Limerick Generating Station Unit 2

1990 PMI Project of the Year Award Winner
Philadelphia Electric Company ( P E )

Editor's Note:Congratulations to Philadelphia Electric Company, and all those companies and people who were a part of the project, for the excellent performance on completing the Limerick Unit 2 ahead of schedule, under budget, in conformance with specifications, and with an outstanding safety record. Thanks to Tom Gotzis for preparing the story and to Michael Wood, Public Information at PE, for providing editorial assistance.

The PMI Project of the Year program has as its purpose to “recognize and honor a project (and project team involved) which has been successfully completed through good project management practices. This is certainly an excellent example of these attributes.

Project Overview

Limerick Generating Station Unit 2 consists of a 1100 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity, nuclear power generating facility adjacent to Unit 1. The station is located on the east bank of the Schuylkill River in Limerick Township, Montgomery County Pennsylvania (20.7 miles northwest of Philadelphia; 1.7 miles southeast of Pottstown Borough). Each unit includes a General Electric boiling water reactor (BWR)- type nuclear steam supply system, a tandem compound six-flow General Electric turbine generator, a closed-cycle cooling water system with hyperbolic natural-draft cooling towers and intake and pumping structure makeup water from the river.

Limerick Unit 2 concrete containment building with cutaway of the reactor.

The construction permit for the Limerick plant was received on June 19, 1974. Construction was proceeding on both units when the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PaPUC) ordered Unit 2 shut down in June 1982 with the unit 30 percent complete. Unit 1 continued to completion and commenced fuel loading in October 1984.

A bulletin board at the site showing the major participants in the Limerick Unit 2 project.

With Unit 1 completed, Philadelphia Electric (PE) received permission from the PaPUC in December 1985 to resume construction of Unit 2 under a cost cap of $3.197 billion, including Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC), i.e., interest.

Construction resumed on February 3, 1986, with Unit 2 then 30 percent complete.

Staffing of the job at restart began with the small cadre of field non-manual personnel, which had been retained from Unit 1 to prepare for the anticipated restart. This number increased rapidly; reaching 1,050 by the end of 1986 and a peak non-manual level of 1,200 in August 1987. The craft work force was deployed at an extremely rapid rate; reaching 2,500 by the end of 1986 and peak manpower levels of 2,950 manual in June 1987.

The restart effort was highlighted by an improvement program which evolved from lessons learned on Unit 1. Among those was the development of a project labor agreement. Thus, before work resumed, the groundwork for productivity and harmonious labor-management relations had been accomplished. Other contributing factors to the improvement program were the innovative techniques employed by the Engineering, Construction and Start-Upgroups through the design, installation and start-up process.

Forty-one months after restart, fuel load commenced (June 23, 1989). On August 25, 1989, the NRC issued a full-power license. This allowed for additional start-up testing to commence in support of commercial operation which was achieved on January 8, 1990, at 12:01 a.m. The final plant cost underran the PaPUC-mandated cost cap by $400 million, thereby achieving an unprecedented accomplishment in domestic nuclear construction.

At the Limerick Energy Information Center, a diagram of the Limerick nuclear system shows the concept of a boiling water reactor.

Philadelphia Electric Company had complete responsibility for all aspects of the project. The management team was under the overall direction of J.S. Kemper, senior vice president of Nuclear Construction. Mr. Kemper was supported by a very experienced team of PE managers, all of whom had been through Limerick Unit 1 and Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, (two similar BWR units). These managers directed the PE Engineering, Construction, Start-up, and Quality Assurance Divisions assigned to the project. It should be noted that a start-up manager was assigned to the project at the time the project restarted. This proved to be an excellent decision.

Bechtel Power Corporation was responsible for engineering, procurement, construction, and start-up assistance during the pre-operational testing and power ascension phase. The nuclear steam supply system and turbine generator were supplied by General Electric.

Bechtel and General Electric both had a project manager assigned to the project. The Bechtel project manager in turn had construction, engineering, procurement and quality managers reporting to him. General Electric had similar reporting relationships.

The combined team operated in a matrix mode as well as reporting directly to Mr. Kemper. PE, Bechtel and G.E. interfaced daily in the engineering, construction, quality, and startup areas.

