ML20080D491
| ML20080D491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Comanche Peak |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1983 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082380886 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090140 | |
| Download: ML20080D491 (3) | |
Text
-
l 4
1 1
t' v
f
...T
~
i,
i.
~ ~ ' ' - - " ' '
i i
i I
l !
t
- j i
i-
.i i :
i iIc f
' i i l i i
' i
+-
} _ l
' 9 i l l 1 I i n.
l i
} ;
j t
-.nl i.
j i
'1 I
i i
@ $ [ D k '.[ ( 2'i s'
s i.
i i i t I 1 i i l
1 i ! i. l TEi6fiCL31 l
}
j I_
f l I l l l I,. l ' 'b., i 6 5, $ d i.
t i
5 i tj )l l i
' i 9l h'
y..
' i l i
,7 j)Q I_ i i i l i
C.I L!
e Yd l i%'
.! l[j l l
!ji I !'
I i
i l I fi i
! l I
! ; i
- i i
i
~;
,-f J'
c.
u h i.~ %. Q..- m,g y y e
i e '-
- l
.. ? l s '.
- ap %2p
~;
l :
j I i l 1l i j l _
c l
i
?m T'"
I !
{
l O
s i
- j t i 1 i
i i l i i i
i E l 6 l
j i I
! l' i l
i +
I i I
i i S.'d U D D $ D W u
I t l
'}
_l l l 1
- i l l 1
I P-I j' t
e i
I og i i i
i i 4
i r_
6 i
i i
L i
is s n.
h, N0 1
ts t.
h*
Mh%
w B402090140 031031 PDR FOIA M
ROSENBAS3-498 PDR I
r b
e i '
_3 g_
h
(,
h (y___%
i l.
e i i
)
{
l
- i s
~w
>. m o 9
i i
I 0#
h I
I Ii
! l l !
l i
i i
I I ( ;
} ! ! ! !
l i 0
l 8
e,_
t.
k m
Lg.,
a 6
j e
f l
I l
Il i
! i - 1 i I
I d
i i
i
} !
! l l !
I j j !
5
- i i _
I i l
! i I
i
- i,
I wax %gs~u 4
wwy ew9' e
l l i j I
t d
l I l l t
l 8
l
?
. i i
!'! lI I
I i!!
f
___ t i t
__ _1. }
Q.
[*..N i
u.._
j
__m._...
l t a
I i
(
p.
_. 7 1,,
[] I i
.?'j r.
. i 1 i
c,
- i a
3 3
~,....-->b...,
e.
e._.a b y,.
'I mm
Am_-
s.
A
~9 ~ y -m
- m., en 6
i I
h !
l
. fI l
a.
f f
I !
l l
q, pp___
g._7.J_ ]._p!7_~1 ]J._ _-
~_~~_l * ' J - i d 17 T.q _,i.7 ; 7.
)
l i I
...... T.l e i e q
q
.q,
--4 q__
_,_u q j
&SFNr-Ib7.' 41A 1r/ $
_l, g
_Cselererz I l Oph/! '
. ejugelIi,,
f/I1II i,I, i
., 4. -
ny.u !
I m ka, n!,,!
n <
\\ ; kna an>
> i i, \\
t
-, r ?~
I bn 2l Nd *E T 2y'? l l $
r o
P 5
chi A id
!n.:k l re._w A
l rk,.l
'!*!a:l PN)hel l
1
_p l I
__ iLAJ
! r dr id. i.
Jri d,,
9 I
t I
1,4..,;.n. i
- ,f,ivi i '
iii se l, !
i
! I i I ;
I '
! I l ! : I I
i i l i-! ! ; ! ;
i i i i
i l i
l i I l
1 ; j i l ! i l
i i ! I i
. : 1 I
l l l i 'i' i i.,, :
yI i
i
- i i i
! ; i i i i i
i a r d,d r ! cui i i l
l- ! I i!
j i i i j
i i t e, d 5, j' c- )
I l !
i i i : ! l i
. l i
1,,,f&j]2* @ hr 0? _ f -
i I
0;77 f:)
irvi ! f i
i fjj.. 'p
! "_c i I l I
l I 4
- Dr, rs ' r-r~.
