ML20080D497

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Draft Trip Rept of 780321-22 Site Visits Re Const Schedules & in-progress Const Activities Observation.Fuel Load Dates for Units 1 & 2 Are Nov 1981 & Nov 1980,respectively. Related Info Encl
ML20080D497
Person / Time
Site: Millstone, Midland, 05000000
Issue date: 10/31/1983
From:
NRC
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML082380886 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090142
Download: ML20080D497 (11)
v • d • e


Text

.

,v,. r,

f2 //)

Docket Nos:

50-329 50-330 Licensee:

Consumers Power Company Facil i ty:

Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2

Subject:

SUMMARY

OF MARCH 21-22, 1978 MEETING AND SITE VISIT On March 21-22, 1978, we met with representatives of the licensee at the Midland site to discuss the scheduling of construction and to observe the construction activities in progress.

The meeting notice and agenda for the meeting are attached as Enclosure 1.

A list of attendees and persons contacted during the meeting is included as Enclosure 2.

As noted in the agenda, the purpose of the meeting and visit was to ex. amine variations in estimated dates for completion of construction of the Midland Plant.

We also used the meeting to discuss with the licensee his reasons for the requested slip in construction completion dates.

We met with representatives of the Licensee at the construction site offices on the morning of March 21, toured the site during the afternoon of March 21, and had followup discussions on the detailed construction schedules during the day on March 22.

The February 1978 issue of the Yellow Book shows Unit 2 at 39% complete l

and Unit 1 at 35% complete. Earliest and latest dates for ccmpletion of l

construction are shown as October 1,1980 and October 1,1981 for Unit 2 and October 1,1981 and October 1,1982 for Unit 1.

Fuel load dates are shown as November 1980 for Unit 2 and November 1981 for Unit 1.

A L

forecast recently compiled by MIPC shows estimated fuel load dates of 1

8402090142 831031 l

PDR FOIA j

ROSENBA83-498 PDR

May 1982 and May 1983 for Units 2 and 1 respectively.

Inasmuch as the completion dates for the Midland units are significant with respect to the ongoing remand hearing, this meeting was designed to resolve the differ-ences between the Licensee's dates as shown in the Yellow Book, and the forecast dates developed by MIPC.

We discussed with the licensee the methodology used by MIPC to develop the tools for its forecast of fuel load dates.

Basically, it consists of an average curve of construction versus time, based on the construction history of 14 different nuclear plants.

Using this curve and the reported percent 6ge completion of construction for a particular plant, an estimate can be made of tne time remaining until completion of construction. A copy of the MIPC methodology is attached as Enclosure 3.

The Licensee bases estimates of constructior. completion en manhours.

The formula uses actual manheurs expended in the numerator, while the denom-inator consists of four factors:

1) the estimated total manhours to construct the plant, 2) an allowance to take care of support effort and productivity of labor,
3) a factor to take care of contingencies, and
4) a scope change factor.

The first three factors are revised on a six-month interval basis te update to a then current estimate of total labor needed plus allowances and contingencies.

The fourtli factor is changed each each month to take into account estimated efforts to be required to handle changes in project scope arising from whatever source.

For example,

~

the NRC requirements for fire protection required an additional quantity of manhours to be added to the estimate.

In practice, then, use of this m

r

. formula results in what is thought to be an adequately conservative measure of total manhours expended compared to the total manhours budgeted. The construction completion figures are based strictiy on the manhours, which are directly correlatable to work in place.

That is, an electrician can pull so many feet of cable per hour or make so many splices per hour, or it takes so many manhours to place a yard of con-crete, etc. No credit is taken by the Licensee for value or quantity of materials in place.

The Licensee's procurement program appears to be in good shape, probably considerably better than would normally be the case for a plant at this stage of construction. The reason given is that during the perk ' when construction effort was curtailed due to lack of funds, procurement kept moving, with the result that all major t0mponents (reactor vessels, steam generators, pressurizers, reactor coolant pumps, main steam valves, tur-bine-generators, diesel generators, etc.) either are now on site or are stored off-site and available for placecent when needed.

Hence, procure-ment should not pose any big problems to maintaining the current construction schedule.

We did not examind the detailed status of the design effort as compared to the construction activity, but it appeared to be adequately far advanced so as to avoid costly and time-consuming rework of construction.