The management team assembled for this project was possibly the most experienced ever assembled to build a nuclear unit. Ironically, the fact that Limerick 2 was the last of the boiling water reactors (BWRSs under construction enhanced PE‘s ability to attract high caliber personnel.

THE CONCEPT OF A BOILING WATER REACTOR

There are three types of systems used in nuclear generating stations: boiling water reactors (BWR), pressurized water reactors (PWR), and high temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGR). PWRs and BWRs are generically called light-water reactors (LWR). The electic generation process is essentially the same for all of them; the principal differences lie inside the reactor that produces the heat.

About thirty of the nuclear plants in the United States are boiling water reactors. In a BWR, the water that is heated by the core turns directly into steam in the reactor vessel, and the same steam is used to power the turbine-generator.

The water in a BWR is piped around and through the reactor core and is transformed into steam as it flows up between the elements of the nuclear fuel. The steam leaves the reactor through a pipe at the top, turns the turbine-generator, is condensed back into water, and is pumped back into the reactor vessel, beginning the process again.

The water in a BWR is kept at a pressure of 1000 pounds per square inch (psi) and thus boils at about 545°F (285°C).

A PWR reactor, by contrast, has two separate water loops, preventing the water which was in contact with the nuclear fuel from coming in direct contact with the turbines. The heat is transferred from the water in the primary loop to the water in the secondary loop in a heat exchanger, thus producing the steam to run the turbine.

Unlike any other large-scale construction project, the building of a commercial nuclear power plant is closely monitored and follows more stringent standards. As a result, design, engineering and construction are more extensive, complicated and costly.

For instance, all safety-related systems of a nuclear plant, including cooling pumps, controls, shutdown mechanisms, and various electronics are built under two theories: redundancy, which is having two identical systems that serve the same function, and “defense in depth,” which requires secondary systems to provide similar functions.

The required physical separation of equipment prompts another construction consideration. In the area within five miles surrounding the Limerick Generating Station, there are no capable earth faults which geologists believe could cause an earthquake. Still, the reactor building is built to withstand earthquakes up to 6.0 on the Richter scale, as well as other natural phenomena, such as tornadoes and floods, without the loss of capability to operate and perform safety functions.

For example, on October 1,1989, an earthquake measuring 7.1 on the Richter scale shook northern California. It was so severe it claimed fifty lives and caused tremendous property loss. Regardless, none of the state's six commercial nuclear power plants sustained any damage.

Among the seismic design considerations, the Limerick plant is installed with massive pipe restraints built from structural steel and more than 1,700 pipe “snubbers,” or shock absorbers.

The construction of a nuclear power plant also involves an arduous federal licensing process, including project reviews prior to and after completion of construction and stringent quality assurance standards and document control.

Project Achievements and Management Actions

THE ACHIEVEMENTS

Limerick 2 successfully commenced fuel load on June 23, 1989, and achieved commercial operation on January 8,1990, at 12:01 a.m. Both achievements were completed in record time; 41 months and 47 months, respectively, from the construction restart date of February 3, 1986. The schedule was achieved while keeping the cost under the “Cost Cap,” achieving a Systematic Assessment of Performance (SALP) rating of “1” from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and establishing an outstanding safety record of four periods of one-million manhours worked without a lost-time accident. This safety record earned the project an OSHA Safety Excellence Award for outstanding performance.

These successful achievements were a combined result of project status at time of restart, the existing external environment, and unique management concepts initiated on this project.

Although construction had been halted by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's (PaPUC) orders in 1982, Philadelphia Electric Company (PE) management believed that Limerick Unit 2 should and would be completed. Therefore, PE evaluated alternatives for positioning the Limerick team for the most efficient restart of construction. A plan was chosen that presented significant risk to PE shareholders, but also afforded the greatest opportunity to improve the project cost and schedule performance. This choice committed over $25 million of internally generated funds to ensure overall project success.

Work accomplished under this plan included completing the basic design during the shutdown period. Improvements were made in construction procedures, scheduling, and work packaging techniques. A major innovation of facility breakdown for construction management was implemented.

