ML20080D586
| ML20080D586 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, River Bend |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1983 |
| From: | Weinkam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082380886 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090166 | |
| Download: ML20080D586 (13) | |
Text
..a& * C
7 [ $,,,- f,' i UNITED STATES NUOLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,.c i. W4. J WA$mNGTON, D. C. 20553 e
- c. ** ay/5 g,
s Docket No. 50-458 APPLICANT:
Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU)
FACILITY:
River Bend Station Unit 1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MARCH 30-31, 1983 CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL (CFP)
MEETING AND SITE VISIT ine applicant met with the NRC's CFP, composed of William Lovelace (RM),
Rcss Erot:n (SRI) and Ed* ard Weinkam (DL) at the site of River Bend Station (RBS) Unit 1 in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana to discuss the current status of construction and to observe in-progress activities.
Tne meeting agenda and list of attendees are attached.
The purpose of the meeting and site tour was to collect River Eend Station, Unit 1 data on past construction programs and progress, current construction status and to observe physical plant completion so that the staff can make an assessment of the ccnstruction status and con-struct. ion completion date. This estimate is used in scheduling limited staff resources for the safety and environmental review of pending operating license a;olicitiens.
Cn Ucrcq 30, 19E3 in a meeting held at the River Bend Energy Center, the a :licar.t described the crogress of engineering and construction at RBS Unit 1, using the attached cresentation as an outline.
Construction, which commenced in July 1?79, is propressing on a 63 nonth schedule, with fuel load planned e
a.-
- e-t:ic-i, Dece-tq
- 19, 3 of r,cc y 13E3, e,
re..r s Ir.E constructicr. completion as 66%.
Tr.is cc:4 etion percentage is i
.a.
based upOn nan hours earned.
The percent conpletion for structural is 89.1%,
- . icing cE.0L and electrical 31.7%.
Curves dapicting installation rates for various comnodities are included in the presentation.
As can be seen, using GSU's percent completion basis and the early start / late start enveloping criteria, GSU estimates that they are proceeding as planned, or better, in the areas of conduit, exposed metal conduit, cable tray, instrument and control cable, power cable, power cable terminations and piping-21/2" and above.
GSU is behind in their planned installation schedule in the areas of instrumentation and control terminations, piping-2" and belov:, lighting v: ire and sna11 bore and large Lore hangers.
GSU states, howeve, that these areas should present no problem due to good tc excellent prooress in most areas allowing for increased craft concentration in the "behind the curve" areas.
8402090166 831031 PDR FOIA ROSENHA83-498 PDR
~
~
1 o
The critical path as identified for the construction of RBS is the reactor building. This includes the installation of the fuel pool, reactor cavity liners, installation of gates and fuel racks, erection of the fuel transfer tube and installation of the reactor pressure vessel internal supports for the reactor pressure vessel hydrostatic test.
These activities support the turnover of the reactor pressure vessel outflush and the traversing incore probe system.
Summaries of the test procedure status indicate that a large effort remains in this area. This includes preoperational/ acceptance tests (186 required, 98 not started, 50 draft complete,16 in progress and 14 approved), start-up tests (46 reauired, none started) and generic preliminary tests (less than 20% approved).
GSU included a percent conplete comparison chart with data from the NRC
" yellow book" yardstickinc a 15 BWR average completion percentage at the one, tuo and three year marks to RBS Unit 1.
Also included are conparison to major nilestones for the 15 Eh'R average.
In sum.ary, GSU listed several positive schedule f actsrs they feel give RSS an advantage over other construction projects.
These factors are:
1)
Nuclear Stabilization Agreement 2)
Alternating Four-Tens Shif t Arrangement 3)
Stall Bore Models and Drawings
, a)
Successful Quality Assurance Program E)
Ecundary Identification Support Plan in T/SU Prograr 5)
As Built Lar;e Ecre Program
- 7) T11I Lessons Ir.cluded in Plant Design E)
Hydrodynanics Inputted into Based Design Curing car site tour on March 31, 1983, we observed nuch ongoing work in the res. te-5Jilding area 2*.d a cositive attitude f rom the.const'.uction workers r -- -: :-erst-ei Conclusion
~'
The UR; CFP found that GSU enjoys the advantage of experience gained from the successes and mistakes of other nuclear power plant construction projects.
GSU has accepted a challenging construction schedule and is vigorously attempting y
to meet it.