Of note is the ft.ct that the licensee has maintained close contact with other plants, to take advantage of lessons learned elsewhere so as to avoid mistakes at Midland. The design drawings have been translated into

-q.

9 plastic, scale models which have proved useful to avoid interferences of equipment and components.

One point that could cause problems is the question of union contracts.

All craft union contracts except for the electrical workers are up for renegotiation this year. The Licensee does not now anticipate any major problems in this regard, but in view of the large settlement now beina ratified for the coal miners, it is possible that similar demands by the craft unions could result in strikes.

Nothing is specifically built into the Midland schedule to account for extended strikes.

The current work force at the site consists of about 2900-3000 people, of which approximately 600 are on the second shift.

The Licensee reported using up to about 8% casual overtime thus far, but it is anticipated that overtime will be iacreased to as much as 15% on an an-needed basis. A close watch is maintained on productivity of second shift and overtime efforts to assure optimum use of workers.

At the present time, the construction emphasis is changing from a basic structural-civil effort to a mechanical-electrical effort. As such, the relative mix of workers by trades is changing.

No problems are antici-pated in attaining the correct mix of skills for the job.

Specifically, welders have not been a problem and the Licensee runs an in-house welding j

school to assure an adequate supply of qualified welders.

i Work is just now getting underway on preparation of pre-operational test test procedures.

It appears that the time for procedure. preparation may l

be a bit tight.

However, efforts will be based on lessons learned at other plants (e.g. TMI-l and ANO-2) and the Licensee anticipates no delays from this cause. Twenty test engineers are now on site and have begun work on the pre-op test procedures.,

A matter of some concern is the question of hangers and snubbers.

These have held up construction at some plants.

However, the Licensee is aware of the potential problem and is taking steps to avoid it for Midland.

A special hanger fabrication facility has been set up and the Licensee is working with the snubber supplier (ITT Grinnell) to assure that snubbers will be available when needed. The present intent is to install all hangers and snubbers prior to hot functional testing, although some could be lef t for later installation if necessary.

Overall, the site construction activities appear to be in good shape.

The civil-structural effort generally is on - to ahead of schedule.

Installation of large pipe is ahead of schedule.

Both reactor buildings are considerably ahead of schedule on interior concrete. The Licensee intends to start installing NSSS components in Unit 2 in April if the weather permits. The plans for Unit 2 containment should allow rapid installation of piping and cables following NSSS installation without long delays for concrete work. Cable tray and electrical installation is slightly behind schedule at this point, but as noted earlier, the emphasis is just now changing to include greater electrical effort. The Licensee anticipates no problem in getting back on schedule in this area.

It is noteworthy that the Licensee's plans call for completion and sheck-out of all common facilities (e.g. auxiliary building, diesel-ganerator building, rad-waste facilities, turbine building, cooling water ponds, grounds, etc.) in conjunction with completion of Unit 2.

Thus, nearly 85% of the total effort now is tied to Unit 2 completion, even though much would not be needed until Unit 1 is completed.

Overall, the Licensee's schedule calls for 31 months from now until fuel load on Unit 2 (November 1980).

Built in to this schedule is a three-month contingency or about 10%, which appears adequate at this stage of construction.

It would not be enough to take care of major delays such as could be caused by an extended strike or by other conceivable problems such as financial difficulties. However, it does appear adequate to anything that might reasonably be anticipated.

As noted earlier, we used the meeting for the ancillary purpose of addressing the Licensee's request to slip the construction completion dates as provided in the construction permits for the Midland units.

In response to our questions, Consumers Power explained that the construction schedules estimated at the time of construction permit issuance have been delayed for reasons beyond their control. These delays are included in the existing forecasts for completion of the units.

Both units were de-layed 24 months due to adverse financial conditions in 1974 and 1975.

Unit 2 was rescheduled to be completed one year ahead of Unit 1, resulting in a delay of 13 months to Unit 1 and an advance of 11 conths to Unit 2.

l Both units were delayed 9 months due.to re-evaluation of construction

' [

~

time because of changing project scope and industry experience.

Some of the more significant examples of changing project scope wiiich influenced schedules were identified to be:

A new building for waste processing equipment resulting from 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, changes to provide two cable spreading rooms.and other space requirements for electrical separation resulting from IEEE standard Z79, plant arrangement changes to equipment and structures to provide improved cccess to Class 1 piping resulting from the inservice inspection requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code, redesign of the Auxiliary Building consistent with spent fuel cask drop guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.13, updating of piping and valves from ANSI B31.7 to ASME III, consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.26, requirements for additional analyses and testing to verify seismic requirements, and changes resulting from OSHA requirements.

