ML20080D685

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Midland Startup Sequence. Related Info Encl
ML20080D685
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Midland
Issue date: 10/31/1983
From:
CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML082380886 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090199
Download: ML20080D685 (23)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:I '._ i,. L. ~ ., t .~. l (. ' LT. '.q. a. . s., s / /B 4M.NE WTuf 59aEdcE . ) 9 < , O ' ) 8402090199 831031 PDR FOIA ROSENHA83-498 PDR s

^ .. i .O. W 11 Y C P C 0 P 11 I LO S O P 11 Y -C II AN GE ? 1. TRY TO MAINTAIN PROJECT COMPLETION BY NOVEMBER l'981. 2. HOW TO MOST EFFICIENTLY ACCOMPLIS 11 GIVEN AMOUNT OF WORK:- A. TESTING B. ' CONSTRUCTION 3. HOW TO COPE WITH CONCURRENT MILESTONE TESTING 4. DOW CONTRACT RESTRICTI,0NS A. UNIT 2 - ~70% FOR 6 MONTilS .~B. UNIT 1 - 100 llOURS t-4 e 5, Secaig %eer. ~ V 6 5 W O 4 4 m O 9

  • g l

__. u _ _. - _

. ;c COMPARISON OF PHILOSOPHI?.S ]e PRESENT: FUELIDAD C/0 UNIT 2 PREOPS HFTl; PES ) ENERGIZE ,__--m_ UNIT 1 ENERGI 7 PREOPS HFT PES 4 FUEL LOAD C/0 e O FUEL LOAD C/0 UNIT 2 ENERGIZE I 4#+ ,,,g UNIT 1 ENERGIZE PREOPS HFT PF,S f 1 FUEL LOAD C/0 -p 7 *,. [}- y _b e b e F /* I i 1 I r 19.79, 1980 1981 1982

p. _

!\\i l?!.7. H !) f*'"C Ji! C T Pi L o r'i. 9 R 1 7f= R i- ~l ~E.} T SEGUFNCE ~ ..~ UNIT - l UNIT "L ( l5tuttu:D Tt;;r b:nDU!.L EC n VITICO NT;C Sci:cCui c is,T.* Ec:rt:v : TO::.% r.'s : 1..: I l TEST !?c :.iirits E'.'iit: T g g' l g. L'!:TES I l I l I.. I-l t-2.3 70 I l- - I'.C:.g. ../ til! TIR I. 113SS / FlG5 l l FL..,. L, FLUSH - -. v;c,., -...g g.zo-ro g gy:- Q l l l'llilG E NSSS I c.u-yo _l- - (~' INillhL i i flyS : NyGS / RCS g g RCS CD!.D-iMIS H g g .gp lfYORO TCST EUAUE i s-L'!-fo ~l N3SS RCS / OTCG l g HYDRO g q.zo-To g - - 75/C - - - - - - - l . tr..y.- g.,o.ro RCS CCLD l l 1:YDRO TEST I go-p.7. ga l i;CD / CTSG l l 4Gr f 's tribl.G l 1 HDT - - -.. -.- -. r;;g).. -

-. i;.2
. co I

M TMRL I -l TECT l 1.- n. vo - : 1 I CONTAIN!L EllT I!O7' b.% l I I. R T FUN C Yl0ll Hl. l g TES Tit:3. 1 I I _I s..e-rf -- - m o - - - - - - -- . ' - 2.. s o.-- r: I II.Ri/ sir g l Q CONT!!IliM E r.T 7;,y l [J I s - s. er -. L.-- ._. ~]- - Qa v.. I !. R T g - u - r, -. i li. RT / SIT I!OT l l Fl ::CTION ft!- HOT I i U C0iv!PLE TE TEST T V!:CTIONiiL l ,r-gy. y; I BHErLINE TC S TING, l l l'03 T lit =Y DlHo pEc TinN l - l_SilSE L lH a Q.-- g.y.j. >eos COM PLE Tt. .' I 1~ ' ** ~ \\._ Rf'F'LIC BN T C!!5:~L IN' l fi.3 Fil 3 1 'r. s.: l E 3 F!iG l SUStAITS TCST RE.SULTS RND IN3?ECTioil l. l*0S T lirY l l p] EViiL UllTIO N - -- g.o - L t:fr S E l./N E 1 t-tr-r .-l \\. ,- - viro l ~L /;U!~! 1.0/t O~g .l**' F77Lil'It.*!T l l SUS!.' Irs rCS 2" ('~\\ g IU.?.Vi.TS III:n .? ^' El'i!!. (!U TI.ll ...i;."c t.. D... _.!: !L2.2..:.. ,,z..a.a.,., .. --.L I r:n.wi.v.- nn e.. r.a r 'l.c I o ria.ss. I .f C ON!'ul.. I : e:'. l'O WCI. C C. s las s?L.I:s is o'e;:s a ti c.1 ' 7.. i?. if:?su.'. S 1*.'. t t of t; ;q

_^* '. ', L. ',.T -; n., -.; y.. _ aw? ^ - a. v... c~ : 't ~ ' rg,, .-A D.V A N T A -C-E _S ..R I '. y; yl- - ~

  • *a,.

l. ALL CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING COMPLETED PRIOR TO' FUEL LOAD 2. NO MODE TESTING 3. PUNCHLIST CORRECTION TIME 4. NO SIMULTANEOUS MILESTONE TESTING ~ 5. HORE TIME TO RESOLVE PRESENT PROBLENS 6. NO SECURITY / IIP RESTRAINTS ON CONSTRUCTION 4. .t. ~ 7 L.EVELS RESOURCES 8. FLEXIBILITY IN SCHEDULE O g e -e t O f t C -y l... .... ~.

