ML20080D387

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Handwritten Notes & Calculations Re Fuel Load Preparation & Const Activities
ML20080D387
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Catawba
Issue date: 08/13/1981
From:
NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML082380886 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090105
Download: ML20080D387 (1)
v • d • e


Text

_

. ~ ;f

- i~-

4.

~_

f 4;,

. Q [

Q qc,

... _s :

f c,- :6

-f ' ' ?

'N h)

.{. S ^

+

l.M*.!J 1:

A"'j f 'A.

dl.:

' i d "-

-Q ~. M,

O Q L

-+

7 t.

P,Ji':-@T-M 8'

^&

7 ** r. f (

,t 4 '.

+

l y7 l. }, - [$ [

i j f

'. { 'g.Y -.(;

[

n 2

r W.m 1.-

4m N

.ve r* te M W.x Q p

-ly y

.gy n gl-g Ag-

![ y wa w

~.,.,

s

, y i.e

.e

1. s

.. 3, h

s 9

I.' #

l AU

-4 e,

  • j ~$D A 1

8

.a a

1 I

f.,1

.. g "Y

l J

l d '.j -i

't 3.1 5

n sd,. -@ C 4 /j Q(~<

r ia iy s s $

.o.

i

,a

..u -

I l' i O

J Wm

'O %_

I, i

W 'a (

3

}

h ()

'f

- '.) h

,J j

l.-].ltb ll - i

(

}"

9 j

@[ 'f '.'(

^

,?

09 6 lA e

.2

? ? i.V F

. tM

~

J an s \\ p. ;

m N

M.t v 2

J Q hle N -

l U

'. * ' T p

p

,1 od 4 c

F i

- f

i;-

- r 9

-i C

9-

.,t, 4

-, Ar C

-i 3

l ta s

i li qg y

f

  • Y

% *f[

f M$'.

h.

i

[

C u-t-

1 i

1, - @

_ k K K jQ'

)

C i

L, f

6.

Q1, y

. yk &

L_.

c

.v 1,A

~r h,

3 X

N ye.

.J sr at,

. L i0 e

v m

< t d

R h.

6 C

k. (

h

^*

u t*

~1 7

I th -

9'

~ \\

Li w

m r

(b N

fs 1

j i

N 0

1 5

l l

5 W

I 11 d

N

~

h..

a i

o 9

N' q\\

l r

o.

O c

N-

) d I )

2 J. 4-(..h )h 3

cd

,1 i

-d 5J

' C

" U S

t 8 9R <1 S

f b p.,:

i (

~

'j,% Nu 5

g

..a y

2 n

_ e n

- "Ns% ?7

's i

y

,o

. g 4,,

4 3, u.N c

pt e

-._p q_g g

- g Ik N h

I d

h l

k l

u

[

dl

(

b? b S

S

$ 3) MN

+ o J-w m p

p

.,y a lt s j

y 4 e-l

{

Q 4 j.j g ( p ]

)

L p

f' l

C q

f

-[ 'h (( G j Q

?E l^,,

1-a c

h 1

~ d 1

dd s

3 E

4 Q{

u 1 4 i

4

,r i t m qi IJ pq b

b N

b C

sk h,

.9 N k \\M h

l I' M jk

- h4 h

T N. k d[

9d 4 l l b

lah l M_

ll I s <1 4,

i t

_l

3 r _2 3 J 4s q it q q s,%

1 I i l i l j-.l.--

1__- _._

4

.. @'a' 2

~-~

3V.cj<VA' -c 1.h_.

-Q..

rW '

9%-5.?r'.ns 1 ;-7 %,,

,_..p:'.. 2 H ' -

^

  1. .t
  • ..t

~.L.-

.; ', r -

t-

',. ' j ; c _\\

..s ~. -

~,

8002090105 03103* 4%

.. 5. ;'~3

......, >; i,... /,-

~

/

w

,R A'.33,. ;?f *,'yfL....