Our general conclusion as a result of the visit is -that the Licensee has identified possible problem areas-and has taken or is taking necessary action to work around these problems without a major schedule impact. The A

d

proposed construction schedule, based on the current project status, appears to be realistic and achievable, although it may be a bit on the optimistic side.

Barring major, unforeseen problems, any slip in the schedule should be relatively minor.

We identified no problem areas that 5

indicated that the current schedule could not be met.

Accordingly, we conclude that the November 1980 fuel load date for Unit 2 is a good date for current planning purposes.

The November 1981 date for Unit 1 fuel loading should be easily achievable, since our perception is that Unit 1 is not nearly a year behind Unit 2.

If necessary and desirable, it appears that Unit 1 probably could be brought on line within about six months after completion of Unit 2.

____-_1-

_J _

I

.f.---._.--_

i 4

n.

I V

..r_

..-_-.....s.

I k

l l

_.,I

\\

i.

m

.. __1 _

.1_..

..____{

_?._ L _ ' _,_ y.. - _

. -_ i_ d l

l I

l I

i j

i 1

l I

I I,

I l

l l

i i

1 i

i i

I b

!7' p

3 -

- - n r-

.I d

e I

i i

4 i

i I

l l

I l

l l

l l

l l

gl - - T --

---1 l

I I

k f

i i

i i

i i

t i

,.. 1_

I I

i l

.l

._ l l

I l

l l

L j

I l

I l

l I

l I

I l

I I

.a i

u, m _2 i

i i

i i

l l

l I

b, _ {

I l

l l

I l

l l

I l

.L_: _ d _._: _._ L_....__L i

4

. :- _,... ;. _... __ y. _ ;.

_ -._ p _

i

_Q.

k l

j _.... _ __k._. _. i i

_+

_ I.

I II I

i

\\

i i

I l

I 1

t 4

i I

3 i

l t

a e

i I

o_

t

_..____..__w____.

2 1

1 a

l l

d lq I I

I l

I h

L !

w

_4.

I i

g I

+

j w'-f l

{_

i l

i I

I I

I l

l i

} - a *-

i i

l Q

__...g___.._.*L-

... _ + _ _. _.. _

< a w

u j

e A

p l

It g_ $

- _N

_- L

_1

}

l l

,l i

W.

i l

i d'i i

o 4

q q

q g

q 3

v.

4 7

o.

e

=

n

_ __f _ ___ - _ __

_b __

______-_ __ __-_____i________i

J' O

D f.

shd b

_p' i

/ 44ZE,_8/ E

2. f, Ed 9 hok fic N

ToAah__

2 e

smppJgy_tyy,7yy ilrpad e[csoff4

('

4 itp__

a e

.e h E

+

+

+

--m

+

.=.-a

+4

---=**e-+-

.e+.

.__ L t._ u _._ i___ _ a t_,_.

u 4

i

..._[])

c,

._ --_ f, b_ q ) S l

,33h,_.hb_ h_l20,0c o fin Y i

t___foj1o_'__

l i

l i

i i!

')7?

e e c = M,

i L_ '

), k. ' &)d =

' byli

\\_ZEArm

~;7,33?_. e2._7Cooh/s ti

  • ?_m e f

M,. _I..

l l

l l

t I

l l

l l

t I

i r--

i t

i e

-.__4___

_4 _ _

f A-1 i

i i

t I

I l

,i.-

l l

l i

4 l

l i

I i

I i

t i

2

_ f 1

I I

I I

I 4

i i

1 l

l l

l l

.-_4.%

._-!I 4

f_.

i i!

I i

t i

j 6

l t

ii l

I i

i i

l l

I l

I I

l l

1 q.

j i

i i

i i

l l

l l

s f

V

+-nee.-.-

t 1

k j

i L_J4 l

1

-i

-- 1 l #61ZTfJr C_ J I

9/A2lL2 b A L 77 2n__

__ -hw 2 l

etw~o r i

I i

i i --

a i

i,

t

__LAcwelp,e- -

Y7uYa

1. u i,

Im l

+

I i

I i

4 l

3 f

f,'

b,..

