ML20080D622
| ML20080D622 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Limerick |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1983 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082380886 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090178 | |
| Download: ML20080D622 (4) | |
Text
[.77AC
- q~
.. i.
7 j
..3 7
-~
m
. =.
s es a
t e
~
yw
't 3
y ii
=
g l 4' E
l Il d,
$.-+j 4
d
$l l
k_
w W,
lv a
j i
s l
t b
l k
~
x I
I I
j j
/
M
\\
l l
i j f, I
! Iii!
)
l l
i i I!ll l
II I
I l
~i~T ;
I i
i I
j i !l!
I
!I IlI j'
I i
l I1 l
l i
i j
!I l
l I
-d, i
=
i
. _ l I
oi
)
i j
i l
j i
1 1
i y
j l
t i
l l
i i
j I
I i
l l
i lll i
I l
l ll i
I j
i j
j l
l l
l l
I I
I i
l l
l l
}
i I
l l
I I
i j-l l
l l
l
! Ii!l!
I i
j j
i t
iiI I
I I
I i
I j
l l
l 1
l l
l j
j j
j I
i
!l I
l
!i
]l l
l l
l l
l l
l I
j
-9 i
,i:
)
i l
l I!!
e l
l l
l l
l 7'
+
l 8402090178 831031 l
l l
haE 83-498 PDR
[I i
l i
I i
l I
b i
I I
l l
l l
l l
!d b-
{--S
? _$_-g 0
9 o
o l
{
l E
?
,s.
T i
.rmewy m
\\
it l
1
Lp>(
lJL LJ 2 1
1:
1 T~
i E
J Lu--
_u e+
N. 1 N
8
(
l III I
I 4
i
$6 l
l
=
1
[l lIt.I I
-}
1 w!
Oi I
i I
4 J
l il I
e t
I A) i Ii Ni I
I!i
- l!!I,!
j i
I I
i lI I
i l
l ll I
i l
I
-t i
i i
l l
a ii o
l l
l I
3 l
1 L
I I
l l
I I
i I
i l
l I
IiilI l
I I
Il
\\
i i
i 1
\\-
1 I
I
\\~
I
\\
T@
\\1 d;-
0 0a R
LJ gM i
g a
e.
T s
.s s.
icy -,y x
- ^
A
- l
', } -
Ml Y:;
' ff fp
- = ^
l.a.
s
. f.=
4 e:.s T.:, ;f ~:
- )._
'Q; 5._.,. ; y
~ ~
~
= '.
5; m*_
w.
+.
\\
. w u_
,~
. +
,.:.c. u.
g0
'"*'**l.
.;gl$,*
b.
- b
.....'l
/." "_.
- st y;
- a i~
+ '
8
. ~ JE (
'~
c.
~.
y-n ocf-
\\
A I
[
u
~
+ SS pf -
i I
i l
- Auc, o
l II il
~
. Jut
~
.3 u.
l TUU
)
l-f y l..'
~
l 10 I
I l
. M'A '/
l l
lis I
ll I
i el I'! -
IBl l III l
Rohde.
l lN%i '
t l
l
^
'I.F!tl l
l wa l
I
%1 1
9K'h%' M M 2.
i lI NN I
I I
k
.h I
I IRN h % ' i" D Fda d
ll I
II X I 'k l i
It N
~
s I
I II II I
I NN!
I S$%
l l
I I
I h
u.
I
~
I I
III N's l#$ reec; l
l I
I
~ N N
-l 4 o.'.
II i
I l
\\\\
$$lR Nov i
N I
II I
I sX l 'l IN \\.
MM
- o..e l
l i
I s
TY )
l l
u.
4
.x i
'\\
N kT 2h I
l u. l>
3 c
l
\\\\. S&M,h
- (
y \\
~
ws Jdt.
l N.
~
m Tb Wrw l
h h
9 O $
o
-- i
--- i r
i --
i m
e ri vm 2
u
-~..-~n l
V'
,[?
,,. g '.'.. ~.
8' '
N~t,,'
3* 3y,..._
,-._._ [, y.*k g
,,.' g.,.-..
~. ji 7'? ! y-Y
~
.f d _* [
y
,j y.y
\\.
..e a.x, c
y,.gg.
n n
.m.
g-
.,. ~.
~.
=
R'
.% 5:
S lff 5.t& :-
Q'.*Jit.
5
- , f gg3-t,
s.