/

g PDR FOIA M

1

^ r PD.. S4

";d s-s..

ROSE,N.B A83-4 VD

"..'3

,i c-c-w.

,v.:, a.AP 1.p.. '

s :

t.

L S e e _'q ki'*R.J * ; q if.w*', a. s..g, z.j ' a ' s.' {*

s.. 'f6 rett ++;L "

$Q i

.. ;, :,. 7 %,,,; -

..i',-

f

,s f[

i.[NITED STATES y

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3y

.. j WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 h

%r

,o

%k kN Docket No.:

50-461 l

l, APPLICANT:

Illinois Power Company FACILITY:

Clinton Power Station, Unit 1

SUBJECT:

CASE LOAD FORECAST PANEL MEETING

SUMMARY

On November 12-14, 1980 the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel met with representatives of the Illinois Power Company (IPC) in Clinton, Illinois to discuss the construction status of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1.

The panel consisted of C. Grimes, Acting Project Manager, W. Lovelace, Licensee Operations Evaluation Branch, and H. Livermore, Resident Inspector.

Attendees at the meetings held on November 12 and 14,1980 are identified in Enclosures 1 and 2.

The meeting agenda is presented in Enclosure 3.

On November 13, 1980 the panel toured the plant to observe construction progress. Documentation provided by the applicant during the course of the meetings are presented in Enclosure 4.

J. O. McHood, IPC Vice President, presided in the meeting for IPC and directed specific agenda items and questions to the personnel from the IPC staff, Sargent and Lundy (architect engineering group), and Baldwin Associates (construction group).

IPC generally described construction progress since the last forecast panel (December 1979) and indicated that, by their current estimate of i

the construction status, the plant is approximately 74", complete. The only significant schedular problem identified by IPC is a declining installation rate for electrical cable trays due to problems with changes to tray hanger designs.

IPC indicated that this problem is receiving significant attention.

Engineering activities are approximately 87% complete, which is approximately the same as that at thc last fo ecast panel.

IPC and S&L indicated that the remajning work is primarily associated with maintenance of f

the project and ongoing evaluations of suppression pool hydrodynamic loads.

IPC and BA described procurement activities and material delivery status, as detailed in Enclosure 4.

BA indicated that vendors are stocking e

material to expedite future fabrication work.

In response to questions raised by the panel, IPC and SA indicated that -(l) the present procure-ment sumary is not strictly comparable to previous sumaries because several earlier estimates have been converted to more accurate counts, 1

DNi%9

>,--w---

,,.,o

~_,c,

e n

DEG 4 1980- (2) there have been flucuations in material needs due to S&L and on-site engineering changes, (3) the procurement sumaries do not reflect material needed for on-site fabrication work (e.g., non-safety pipe hangers), and (4) there are a number of errors in the computer listing of procurement status where material and equipment have either already been delivered or are no longer required.

BA described the construction staffing activities, as detailed in

-, and indicated that sufficient craf tsmen should be available from the Central Illinois Pool, because no other major construction activities are expected locally.

In addition, a no-strike agreement was recently negotiated with the construction force.

IPC described the computerized dynamic scheduling techniques that are being used to facilitate plant construction. The techniques used allow IPC to focus on critical construction activities and readily adjust manpower and resources. The program status is reviewed each month and the baseline (i.e., work to be performed) is adjusted each quarter.

The short-term critical path work is the (1) control building, (2) radwaste building, and (3) turbine building.

The long-tenn critical path work is expected to be in the containment.

IPC is currently evaluating the effects of a six to nine month delay in their targeted April 1982 fuel load date.

IPC described, as detailed in Enclosure 4, the status of the develop-ment of procedures for preoperational testing and startup. A number of systems have undergone acceptance tests (e.g., cranes and substations).

IPC indicated that they do not believe that implementation of the TMI Action Plan (NUREG-0660) will impact the schedule for Clinton.