^ <

d,..

.J.

4 e

t e

..m o o /.'- C._ s 4.

s_..__

.}.

7

_ _7 7

- ~

0 l $ l.f l A l? Y i N.;

I pheY

,-- : - l a - -- L A -

-k 3-

---+----3----

b_h.L._.1fI._i_Il

._4_4_-4 h

l !--r__.L_ l-+-

m,,ne. M l _{-_. !

l__

i

._nu -

u.

i i

+

t i

i i

i i

C=

s

    • )

.A

.. ~

i

' l fsb* W,e

_L--.u_

at.n D ; _. 1 f eA

- - - - -. - - - - + -

- - -, - - - - ~ - - - ~ - - - - - - - - -

J l _

._},_/

I I

j_I

._frem

_?1 J

7_

. _ _ _...u-4 97;'

i i

I--+

h' l

h-l

[,

._ m l

i i

i i

i i

A j

l I

l 1

l

.. -, _ n _ j _,-- +- -

._ f -

l

.,i l_.

I t

t i

i l

i i

i 3

4 l

t i

1 I

I

{

l

\\,

l i

t i

T---

I i

i i

i i

t t-i i

i i

i i

t e

t

)

^^

I l

l l

t m_..

b NFM P

~' ' '

&~

~

6 e

e u

.=

pn neuq f

jo UNITED STATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,,~

g;y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 3

1

%..~... p APR 0 61983 Docket No. 50-423 APPLICANT: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company FACILITY:

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL MEETING AND FACILITY TOUR AT MILLSTONr., UNIT 3 Summary On September 22, 23 t.nd 24,1982 the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel (CFP) met with the applicant and toured the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3.

The pur pose of the meeting and tour was to review construction progress and collect data for assessing the projected fuel load date. The visit was organized into two parts:

1.

On Septeder 22 a meeting was held with the applicant to review design and engineering, procurenent and construction progress on Millstone, Unit 3.

2.

On Septemben 23 and 24, a tour of the Millstone, Unit 3 site was held to i

observe the status of construction. The CFP also held brief discussions with the applicant on September 24 concerning questions raised during the meeting and tour.

(

In summary, the applicants expected date for fuel load is November 1,1985. The CFP estimates that Millstone Unit 3 will be ready for fuel load within approxi-mately six months of this date. Due to abilities to modify construction sche-dules, a six month differential within a three year projection of construction completion is sufficiently accurate to accept the applicant's fuel load date and schedule the staff's review. Data from this CFP visit will be compared to information gathered on subsequent visits to Millstone 3 during construction.

Should the CFP determine that Millstone 3 will not be ready for fuel load within six months of the applicant's schedule, measures will be taken to resolve the discrepancy and adjust the licensing schedule if necessary.

The data upon which the CFP projections are based is given in the following sections of this meeting summary.

m 0

Q L{ y -lC ? m c.

N u

M

Meeting and Facility Tour Details Wednesday, September 22, 1982 at Northeast Utilities General

_ Offices in Berlin, CT The CFP met with the applicant at the Northeast Utilities General Offices in Berlin, Connecticut. This meeting was open to public observers as stated in the meeting notice issued on Septenber 9,1982. A list of attendees is included,

as Enclosure 1.

.The applicants presentation to the staff was divided in nine parts as shown on the agenda included in the meeting notice. Beginning with a project overview the applicant presented a list of construction milestones completed and a list of scheduled future milestones. Major milestones completed in 1982 were welding of reactor coolant piping, setting of the main control boards and commencement of cable pulling, and completion of the auxiliary building structure, all completed Milestones to be completed in 1983 are setting of all reactor coolant in July.

(

system components on permanent supports, occupancy of the control rrom by North-j east Nuclear Energy Company and energizing the 4160 volt Reserve Station Service Transformer. Cold hydro is expected to be completed in April of 1985 and precore hot functional testing is expected to be coupleted in August of 1985. Major mile-stones completed and future milestones are listed in Enclosures 2 and 3.

The applicant highlighted the " SWIMS" construction managenent systems being used to assess the status of engineering and construction of Unit 3.

Additionally, the hdSCO Project /2 management system was discussed.

Proaect/2 will be used for cost, schedule and resource management of preoperational testing and startup.

