ML20080D818
| ML20080D818 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Waterford |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1981 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082380886 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-83-498 NUDOCS 8402090238 | |
| Download: ML20080D818 (8) | |
Text
I g
a7H9 s.,
[
'i UNITED STATES 5
J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,e*
W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 cm Z7 w s yaae yn e-us n w mus M me 90 A y 2.s h t-
% o xw
& o,fmyy, c-w
- n y p.
ww o
3
- p-T p,m wa n k & k 42 3a cnn a a sw c
W c62 w4c y%
7 se n
y-w m a clavaQ -
^
&y u n, w.......
ROSENBA83-498 PDR
f,'
DRAFT r
DOCKET NO.:
50-382 APPLICANT:
Louisiana Power & Light Corpany FACILITY:
Waterford Steam Electric S ation, Unit No. 3
SUMMARY
OF CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL MEE' ING AND SITE VISIT A meeting was held on January.13 - 15,1981, in Taft Louisiana with the applicant to discuss the status of con: truction of the facility. A tour of the site was made on January 14 and 15 to witness the status of construction.
l The agenda of the meeting is shown in F 1 closure 1 the NRC proposed agenda is Enclosure 2, and the meeting attendc 2s are listed in Enclosure 3.
Enclosures 4 and 5 summarizes the status and bulk jerformance of construction on Waterford Unit No. 3 as of 12/28/80.
SUMMARY
The applicant and Ebasco, the arch :tect engineer and constructor, made a detailed presentation of the status of plant construction and project scheduling.
The Unit is presently 82% : omplete. The presentation focused on the applicant's efforts in identifyi -g and dealing with potential problem They feel confident that,they c. n meet the October 1982 fuel load a reas.
date for several reasons.
These includ. increased financial commitments, built-in three month float in their scht dule, and management attention (including President Wyatt) to all problems that could affect the schedule.
The applicant believes that the only potential delay.s the licensing process which they feel is four months behind schedule.
.e, h.
8 L
'g b,
2-The caseload forecast panel expre: sed concern about the rate at which electrical terminations must be made ic order to complete construction on schedule.
The Ebasco Project Manager : resented information on the electrical work schedule, which showed that in the past they have concentrated on cable trays and conduits Now that those pot tions of the electrical work are nearly completed, they are concentratir 1 on cable pulling and terminations.
Cable pulling is presently 57% complet( while terminations are 33% complete.
The electrical work is now concentrati J on these areas, and although the work must exceed industry averages in ( der to meet the schedule they believe that this is achievable.
They point on that they achieved double the industry average in conduits, and that )ver the 10-90% range, the rate of cable pulling can fell slightly below 1 ie average and the rate of terminations need only be 5% higher than the averagt to meet the schedule. The s ta f f, t
however, maintained that from 33 -90% completion they will have to greatly exceed industry averages. This subject staff also questioned the cable pulling and termination schedule as it could pc.entially impact system completion and turnover to CP&L.
Ebasco has con'sidere I this potential problem and is planning h to do some seier.tive S cable pulling in order to complete systems on sc Other potential problem areas are pipe.angars, reactor internals alignment, tube track, plant operating procedures TMI. elated procurement, and plant staffing.
After licensing, which is the critical ath item, the safety injection system r
is the next most limiting item and is one and one-half months ahead of an October 1981 fuel-load date. This problem with the safety injection system was caused a
4
~
. by more rework being required foffit up than anticipated. LP&L feels that their schedule is attainable because they ha e aggressive management, built-in conservatism and a three month slack it their schedule.
The caseload forecast panel took i detailed tour of the plant on January 14 and 15.
In the course of ttis tour, the staff questioned the status of the control room.
After the tour, t he panel's concernsfgsLt' adequately addressed.
The tour also led the panel to ask why there were not more electricians at work in the plant.
The electrical subcontrc: tor was asked to address this and his explanation was that the build up of ti e electrician work force was just beginning.
After further discussions on Thurs. lay, which included the basis for LP&L's financial commitments, the caseload for > cast panel met privately to determine a new fuel load date for the Waterford P1 ant. After lengthy discussion, the panel concluded, with some reservation, that the October 1982 fuel load is attainable. However, the panel will rt. urn in mid-May to reassess the status of electrical work.
If significant prc Jress has not been made, the panel will revise the fuel load date. The panel painted out that in the past LP&L has promised a high performance rate and failed to attain it.
4 e
4 e'+.
, 1,* S
g,"j ' '
hb 1/9/81 LOUISIANA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY
.WATERFORD SES - UNIT N0, 3 SITE PRESENTATION TC NRC CASE LOAD FORECAST FANEL MEETING AE!NDA I.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSC OF MEETING l
II.