-s .w - =, ..s.-. r, D I S AD V..A. N T 'A. C 8S. e e n

  • 's ;

1. TESTING RESOURCES 2. UNIT 1 TURNOVER DATES MOVED FORWARD 3. OPERATOR RESOURCES: A. NO BREAKS DUE TO LEVELING B. EARLIER REQUIREMENTS C. OPERATOR LICENSING e een r t 4 4 -I e 1. S W G 6 D A g G e f 9 p I e .h 8 e ,-T y4g ,W ,e 9.'8wege s p.m% e T <,g WWD ."+1.u 4 f+'* pY,*- 4

  • y "-

5 ,d -I

q 9 4 I, f A e k 4 ,o e 4.. Y S m;, :6l -L. .u. 's', 4 L., 6 1 ~ GIDLh/ D .T ~. I 4 mg. EST o /?f)/Y) ~ e .'We ee e ig, -~ S e-O' e.m. J.me 9 6 e e 9 m e - 1 ..a... 7 ..e f --~.. .~.... ~ = 4 .. ~

==, e ..ee-g, eeso.m . ea weeg S e e + ++ eee eh. >85 em- . - = ga-

~ EST TA FT O C:A TE3 c.6(d i 72 b5 feople Arri pas.D tN '79 g & J Nc2 EASE 7~6 75 / n 'lO ~ } ksT NAAluAL u/f/TTEA) Y i9/ 16 fa U E D i $s V' / /SEu6D TN/s VEAe 73 72/4E UA - /hipsosr,977c TErrs(/9pp,eosu y aiirg.esii.ic) - Du cy uioRx its7 )R ee c A'A M ~ FL U SM/ b) E k2o& Rain fkgcfOtt?6 6W/Eid? tJ Ts/Ex$ 1 J l f h f0f5$b V & $$ T/k f* 4 y ...-~.....wc e W W e e .~. w-

MIDLAND PROJECT TEST PROCE011R!! INDEX.'STATilS $y ~+ - s s,,- a m y 3'- ^- T,' l NUMllER SCl!EDULED INTEL:NAL REVIEW TOTAL TC lie DitAFTED NUMTIER DRAFTED COMPLETED APPROVED PREOPS MECll (P) //Y ES (.2f$h $2 (28fh / f (/(,.(, f)_ O I stCu (S> M6 51 (.292 %) 6(2 (39.cg) /7 (1792) / (~/Z) R /9 (VoY2) 18 (38.3 2) // (x1.Y2) '/ (ps) 1tC ] EtEc 23 9 (3972) la W3.72) to O/3.72)

2. (a.s1 SPECIFICS MECH (P)

/ / / / O MECH (S) /0 Y (YOh 2 (20$) 2 ( 20 $) l (/0$ 1sC /b f (962) 8 (96 [] 6 (pg) _ 3 (302, ELEC O O O O C CENERICS uECu ? 5 (ssC2) </ (WV2) 3 (s3.1%) ,5 (ss.sb 1sC T .5 C f* 5 ELEC 2l l8 (8S7Zh /8 (9s7Z) /g (ZC7f) j7 (gg,ff Re [citovifi) /6 'l [ Z // 5 (36. 5 $] %,,, 3mprsh Q, Z irress;L W rifu - 6 8 ( 2/ 8 %) Arexovn is ( ?.5 2)

,I .2 .--..7, y sg. ~ ^~

  • .-._,o 3e0 9,::

[X Fo 79

  • ._i

.. ; _,. }....y. ! .,.. 1.. L t,o .f.. t i go l i t, t 0 I f ys . +. _ -........,..-.:..-.t...

o.- 75%

t

e

/. ,X 2Ca N l 1 / t i 'I i I 60 .. 3 ,.-..._..n.. _-_{ } g e i n'

  • )O I

,e I 6 I l l a t 1 >/ 4 ) I e 5 g-i i ..9 .a... p; s y . '70 a.. So ._4..__._.._. t .i, ._J_.._... .u._t..._......_;_._ j - lo e /23 ...:........__.4 . O9 $>.k. ir l go \\*5...e_.k o. Y......._....... _.. _ _._'_ _ l e, 2.T 1 70 cc: .so y, y ? i i y_._ '/C ' 3 X NUM3f f. C f rocfbdEFS CPf DVL ~) TO *{ CAEIFD 2 o Acvvai. Numerc e r T a o e.,.,s e r s i re w T e d to .__)_ "o /2 /1.4 lR 9 /t-23 50 l Gr /3 do a7 l 4 ll /8 af f $ sf 22 2il 4 13 2p ?? 2CCE TVA Y AUGUST .irarrss o. ira c c'ro cac sic./cs ;&rc Dccfr/r!.fs* o f G. f Ye { O* 7/7rse %,w<n,1er S rawo n er ~2>,,,o,, ra me A~> w m 7 O ,p*,m. p. g 1* N ,p ~e W4

{'; 3 ~ e ~' REVISION NO 19 ~ DATE 8-22-79 ~ w; ~~D^ .' PAGE 14 MIDLAND PROJECT TEST PROCEDURE INDEX-DRAFT DUE D~ ATE & PROC NO S PROCEDURE RESP DRAFT REVIEW STATUS IMPLEMENT NITMBER & REV. DISC DUE DUE SCOPE DRAFT .DATE TITLE 2TP-NIS.02.0 1 08-30-79 0 03-05-81 incore Monitoring g,p.pj g Sys Tests CTP-CIIE. 03. 0 P 08-31-79 2-B 0 Aux Bldg Crane Pre-Op .-A ITP-RCS.02.0 P 08-31-79 s 03-27-81 Reactor Coolant Pump Initial Run, Flow & NPSH Test 2TP-MSS.04.0 S 08-31-79 0 MS & TS Drains 2SP-CDS.01.0 S 09-01-79 2-A* O Cond Pump IPR & Recirc ITP-AXT.01.0 S 09-03-79 1-A 01-01-81 Main Feed Pump Turbines No Load //-05* 99 Test & Pre-Op 2TP-PES.01.0 P CD :: 7-9 2-B 0 03-24-80 Emergency Diesel Generator Pre-Op Test 7, p 77 ITP-GSS.01.0 S 09-04-79 0 09-23-80 Steam Sealing Sys f, y Pre-Op Test OTP-SHV.01.0 S 09-07-79 I-A 06-23-80 Office & Service Bldg HVAC Pre-Op Test 1TP-LOS.01.0 S 09-07-79 0 09-03-77 Lube Oil Storage Purif & Transfer Pre-Op Test ITP-TEH.02.0 S ~ 09-07-79 0 Feedwater Heater Level i Control / Turbine Extraction Isolation Pre-Op 2TP-CFS.01.0 P 09-07-79 2-B 0 09-07-80 Core Flooding System Check Vlv Operability Test

-A 2TP-RCS-14.0 P 09-07-79 4

RCS Initial Fill Pre-Op Test >e r p e. .