The transition from bulk area construction to system completion and turnover will oe accomplished with Project /2 between six and nine months prior to turnover.

f T.he applicant presented a detailed review of the project schedule. As of Septem-ber 1,1982 cnnstruction of Unit 3 was 51.5% ccmplete based on earned construction manheurs. The majority of work remaining for physical completion by the end of 1984 centers on systems installation consistir.g of piping and electrical work.

The status of construction for the fifteen structures belonging to Unit 3 and the yard area was presented in terms of percent complete as of Septenber 1,1982.

Mort complete is the circulating water tunnel which is 89% complete. The yard area is 64.5% complete and the containment building is 62.1% complete. Least complete are the auxiliary boiler building which is 5% complete, and the waste disposal building which is 19.3% complete. Three critical path items to project construction completion were identified:

The turnover of the 4160 volt RSST scheduled for July 18, 1983 is currently four weeks late. Installation of cable in the control building is pacing this effort.

Installation of the auxiliary building piping systems, specifically the CVCS is currently on the critical path with completion scheduled in August 1984.

^ -

~ _ _ _

f.

. The containment structure primary system piping is currently on the critical path with completion scheduled in November 1984.

Five The applicant reviewed the status of its headquarters engineering effort.

major group activities were discussed. Status of drawings, specifications and procurement, equipment delivery schedules and the remaining effort were discussed for the Power, Instrumentation and Controls, Electrical, Structural, and Engineer-ing Mechanics groups. Additionally, support status was reviewed including the design, fabrication, procurement where applicable, and installation for supports, restraints and snubbers. Headquarters engineering effort on these work packages is 85% complete and will be essentially complete by mid 1983.

NNEC0 presented information about the Millstone 3 construction work force.

Average craft work force data showed the largest yearly average requirement of 3,290 equivalent full time workers for 1983. As of September 1, 1982, 3,095 craft manual personnel were assigned at Millstone 3.

Equivalent manpower requirements by crafc were shown for each of eleven crafts for 1982 through 1985. The largest requirements in 1983 were shown to be for electricians and pipefitters. An average cf 629 electricians ar.d 1,063 pipefitters will be required. The lowest requirements were for boilermakers and cement finishers.~

Thirty-six boilennakers and 30 cement finishers will be required. Craft labor agreement expiration dates were shown with nine of eleven contracts scheduled to expire in 1983.

The applicant presented the requested information about bulk commodity instal-lation. Amounts installed in 1982 as well as planned amounts for the remainder of 1982 and 1983,1984 and 1985 were shown. This information is listed in.

Information concerning bulk quantities was reviewed for concrete, piping, electrical and instrumentation..This information included percent f

conplete for each item and estimated and t.ctual installation rates. Overall concrete placement is 77% complete.

Fifty-seven percent of large Sore pipe is installed and 37% of all large bore hangers are installed. Tweny -three percent of small bore pipe is curcently installed and 15% of small bore hangers are com-plete. Yard pipe is over 60% complete and the concrete circulating water tunnel piping is 100% cc.nplete. Electrical cable tray installation is 87% complete, embedded metalic conduit and nonmetalic duct is about 80% installed and exposed conduit is 32% complate. Cable pulling recently started although lighting cabls l

is over 50% complete. Cable termination work is just starting.

Nine percent of l

all instruments and contrals are currently installed.

Finally, preoperational and startup activities were reviewed. NNECO tasks during the startup phase include startup schedule and development, procedure develop-i ment and startup testing. Startup key dates were presented with the first turnover, the water treatment system, scheduled for January 1983. The first preoperational test, the service water system, is scheduled for August 1984.

i Commercial operation is scheduled in May 1986. The startup schedule to construc-tion schedule ties are the construction schedule turnover dates. It was emphasized that the startup schedule is based on complete systems turnovers rather than partial system turnovers.

W

.~

w--

a.

Thursday, September 23, 1982 at Millstone Nuclear Power Etation, Unit 3, Waterford, Connecticut The CFP toured the Millstone 3 site on Thursday to observe the status of con-Among the areas observed were the intake structure, the fuel build-struction.

ing, engineering safety features building, auxiliary building, turbine building, service building, waste disposal build-containment building, control buildinge ing, main steam valve building, and the, pipe fab shop.

The CFP observations of construction activities were consistent with the infor-mation presented in Wednesday's meeting.