.' I S )
I l
i i
, i e
i
! l '
l i i i
i j l i i 1 l ! { ! I i i l l i i
!I i i I
l I i
l l : i i,
i ! '
i ! i !
i i
I j I
i i j i i i
- i i i i l I I l l i
i I !
l ! !
- ! l ! ! i i i j.i j i !
i i !
i i
- l
! i j l 1 l i ! i i
1 i ! l
,l l I I
I j i t
j l l i !
6 6
l i
}
t j
j i i
i i
(
f f
f t
I a
i
- : i i ; } i ! I i i
I (
i !
l !
! ! j i !
l
!! I i i !
i i
! i I i i
!.i i
i i 1 l
l l i l l l l l I
l i
! i f I -!
l l
8 I i
II I I lI.
i I? ! i i
I e.
t l l l l i i
! l-i i i Iii!Iiil i ; i i : i i i!
-i i;i I i i
! i i l ! '
!;'ie l i : 1 i l 1 j
i i! l e
l : i ; ; i! i i i-i l
i I r
,g
! {
i i
f !
I l
l l
'7
e 4--
m J
+m., -A i
?
4 A
O f
s e
t M"
k_
i w
J 5
J o
n 7
C N
I o
D v-oo
~
o CO 1
M W
1
_1l) 4 e
)
e y,
[euen*'e,,
UNITED STATES D
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
{
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
\\,....*,/
JUL 7 1982 Docket Nos.:
50-445 and 50-446 APPLICANT: Texas Utilities Generating Comparty FACILITY:
Comanche Peak Steam Elactric Station, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL EETING AND FACILITY TOUR AT COMANCHE PEAK Summary On April 13, 14 and 15, 1982, the Caseload Forecast Panel (CFP) met with the applicant and toured the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 for the purpose of collecting data for assessing the projected fuel loading dates for these two nuclear units. The visit was organized into two parts:
1.
A meeting with the applicant to review design and engineering, procurement and construction progress. Progress on prerequisite testing and preoperational procedures and testing was also revi ewed.
(First hy) 2.
A tour of the station facilities to observe status of construction.
The CFP also held discussions. with the NRC Resident Construction Inspector and NRC Resident Operations Inspector.
(Second and third day)
In summary, the applicant's target dates for fuel loading Unit 1 is June 1983, and for Unit 2 is December 1984. The CFP believes that the fuel loading date for Unit 1 could be in December 1983. The CFP estimates that the fuel loading date for Unit 2 is approximately 16 months later. The data upon which our projections are based is given in the following sections of this meeting summary.
Meeting and Facility Tour' Details Tuesday, April 13, 1982 at NRC Region IV, Arlington, Texas On this date, the CFP met with the applicant at the NRC Region IV offices in Arlington, Texas.
This meeting was open to public observers as noted on the Meeting Notice issued March 29, 1982. A list of attendees and observers at the meeting and tour is given in Enclosure 1.
4 WoFil w o / M/
o JUL 71982 l
Mr. Burwell opened the meeting with introductions and a statement on the purpose of the meeting. The staff noted that it is still NRC practice to schedule OL reviews indexed to the applicant's dates. Therefore, the CFP projected dates take on less significance than in the past. The agenda for the meeting was enclosed with the Meeting Notice noted above.
The applicant's presentation on the status of engineering, procurement and construction was led by Mr. J. B. George. Mr. George advised that construction on Unit 1 was 86 percent complete and construction on Unit 2 was 46 percent complete.
Fuel loading dates fcr Unit 1 and Unit 2 are targeted for June 1983 and December 1984 respectively. Major milestone dates for construction are shown on Enclosure 2.
The applicant has scheduled the hydrostatic test of the reactor coolant system for late June 1982. The Unit 1 turbine is now on its turning gear.
Many of the process systems are undergoing flushing and cleaning.
Electrical systems are energized. Of 298 subsystems necessary to operate Unit 1, construc-tion has turned over 193 subsystems to the startup group.
The installation of pipe hangers and restraints on Unit 1 are nearing completion and delays associated with this effort are a thing of the past. Mr. George noted that construction on Unit 2 was progressing smoothly and rapidly because of lessons learned on constructing Unit 1.