  • peg e e

~ REVISI0N NO 19 I-- DATE 8-22-79 PAGE 15 MIDLAND PROJECT TEST PROCEDURE INDEX-DRAFT DUE DATE & PROC NO S I PROCEDURE RESP DRAFT REVIEW STATUS IMPLEMENT NUMBER & REV DISC DUE DUE SCOPE DRAFT DATE TITLE 1TP-ESA.01.0 1 09-10-79 0 ESFAS Logic Sys Pre r.p Test ITP-ESA.02.0 I 09-10-79 0 ECCAS f,ogic Sys Pre-Op Test -A OTP-AHV.04.0 S 09-11-79 O-05-08-81 Access Control & Cor.,puter Area HVAC Pre-Op 2TP-MUP.04.0 P 09-11-79 1-C 0 High Pressure Injection Engr 1-l3 21 0 EY I' '""' Test OTP-MGH.01.0 S 09-14-79 2-B 0 04-25-80 Miscellaneous Gas Supply (H2) System Test OTP-MSS.05.0 S 09-14-79 0 MS Cross Connect Valves OTP-RWS.01.0 P 09-14-79 2-B 0 03-27-80 Resia Storage & Transfer Pre-Op ITP-E13. 01. 0 E 09-14-79 0 04-02-80 Class 1-E DC Sys Pre-Op Test 2TP-E13.01.0 E 09-14-79 1-C 0 .03-21-80 Class 1-E DC Sys Pre-Op Test OSP-PRC.01.0 1 09-15-79 1-C 0 Programmable Controllers Checkout ITP-CRD.01.0 I 09-15-79 0 Control Rod Drive Pre-Op Test ITP-ICS.01.0 I 09-15-79 0 04-13-81 Open Loop Test 1TP-NIS.01.0 1 09-15-79 0 In-Core Neutron Detector Elect Test 2TP-CRD.02.0 I 09-15-79 2-B 0 '08-27-80 Control Rod Drive System Integrated Test O A W

p-O7~HER /ES T-MOYl. V/ 77ES ~ foiva / /0 s f/ L L ED ~ unii r a/i A AN r Comeu ru T/o Y TecnA) G ~ - 78/79 uJiarete HEA7 ON 0sem r%2ie, ~ D pae rk rasna m ..as. D C. f/t B2ATIDAI b1 o b). f/20 FAAM h?Lso THEtt/nAL. ExPA asi o A)) .e u Con rA-s p in e a r Tes ri A>s-19e oeieniv> ~

  • em S t re S'cH E3)V L [

,..* 9 . ~ - - -.. -. _e

  • ~*

am- ,we+ = amee-- S h* e e e. w 4 + h 34 4 e

f , UJ V 3 f:4. c.~.. ~ p. Qf~ J2 4 7.y " L; ~^ ~ i 7 y p. DISCUSSION OUTLINE FOR NRC SITE VISIT September 18-20,1979 (GSK Itens) 1. Briefing for Site Tour 1. Current Project Status @ 9/1/79 A. Co=posite Project % Complete - 62% (Based on trends over 50% probability and latest physical quantities ' estimate) B. Staffing Levels: (1) Engr and H0 - 575 (Engr @ 366) (2) Site Personnel: Manual - 2,238 (no problem with availability) Non=anual 705 Subcontractors - 652 CP Co 359 (includes,v 200 Operating personnel) Total - 3,95h C. Expenditures @ $1,150 million as of 9/1/79 Procure =ent 95% completed based on dollars. D. Dow Chemical MAPCC ok'd to 12/82. EPA is still evaluating. 2. Principal Work Activities (Cable, Stall Pipe most completed in turbine building, civil (hangers and restraints) A. Reactor Building #1 - Closing construction opening, NSSS erection and rain steam line installation. B. Reactor Building #2 - Post-tensioning tendon installation, ESSS erection (RCP's) and mainstfeam line installation. C. Turbine Building - T/G erection for both units and HVAC installation. Rotor. and stator shiprent (ship from storage and on-site 9/23/79). D. Auxiliary Building - Main steam lines installed at 70h ', restraints, decon, coating for valls and floor, HVAC, fuel pool (hydro at lower level in preparation for installing racks). E. Yard and Miscellaneous Structures - Finalizing Administrative Building work for T/0 to CP Co, removal of surcharge for D/G Building, erecting storage tanks and service water cooling tever. Piping and eauipment insulation work in Evaporator Building, ductbanks for security.

W/ 4 g'%~ 2 F. Bulk Materials Installation (Total Plant) - (1) Large Pipe - 88% complete) (2) Small Pipe h6% complete) fd3 (3) Cable Tray - 95% complete) Based on Preliminary F/C #5b ~ (h) Conduit - 66% cceplete) Total Quantities f (5) Wire & Cable - 38% complete) (6) Connections - 26% complete) G. Systems have started to be turned over to CP Co and will be dis-cussed in more detail in Item 5 3. Our understanding of their visit is for them to look at completion of construction so the NRC can set priorities on use of NRC Technical Staff to review FSAR. We want to be reviewed on an equivalent basis to other plants. We show %- completion to include licensing items that are > 50% chance of being implemented. G l 1 e O