\\.
z Q
,,'s
.'+s-Jgl jj
~
~=
I 4 llel _ Jh f 7
6 7181
" 1/f
-' f s'
J1/
~
'"^
n.
Ii i)ss W Wih616 'lfff /Hfg/
g'IsA kH0W[_Q/f I
\\
9% IIM s
9 }t3
'H)/
X11 4-
/
\\
d/A (LHf1h15//
3s a Sles_&
'I d 11 f/
///A l er'.,, #
-l b u Wh J/' 11
/#fP/
i i
l ///
51 A
/dri_/i&M/
kLS /EIM f/
II
/z/ei I
/
i - I l
i i
I
+
t v
1921 !UffIllli i
u 9
I in Uff)Wi: kG I4 Inf>td /w G
l 2}evi !gjflofillit % is kfH in 7 IJYrill
\\~
(d.
l l
!3 VzJ
'lHf_kui/J/f]///Il1m 2\\
Om WJWb L3k8JJW///f/$///
~'
^
l l
\\
W'/gd kdjkr\\/
T Im II v)'g4 sh liArAi I
I I
L</svl i
I I
I t/W
!s aV/
i i
I b/i<a II I
Glev i
\\
l 1,ist l
l l
\\
ne l
IM/sd i
I II l
del l
i
!s/24!
/]// I I b 4I 9)&'
kijl
/
II
'l
/Msd k!3 m I
l l
1 k5/sv 1l l
i l
\\
l lley Ill lsigul i
l l!
l/dtd; I
I I
Infr/
I l
i
~
lI I
i l
l Il l
1 l
l l
l I
i i
I
/ ifh I
f f$ I I
I 12 /gs I
I Il 1
I l usi f
I I
I le kd l
I I
I ilts l
i i
fv} s<
l i
I l
/)sti l
I
! !/ig3' I III I
I f/Wsf I
i I
l l'
LMI I
Ii 4/gs 94 i/
l l
l i
I.
I i
I I
I I,
l I
I I
I I
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
I I
I l
l l
l l
l l
l i
I!
I l
l l
l l
l 1
I I
l l
I I
d6Y i
l l
l l
~W
!I I
I I
l i
~ i l
I l
lI l-1
+-
r$
d g8 g
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
s, n
$.$~5i ^ r*$
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g'V SEP 2 31979 DOCKET NOS. 50-352 AND 50-353 APPLICANT: PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY FACILITY:
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 6-7, 1979 WITH PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY REGARDING THE CASE LOAD FORECAST FOR THE i
LIMERICK PLANT i
On August 6-7, 1979 we met with representatives of the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) at the construction site of the Limerick Generating Station.
The purpose of the meeting and subsequent tour of the plant was to gather information for an independent assessment of when Unit No.1 of the Limerick plant'would be ready for fuel loading. The persons attending the meeting are listed in Enclosure 1.
The meeting agenda is shown in Enclosure 2.
In the meeting PECO addressed, point by point, the items in the meeting agenda.
In PEC0'.s presentation, a large number of handouts were used; copies of the hand-cuts can be obtained from the project manager. After the initial discussion with PEC0, we toured the plant, met among ourselves, and discussed our conclusions with PEC0.
In brief, we were in agreement with PEC0!s estimate of the percentage corre-pletion for Unit No.1 and the structures and ccaponents common to both Unit Nos.
i and 2; PEC0's estimate was 54%.
However, we disagreed with PECO'-s fuel load -
date of 10/82. The bases for this conclusion and a sumary of the major points in the meeting are presented below.
Status of Construction PECO's estimate of percentage completion of Unit No.1 and comon was calculated en a man hour basis; it was not weighed by bulk ccmmodity usages. However, PECO had performed analysis of labor ' productivity and had concluded that.to-date pro-ductivity had been equal to the original estimate.
The approximate amount of work complete in key categories (as of 6/79) is pro-vided below:
Small pipe 12%
l Large pipe 65%
Concrete (1, 2 and comon) 82%
l Cable Tray 57%
~
Conduit 20%
Wire and Cable 1%
O [O(5 y
_S
~
)
...~
y v.
.. ste 2 5 1979 The cable pulling is scheduled to begin in October 1979. The work force report given to us showed 1736 craft workers were onsite for Bechtel and subcontractors.
A histogram of manpower requirements indicated a peak of 1800 craft workers.
The crafts are working a single 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per week shift. Unless construction lagged in a particular area, PECO does not intend to add a second shift.