Key employees with Limerick Unit 1 experience were placed on temporary assignments with the understanding that these individuals were subject to recall by PE in anticipation that Unit 2 construction would be resumed at a later date. These employees were either retained at Limerick or assigned to other jobs that allowed easy retrieval when the Unit 2 restart occurred.

Therefore, at time of restart:

• Basic design was essentially complete
• Material/equipment was on site in storage (see Table 1)
• A stable regulatory environment existed
• An experienced non-manual work force was available
• Experienced craftsmen were available

Some of the major new management concepts implemented were:

• Project labor agreement
• Aggressive scheduling
• Incentive fee contract
• Area concept/project area coordinators
• Work packaging
• Pacing area milestones
• Project controls computer replaced
• Design engineering moved to job site
• Innovative start-up programming
• Early preparations for power ascension testing
• Implementation of human resources programs

Each of the above noted concepts is described in some detail on the following pages. Although we are unable to measure the success factor of each individual management initiative, we believe collectively these actions allowed us to improve on the methods previously used to build nuclear units to the extent that we were able to meet the challenge of underrunning the PaPUC-mandated cost cap.

PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT

Given the significant contribution of construction labor costs to the total project cost completion estimate, which was adopted by the PaPUC as the cost cap, PE management directed that, as a condition of restart, a project labor agreement be developed. A draft agreement was prepared by Bechtel and PE. Following brief negotiations among PE, Bechtel and the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council, the Limerick Unit 2 project agreement was completed and approved by all parties on January 10,1986. It should be noted that the project agreement was negotiated with the local unions who supported this project, not at the national union level.

As its Article I states in part, the agreement exists to:

• Promote economy and efficiency
• Provide for peaceful settlement of labor disputes without strikes or lockout—thereby promoting the public interest in ensuring the timely and economical completion of the work
• Establish uniformly standard working conditions
• Secure optimum productivity, and
• Eliminate strikes, lockouts or delays.

It also maintains harmonious relations via regular periodic meetings among PE, building trades and contractors to review construction in the spirit of the Built-Rite Program.

Thus, before work resumed, the groundwork for productivity and harmonious labor-management relations had been accomplished. Significant provisions of the agreement in the area of cost savings and control included:

• Time-and-a-half hourly wage rates for Saturday work up to ten hours and for the first two overtime hours Monday through Friday
• Shift work at the option of the employer with a shift wage premium cap
• A cap of 5 percent on each union's annually negotiated wage and fringe benefit package
• No work stoppages or slowdowns or other interferences with the work because of jurisdictional disputes
• No limits on production or restrictions on the full use of tools and equipment

The Built-Rite Program

The cornerstone of the project labor agreement was the Built-Rite Program, which was developed under the auspices of the Philadelphia Area Labor Management (PALM) organization. Built-Rite's overall goals are to improve communication and problem solving, enhance cost effectiveness and project safety, increase worker involvement, provide worksite education and improve the public image of the construction industry.

Implementation of the program centered on regular monthly construction review meetings held at the job site attended by a standing committee of labor, contractor and PE representatives. Project schedule progress, cost performance, and other matters were presented. Discussion of potential problem issues and agreement on corrective action were of special importance. For example, a program for implementing the project's anti-drug and alcohol policies through the Built-Rite forum was reviewed and approved with full support of the labor participants. This program provided for testing for cause and removal from the project.

Thus, issues that might adversely affect the project's goal of completion within the cost cap and schedule were brought to the committee's attention for discussion and action. The program was so successful that Limerick 2 did not lose a single day due to labor-related problems.

AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULING

One of the major ingredients in the success of the Limerick Unit 2 project was the decision to enact a target schedule/ cost program.

The original concept of the target schedule/cost program was not to achieve the target itself, but to establish and work toward schedule and cost goals that were more aggressive than those of the approved project forecast. This would increase the probability that the cost cap mandated by the PaPUC would not be exceeded. Therefore, prior to restart of Unit 2 construction, work activities were planned and scheduled to meet a target schedule which was eight months shorter than the cost cap schedule.

A series of innovative approaches to the project, some of which are noted in this article, had to be initiated if the target schedule was to succeed.