[

  • A1 *,

CPCo REVISIONp SCHEDUIE -PlilLOSOPHY. P, i ~

.c ~

I. Our present schedule (Rev. 6) interfaces Unit I and Unit 2 preoperational testing through Event 200. Event 200 are those Unit 1 systems that were selected for startup and/or operationally required to support licensing and fuel load requirements for Unit 2. Additional information and interface points between Unit 2 operation and Unit 1 preoperational testing may cause us to change from our present Event 200 philosophy. The most notable new information is the apparent and unavoidable prospect for delaying the start of the Unit 2 and common test schedule, movement of the Unit 2 Fuel Load date closer to the Unit I date, and' additional manpower strain especially upon the Operations Staff '(a fairly inflexible resource). The proposed Bechtel Schedule (see attachment 1) will force the Midland Project into a startup mode wherein major integrated pl. ant testing on both Units 1 and 2 could occur simultaneously, e.g., Unit 1 HFT ana ILRT during Unit 2 Fuel Load, Zero Power Testing and/or Power Escalation Testing. This coupled with increased manpower strain and Unit 2 technical specification restraints imposed on the Unit 1 Preoperational Test Program will cause certain delays with the Unit 1 schedule and also reduce availability of Unit 2 power production. To alleviate the potential for an excessively long Unit 1 Preoperational Test Program and maximize the potential for sustained Unit 2 power production, Scheduling recommends that the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Precperational Test Programs be merged as shown on Attachment 2 and Revision $ curve on. 11. Major points to note with the merged Preoperational Test Program (Rev. $)- are listed on Attachment 3. The following notes also apply to llev. 7: Uriit 1 Fuel Load occurs as previously planned, i.e., November 1981. 1. Unit 2 Fuel Load occurs in July 1981 as compared to the previous date 2. of November, 1980. III. Several advantages are inherent with the proposed merged Preoperational Test programs: 1. The majority ( 95%) of Unit 1 preoperational testing will be performed prior to Unit 2 Fuel Load. This will relieve Unit 1 preoperational testing of restraints and de' lays l due to Unit 2 license operating rectrictions (technical specifications and surveillance testing). This will increase Unit.2 availability for j power production owing to fewer interferences f rom Unit 1 preoperational testing. / / eP E f Y 4' f y# f I# fj.& hk To W f}Vss.2 t #r/p e P 4 9 y e Jsk Sof 5tt L 4,a

C _ L%CE 2 --, j- / g., a, 7;4:- g- - O-R'C.~;. ~.. :.,, ~ 8 ~ i ' *; : W' ~ ~ .x. - ~.% 3 +. t .. l; Qf,s. . ~ '

  • c.

y ~ 4 <n .e; 2. Inhe_ rent timeframes are built into the merged schedule to absorb corrective.dgsign and/or maintenance following-major periods of integrated initial. plant operation and preoperational testing. Historically, nuclear plant immediately following the Cold Hydro Test Phase and the Hot Func Test Phase due to equipment or other operational failures. These failures have in the past slowed and in many cases stopped critical path progression onto the next; succeeding scheduled : event (s) until repairs and/or design problems were resolved. These timeframes are shown on as " Resolve Punchlist Items-- ". 3. No two (2) Unit ~ m simultaneously. 1 and Unit 2 milestone events are' required to be performed It is impractical and in many cases impossible to focus site activities on more than one (1) major Unit 1 and Unit 2 milestone activity at the same time. The Midland Site is currently being staffed'to permit simultaneous milestone testing. component testing with each Unit but not for simultaneous in To do so would require 2 of every resource including the Testing Group, Operations Group, Bechtel, B&W, and CPCo Management support. 4. Separation of Fuel Loads

  • - ' ~ Unit 1 and Unit 2 Fuel Loads are -separated in time to support the Dow -

3 ~ contract with regard to. process steam availability. ~ 5. LLRT/ILRT/ SIT are performed nearly piggy-back during the same-timeframes. Containment leak rate and structural integrity testing would benefit by-capitalizing on the commonality of' equipment, personnel, and vendor support required to perform these tests as opposed to the inefficiencies ~ due to duplication of effort if the two programs were handled separately and spaced one year apart as presently planned. 6. The integrated ESEAS Test would be a common test phase. The safeguards system for the Midland Project is essentially a. common system in that each plant is designed to respond to the others safeguards actions. As such~, this particular milestone test for each plant will include theLother plant to the extent that neither'could provide substained power during conduct of the test. I Thus,- ESFAS testing should be performed for each plant during the same timeframe to avoid duplication of effort and interruption-ofLpower production from the "on-line" plant. \\. L m w .c rr -- se &,r y--- v-T

\\ PAGE 3 - ~~ _ J - -s 7. Some potential delay items to the Unit 2 schedule could gain additional time for resolution.

t.,

The reactor coolant pump snubbers and the diesel generators are ~ restraints to ths Unit 2 Hot Functional Testing Program. As such, both of these items could receive up to 14 weeks additonal time for resolution. 8. Smoother and lower resource leveling will be realized. 4 Resource loading for the merged Preoperational Test Program will be both smoother and lower (especially operators) as compared to the resource leveling that results from imposing the proposed construction delays on the present Preoperational Test Program schedule (see major point discussion item 3 above). 9. The potential problem of spent Fuel Pool area work interfering with fuel receipt would be less significant. Receipt and storage of new fuel on site imposes a number of. restrictions on the fuel storage facilities (spent fuel pool area). Typically, this means all. activities are limited to either fuel handling itself or to routine maintenance of fuel handling reldted equipment. Usually, the i license for receipt and storage of "special nuclear materials" (fuel) specifically prohibits construction activity or any -other dirt generating or heavy maintenance work which could potentially affect cleanliness or structural integrity of the new fuel. The equipment access openings for both containments open directly into the. Spent Fuel Storage Area. The potential problem of receiving and storing Unit 2 fuel conflicting with construction of Unit 1 (construction access to the inside of the containment) and tendon tensioning on the Unit 1 Containmuet Building could be significantly reduced with the merged i Prcoperational Test Program. IV. There are' some disadvantages with the proposed merged Preoperational Test Program: l. Construction may not be able to meet turnover dates for seme Unit 1 items. Rev.j5 curve. 2. The feedwater and condensate systems will have to be layed up for approximately 14 weeks between chemical cleaning and the start of HFT. 3. The intensity of the' testing period will permit little, if any,' te=curce availability for preparation of procedures.after 1979. 1 e

h!V ' .PAGE 4 .. - - = N' u. - ~. . :gi -;,. ..u.

m..