Mr. George stated there were no antici-pated problem areas which will delay fuel loading past the applicant's projected dates on either Unit 1 or Unit 2.
The engineering for the basic Unit 1 design has been complete for some time.
Engineering is now limited to the new requirements imposed by NUREG-0737 and resolution of interferences. The applicant's objective is to execute all NUREG-0737 requirements prior to loading fuel in Unit 1.
The principal engineering effort on Unit 2 is over; the basic design is over 90 percent complete. The larger engineering activities are the design review of site generated design changes and the design of piping rupports and restraints.
Procurement on Units 1 and 2 is nearly complete. The only problem areas relate to additions to the uninterruptable power supply, radiation monitors, and sump and flood level instrumentation. The equipment for the Technical Support Ceister and Emergency Offsite Facility wil.l..be delivered by Summer 1982.
There are presently 4800 people working on construction of the site. They work 5 days a week,10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> a day. Twc shifts are operational, with about 700 people working the back shift. About 1000 of the construction people are working on Unit 2, this will increase with time as Unit i nears completion. The present craf t work force consists of approximately 1,460 mechanical, 850 electrical, 60 instrumentation and control, and 880 civil workers. These will increase slightly until December 1982 and then decrease as Unit 2 nears completion.
l l
1 1 JUL 7 1982 The status of construction on.both Units 1 and 2 is summarized by the bulk canmodity comparison Table, Enclosure 3.
For Unit 1 structural concrete and piping and hangers are 93 percent or greater completed and wire and cables are greater than 75 percent complete except for security and lighting.
For Unit 2, structural concrete is 99 percent complete, large pipe is 60 percent complete, and small pipe, pipe hangers and electrical wire supports are roughly one-third complete. Little of the Unit 2 wire and cable has be3n installed at this tine.
Mr. George summarized the status of construction of Unit 1 by dascribing an area analysis of scheduling status. Each building is reviewed for the work remaining to support a target fuel load date of June 15, 1983 for Unit 1.
All buildings are on schedule except the reactor building which shows a 32 day criticality (days to be recovered in order to meet the target date).
Since the previous CFP visit the applicant has made a decision to complete major construction activities in the Unit 2 control panel and cable spreading room areas prior to the fuel loading date for Unit 1.
Construction in this manner eliminates the need for a security barrier between these portions of the control building during completion of Unit 2.
This decision has added considerably to the wire and cable quantities which must be installed prior to Unit i fuel loading. Nevertheless, the work remaining in the ccntrol building is on schedule for a June 1983 fuel loading date.
The applicant's presentation on the status of the preoperati0nal procedures, system turnover to the startup group and preoperational testing was led by Mr. Dick Camp. The status of preoperational procedures preparation is shown in the following table:
l Preops Accept 2 Total Total test procedures required 135 41 176 Draft procedures not started 43 4
47 Draf t procedures i'n preparation 92 37 129 Draf t procedures being worked
,, Test procedures in review 34 6
40 13 4
17 Test procedures approved 0
0 0
- 1) Preoperational test procedures for safety related systems.
- 2)
- Acceptance test procedures for non-safety systems.
The status of system testing was discussed. The construction group must turn-over 298 subsystems to the startup group for prerequisite and preoperational testing. The startup group has accepted 193 subsystems at this time.. However, nearly all of subsystems have a list of items (punch list items) which must be resolved before the system is complete. The punch list for included subsystems
_ - - - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
. JUL 7 1982 must be essentially resolved before preoperational testing of a system can began.
Preoperational testing is expected to start in late June 1982.
The startup group is currently staffed at 45 startup engineers. The applicant expects this group to peak at about 68 startup engineers at the end of the year and remain constant through the third quarter of 1983.
The applicant reviewed the list of open potential deficiencies which were reported to the NRC in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The applicant does not expect any of these to impact the June 1983 fuel loading da te.
Wednesday, April 14, 1982 at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas The CFP observed constmction progress in the Unit I containment building, Unit 1 safeguard building, Unit I diesel generator rooms, and fuel building. All large equipment items are installed. Most of the large and small piping is installed and complete. Many of the systems are running. Most of the pipe supports are installed. Most of the cabling is installed except that some of the cabling inside containment is not terminated.