Several of the positive schedule factors enumerated will benefit GSU.
An analysis of the data presented, combined with observations made during the site tour were conpared with the data accumulated during the 1'. arch 3-5,1981 CFP.
The CF: feels that the percent completion is an optimistic value and that con-struction had not progressed at the rate estimated by the staff in 1981 to be recuired for a 1985 fuel load date.
However, since the commodity installation, curves are largely projected curves based on early installation performance e
l
.)
l s
3-
~
~
data, the NRC staff concludes that it is prudent to look at construction progress again, at the end of FY 1983 to see how well actual rate of construction matches the applicant's current projection.
At that time, the commodity instal-lation aspects of construction will be more clearly defined and it will be possible to better determine how effective GSU's positive. schedule factors are.
l E. J. Weinkam, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing Er.ci e sJre s:
As sta:ed m.
CC rl/e9ciosures*
l See next page i
l l
l l
6 l
l l
l
/.
---,7-.--w--
-,.m,
,m.--
y.
I i*
Docket
%m.
%- a Applicant:
Gulf States Utilities Company Facility:
River Bend Station, Unit 1
Subject:
Summary of March 30-31, 1983 Meeting and Site Visit To Assess Construction Progress and Schedule
==
Introduction:==
On March 30-31, 1983, the NRC Caseload Forecast Staff met with Gulf States Utilities Company and their representative Stone and Webster at the River Bend site in St. Francisville, Louisiana to discuss the current status of construction and to observe the construction activities in progress. Meeting attendees are included in Enclosure 1. is the meeting agenda.
The purpose of this meeting and site tour was for the Caseload Forecast Staff to collect data on past construction (Siji/mhI, current construction status and observe the physical plant completion as well as ongoing construction activities so that the staff could make an independent assessment of th44 7?E construction status and estimate a construction completion date.
Gulf States estimate for physical work completed as of February 28, 1983 is 66% based on,
direct manhours expended. Ecwever, we consider this optimistic based on our observations. Gulf States current estimste for construction completion and fuel loading for River bend Unit 1 is April 1985, with commercial eperation by December 1955. The overall engineering effort as of February 28, 1983, is estimated to be 80 percent complete.
The previous visit by the NRC Caseload Forecast Staff occurred on March 3-5, 1981, and is discussed in a meeting summary dated March 12, 1981.
This previous visit resulted in a independent completion estimate by the staff of October 1985 for River Bend Unit I as compared to Gulf States estimated completion of October 1, 1983, which was subsequently revised to their current estimated completion date of April 1985.
Conclusion An analysis of the data presented combined with observations made during the site tour were comparedd with data received during the last staff visit and the analysis at that time.
The current status of major bulk commoditas is as follows:
Large bore pipe 70% complete Large bore pipe hangers 44% complete Small bore pipe 15% complete Cable Tray 59% complete Exposed metal conduit 26% complete Cable 22% complete Terminations 6% complete It was concluded that during the past two(2) years, construction had not progressed at the rate which had been estimated by the staff during the 1981 l
/
l vis;t. The corp]ettor date es,tiratec ly the staf f dur 2np tia 1951 visit it optin.istic by about si>. months.
now considered t.
.. e l
I J
O I
l l
l l
1
m-~
I
.I' bos c t ser.. M ~5r Applicant:
Gulf States Utilities Company Facility:
River Bend Station, Unit 1
Subject:
Summary of March 30-31, 1983 Meeting and Site Visit To Assess Construction Progress and Schedule Inr.roduc tion :
On March 30-31, 1983, the NRC Caseload Forecast Staff met with Gulf States Utilities Company and their representative Stone and Webster at the River Bend site in St. Francisville, Louisiana to discuss the current status of construction and to observe the construction activities in progress. Meeting attendees are included in Enclosure 1. is the meeting agenda.
The purpose of this reeting and site tour was for the Caseload Forecast Staff to collect data on past construction programs, current construction status and observe the physical plant completion as well as ongoing construction activities so that the staff could make an independent assesscent of this construction status and esticate a construction completion date.
Gulf States estimate for physical work completed as of February 28, 1983 is 66% based on direct ranhours expended. Hewever, we consider this optimistic based on our ebservations. Gulf States current estimate for construction completion and fuel 1cading for River Bend Unit 1 is April 1985, with commercial operation by Decc ber 1985. The overall engineering effort as of February 28, 1983, is estimated to be 80 percent complete.