~ -4. The Operator License examination should be administered within 3 months of the expected date for. Fuel' Load. With the compression of the two Hot Functionals the scheduling of these examiriations may be difficult. ~ The examinations must be docketed well in advance and dates are usually inficxible for the NRC examiners. 5. Due to anticipated examination failures and attriition of operators, a Hot Reactor Operators Training Program was planned between Unit 2 and Unit 1 startup. This program is normally a 9 month program. This schedule will not permit this second license class to be complete in time for startup of Unit 1. Tt%9 NWW LN* 6. Items 1 and 2 above will lead to a problem with availability of trained Auxilicry Operators available' for testing, and taay require overstaffing early in the tet t phase to assure availability of trained personnel for Hot Functional and startup testing. e - ~ ~ e G e O 9 O

.> 4::.,.A4,I. d4ea. Al.b yMh")n[1,.lt.)." i ),i f.'.. y :.fs[.,... M.: %9W'. g

  • z' Y

C )~ f.".r- ] 0 + - i b% ) 0 I' ykn-

h. 0
3. r.n 7 '

6 ~ du .A ta 4 2,.. 7 s 1 L uW g V M 9J

p. '

p ~ c u f g l e

u uJ 4

Y 4 A 6 M R. /% 5 4 A - F h. R / s A M t @r 8 u& B

f. -

&F / L - 6 Jr n AJ l. l e T N C f_ G 2 ( D D M.j ( t t c / o uL -

n L

9 b T. W.. t u p r i a / A h /./ a t. Ou ,a.I g t. ) . c y \\r ./ M u t. /o YA / r = t / N a e rT p S_. . h* -/ R. A 1 o AA P 4 w m. / F G c c c. i w b a/ tr e 1 A A l J b1 l k c c T / o I W /. b I. V e f m ) .. ~ i 4f s u A / 'g. / t 9d 'l J rl 9 iu s d J .g .m/ V A-M t l.\\', /,v',. .i u j '.~ Q fv.

1
,

h. ' ; d,5. \\ $ . s. vL ' .;.N,. ?,@i l,) <}: ?!. '.s. ; ', .t. A t I 'l.

D -/^1TTiDINft/1* d a q.

  • Ht']%g i

...,: o,, 1 s

5...

'ns: v, w L(, gr Lkun {0rmt h,g~L Ue! y'e.., , NCA.5_UML.'!.., 7l'j i 4 u f N. f k 8

i. >

'd i a l q_.... - __.d -..i ,- %.. f., 2 g)._ s - ~L~c.u., u non i I [ . -.. __. _ u...../ M,_.. i 2 8iI3 t 9 9 'G 7 3!d ~ ~ - - /18'T). . AJi.!7)...... _,. (6) ADcAl l 7 >[U* ~%.. . ArS A I

3*

7 ,gI 4 j eA /w,I ! j _._. gl3 .s A f. '. e. ,i ti &f. T ' 4 ..._.A: 4:,;. L1/C LNCMlII k:p,f1 eM "dA f i Fr rf IE.uu. lo.:4AAcAll./S7 n Llur 1 6 t[';.l: *i lor'L Cibb okr I WK recLIEt,xtLYI . f AY :1 l ste. E,. e i i f.'.jfd1979 e 1._. i / s. zg 2u4 .s LA A tc. SEP oct Nov net..! Art rea du APR MAY Juu Jul AUC SCP CC.T NcV DEC JA4 Fi'B t4AR APk AAY JJN JUL.' ALM CEP I980 ( / ',1 h 98 j* f.li W OCT d % A C.$ Tl0 K (An fuas fl LM.tirst ] ' O G.,NYD/lC 1NA.;G, f _n J _. A _ _ $..u.h' A..s[l cces,'r \\t$'r.' I.NF r Pn n a s. ..s '1.1* Acanst~ _..i t 1. . if #Nek.J Limrl F>av& Scarr d 1 iac 1 c D 3 lA)Cf Nff $ $dUltd id Ai ?[ffA$ 1Esr N/A.% N ' 't Y.. 5 e& ,RJEL LORD . 7TST. 56QUENCE k.I (o M lpost 11 et. tono V id r .AEV/Si m 3 s-; e 5 / 3 179 3 L'. qqove nela . x -a {li$h5' load A? CPS l9 G'. 2 f lA 5 l '1 l

*; i st;,

l ATTACHMENT 3, s COMPARISON OF TEST PROGRAM BASIS '1 2 3 .4 5 p6 Original test-Test program commences Total testing Unit 2 Fuel Load-Unit 1 Fuel Load-schedule sequence early May, 1979 duration-30 months Nov. 1980 Nov. 1981 0 $htsi Original tes't Test program commences Total testing Unit 2 Fuel Load-Unit 1 Fuel Load- , ~ '@ptan1 schedule sequence early Aug., 1979 duration-27 montha Feb., 1981 Nov., 1981 s7 ' Proposed merged Test program commences Total testing Unit 2 Fuel Load-Unit 1 Fuel Load test program. early Aug., 1979 duration-27 months July, 1981 Nov., 1981 4 9 9 9 e 8 1 'I 9-a i il O 4 i, s 1

r' Consumprs Power _ Company s .y ~ Report #26, June,29, 1979 ^ ~.. T ' - ;.q._,. v-g,. Pursuant to conditions 2 F.B. anEl 2 F.C. of Construction Permit's CPPR-81 and CPPR-82, the following report covers the period July l~- Septembe,r 30, 1979. A. Construction work to be performed during the period: / omplete Unit 1 electrical penetration in the Auxiliary Building C

  • b-- l$$a the blockwork and shielding in the Auxiliary Building ~ vr% c=-/">,

, con 4 teu.c. Co..gictc HVAC equipment in the Auxiliary Building a #r7, yl4E. / omplete installation of primary LP RC piping in the Reactor Building No 2 C -, 0. n+ 'n ue Jiaed -Cei+1cte-f4Md heads in the Reactor Building No 2 Ifg N3 / Comp'lete r;o ng in Unit 1 internal heads and CRDM e uid heads in the Reactor Building No 1 7h ce$ 6k l Cani.au e. U#" CW( Ccapictc HVAC ductuork and equipment in the Turbine Building No 2 dsetting Unit 1 lower shell and hoods P5rbd q.

nu e r Cwe uv...;1cte erection of condensate and miscellaneous tanks electrical in tunnel

[8S[ Stc the evaporator roof and siding - % 4"* d ~ ye Coritinue installation of ductwork in the Auxiliary Building S Continue installation of restraints and' equipment barriers in the Auxiliary Building ts Continue installation of tendons and post-tensioning in Reactor Building No 2 y:s Continue installation of internals and assemble CRDM in Reactor Building No 2 b Continue installation of Unit 1 primary loop reactor coolant piping in Reactor Building No 1 /D Continue installation of restraints and barriers in Reactor Building No 1 b Continue installation of miscellaneous equipment in Turbine Building No's 1 & 2 %_ Continue installation of large and small piping in the Turbine Building No's 1 & 2 %_ Continue installation of wire and cable in the Turbine Building No's 1 & 2 Y& Continue installation of chemical and oily waste B. Supervisors.and engineers of the applicant and architect-engineer who are expected to be onsite during the period July 1 - Septernber 30, 1979: 1. Consumers Power Company RMKoltuniak - Engineering Assistant, QA Engineering .I ~ ~ ' = - - ~ ~ - ~. ; W. " ~ ' 2 "....~-...=:~~- .,.5 - - w. E: *....~.. ~ ~~~,2L";_~~_

