ML20080D656
| ML20080D656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1982 |
| From: | Gilbert R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082380886 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090190 | |
| Download: ML20080D656 (5) | |
Text
-
~
f '[
UNITED STATES i 'y., '[,'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 J
%...j-
~.
A<3 19l84W Docket No. :
50-322 APPLICANT:
Long Island Lighting Company FACILITY:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF AUGUST 11-13, 1982 CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL SITE VISIT Introduction Representatives of the NRC (Mr. W. Lovelace, Office of Resource Management, Mr. J. Higgins, Senior Resident Inspector for Shoreham and Dr. R. Gilbert, Shoreham Project Manager, Division of Licensing) met at the Shoreham site with representatives of the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) on August 11, 1982 to initiate a three-day evaluation of the status of construction and pre-operational testing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power" Station. A previous evaluatio,n of construction progress was made in May 1980.
Principal p~artici-pants for LILC0 at the August 11 meeting were W. O. Uhl, President W. J.
Museler, Manager of Shoreham Construction and Engineering and E. J. Youngling, Startup Manager. All attendees at the initial meeting are listed in Enclosure 1.
Summary The applicant made a presentation on August 11, 1982 to respond to the infor-mation requests of the caseload forecast panel and attached, as an agenda, to the meeting notice issued on August 2,1982 At this meeting, the applicant's representatives still predicted, based on the data presented, a September 20, 1932 fuel loading date. However, they stated that they were currently six (6) weeks behind schedule.
Pretentation material used by LILCO is provided as.
Following a review of this material by the panel, an extensive site tour was made on August 12 and 13,1982 to evaluate the construction status and observe ongoing construction activities. Also on August 12 and 13 detailed interviews were held individually with the manager of construction and engineering, the startup manager and such other members of the plant staff necessary to furnish responses to information needs generated as a result of the plant tour. Considerable attention and time was also devoted to activities in the pre-operational testing area.
When the tour was complete and informational needs satisfied, the panel analyzed the data and determined what it believed to be a realistic fuel load date for the Shoreham facility.
This analysis was based on the following list of remaining work items which are not necessarily presented in the order of importance:
8402090190 831031
~
0 o
2
~.-
Preop testing status and turnover "to the nuclear plant staff.
a.
b.
Cable wrapping program to meet separation criteria.
Total cable marking is not complete and there is no formal schedule for completion.
c.
Cable tray covers to meet separation criteria, d.
The extensive dry well work remaining.
Painting remaining in the reactor building and control building.
e.
f.
Work remaining on the security system.
g.
Work remaining on the rad monitoring system.
h.
Work remaining on the Post-Accident Sampling Facility.
1.
Insulation work remaining.
J.
Fire stops and seals remaining to be completed, k.
The stress reconciliation program and associated hanger modifications.
1.
Slock wall rework.
m.
Leak Rate Testing program.
n.
Clean up and temporary iron, etc., removal.
Resolution of NRC outstanding items.
o.
/ ', W,.w T O Conclusion i
t ',
During the previous Caseload Forecast Panel (CFP) evaluation in.May 1980, the applicant forecast a fuel load date of May 1982 which was later' changed to September 20, 1982.
The CFP predicted September 1982 at that'. time.
The present CFP believes thatethe fuel load date for the Shoreham facility, based on the activities and analysis described above, should4e June 1983.
However, it was difficult for the CFP to determine this date accurately because some of the applicant's schedules are soft and there are no hard installation rates available on the extensive cable wrapping and tray cover programs, h 0 0 k. /
k.$ v $
Robert A. Gilbert, Project Managei-Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
l Ac stated
[
cc: See next page t
DRAFT 4
WHLovelace:ja f 8/19/82 s
APPLICANT:
Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO)
FACILITY:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
SUBJECT:
SUf1 MARY OF CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL SITE VISIT The applicant held a meeting for representatives of the NRC's Caseload Forecast Panel at the site of the Shoreham Station on August 11,12, and 13,1982.
The purpose of the site visit by the Caseload Forecast Panel was to assess the status of construction and to evaluate the applicant's projected construction completion date.
The list of attendees for the meeting is shown in Enclosure 1.
A copy of the meeting agenda and the presentation material used by LILC0 is provided in Enclosure 2.
During our previous Caseload Forecast Panel meeting in May 1980, the applicant stated that the Shoreham Station was 80 percent complete on March 31,1980 (based on earned manhours) and they forecast a fuel load date of May 1982. At this meeting the applicant's construction schedule predicted a September 20, 1982 fuel loading date. However, they stated that they were currently six (6) weeks behind schedule.
A detailed review was made of the agenda material discussed during the August 11, 1982 site meeting. An ex' tensive site tour to observe the construction status and ongoing construction activities was made on August IL and II,1982 Also, on August 11 and II,1982, detailed interviews were held with the manager of construction and engineering, the start-up manager, and a representative from the nuclear plant staff.
Particular attention and time were devoted in the start-up area.
l After the foregoing, an analysis of the fuel load date was made which was based on the following:
(a) Preop testing status and turnover to the nuclear plant staff.
(b) Cable wrapping program to meet separation criteria. Total cable marking is not complete and there is no formal schedule for completion.
(c) Cable tray covers to meet separation criteria.
(d) The extensive dry well work remaining.
(e) Painting remaining in the reactor building and auxiliary building.
I (f) Work remaining on the security system.
l l
(g) Work remaining on the rad monitoring system.
(h) Work remaining on the Post Accident Sampling Facility.
(i)
Insulation work remaining.
(j) Fire steps and seals remaining to be completed.
(k) The stress reconciliation program and associated hanger modifications.
(1) Block wall rework.
(m) Leak Rate Testing program.
9 3-1 (n)
Clean up and temporary iron, etc., removal.
i (0) Resolution of NRC outstanding items.
Based on our review, we concluded that the Shoreham Station should be ready i
j to load fuel in June 1983.
It should be noted that some of the schedules are soft and there was no hard data available on the extensive cable wrapping programs and tray covers.
4 J
i i
t i
9 l
l l
,, ~ _ _.... _
....u.
'