The previous visit by the NRC Caseload Forecast Staff occurred on March 3-5, 1981, and is discussed in a meeting summary dated March 12, 1981. This previous visit resulted in a independent completion estimate by the staff of October 1985 for River Bend Unit 1 as compared to Gulf States esticated cc=pletion of October 1, 1983, which was subsequently revised to their current estimated completion date of April 1985.
Conclusion An analysis of the data presented combined with observations made during the site tour were comparedd with data received during the last staff visit and the analysis at that time.
The current status of major bulk com=odites is as follows:
Large bore pipe 70% complete Large bore pipe hangers 44% complete Small bore pine 15% complete Cable Tray 59% complete Exposed metal conduit 26% complete Cable 22% complete Terminations 6% complete It was concluded that during the past two(2) years, construction had not progressed at the rate which had been estimated by the staf f during the 1981
/
~ ~..
% l now considered te be optimistic by about dixmonk
' r, c Tne corph t f or. date es t 2 mat ed by t ne sta< bd.
-t-visit.
(/ Lwelae
(
SALP INPUT ON PIVER BEND 1 AND 2 l*,
N R Project Manager Comments Ccrents by D. Hood, Project Manager for the River Bend Station are as fellows:
1.
Quality of Responses Relative to Amendments, Generic letters, FSAR Submittals and Requests for Additional Information The plant is in the post-CP period and such correspondence has been very limited during this period.
Principal activity was related to (a) requests for amendments for additional plant ownership by Cajun Electric and (2) agreements regarding modifications to i transmission corridor through the Port Hudson National Battlefield.
In both cases, the information provided by the applicant is of high quality.
2.
Efforts in Obtaining Acceptable Responses a.
Time and Effort A high degree of cooperztion by the applicant was shown on both matters from Item 1 which significantly reduced the time and effort needed to achieve acceptably resolutions of the issues.
b.
Responsive in a Reasonable Time Period This utility consistently meets schedules and takes the initiative in communicating with NRC to solve problems. The utility is well above average in this regard.
c.
Going As Far As They Are Pushed by the Staff The activities during this period.have not provided a basis for evaluation of this item. There isNeason to believe that in the
/
interest of maintaining a very tight construction schedule, this applicant will provide additional safety margins in the plant design; however, this assessment will be determined once the FSAR is tendered.
d.
Anticipates or Reacts to NRC Needs During this post CP period, the utility has been keeping up to date on NRC needs through generic letters and developments on other plants.
Thd NRC staff Project Manager finds this utility to be highly knowledgeable regarding these matters and new requirements.
q' Technical Competence, Managerial and Operational Capabilities, Quality 3.
Assurance and Operational Control Performance This post-CP period has provided little activity with the NRR staff from which these matters can be evaluated. Moreover, no cause of concern has occurred which would indicate that our prior evaluation of adequacy at the CP issue stage might not be valid throughout this period.
More specifically:
Technical Competence - Meetings with the applicants during this period have been of a non-technical nature.
Managerial - A high degree of managerial-attention to decisions made during this period is evident.
f Operational Capabilities - These matters are only now beginning but appear to be receiving appropriate initial attention.
Quality Assurance - The staff project management has monitored the results of 1&E efforts and reports. The staff PM agrees that increased attention to concrete placement is needed.
Operational Performance - Not applicable to this stage.
Working Knowledge of Reculations, Guides, Standards and Generic Problems 4.
The licensing organization at the utility is quite knowledgeable regarding these matters (as discussed in Item 2d herein).
I would rate this utility above average.
5.
Observed Trends in Performance, If Any No trends noted.
6.
Notable Strengths and Weaknesses s
Strengths - Licensing Weaknesses - This is G50s first nuclear power plant. However, the applicant compensates for this inexperience by hiring management with prior nuclear experience. The applicant also depends significantly upon its A/E, Stone and Webster.
I would like to see more independent assessments by the utility apart from S&W inputs, particularly wi.th The staff PM believes regards to assessment of construction schedules.
the applicants inexperience is most visible in its construction schedule estimates which are overly optimistic.
l
6 i Sverall Summary a'hile the basis for judgements are somewhat limited during this post CP period *
- tservations do not give rise to any significant concerns on the part of the stsff PM. The staff PM believes licensing will continue to receive high marks a'ich the applicants attitude of cooperation and its initiatives to resolve
- rstiens.
