eme-
- *. * * * -~*
- * * * " - - - "'+'
- ~~'
. m pt/w'.__..
-.t M
mW N---e+.
g s
w
,..i
,,.w,
.,,,,.e.
O_..ww.-hw e' h 48'w*
^-**'6
.-f e.sycj & E t
./h 86..l3-f3_.-.-..-__-
-.-_)
{
je n g> m A
p ~..,a = L s m y.
n 6 g ~" n J..
p E
d.
h+=
.m
==-
N
^
.-w-
-. hee.
s_.
.e.is..
_,..ew
_.,A.
,p.
e l
I l
i l
4
._..m_._
_~._.. _ _ _. _ _... _
- _._ _.. _ _... __.i 1
1
O s 74y" f g pb 4 c
- w-
-+
+ = - * -
-meew-.-.m.*
e-*.
- -+
=e-.-
p*.=
.we.--me.
me Sy &
Qw,Z) s. AL) --
n nip n.gawaa ip__
ple_
- kmL -.
16o a er%. e AAw(__..
/
_ [h
._.._.m J 7o dj} ____ _....__ _ _
_ ___ {
y,a n Q -
mo g L a..-(,so&f...-
g.s b _ _ yo. M Q __ _._._
xL nen qs AJg i
7sg
$ N A. m Y
'bdc) Q Q-l9$i Mea &.ol} Jh Q f.
A A.71 y",ep'
<g/ M ys M.J m.
12 5 rn W W~ 0~.
i m.e
-sem a
ei.we.
- xa.ee.
we
.ge.,...
I i
l i
G l
. ~.
muss m
~..,
=
~
g 60g
~"
g6 sob g o o.
w N
/
3 -/2 - J'b..-
A
- Q L :_,
l Pg av W
/mA.Ak _.y%
/
ut. Lnp7,,auu.
/6o --/ 70. M Q Q,--...-.--
t m,
~. _. _..
--~ - - - _ - -.
.h 5
.,,,,o.__.
._ _ 12
_ _ _ _.. _ _. zo A_.. A i
_ _ f
.S Q.
.&~/. Sk/
._ f.r%-
0' jy
//
J/
/!
. -gh I
dL. _._ -
q uo h-so l
&& Q.
5e %.
i l0 A l' j
j, -
gj/O..-
Cy 41
- ,,; A a.
/
./[ O l
A N
he
.{
v w
e m ew eg
.. Men o.
y
%...s_.e
-.e-e
+.-.-
ei
..e w.-
4 1
li i
-*>-6
.M
-e.e.--w
=gm eq...u.a go.
.m.m.
,m
,,, p
,,,_g w_
w
.q,w j
l t
y
..._..____._._2__._.
__ _ _.._._._._.___.i l
l
-.;. ; rif(
N "7
~.
UNITED STATES.: -
. g.;
.p o
U k %p ii NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOr-E n
WASHINGTON, D.'C. 20555
~
l 4/
h h
j i \\
i MAR 121991[
b A.
W
[5 Docket Nos.:
50-458
~
M APPLICANT:
Gulf States Utilities Company.
~
FACILITY: ' River Bend Station, Unit 1 2Ib
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MARCH 3-5, 1981 MEETING AND SITE VISIT TO ASSESS MI)
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE s$
.:' q Oti March 3-5, 1981 the NRC staff met with Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU),
Q Cajan Electric and Stone and Webster (S&W) at the River Bend (RB) site in St.
M Francisville, Louisiana to discuss the scheduling of construction and to
%j observe the construction activities in progress. Meeting attendees, irauding dh interested members of the public, are listed in Enclosure 1.
NRC representatives A
included a member of the Caseload Forecast Panel. is the meeting 3.M agenda.
Q'<
The purpose of this meeting and tour was to provide for the staff's independent assessment of construction completion.
GSU's estimate for construction com-M pleted as of January 31,1981 is 28.9D GSU's estimate for cc struction completion and fuel loading for RB ~ Unit 1 is October 1,1983, ith commercial
,~
operation by April 1,1984.
Ca the basis of this da te, GSU p'.
s to tender an application for operating licenses in March 1981. The overali angineering x' ].:
effort as of January 31,1981 is 81.6% complete.
'p x
The previous visit by the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel occurred on March 11-12, p.;
1980 and is discussed in a meeting summary dated April 23, 1980. This previous M
visit resulted in a completion estimate by the Panel of October 1985 for RB
, '. i Unit 1.
m M'#
Conclusion s#d On the basis of observations during the tour and from information provided, is the NRC staf.f concluded that RB Unit 1 is presently between 18 to 20% complete.
q GE The staff will provide its conclusion for the projected completion date of
$-]
RB Unit 1 following completion of its detailed analysis within about one week.
b The staff's pre.limination examination indicates that a completion date arouno di the end of *1985 should be expected for RB Unit 1.
The staff also finds that 25 installation rates for several bulk commodities must exceed twice the demonstrated WQ industry average to achieve GSU's October 1983 completion date. GSU's installation curves also show that numerous commodities are planned to proceed
%fi in parallel and.the. staff could find little evidence that appropriate sequencing Q
Gsl between commodities had been provided for. The staff believes that appropriate sequencing of commodities is essential if record installation rates are to be achieved.
The staff's detailed review will examine the commodity installation
%?;j rates as well as the sequencing between the schedules for various commodities.
f/
y
. b1 3In
,.u k
=
5.ff 05 v
f V -
1 i
ld typically The staff stated that an application for operating license shou t
tion completion be submitted about 30 months in advance of the p i
d at i
l l
present and a slight increase may be needed, particular yon the
{
date.
the license to have contested hearings. late.1985 and the present thirty-mo h
application, the staff finds that the OL application s ou 3
Mr. Cahill of GSU noted his disagreeme i
early 1983, rather than March 1981.
with the staff's estimated completion date and stated t aThe March 1981 as planned.
applicants priviledge under the Commissions regulations t d that he could but in view of the staff's need for review efficiencies, sta eceptanc not and would not recommend to staff managem The Project d be reviewed tc
' Manager also stated,that the River Bend application woul Revision 4 of the Standard Review Plan to be issued shortly.
GSU Presentations _
in support of Visual aids and handouts used by various GSU and S&W spea cheir schedule projections are
/
4 3
l A.
Darl Hood, Project Manager Licensing Branch #3 Division of Licensi.ng.
l l
i l
O
--a
.