The CFP met briefly with Mr. Dick Camp to review several documents that were not available at the April 13, 1982 meeting. The C'FP inspected the Master Systen Punchlist, a computer printout sheet, to gain insight into the number, nature, and scope of unresolved items remaining in the subsystems accepted by the startup group. The CFP also inspected a document entitled Summary of CPSES Startup Program to gain insight into the organization and planning for the startup program.
The CFP interviewed the NRC Resident Construction Inspector, Mr. R. G. Taylor, and the NRC Resident Operations Inspector, Mr. D. L. Kelley during the April 14, 1982 facility visit. Mr. Taylor confinned the general status of construction as presented by the applicant and observed by the CFP. Mr. Kelley confirmed the 1
general status of. preparation of operational procedures and conduct of testing operations by the startup group as presented by the applicant.
Thursday, April 15, 1982 at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas The CFP observed construction progress in the Unit 2 containment building and in the auxiliary building, particularly in the control room and cable spreading rooms.
Constmetion is proceeding rapidly on Unit 2.
The applicant has made l
. JUL
? 1982 provisions for mounting pipe. hangers and restraints by embedding large numbers of studs in the walls throughout the Unit 2 containment.
The installation of piping, piping hangers and cable trays appears well planned and proceeding ef fici ently.
The control panel for Unit 1 is energized with many controls, instmments and alarms functioning. The applicant has initiated a program to rework the control panel to reflect the results of its human factors review of the control room.
The applicant does not expect this to dely the June 1983 target fuel loading da te.
The Unit 1 cable spreading room has a few empty cable tres, but most of the cables are in place. The control consoles for Unit 2 are sitting in place, but there has been little or no wirir.g installed between the consoles and the Unit 2 cable spreading room. The Unit 2 cable spreading room has the cabinets in place and most of the cable trays are installed.
There are few if any cables installed in the Unit 2 cable spreading room.
Summary.
The CFP reviewed the status of constmction on Units 1 and 2 and the status of the preoperational testing program for Unit 1.
The bulk of construction on Unit 1, and associated structures and systems needed to operate Unit 1, is approaching completion. The preoperational testing program for Unit 1 is expected to start in June 1982. Constmction on Unit 2 appears to be proceeding efficiently.
~
Considering the status of construction and the preoperational testing program, the CFP believes the fuel loading date for Unit 1 could be in December 1983 provided no major delays develop during preoperational testing. The CFP estimates that the fuel loading date for Unit 2 is approximately 16 months later.
W S. B. Burwell, Project Manager Licensing Branch No.1 Division of Licensing s, _..
Encl osures:
1.
Meeting & Facility Tour Attendance 2.
Con'struction Milestones 3.
Bulk Commodity Comparison cc w/encls.: See next page l
l
[gDC CIC $%,
Q UNITED STATES
, gpg g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,,...'+./
F3,, y Docket Nos.:
50-445 APPLICANT: Texas Utilities Generating Company t
FACILITY:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING ON CONSTRUCTION AND PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING SCHEDULE FOR UNIT 1 Summary On Monday, February 28, 1983, a meeting was held at NRC Headquarters, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to review the status of the construction and preoperational testing program and to assess the applicant's projection for the Unit i fuel load date. The meeting attendance is given in Enclosure 1.
In a letter dated October 29, 1981, the applicant had projected a June 1983 fuel load date for Unit 1.
In the course of the meeting the applicant advised that he is now projecting a September 1983 fuel load date for this unit. He further states that he believes this date is realistic, but acknowledges that it provides no contingency time for correction of deficiencies which may be revealed by the hot functional test or cther future preoperational tests.
In a summary dated July 7,1982 concerning a meeting and facility tour by the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel (CFP), the Project Manager stated that "the CFP believes the fuel loading date for Unit 1 could be in December 1983 provided no major delays develop during preoperational testing." As a result of this meeting and information provided by the Comanche Peak Resident Inspectors, the staff again concludes that the fuel load date for Unit 1 is no earlier than December 1983.