IPC plans to amend the Clinton FSAR to address each of the tasks in ths Action Plan.

IPC, through their participation in the BWR Owners' Group, has concluded that their existing design should satisfy all of the requirements that evolve from the Action Plan because of the advanced nature of the design.

Detailed schedules for resolution of the applicable Action Plan tasks are presented in Enclosure 4.

IPC expressed their concern that the NRC might not be able to provide regulatory criteria on a compatible schedule.

IPC indicated that the design deficiencies that have been identified since the construction permit was issued, and reported to the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e), are being resolved and are not expected to impact the construction schedule.

Preliminary comparisons of the structural response spectra suggest that the error in the value of the soil modulus should not require significant rework. This deficiency will be resolved when the revised structural analyses have been completed and verified, including the accepted suppression pool hydro-m

/

DEC 4 1980

_3_

dynamic loads. Control cabinet barriers containing defective plug welds have been removed and are being reworked off-site. The removal of these barriers is expected to facilitate electrical work in the control room.

IPC indicated that the company management has expressed a willingness to provide adequate resources to maintain the ccnstruction schedule for the Clinton plant. The project budget is currently being reviewed by IPC and they be.ieve that adequate funding will be available.

In sumarizing, the forecast panel indicated that the following information had been carefully reviewed and considered in order to estimate the fuel load date for Clinton Unit.1:

1) the status and progress of plant construction, including the status of bulk comodities and impressions of construction progress from the panel's tour of the plant;
2) -the dynamic scheduling methods and the capability for schedule recovery when there are perturbations in the material deliveries;
3) the status of plant design changes, correction of design deficiencies, and parallel generic activities relating to plant design;
4) the effectiveness and application of IPC management information systems, decisien making processes, and use of experience feedback from other plants;
3) the involvement of key IPC management;
5) the staffing program, labor relations activities, and dedication and qualification of construction workers (the panel independently verified the availability of journeyman electricians for staffing in early 1981); and 7) the remaining construction work that must be compi sted prior to loading fuel.

Based on this information, the panel concluded that the critical factor in estimating the fuel load date for Clinton Unit 1 is the remaining electrical work.

From the panel's experience with plant construction, and using the same techniques that have been used to estimate the fuel load date for all other domestic facilities, the panel estimated that Clinton Unit 1 will be ready to load fuel in August 1983.

?

DEC 4 1980

,4_

In making this estimate, the forecast panel noted that, although they could not be factored into this estimate, there are several issues that could potentially delay the fuel load date. These are:

1) resolution of the suppression pool hydroop

'nads and related corrections for the soil modulus in the stru_,.

./ equipment analyses;

2) resolution of the applicable tasks in the TMI Action Plan (NUREG-0660);
3) resolution of the environmental qualification of equipment (NUREG-0588); and
4) impact of the Hilti anchor bolt design deficiency and similar design deficiencies that arise in the future.

The panel further concluded that the estimated fuel load date depends on agressive construction progress, high quality work, and avoidance of major electrical installation problems.

IPC indicated that they would refrain from comenting on the panel's estimated fuel load date until they had an opportunity to review the meeting summary and reassess the construction schedule.

C..L,aq C. I. Grimes, Acting Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing Enclosu.res:

1.

Meeting Attendees, 11/12/80 2.

Meeting Attendees, 11/14/80 3.

Meeting Agenda 4.

IPC Documentation cc:

See next page.

t__

I L

n f.;

~

13

. a a8%g%

UNITED STATES y%

) -,( [,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsa NGTON. D. C. 20066 g.g.

l

+.....

  • JUL 9 1979

/

Docket No:

50-461 APPLICANT:

Illinois Pcwer Company (IPC)

FACILITY:

Clinton Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON JUNE 29, 1979 TO DISCUSS FORECAST PANEL'S FINDINGS FROM ITS JUNE 12, 1979 SITE VISIT A meeting was Feld with the applicant on June 29, 1979 to discuss the Forecast Panel's findinjs as a result of its site visit of June 12,13 and 14,1979 to the Clinton Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.