The staff had two general comments on this: One, the bulk quantity listed for cable (4.5 million feet) for Limerick appeared to be low relative to other plants such as Susquehanna and Grand Gulf which estimated 5.5 million feet for Unit 1 and comon. Two, the total number of craft personnel was significantly less than that employed at other projects which are trying to achieve a 1 1/2 percent per month completion rate for a single unit or first unit and common. PECO.'s response to the first coment was that based on their experience at Peach Bottom the cable estimate was correct.
In addressing the second comment, PEC0 stated that their monitoring of labor productivity and their experience with cable installation rates at, Peach Bottom indicated to them that the cable installation could be completed on time with the projected manpower. PECO also stated that a second shift could be added if cable installation fell behind.
Potential Areas of Delay PECO identified three areas that had the potential for delaying the fuel load.
These areas are:
1.
Licensing - At th'e construction permit phase, the hearings ook 2 1/2 years to complete. The applicants predict the hearings at the operating license l
stage will exceed the standard hearing time used by the NRC in scheduling.
2.
Three Mile Island - While PECO stated that they were following the results of the NRC's task forces working on TMI; PECO could not preclude delay due to changes required by the long term studies of TMI accident.
3.
Financial Limitations - Based on the past load growth, PEC0 may not require Unit No.1 in commercial operation until 1985 (fuel load in 1984). However, the construction budget for 1979 was increased in allow a construction 1
schedule that would continue to support ecmmercial operation in 1983 (fuel load in 1982). The construction budget for 1980 had not been determined yet. Approximately $142 million would be required to support fuel load in 1982; $117 million would be required for fuel load in 1984.
The staff commented that final resolution of the Mark II containment reassessment may be a potential problem. PECO stated that since construction of the Limerick containment did not begin until after the reassessment of the Mark II began, they i
were able to add extra steel and ersedments to accommodate the ultimate design fixes.
The final potential prcblem identified by PECO might have an impact on commercial
. operation n' the facility but not on fuel loading. Currently, PECO will be restricted from taking make-up water from the Schuylkill River when the river 6
o.
. SEP 2 51979 flow goes belo'w 550 cubic feet per second or when the water temperature goes above 59 degrees Fahrenheit. PECO is working on:
(1) an agreement with two counties for a diversion of water from the Delaware River and (2) a ptmp-in reservoir to be built next to the Delaware River in conjunction with ten other utilities.
Engineering, Procurefrent and Startuo The engineering for the project is 36 percent complete. PECO did no't identify any major procurement problems, aside from the recirculation piping for the reactor. A redesign of the piping was required after PEC0 decided in early 1979 to replace existing piping with piping that was made with 316L. Ihis activity is on the critical path for the containment completion. The instal-lation of the redesigned piping is scheduled to start in January 1980. With regard to the startup schedule, PECO is just beginning to assess the details required to support the startup schedule.
Staff Evaluation and Fuel Load Date The staff concluded that overall Unit I and common were 54 percent complete; this was in agreement with PEC0's estimate. However, based on PEC0's proposed allocation of resources, the staff concluded that PEC0 would not be able to meet a October 1982 fuel load date.
Instead fuel load would be November 1983 or later.
Over the past 48 months, the construction rate has averaged one percent per month.
In order to complete Unit 1 by October 1982, the construction rate would have to increase to greater than 1.5 percent per month. We concluded that this would require an increase of the construction work force to 2000 or more craft per-sonnel working on just Unit 1 and common. PECO insisted that their monitoring of labor productivity and their experience at Peach Bottom indicated that the construction would be completed by October 1982.
We stated that industry experience as evidenced in canpower levels and c'capletion rates argued against the productivity assumed by PEC0, especially for cable pulling and termination.
PECO asked what impact our conclusion would have on PECO's plans to submit the FSAR for Limerick in March 1980.
We stated that we would prefer to visit the plant again prior to tendering of the FSAR. If at that time, we concluded that they could not demonstrate that they had cocnitted the resources to meet the March 1982 fuel load date, then we would request that they delay submittal of 1.he FSAR. PEC0 stated that following issuance of.this meeting summary they would requested a meeting with NRC management to discuss this matter.
O bG.
2.w -.
Dean L..Tibbitts Light Water Reactors Bra'nch No. 2 Division of Project Management Enclosures :
1.
Attendance List.
2.
Meeting Agenda ces w/enclos'ures:
See next page
..