The difference between the applicant's and the staff's projections for the fuel load date is due to the inclusion of a 2 to 3 month contingency by the staff for correction of unforeseen deficiencies and retesting of the corrected subsystems.
Engineering and Construction l
The applicant stated that from an engineering and construction standpoint he l
believes a September 1983 fuel load date for Unit 1 is realistic. The signi-l ficant engineering effort remaining consists of:
- 1) completion and _ certification of the pipe supports, 2) the review and approval of numerous field changes, and
- 3) a completion of engineering on new requirements imposed by NUREG-0737.
1 The largest engineering effort is the work directed at completing the pipe supports. At this time the applicant has vendor certified about 46 percent of all (large bore and small bore) pipe supports required for Unit 1 and common.
l The applicant has set target schedules for the completion of vendor certification Qi/D!') I
Texas Utilities Generating Company
-2e
.G CL V of all supports for large bore piping by April 22, 1983; and completion of vendor certification of all supports for small bore pipine by liay 30, 1983.
It should be recognized that modification to some of the ven6or certified pipe supports will likely be required as a result of the hot functional testing now in progress.
The installation of pipe supports continues to be a major construction activity at the site.
The applicant elected to use the on-site engineering staff to do a major share of the detailed design for auxiliary components and on changes to vendor provided components. These are documented in a Design Change Authorization (DCA) which is reviewed and approved by the originating design organization. The applicant states that he is reducing the number of DCA's outstanding with each month. However, since the site is generating about 400 DCA's per week, this remains a sizeable portion of the engineering and construction effort at Comanche Peak.
The quantity of documenting papers for these changes has been so great that the Resident Inspector is concerned that their review and acceptance by engineering and QA may delay fuel load even though physical construction of Unit 1 is complete (see Enclosure 2).
The applicant plans to bring additional Gibbs & Hill engineers to the site to assist in the processing of these DCAs.
The TM1 Action Plan Requirements have added a significant additional engineering and construction effort for completion of the project. The major additions have been the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS), radiation monitoring systems, and post-accident sampling system.
Engineering is expected to be completed in early April 1983. The applicant stated that construction and installation of these systems is not expected to impact the September 1983 fuel load date.
The damage study relating to pipe breaks within the station has been completed and all station modifications are expected to be completed by July 1983. The applicant stated that the pipe break damage study is not expected to impact the September fuel load date.
The fuel storage and handling systems are scheduled to be completed in March 1983.
The applicant is reoiing an effort to complete all construction within the Unit 1 security area prior to the Unit 1 fuel load date. Thus, a significant effort is underway to complete the Unit 2 control area and cable spreading room.
And finally, construction effort will be required for completion of the remaining incomplete subsystems, the items remaining on the station punchlist, the systems which cannot be installed until late in construction (e.g., fire protection, security) and painting.
I'recperational Tcsting Program At this time construction has turned over 264 subsystems out of 320 subsystems on Unit 1.to preoperational testing; i.e., 56 subsystems remain under the control
(
of construction. There are 34 subsystems belonging to Unit 2 which are located i
within the Unit i security area, of which 2 have been turned over to preopera-I tional testing. Mr. George noted that these systems are energized and operated I
a Texas Utilities Generating Company s...t 3W during acceptance and prerequisite testing; i.e., prior to their release by construction.
He believes this early check-out of the system operation has identified and resulted in the correction of most of the deficient components which otherwise might extend the preoperational test program.
The applicant stated there are 187 test procedures (both safety and non-safety systems) required to be completed prior to the fuel loading of Unit 1.
All of these procedures have been issued for coment and over 160 have been approved.
At this time approximately one third of the tests have been field completed.
That is, the test has been-completed, but the data packege has not been issued for review or approved.
The applicant noted the following Unit 1 highlights:
Cold hydro of primary and secondary July 1982 systems completed ECCS acceptance testing completed Decenber 1982 Containment (SIT /ILRT) completed January 1983 Hot functional testing started February 24, 1983 The hot functional tests were discussed in more detail. This series of test procedures is scheduled to span 56 days. The applicant acknowledged that he had already experienced delays in starting this test series, and that this schedule (as with all test procedures) does not include time for resolution of contingent deficiencies. The staff noted the numerous (approximately 20) preoperational tests which must be conducted in a predetermined sequence and believes that completion of the hot functional tests by the end of April is unlikely.