This applicant also receives high marks in staying knowledgeable of spolicable licensing changes during this post-CP period. The staff PM would like to see more independent assessment by the utility regarding its con-stru: tion schedule projections, s
~
/
l l
l
Y 4&e; 3>/?A F T ENCLOSURE CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL SITE VISIT MEETING AGENDA M
FEBRUARY 10, 1981 w
s I.
Riverdend 1 and Needed Comon Facilities,
~
1.
Overview of project construction schadule including progress and major milestones completed, current aroblems and any anticipated problem areas that may impact the current projected fuel had date.
2.
Detailed review and current status of design and engineering effort (by major discipline) including any potential problems that may i
arise from necessary rework.
3.
Detailed review and current. status of procurement activities including valves, pipe, instruments, cable, major components, etc.
4.
Actual and proposed craft work force (by major craft), craft availa-bility, productivity, potential labor negotiations and problems.
5.
Det611ed review and current status of all large and small bore pipe hangers, restraints, snubbers, etc., including design, i
rework, procurement, fabrication, deiivery and installation.
6.
Detailed review of project schedule identifying critical path items, near critical items, amount of float for various activities,
,/
- the current critical path to fuel loading, methods of implementation of corrective action for any activities with negative float, and provisions for contingencies. The estimated project percent complete as of January 31, 1981. A 7.
Detailed review and current status of bulk quantities including current estimated quantities, quantities installed to date, quanti-ties scheduled to date, current perccnt complete for each, actual versus forecast installation rates, and basis for figures.
(a) Concrete (CY)
(b) Process Pipe (LF)
- Large Bore Pipe (2 1/2" rnd larger)
- Small Bore Pipe (2" and s.naller)
(c) Yard Pipe (LF)
(d) Large Bore Pipe Hangers, Restraints, Snubbers (ea) i r
l u f<29wk b U SV 4 'Y~U
// 2 ? : e/
-2 (e) Small Bore Pipe Hangers, Restraints.(ea)
(f) Cable Tray (LF)
(9) TotalConduit(LF)
(h) Total Exposed Metal Conduit (LF)
(i) Cable (LF)
Power Control Security Instrumentation Plant Lighting (j) Terminations (ea)
Power Control Security Instrumentation Plant Lighting (k) Electrical Circuits (ea)
Power Control Security (1)
Instrumentation (ea) 8.
Detailed review and current, status of preparation of preop and acceptance test procedure's', integration of preop and acceptance test activities with construction schedule, system turnover schedule, preop and acceptance tests schadule, current and pro-posed preop and acceptance tests program manpower.
(a)
Total number of procedures required for fuel load.
(b) Number of draft procedures not started.
(c) Number of draft procedures being written.
(d) Number of procedures approved.
(e)
Vumber of procedures in review.
(f)
Total number of preop and accistance tests required for fuel load.
(g) Number of preop and acceptance tests completed.
(h) Number of preop and acceptance tests currently in progress.
(1) Number of systems turned over to start-up.
l t
\\
Jg 3-9.
Detailed discussion of potential schedular influence due to l
changes attributed to NUREG-0737 and other recent licensing requirements.
- 10. Discussion of schedular impact, if eny, regarding potential defi-ciencies reported in accordance witt 10 CFR 50.55(e).
- 11. Applicant coments on financial comnitments to complete facility.
- 12. Overview of current construction management organization arH activities.
- 13. Status of Hydrodynamic Loads Analyses and Design.
II.
Status of Applicants' Decision for River Bend Unit 2 g February 11, 1981 1.
Additional questions, clarifications and discussions regarding discussion of February 10,1981. ;pe 2.
Applicants presentation of plant laput and status preparatory to site tour.
\\
3.
Site tour and observation of constru: tion activities.
(Optional - time permitting) Tour of transmission corridor through 4.
Port Hutson Battlefield.
g February 12, 1981 1.
Staff Sumary of Conclusions and Fir. dings p_
'(y
.,4 -
iJ 1
"{k 3
... a
}
t *,
k
(.r) '
~
. $ ('
i
't j s 'i' Q. o.
c..
r.
- * '.. ~ '
I ' *' *)4,h. *. %
- k'{p , -[h #
- [g 6
' [*d
)
,