A list of attendees is provided in the Enclosure.

. informed the applicant, that based on our previous discussions with repre-sentatives of IPC during the above cited site visit we estimated that the construction was approximately 32% complete and that our estimated nominal construction completion date was June 1983.

The applicant stated that it was their view that construction of Unit 1 was 47.6% complete and their estimated fuel load date was April 1982.

We stated that we would conduct another visit to.the site in the latter part of 1979 and review the status of construction of Unit 1.

If there were any significant changes observed during our planned site visit that would cause us to change our estimate of the status of construction, we would take appro-priate measures to ensure a timely review of the applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report which they intend to submit on December 1,1979.

B.C.

B. C. Buckley, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Project Management

Enclosure:

List of Attendees cc:

See next page c

gs cen, UNITED STATES a

E % c.,

  • j,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,f WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 E

%.[.

JUL 61979 Docket No: 50-461 APPLICANT:

Illinois Power Company FACILITY:

Clinton Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF JUNE 12-13, 1979 FCRECAST PANEL SITE VISIT TO CLINTON NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1

Background:

The NRC Forecast Panel (W. Lovelace, R. Knop, H. Wescott, B. Buckley), made a site visit to the Clinton Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 in order to review the status of construction for fuel loading, A list of the meeting attendees is enclosed.

Summary:

On the morning of June 12, 1979 we met with the applicant at their Corporative offices in Decatur, Illinois and discussed their organizational structure, finan-cial plans, load forecast and their coninitment to generating power.

Enclosure 1 is a list of attendees.

We then visited the site to discuss the status of construction, the schedule for completion of construction and system turnover for beginning of the preoperational test program of the Clinton Nuclear Power

. Station, Unit 1 with representatives of the Illinois Power Company and their general contractors, Baldwin Associates and Sargent & Lundy. The applicant described the bulk material quantities installed to date and the total to be installed for several quantities of material as follows, Total Estimated Quantity Percent Material Quantity Installed Complete Concrete cu. yds.

296,800 212,649 71.6%

Lg. Pipe Bldg. lin.ft.

167,500 24,923 14.9 Small Pipe 169,100 7,491 4.4 Cable Tray 113,750 14,073 12,4 Conduit 278,770 360 0

Cable 4,211,880 154 0

l Tenninations 244,170 114 0

l

.g [

~

JUL 6 1979 The applicant stated that they had 156 days negative float based on no over-time; however, they had instituted a recovery plan, using the distributed float technique, in April 1979 to recover the above cited lost time. The effectiveness of this recovery scheme will be known in July or August 1979.

The applicant's stated that construction is 47.6% complete and that their projected fuel load date is April 1, 1982.

During 1978, the applicant stated that they had sustained an average 1.4% per month completion rate and an average of 2.2% per month during 1979. They further stated that they will submit the Final Safety Analysis Report to the Comission on December 1,1979. is a list of attendees at the site meecing.

We were favorably impressed with the management control activities at the site and the projected network for system turnover and start of the pre-operational test program. Nevertheless, based on the quantity of bulk material installed to date and a general comparison of the completion of construction

,for Clinton, Unit I with other sites at similar stages, it was our view that i the applicant's estimated fuel load date of April 1,1982 was optimistic.

We estimate that construction is approximately 32% complete and a nominal con-

'struction completion date of June 1983.

The applicant reaffinned their view that construction would be completed by April 1,1982 and requesced that the Forecast Panel make a return visit in November / December 1979 to review the status of construction. We stated that we would make another visit at the above cited time frame. is a list of attendees at the exit meeting.

m e

Bartholomew C. Buckley, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No.1 Division of Project Management

Enclosures:

As Stated cc:

See next page

-.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20080D387&oldid=4383004"