._17Z-T W h W W 6MAi,.a - . a Au a.. .. ~ , 4.C s . y$'l ~. 'g V.$ l.} c C.t: UNITED STATES g4._4,.. [ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION du E o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t. ,yII~ March 8,1978 r .. = -o' w .x. b;c _ MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold S. Bassett, Deputy Director, PLA Richard A. Hartfield, Director, Division of Operations Evaluation, MIPC Yv;,- ~ FROM: Roger S. Boyd, Director, DPM M 4 :+L,

SUBJECT:

PLANT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF MIDLAND UNIT 2 m 4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE y As you can see from the enclosed memorandum regarding the Midland 10 Unit 2 construction schedule, I consider it essential to follow up -{1J the Board notification or this matter with a detailed analysis. M I envision that DPM (Larry Crocker and Darl Hood), I&E (Wayne R Reinmuth, et al), and MIPC (Bill Lovelace) would sit down with the applicant, analyze and evaluate the present cunstruction schedule for Unit 2, and develop a construction-complete date we can' all ...~ agree is the best possible estimate at this time. .N - It may be appropriate to have Forecast Panel participation in this .l exercise, and I leave it up to you, Buck, to decide. . n., Larry Crocker will be contacting your organization within the next bJ u few days to get this laid on. Let me know if you have any problems l with what I think needs to be done. E p :) .3 ?- i.i 1 -= R g; r. Roger S. oyd, Directo i A 4 #. Division of Project Managemen1P ,U, 'W O

.?k.,

Enclosure:

As stated $? j gm g o cc: w/ encl. m

..jp L. Crocker o

D. Hood jijg) W. Reinmuth gc W. Olmstead if4 4

q-p%

r.7_ N 3 tl ?.i a G :a. U , CdD , ?_ !,( (_

'..u g

7,, =_ g s e g [ j.h .,, w n w. m. m.,, 7.,; m.c.u,r.n y m m.. m.;. g.. e n. mh. . a: :. my x;,mn ;gn..sp.:,m;g.p:-w.:y N-

m.v

..gr :,y y y p 9 y = n,s

mm ,.n-m m - . w., - cescre - + msa w - -arm ym ,..c yy 3 p.' UNITED STAT,ES c (.. yg) (lf h$ i NUCLEAR REGULATORY ~ COMMISSION ~, I o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 H t ?"k iL kl#' E ?.. ' Y* *# March 7,1978 ' qW M, Docket No. 50-329/330 ' y;,

....~

P..I.O e20 ws MEMORANDUM FOR: James R. Tourtellote, Assistant Chief Hearing G a.t Counsel, ELD &.W.i FROM: Roger S. Boyd, Director, DPM M. W.,..

SUBJECT:

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATES FOR A' MIDLAND UNIT 2 %...n-m I should like to advise you of int.ernally-generated information which R potentially could be relevant and' material to the Midland proceeding. 37 The subject relates to our estimates of when Midland Unit 2 (the first

-se of the Midland units scheduled for completion of construction) can be l'- 7 expected to be completed in accordance with the application, and other-1...-

wise ready for fuel loading. The latest estimate, presently under e study by the staff, is not yet developed completely. When it has been v. we should provide the Board with our assessment of the significance of the information in accordance with our evolving Board Notification s, procedures. As you will recall, the staff testified in February 1977 that, at that [!-J.O time, November 1980 was a reasonable date for completion of Unit 2. Amendment 33 (FSAR) to the application, docketed November 18, 1977 u;t. gives the applicants' earliest and latest dates for completion as October 1,1980, and October 1,1981, respectively. The " rainbow i books" published by MIPC (Blue Book and Yellow Book) carry an esti-5"6 < mated fuel load date of November 1980 for Unit 2. " ' ~ ~ ?;.; In late 1975 the NRC established a Caseload Forecasting Panel to pro-ON vide estimates of incoming CP and OL applications, and when individual OQ facilities would be ready for operation, for budget and workload plan- ~^;$ ing purposes. On November 15, 1977 the Executive Director for Operations ..fr instructed the Caseload Forecasting Panel to develop and refine a con-y (, sistent forecasting methodology and to provide periodic caseload fore-7..z casts that could serve as the single source for internal and external ,,pjg users. Although this activity is not directed to the Midland units, da or any other particular facility, the studies and the results of the Q.. Panel's efforts will provide construction completion estimates on all 6.K facilities under construction, based on a set of standard assumptions M that can be applied to all facilities. Ms y;k l0 u\\ f

a qh; 7,

,,, Ar e .1 n,1--. m~ ;e t*&.*= ; ~y:n. 7~ ~ e... .,;bL _M.; M.Eg;%;;y . vm p y.7 = y p s.p ~ g -r e 7-r ~ ~. pe;;~ ~ , ~ dQ.xy.m

p. eve; w: ;. m. 4 3 9 9 y. Y. 4 ; ;; _. 4 ;..

},e

. em-mmm _ z w m.* r u m cm ss e-m %m. ~ q o< m. t

.n h..4{P.

sl@M ~ M..c.. James R. Tourtellote 2-

x..

is@

p. w rr

.1.'A ' In the course of the Panel's present study, the NRR project staff was ?.T

  • asked to coment on the Panel's most recent projections. The Midland project staff identified two estimates of construction completion for 4:6 the Midland units generated by MIPC which differ from the staff testi-d@[W'j, many in the proceeding and from the infomagon carried in the rainbow Ng

,,.o. J.5 i books. In April 1977, based on February 19// data and assuming the plant was 23% complete at that time, the MIPC made a generic estimate ....i for budget planning purposes that Unit 2 would be ready to load fuel @#5 in August 1983. A second generic estimate was made in January 1978,

z. y ?

v'OL' 1. assuming 38% completion of construction, with the conclusion that b@,

  1. , t.,

May 1932 should be used for budget planning purposes. During this' V time, MIPC's monthly Construction Status Report on Nuclear Power Plants 9M ~ (Yellow Book) continued to carry the November 1980 date. . 73@ $ W.?. N*- Gu The Forecast Panel, using a standard model for average plant construction $;M duration, has established initially a May 1932 fuel load date for Unit 2. g-).4 It is in the process of refining this estimate, as well as estimates for Gu other plants, taking into account plant-specific factors that would ![ j,WS 7 provide a more precise estimate. .s.J' t

  • .s.....

f *J f'/.4 Recognizing the variations of these general estimates with the dates provided in Amendment 33, and the fact that these estimates potentially .,$hg... di affect certain issues in the Midland proceeding, we plan to do a more 'yr:m. V.. detailed plant-specific analysis of the best estimate fuel load date M,1 4-6 for Midland Unit 2 and will provide the results to the Forecast Panel. Mr + the utility, and to you. ~. h.

  • E* s s ". 4,
ie Origina SPiacd By

'7 .r ' Roger S. Boyd

e. 3 fk}h

~ Roger S. Boyd .!,7 Director Q3.3j f> Division of Project Management gg mAh ,,y f Distribution QEg Central File D. Hood W ) NRR Rdg. M. Grossman [W.1 $E RSBoyd Rdg. W. Olmstead BD Notification File S. Kari g!5 ./- E. Case H. Berkow w# R N. Moseley A. Abell R. DeYoung L. Crocker

  1. $d D. Vassallo 17 S. Varga v, s,.w.

3'u M @@+&;& w .i y., Y, f [,' 8 * " OPP'c 8 % E' y ij t,,,.....

  • RS'h:lm

%[ 22.as__ l. ..d N NRC FORM Sie O.76) NRCX 0240

  • us e. oovsawass=v eme= vine ornces es,e-eaa.es4

,@.-d s

_ I c. t _ m. _.. m ssi - - - - w G.%- .cN UNITED STAT'E5 ' ' s [ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON li j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5f M i-a g'g v - c_. g 4 [.-. - March 27, 1978 ct? 3.. r 9; ,.., 3 DOCKET N0S: 50-329 3 ;. - ~ 50-330 LICENSEE: Consumers Power Company Q; FACILITY: Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2 ..>:n 2-w

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF MARCH 21-22, 1978 MEETING AND SITE VISIT yp.ii .:x l] %r Ikb.{ r m 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 n '- the construction activities in progress. The meeting notice and agenda

g.,.

for the meeting are attached as Enclosure 1. A list of attendees and [p *. 0 persons contacted during the meeting is included as Enclosure 2. As noted in the agenda, the purpose of the meeting and visit was to examine P.' ' ~ variations in estimated dates for completion of construction of the f' ' Midland Plant. We also used the meeting to discuss with the licensee his reasons for the revised earliest and latest construction completion -[' dates provided in Amendment 33 to his application (FSAR). ' W a We met with representatives of the Licensee at the construction site T ~j: 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. 6 J..; The February 1978 issue of the Yellow Book shows Unit 2 at 39% complete Gd and Unit 1 at 35% complete. Earliest and latest dates for completion of sp.i construction are shown as October 1,1980 and October 1,1981 for Unit 2 /U and October 1,1981 and October 1,1982 for Unit 1. Fuel load dates are ./c.5. shown as November 1980 for Unit 2 and November 1981 for Unit 1. A 96 generically-based forecast recently compiled by MIPC shows estimated QQ fuel load dates of May 1982 and May 1983 for Units 2 and 1 respectively. q.g Inasmuch as the completion dates for the Midland units are significant with respect to the ongoing remand hearing, this meeting was designed gn.0 d to resolve the differences between the Licensee's dates as shown in the y$',.. Yellow Book, and the forecast dates developed by MIPC. gj", ,. m:N $gdp 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 construc-J tion history of 14 different nuclear pl:nts. Using this curve and the reported percentage completion of construction for a particular plant, ?E 1

+.

t '? $b m fl w uI!' M / m 2M.- nr = ew e - w. >-,, -- -- a~n .---e.g. pg y y yo,p w,,..,,,,,, ~, ^ h.g 1 L ~' ~ ~}} g %~

m.zm_m_ .w m-- ...o. m m w_ ., m um. m a ,m u u.% t x 'j - - e*

.cp.

g 2-p - m g ,wdmt 9.- 9 an estimate can be made of the time remaining until completion of W / construction. L. I The Licensee bases estimates of construction completion on manhours. n@T The formula uses actual manhours expended in the numerator, while the NL denominator is the sum of four factors:

1) the estimated total man-hours to construct the plant, 2) an allowance to take; care of support N;1 effort and productivity of labor, 3) 'a factor to take-care of contin-gencies, and 4) a scope change factor.

The first three factors are bg revised on a six-month interval basis to update to a then current WR$j estimate of total labor needed plus allowances and contingencies. The fourth factor is changed each month to take into account efforts Syg estimated to be required to handle changes in project scope. For Q example, the NRC requirements for fire protection required an additional gghj quantity of manhours to be added to the estimate. In practice, then, }Q,$ use of this formula results in what is thought to be an adequately g.p conservative measure of total manhours expended compared to the total RM manhours budgeted. The construction completion figures are based p$$ strictly on the manhours, which are directly correlatable to work in place. That is, an electrician can pull so inariy feet of cable per hour f or make so many splices per hour, or it takes so many manhours to place a yard of concrete, etc. No credit is taken by the Licensee for value >x or quantity of materials in place. EM It should be noted that the Licensee maintains records and estimates percentage completion on a total project basis. The percentage comple-O f(% tion figures reported for the Yellow Book are a simplification of more MS accurate records maintained for the project as a whole. The Yellow $9fd Book figures are derived ~ based on an apportionment of effort on common facilities between Units 1 and 2. Refinement of the reported f9 percent completion values, if applied to the MIPC forecast model, could M provide for better agreement with the Licensee's estimated completion bj dates. This would require considerable additional effort, however, Ih which we do not feel is warranted. $g as The Licensee's procurement program appears to be in good shape, $d( probably considerably better than would normally be the case for a fg' plant at this stage of construction. The principal reason is that dur-Edl ing the 1974-1975 period when construction effo'rt was curtailed due to TM 6 T lack of funds, procurement kept moving, with the result that all major M components (reactor vessels, steam generators, pressurizers,. reactor My coolant pumps and pipbg, main steam valves, turbine-generators, etc.) either are now on site or are stored off-site and available for place-gp ment when needed. Hence, procurement should not pose any big problems g to maintaining the current construction schedule. m yD

1 We did not examine the detailed status of the design effort as compared

$7 Y: x ~ilQ \\ t 3.f 1 p #7: mm m-w p 17n.v; .m gr m, x.~ mx3, qe~? ;,+ ~e -e y p;- gn - > y-y?, m .m.aw w ww .=.

e~ -.s. - - m.-. -., - _w;g ,W n. i . ? r: -pi ( I ~.. .M .J.- . w w. to the construction activity, but it appeared to be adequately far advanced so as to avoid costly and time-consuming rework of construc-O d '. tion. Of note is the fact that the licensee has maintained close D, _ contact with other plants, to take advantage of lessons 1<urned else-Q '; where so as to avoid mistakes at Midland. The design drcWings have 'x. been translated into plastic, scale models of some plant areas which r. proved useful to avoid interferences of equipment and w mponents. p y. One point of potential schedule impact is associated with union 5@ contracts. All craft union contracts except for the electrical workers GR are up for renegotiate this year. The Licensee does not now antici-M*, pate any major problems in this regard, but it is possible that g contract negotiations could cause work stoppages which are not specifi-W /' cally provided for in the Midland schedule. 4h . M'~~ ?g% 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% car.ual overtime thus far, but it is j, anticipated that overtime will be increased to as much as 15% on an J as-needed basis. A close watch is maintained on all productivity, E including second shift and overtime efforts, to assure optimum use of workers. At the present time, the construction emphasis is changing from a basic ,3.'( - ~ ' structural-civil effort to a mechanical-electrical effort. As such, the relative mix of workers by trades is changing. Minimal problems are anticipated 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 school to assure an adequate supply of qualified

g..-

welders, s Work is just now getting underway on preparation of pre-operational test procedures. It appears that the time for procedure preparation may be 'M " a bit tight. However, efforts will be based on lessons learned at other a;; plants (e.g. TMI-2) and the Licensee anticipates no delays from this .[/$ cause. Approximately twenty test engineers.are now on site and have in-begun work on the pre-op test procedures. T- .y. A matter of some concern to the staff i: the question of. hangers and f _ '. snubbers. These have held up construction at some plants.. However, fi'.'6: ~ the. Licensee is aware of the potential. problem and is taking steps to N6 avoid it for Midland. A special hanger fabrication facility has been @l set up and the Licensee is working with the snubber supplier p.13 (ITT Grinnell) to assure that snubbers will be available when needed. qs. The present intent is to install all hangers and snubbers prior to hot ME.E functional testing, although some could be left for later installation if necessary.

M

~ 33 @m GQ, '^%; r- $f k* 4' ? 4

e -m um we --m mu pp o W; f g.. e.3.. -~ .. ANW v:w. 0.?@ a-w Overall, the site construction activities appear to be in good shape. .. ~ The civil-structural effort generally is on-schedule to ahead-of-Jy ' 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. v. 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 c" minimal problems in getting back on schedule in this area. ~ It is noteworthy that the Licensee's plans call for completion and 'l.; check-out of all common facilities (e.g. auxiliary building, diesel-generator building, rad-waste facilities, 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. I ~ b Overall, the Licensee's schedule calls for fuel load on Unit 2 to I occur 31 months from now (November 1980). Included in 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 L 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 for anything that might reasonably be anticipated. [ As'noted earlier, we used the meeting for the ancillary purpose of -E addressing the Licensee's request to slip the construction completion i dates as provided in the construction permits for the Midland units. ~ In response to our questions, the Licensee's representatives ex- - ~ plained 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

c. i for completion of the units.

Both units were delayed 24 months due to adverse financial conditions in 1974 and 1975. Unit 2 was rescheduled - q' to be completed one year ahead of Unit 1, resulting in a delay of 13 months to Unit 1 and an advance of 11 months to Unit 2. Both units ~ l were delayed 9-months due to re-evaluation of construction time because of changing project scope and industry experience. Some of the more C significant examples of changing project scope which influenced s schedules were identified to be: b. .D (1) A new building for waste processing equipment resulting ? from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1. b 'w l 1 ) 7 7:-- . y,, ... m, 7. . n v- -.w _ y _' r .L: 1

--m

w. -

- - -. - n ~.. S$

  • L h:.h.

2 'e .f..:+. + (2) Changes to provide two cable spreading rooms and other W space requirements for electrical separation resulting V'E . N: ; I from revisions to IEEE Standard 279. -e ?, (3) Plant arrangement changes to equipment and structures .~ 1 to provide improved access to Class 1 piping resulting ~ from the inservice inspection requirements of Section XI ?. t. Twl of the ASME Code. (4) Redesign of the Auxiliary Building consistent with spent ,Q,., fuel cask drop guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.13. i f,,, DN! 'c:y gj (5) Updating of piping and valves from ANSI 831.7 to ASME III. 7 (6) Requirements for additional analyses and testing to verify Q ;.5 seismic requirements. .zg _a (7) Changes resulting from OSHA requirements. qq-Our general conclusion as a result of the visit is that the Licensee T[,% has identified possible problem areas and has taken or is taking necessary action to work around' these problems without a major schedute impact. The proposed construction schedule, based on the current project status, appears to be realistic and achievaB1c, ,. 3 i, although it may be a bit on the optimistic side. Barring major, unfore-seen problems, any slip in the schedule should be relatively minor. We identified no problem areas that 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. Further, we are optimistic that the November 1981 date for Unit 1 fuel loading should be achievable, since our perception is that Unit 1 major facilities are significantly ahead of schedule. , h,. .e.4:;a .4 5. L. P. Crocker Nt:;? Technical Assistant to the Director ef Division of Project Management ch2... M:: Enclosures * [@ I'? 1. Meeting Notice i 2. Attendance List pr.G n.= E

t. d ';

l $q$?. i .e .'r .;, y 7 l ?,fk? {ffW k m

zgg m 1 m g y m ggg m ig}}
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20080D685&oldid=4382850"