PRESENTATION A - ORGANIZATION B - PROJECT OVERVIEW C - CONSTRUCTION D - ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIALLY REPORTABLE INCIDENTS E - ENGINEERING / DESIGN !sND PROCUREMENT F - START UP G - PLANT OPERATIONAL REVIEW H - PROJECT COMPARISONS I -*
SUMMARY
.0F HIGHLIGHT S AND HARD SPOTS Ill.
IOUR OF SITE -
IV.
DISCUSSIONS V.
EXIT INTERVIEW e
r
{p.'$4 4:#wusu;...Mi '
~
r ENClosugg 3
'd CASELOAD FORECAST ANEL SITE VISIT Attendan.e List NRC S. Keblusek R. C. S h e f W. H. Lovelace G. L. Constable LP&L D. L. Aswell P. V. Prasankui.ar R. Prados D. B. Les ter P. Gregory L. Maurin T. F. Gerrets T. K. Armington F. Drummond L. L. Bass C. DeCareaux G. McLendon D. Kliest Ebasco N. M. Saar W. H. Pettigrew R. J. Milhiser
'2 T. Stampley J. Wi lls J. P. Padalino J. J. Costello J. Cernich
't Combustion Engineering F. C. Sernatinger 3
m $
e
,s g
o s
e d
h[
'.N i
N,)O
~
kolmpgjgy LOUISIANA POWEF. & LIGHT COMPAHY WATERFORD SFS - UNIT N0 3 fULK PEI 20PFANCE INSTALLED SCHEDULED 7.
ACTIVITY CURRENT EST j 12/p TgU)ES T0-Q4I[
QUANTITY 7.
C JAtj
/_
02/31/Mll)
COMPlFTE OF SCH QUANT IT I E S 1
A)
CONCRETE 206,480 204,168 203,947 99.3 100.1 B)
TOTAL PROCESS PIPE
$$(( B$E h hbO',b$b
$'hkb
$,'dbb b]
lbh' C)
YARD PIPE 38,435 36,091 34,776 93.9 103.8 D)
LARGE BORE HANGERS, RESTRAINTS, SNUBBERS 6,629 5,593 5,638 84.4 99.2 E)
SMALL BORE HANGERS INCLUDED WITH SMALL BORE PIPE F)
CABLE TRAY
- 42,382 42,382 42,382 100.0 100.0 G)
TOT 3L EXPOSED CONDUIT *
\\ EXCLUDING
- LIGHTING) 503,794 454,662 424,963 90.2 107.0
- dwER*
970,124 689,921 665,412 71.1 103.7 CONTROL /
INSTRUMENT *
.2,488,860641 2,541,196 57.6 97,9 4,293,,676 317 800
~
62,811 SECURITY LIGHTING
- 75.4
!)
TERMINATIONS C
POWER" 18,990 6,237 6,000 32.8 104.0 CONTROL /
INSTRUMENT
- 197,3.0 65,g75 80,0 9 3}.0 82.0 45 4,
b SECURITY
-u- -
LIGHTING 75.4 J)
ELECIB.LCAL CIRCUITS POWER 2,022 CONTROL /
l INSTRUMENT 17,326 SECURITY
/b4 SWA/ RETROFIT MANHOURS NOT INCLUDED IN UNIT RATES b
g l
%c nmuu f LoulSIANAPWER3l!GHTCOMPANY WATERFORDSESUNITNO. 3 1980 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS CURRBF INSTALLED INSTALLED JNSTALIATION ESTItW E 12/30/79 12/28/80 I
LARGEBORE. PIPE 108,'25 LF 85 95 l
LARGEBOREHANGERS 6,129 EA 68 84 SMAu. B@E PIPE 100,t:13 LF 58 82 CABLE IRAY 42 J32 LF 99 100 EXPOSED CWDUlT 503,;34 LF 48 90 PWER & CMTROL CABLE 5,581,E00 LF 29 57 l
g) c -TERMINATIWS 216,:70 EA 14 33 WAC Duct 1,092,C.72 a 70 93 WAC SUPPORTS 88),E4 ts 89 95 INSTRtNENT IUBING 105,L 9 LF 11 53 INSTRlNENT PKKS, CABINETS, PANELS 143 EA 71 76 l
c
/81 e
4
- ,g 2
.s..
/
l March 25, 1983 Docket !!os: 50-390 and 50-391 I
APPLIC ANT:
Tennessee Valley Authority FACILITY:
Watts Bar !!uclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUT.ARY OF CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL MEETING AND SITE VISIT The last Caseload Forecast Panel assessment in Decenber 1900 projected a fuel load date for Unit 1 of the Watts Bar facility of August 1982.
In a letter dated February 25, 1983, the applicant projected revised fuel load dates of January 1984 and January 1985 for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively.
On March 2-4, 1983, the Caseload Forecast Panel again visited the site to update its projected fuel load da te.
The neeting agenda (Enclosure 1) and the list of attendees (Enclosure 2) is attached.
The applicant indicated that Units 1 and 2 were 94.2% and 53.9% complete, respec-tively. The applicant provided information including manpower forectsts, pro-jected nilestone dates, preoperational testing schedules, potential problem areas, and other pertinent infomation.
Af ter reviewing the data presented to the forecast panel and touring the facility, the panel arrived at its own projected fuel load date of June 1984. for Unit 1.
The following areas were of particular interest in arriving at this estimate:
1.
The tinely completion of hangers and support releases appears to be a critical path toward completion of preoperational testing.
The panel was concerned about TVA's engineering and design organt-zation supporting timely transfers of this equipment.
The rate of completion of system transfers could be inpacted by delays caused i
by hanger rework, which in turn would impact the preoperational testing schedule.
2.
The current a%unt of instrunentation work (installation and testing) indicated a potantial impact on TVA's fuel load schedule, and; 3.
The large amount of paperwork (50.55e's, IE Bulletins, NCRs, docu-i mentation packages) that will need to be completed to support fuel load appeared to be a potential problem in meeting TVA's fuel load schedule.
In addition to the above factors, the Panel's projected fuel load date did not factor in consideration of potential problem areas, particularly any additional
/
hanger rework resulting fron ongoing reviews (TVA reviews, and the Black and Yeatch study).
l
.....K............e m
>.q o,,,m >
g..........
... =............ -....
DATE )
............. =.........
......... =... =........
.......*a..a.......a.
.aaaaa=*..~
..aa a.~.*....
.a*
a.a...~.a...a.~a*
m eroa-
- @fffMl@0/A6_WMC@@@ @@fPW emncnwe ac
a y-s er v
-2 I
Considering the above items and the current status of construction and preoper-ational testing at this time, the Caseload Fnrecast Panel projected the earliest fuel load date to be June 1984 for Unit 1.
In addition, the fuel load date for a second unit is nominally projected to be 18 months after completion of the first unit, indicating a fuel load date of December 1985 for Unit 2 of the Watts Bar facility.
T omas J. Kenyon, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing cc:
See next page l'
/
omer > DL:L 4..........DL: B' su:saue> T.. '.. ' o.. /.c......E..A....e.......m........
.. /....
...../'.".)./83A............
3 om>
Nnc ronu sie om> Jcu ano OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam wei-mu.
\\.'
4 l
W
[pa asog o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j
3 r
/
JUN 2 21979 i
Docket Nos.:
50-390 and 50-391 APPLICANT: TVA FACILITY:
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF CASELOAD FORECAST PANEL VI, SIT TO WATTS BAR A meeting was held on May 1, 2, 1979 at the Watts Bar site to discuss the status of construction for the facility. The agenda for the visit is shown as Enclosure 1 and the attendees are listed in Enclosure 2.
Summary The applicant made a datailed presentation of the project status; provided their current weekly program reports and analysis. The man-hour expenditures were reported by crafts and quantity data reported by the various engineering sections.
Also, the applicant provided sumarized data sheets (Enclosure 3) to show the progress on major systems and key components in the facility. As of April 1979, the TVA estimates show overall progress for both Units is 83.9 percent complete, with Unit 2 being 73.0 percent.
Based on installed quantities, Unit 1 and Conmon are 89.6 percent complete. The applicant projects a com-pletion date of February 1980 for Unit 1, taking into consideration the remain-ing procurement, delivery schedules, construction to completion and pre-operational start up program.
The 8 week pre-operaticnal testing program was discussed in some detail. Several aspects noted were (a) completion of the proposed program within the allocated time was extremely ambitious (b) selective cabling must be pulled to permit the With complete testing and (c) NRC has not ccmpleted it's review in this area.
regard to this last item (c), any changes requested by NRC could severely impact on the schedule for completing the test program. We promised to expedite our review in this area, if nossible.
Status of the Unit 1 and Common bulk installation items, as well as systems, was Of particular interest was the large amount of Power and Control Cable discussed.
(12.5 million linear feet) in their facility and approximately 4.4 million feet that remains to be installed. To fulfill their schedule goals a highly accelerated rate of cable pulling is required. As previously noted, selective cable pulling is also required to adhere to their pre-operational testing program. Also, only 21 percent of the small pipe hangers are installed. The applicant, however, does not consider this item on the critical path.
T-_
b C0
O
/% JUN 2 21979 1
At the exit interview, we presented our current assessment of the fuel load date of Unit 1.
Based on the status and pace of construction and comparing these items with those of similiar facilities which have been or are being constructed, we projected that the most likely date for Unit 1 fuel load is December 1980 (possibly as early as October 1980).
C. Stahle, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
1.
Agenda 2.
Attendee List 3.
TVA Data Sheets I
cc:
See next page 4
e 4
O 1
1 l
f
__