Friday, September 24, 1982 at Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3, Watcrford, Connecticut A brief meeting was held with the applicant on Frjday morning in order to obtain additional information necessary for the staff to make its estimate of the Millstone 3 fuel load date. The applicant supplied the CFP with addf-tional information concerning cable and termination estimates, breakdown of commodity installation quantities reported in 1982, and methods for determining pipe and hanger installation progress.

E. L. Doolittle, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As Stated r

cc: See next page

...n.

f UNITED STATES

[ \\[i j' '-

NUCLE AR REGUL'ATORY COMMISSION

,, y f

WASHINOTON D. C 20555 Yr-h.f.', A.-y((

's,.... -

\\

Arr.

j ggg I'.EP.CRANDUM FOR: Thomas Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing FROM:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

SCHEDULING OL REVIEWS This memorandum responds to yourt of March 18, 1983 that requested a manage-ment meeting with Niagara Mohawk prior to docketing their Nine Mile 2 application.

In the case of lHne Mile 2, we should docket the application in the absence of a review schedule.

Prior to finalizing a review schedule, we should attempt to resolve construction completion schedule differences where the NRC and applicant dates are not within 6 months.

Regardless of the outcome of that meeting, the NRC is committed to schedule according to the applicant's schedule.

'I have also taken this opportunity to provide some specific guidance to be followed for establishing OL review schedules (Enclosure 1).

Please ensure that your staff is made aware of the e guidelines.

r '-

y V

1 Y. tisenhut, D$' rector r

Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated B. J. Youngblo A. Schwencert [od ce; G. Knighton E. Adensam S. Black

.am

"" si Q, U

8 9

e Tr.s following guice',ines are proviced for schedulir.g OL reviews:

1.

Docketing should be completed as soon as possible after the satisfactory completion of an acceptance review.

2.

The review schedule should be developed by starting with the applicants estimated construction-completion-date- (fuel load date) and backing out the various milestones via the standard template the milestones of different plants due,at this point, to stagger (attached).

No attempt should be made to potential peaks in NRR workload.

The Commission's guidance is emphatically clear that each plant schedule be taken in isolation and the NRC will commit whatever resources are required in order to complete plant reviews to the applicant's schedules.

In addition,' it should not be difficult in keeping the few incoming plants on schedule recognizing the very large number of reviews we completed in

'1980-81-82, all in the same time frame.

3.

During an OL review, if the NRC and the applicants' construction completion schedules differ by more than 6 months, an NRC utility meeting should be held in order to attempt to resolve the disparity.

Rega~rdless of the outcome, the applicant's date is always used for scheduling purposes.

4.

During an OL review, if the NRC review g2ts ahead of the required standard schedule (e.g., if a major plant construction slip occurs the schedule should be reevaluated to determine whether the technical review work on that project 'should be interrupted and the NRR resources redirected to another project / activity. The Assistant Director for Licensing should provide written recommendations to the Director, DL for those cases, within four weeks of the time at which our review schedule is more than 8 months ahead of the applicant's schedule (i.e., Bellefonte).

9 O

A.

[

1 E'.'EL D SPE. AE TEMPLATE IS'.'SC-ESTED) l tit'.E INCREMEf4T TOTAL LAPSED TIME

!'.ILESTONE (f'ONTHS)

(MONTHS)

[

A.

SER Tender

-0 Docket 2

0 Q Inputs to PM 31/2 3 1/2

('. Sent to Applicant 1/2 4

Applicant Response Due 3

7 Draft SER Inputs to PM 3

10 SER Draft 1

11 SER Inputs to PM 6

17 SER Issued 2

19 ACRS Meeting 1

20 SSER Issued 3

23 Start Hearing

  • 6 34

, Comm. Effectiveness 1

35 Comm. Dec. on F.P. Lic.

1 36 B.

Environmental Reports Tendered 0

Docketed 2

0 l.

Site Visit Agenda to PM 3/4 3/4 Site Visit Agenda to Applicant 1/4 1

3/4" 1 3/4 Site Visit Q Input to PM 1/2 2 1/4 Q Sent to Applicant 1/4 21/2 l

l Applicant Response 1 1/2 4

Input to DES 2

6 DES Issue 2

8 4

12 Input.to FES FES Issue 2

14-

  • Use 13 months for heavily' contested cases be' tween SSER Twred and ASI B DeciMam

,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20080D497&oldid=4382951"