In summary, the preoperational testing program is on a critical path for the September 1983 fuel loading date. The applicant acknowledges that the schedule for this program does not provide time for the correction of any deficiencies uncovered in the testing, nor any time for retesting to verify the adequacy of the correction.
It is the staff's experience that preoperational testing normally uncovers previously undetected deficiencies which must be corrected and this effort inevitably results in several months delay in the fuel load schedule. On the basis of experience, the staff believes it is more realistic to expect a minimum delay of two months past September due to these unforeseeable events.
)
Steam Generators In view of its potential for causing a delay in the fuel load date, the staff inquired into the applicant's plans for modifying the steam generators to
Texas Utilities Generating Company 9
,.g.,
mitigate the vibration induced tube damage observed at a non-domestic reactor using the same model steam generator.
The applicant presently plans to complete the modifications to all steam generators prior to fuel loading. The proposed modifications will be submitted to the NRC for review in early May 1983.
Based on a schedule of six weeks review by the staff and a six weeks period to complete the modifications, the applicant expects that the steam generator modifications will not impact the September 1983 fuel load date.
Conclusions In discussing the schedule at the meeting, the applicant stated that he believed that a September fuel load date for Unit 1 is realistic, but acknowledges that a mid-to-late September fuel load date is rnore realistic than the September 1st date given the staff in a phone conversation on February 3, 1983.
The applicant identified two critical path items both of which are expected to continue into September even if there are no unforeseeable deficiencies which require correction. These two items are:
- 1) the completion of the pipe supports, and 2) the completion of the preoperational testing program. The staff believes both of these have a high potential for uncovering deficiencies which must be corrected prior to fuel loading.
In addition, the staff views the large numbers of design, construction and inspection documents which must be reviewed and accepted by engineering and/or QA groups as having a potential for delaying fuel load.
In view of these three factors the staff is of the opinion that December 1983 is the earliest fuel load date that can be reasonably expected. The Project Manager notes that the staff's estimate of a fuel load date no earlier than December 1983 is consistent with the projection given him last week by the Comanche Peak Resident Inspectors (see Enclosure 2).
S.
S. B. Burwell, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encis.:
See next page 1
l
pg., fpf
'f Y
$I77 p arog\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d
UNITED STATES j5p/q E o
m t
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 V
g y
/
JAti 7 'i380 Docket No:
50-364 APPLICANT: Alabama Power Company FACILITY:
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OCTOBER 24-25, 1979 FORECAST PANEL SITE VISIT TO FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2
Background:
The NRC Forecast Panel (S. Boyd, W. Bradford, B. Buckley, M. Hunt, W. Levelace) made a site visit to the Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 in order to review the status of construction for fuel loading.
A list of the meeting attendees is enclosed (Enclosure 1).
Summary:
On the afternoon of October 24, 1979 we met with the applicant at the Farley,
+
Unit 2 construction site in Dothan, Alabama and discussed their organizational structure, financial plans and their estimated fuel load date. We also dis-i cussed the status of construction, the schedule for completion of construction -
and system turnover for beginning of the preoperational test program with representatives of the Alabama Power Company, and their general contractors, Bechtel and Southern Company Services. The applicant described the bulk material quantities installed to date as shown in Enclosure 2.
The applicant also stated that they had 18 days negative float; however theyindicated that this would not impact their estimated fuel load date of June 15, 1980. They stated that construction is 87.6% complete.
On October 25, 1979 we conducted a tour of the site.
Following the site tour, we conducted the exit interview and stated that in our view the construction status of the plant was approximately 94% complete and had no real basis to challenge the applicant's estimated fuel load date of June 15,1980. The basis for the Panel's estimate of 94% complete was that the applicant had not taken credit for the work completed in the comon facility.
0 1
-C y
4 q 7 '-
B.C.Buckley,ProjectMan}ger m n,., ; ;
I Light Water Reactors Branch No,1 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
See next page
_ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _