ML20080D761
| ML20080D761 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Summer |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1979 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082380886 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090220 | |
| Download: ML20080D761 (5) | |
Text
". - =.
L *r*
/g m.Z'. f,J
.27,%
G-,- A b w
g
?
E nG.sh,
& +'.
- -- y ge-
,I e-9
'e
~
- 6. !L-t*. *
- h t r..,.
a.*
s er e
hs
""~~ $
NY l W*
W f
/y. s.
,- 2 r/-
/.
,f.., t. e.
T/.
. < ~ -
a
<. a +
/
$ ac
/0 o d'O, o &
2, /*
?). 7 4.
??
a.'.
7,% C jn, 5'D
'G.,,
n.i y,76
/
$:l l'
?l=f 7 IS G.d '.s
?O G 9 0h Te.
71.7.
9.?u -
r b $ )e
~p J
r\\.
I
.. t\\
s,, t.
se. s./ X a,!.,,'\\
o e
s c-Y k.!
\\
- r. 7 F
0 A'.f _.
8402090220 831031 N '4 PDR FOIA ROSENDA83-498 PDR
i
?
l6 -/[- 7 9 S r) m s > ? ?
. : - t/& nn (%A + N.!
.Q V M - I'c% f 4+ vech Rr4 mL - u-g n wn x
w f
/
m b
e W L' de k 4
~~ %
u.hd.
p.w! 4-b ~,o
@b
?4 - 6.,J.A.,
y c.4 eQ
~~SJ./J tj
.~.db m-k A -sr-79 e,
Y~ SOl h *N h
./
y
.T/ -
M l'U ~W
/
J.
n-M ns A
~.
l i
e-
.e-.
- = - -. -
m..
- a-=-
l m
p.ge.
- 4 e
e ma eh 4
e w w-e.
,.+we e
aw
,easeep
-em-3 e emb
-e p
w
- wh
.m ae--
Me ee eN&
O e'-
e am og e
e
.O e
e am e
e e
e ea e
eed 4
4
F f
3:_d -
Aq e.,,a e 6,'
/
DOCKEV NO. 50-395 bm at.7ecI APPLICANTS: SOUTH CAROLINA ELEC'RIC Aff GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY FACILITY:
VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1 SUBJECT :
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 15-16, 1979 REGARDING THE FORECASTED FUEL LOAD FOR THE SUMMER FACILITY On October 15-16, 1979 we met with representatives of the South Carolina Elec-tric and Gas Company (SCEAG) and South Carolina Pablic Service Authority (Santee Cooper) at the site of the Virgil C. Sumer, Unit No.1 (Sumer facility).
The purpose of the meeting and subsequent tour of the Summer facility was to gather information for an independent assessment of when the Somer facility would be ready f or fuel leading. The persons attending the meeting are listed in Enclosure 1.
In the applicants' presentations, a large neber of overhead slides were used, copies of the slides can be obtained from the project manager, After the initial presentations, the caseload / forecast panel toured the f acility; caucussed with the IE resident inspector and the IE principal construction inspector; and discussed our conclusions with the applicants. In brief, we were in agreement with the applicants that the Sucuner facility wgapproximately 90 percent con-plete. However, the Caseload Forecast Panel concl'uded that the applicants' fuel load date of July 1980 was too optimistic. We estimated that fuel load wot.la occur no sooner than November 1980 and fuel load would probably be February 1981. We also discussed the significance of this conclusion on the priority vu on given to the review of the Summer Final Safety Analysis Report,. A summary of the major points in the meeting and the bases for our conclusions are presented below.
Status of Engineering, Construction and Pre-operational Testing The engineering for the facility is essentially complete. The only exception were the radwaste solidification system and design verification for Class 1 This design verification revealed an error in the coordinatb system supports.
used in the seismic analysis; the analysis effects 173 Class-1 hangers.
With regard to construction, the applicants estimated that the facility was 91 percent complete as of September 30, 1979. The next major milestone is cold
^
. 4 i ng
.st t;<. te.t hydro,of the primary system; it is scheduled for 11/18 /79. The cold hydroM.
for the secondary system was completed i 1979.
. $ spas %
The status of various bulk quantities are given belcw:
I
,....n ir
Item Percent Process Pipe 21/2 inches and larger 92.47 2 inches and smaller 87.5 Large Bore Hangers 78.4 Small Bore Hangers 63.4 Cable, linear feet 90.6 Terminations 74.8 Circuits 82.2 Instrurwnt s 80.3 Ot t,o de.-a ; 3 n foncrete, cable tray and conduit were over 98 percent.
The craft work force at the site was about 1500 workers, exclusive of suocon-tractors. In most areas, there was only a single shift, however, critical path items were being double shifted.
The pipe hanger status varied from one area in the plant to another. Of par-CFP ticular interest to the Cescleed rece a Te, el was the status in the reacter building. In the reactor building 1057 out of 1514 (37 percent complete) large hangers remained to be completed and 652 out of 1278 (49 percent complete) small hangers remained to be completed. The applicants stated that of the 1057 large hangers and 652 small hangers,many were in various stages of completion; many would not be completed until after hot gap setting was done after hot functional testing.
With regard to the electrical area. The applicants stated that the bulk of the work remaining involved the containment electrical penetrations. Work on terminations at these penetrations did not begin until September 1979.
Construction personnel had identified 523 mechanical subsystems and 2737 electrical subsystem for the purpose of monitoring the status of st.bsystem turnover to operations personnel responsible for preoperational testing. The graks of the turnover schedule indicated that construction was one to two months behind in the turnover of these subsystems.
4 With regard to the status of preoperational testing program, the applicant pro-vided progress / trend curves for the procedure writing and test starts for flush,.
hydro, electrical, instrumentation functional HVAC air balance, aInd start 1re-opcAr procedurei
^
A
. Q,-j a!'
EM-!c:d Fe, nest-Fere(T,FP as very in the later curve, the progress / trend curve f or the development and perf ormar ce of.h.J.--.' pre-operational proceccres. The curve is enclosed to this sirr:ary of Er> closure 3.
The curve indicated to the CFP that (1) the applicants were already behind in start-up pre-operational testing and (2) that applicants had not demonstrated that they could achieve the high number of test starts per week required by the schedule.
CFP
.s u3 e$
Af ter the site tour, the ca;0!;2d fr ::::t pxi caucussed wer present otre NS
^
su.Cre conclusion to the applicants. k concluded that the earliest date feasible for the fuel load was in November 1980 and the more probable date was in February 1981, - !.d We based this conclusten on the following:
1.
The installation of pipe hangers in the containment and electrical temin-ations at containnient penetration would not occur as quickly as scheduled because of the r.ature of each task limited the manpower that could be used.
The completion of these items would not delay cold hydro of the primary system, but would delay hot functional testing and fuel load.
2.
The startup preoperational testing program appeared to be behind schedule.
Although they had recently completed several long, time constning tasks, it was r.ot evident that they could rneet the high rate of test starts demanded by the startup schedule.
We then discussed the impact of this conclusion on the priority assigned to the review of the f 2-
^ - "' "-~' JFSAR)[ We stated that previously the Summer FSAR had been given a relatively high priority when compared with other facilities previously expected to be ready for fuel loading in 1980.
The rescheduling of non-Three Mile Island related activities indicated that with the exception of two review groups, reactor systems and geology / seismology, the Safety Evaluatior. Report could be issued in March 1980 and an operating.I'As decision reached by late 1980. However, if the review schedules cannot be improved for these areas; the operating license decision date would be much later. Our reassessment of fuel load date fran October 1980 to February 1981 would probably not aff t the,.p/excioriti s ap% oeady, established because we anti-g
^.r-e.m r tfu as r
4,.wm cipate that as we ose to Summer, w.-e 11 find thaththeir final load dates would also slip. In summary, we concluded that it was as toss up as to whether y completion of the facility would be limiting for fuel load.
-o.. u __ m g
In the applicant % closing remarks, they stated that they would look at the problem areas that we had identified, but that they remained confident that afuelloaddatepasachievable.
$h MO Dean L. Tibbitts Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management 4
Enclosures:
1.
Attendance List Agenda b :v.a '.. ? 'SG-^
- 2. 4weve *hyephJ 0 avv4 ["f M'g*{ %.e 3.
ces w/ enclosures:
See next pages
ob:g
,[
h
+
UNITED STATES gh g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k
.* /
NOV 2 01980 Docket Nos.:
50-387 and 50-388 APPLICANT:
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company FACILITY:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF NOVEMBER 5-6, 1980 CASE LOAD PANEL MEETING AND SITE VISIT The last Caseload Forecast Panel Assessment in March 1980 projected a fuel load date for Unit 1 of December 1981.
In a letter to Darrell Eisenhut dated August 19, 1980, the applicant indicated that they had revised their fuel load date from April 15, 1981 to June 1, 1981.
On November 5 and 6,1980 the Caseload Forecast Panel again visited the site to update the Panels projected fuel load date.
The meeting agenda (Enclosure 1) and the list of attendees (Enclosure 2) are attached.
The applicant indicated that the plant was 88% complete. The applicant indicated that their current schedule included the impact of most TMI items. As of October 1980, about 90% of the engineering work for Unit I was completed. The applicant indicated they are about is the way through their startup and testing program. As of October 20,1980, about 97% of the large pipe and 97% of the small pipes were installed. About 98% of the cable trays and 99% of the conduct are installed.
Conclusions The applicant is currently about 2 months behind their Unit 1 fuel load date.
Based on the status of construction and preoperational testing at this time the NRC Panel projected a March 1982 fuel load date for Unit 1.
2du/
/r i
/
chard M. Stark, Project Manager Ri Licensing Branch No l'
Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
Meeting Agenda 2.
List of Attendees
^5 o I T u y o 2. u q l
l
/'preeg*o UNITED STATES L
5.gk;e,7)O.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~. V r) b h
e WASHINGTON, D. C. 20E55 s up,',a, o
\\.....-
JUN 2 2 1983 Docket No. 50-388 APPLICANT: Pennsylvania Power & Light Company FACILITY:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL MEETING AND SITE VISIT On May 25 - 27,1983, the Caseload Forecast Panel visited the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2 site to detemine the fuel load date pro-jection for Unit 2.
The target fuel load date for Unit 2 is currently January 1, 1984. The applicant currently projects a fuel load date for Susquehanna, Unit 2 of February 5,1984 The list of attendees is pro-vided as Enclosure 1.
The pacing item for which the fuel load date was being impacted was the completion of the system turnover and pre-operational testing, required to be completed prior to fuel load. The applicant stated that out of 148 pre-operational / acceptance test required, 32 tests (8 pre-op/24 acceptance) have been completed. The applicant indicated that with the experience gained on Unit 1, knowing the test to be done, knowing the system available for testing, and the man-power available, they were very confident that the fuel load date of February 5,1984 could be met. The applicant indicated that the projected fuel load date of February 5,1984 had remained relatively stable under the applicant's project schedule assessments since the end of January 1983.
After reviewing the data (see Enclosure 2) presented to the Caseload Forecast Panel and touring the facility, we agreed with the applicant that the pacing item would be the system turnover and pre-operational testing. However, we indicated that there were two potential problems that could impact the schedule:
(1) the workload currently proceeding inside the containment, including the induction heat stress improvement (IHSI) program and pipe hanger completion, and (2) the performance of pre-operational interface testing with Unit 1 on the applicant's aggressive schedule.
The' panel also specified that we did not have the confidence that the appli-l l
cant asserted with respect to its fuel load date. Our projection indicates that the earliest fuel load date was more like late second calendar quarter 1984 Our method used to arrive at the fuel load date was as follows:
1
[g (1)
Since the staff has been doing these forecast assessment, data indicate that the last 10% completion from 90% to 100% of pre-operational testing has taken from 3 to 5 months to complete.
Far our projection, we assumed 4 months.
(2)
Data also indicate that the maximum percentage completion of pre-operational testing per month is approximately 8% testing per month.
For our projection, we assumed 8% per month.
Taking this slope of 8% testing completion per month to 90% completion of pre-operational testing and adding 4 months to complete the last 10%, the resulting completion date is late second calendar quarter 1984. Therefore,
the Caseload Forecast Panel projects that the earliest fuel load date to be late second quarter 1984. We indicated to the applicant that this date would be our recommendation to our management.
' ~~a R. L. Perch, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/enclosurer:
See next page Os i