Two of the major decisions were to accelerate craft ramp- up (i.e., staffing) at the beginning of the project, and to use an extensive fully-supported second shift.

Project management believed that a quicker than traditional craft ramp-up could be achieved based on the availability of design, material, and craft and non-manual labor. All the assumptions proved to be true, and the project got off to a very fast start. This initial momentum set the pace for the entire project.

A major item negotiated into the project agreement was the substantially better terms for shift premiums and manning than certain individual local craft agreements allowed. These improved terms made the second and third shifts much more attractive. Accordingly, the decision was made to substantially increase the second shift efforts from that previously planned.

Manpower was allocated 60 percent to the first shift and 40 percent to the second shift. Non-manual staffing also was established to provide full support for the second shift. This functionally duplicated the first shift support organization. Furthermore, resident design engineers with the capability and authority to resolve problems in the field also were available on-site during the second shift.

Although the project did not measure productivity by shift, second shift productivity was felt to be equal to, or better than, that of the first shift. Morale on the second shift was outstanding.

The project also decided not to work any scheduled overtime during the construction phase of this project, a major departure from previous nuclear projects. Total craft overtime for the project was under 2.8 percent. As the business roundtable studies have shown, we believe that the lack of overtime contributed to the high productivity on the project. The fear that we would experience a large turnover of craft labor due to other projects in the area working overtime also proved to be unfounded.

It should be noted that the project labor agreement provided for implementation of a ding-four-tens schedule whereby work can be pursued seven days a week using two construction teams. Each team works four 10-hour days followed by four days off. This option was not chosen, but was available and could have been implemented during later stages of construction and start-up, if needed.

INCENTIVE FEE CONTRACT

Prior to restart of Limerick 2, Philadelphia Electric Company negotiated an amendment to the existing Bechtel contract whereby Bechtel would share in cost and schedule overruns and underruns. The added incentive fee clause in the contract required Bechtel to share equally with PE in overruns to the cost cap, and PE would share equally with Bechtel in underruns of the cost cap. Limits to both sharing methods were established.

Based on the outstanding project cost and schedule performance, Bechtel received the maximum incentive fee allowed by the contract.

We believe this form of incentive contract not only spread the financial risk of the project, but also set common goals for the total project team.

AREA CONCEPT/PROJECT AREA COORDINATOR (PAC)

The area coordinator concept resulted from a desire to divide the project into smaller more manageable pieces. The first attempts to accomplish this were taken on Unit 1 with the institution of the three-area concept (i.e., reactor and control, turbine, and yard areas). These areas were self-sufficient in that each was provided with its own management, craft supervision, construction engineering and planning and cost control groups and schedule and productivity requirements. The area managers were responsible to the field construction manager for meeting the assigned job progress and productivity goals. Although the three-area concept improved job manageability over the previous “one-project” concept, the problems of craft control and task intimation and sequencing remained.

The PAC program divided the project into eight management areas each under the responsibility of a PAC team led by the project area coordinator, or PAC man. The PAC team included personnel from construction engineering, quality control, supervision, cost and scheduling, procurement, subcontracts and a representative from resident project engineering.

Figure 1. Some Management Area Definitions for Limerick Unit 2

The eight management areas were, for the most part, worked on all three shifts, although most of the activity occurred during the day and afternoon shifts. Normally, a PAC team was assigned to each management area, each shift. Some areas were combined on second shift when second shift activity was sufficiently reduced.

Figure 2. Management Area Matrix Organization

The PAC Man

Although the PAC program employed a matrix organizational approach, there was a direct relationship between the team and the PAC man, a respected senior team member who led through acceptance rather than direction. TypicaIly he was a multidisciplined engineer with five to ten years experience, and with the interpersonal skills necessary to build teamwork within the PAC program. The success of the program is attributed to the willingness of the team members to “get the job done” and to the leadership of the individual PAC man.

The PAC men did not directly supervise members of the area teams, but instead worked to facilitate communication, coordination, and resolution of schedule priority interfaces with an emphasis on developing consensus decisions.

Each PAC man chaired weekly meetings with his management area team to status their work activity and discuss the progress of the prior week. Meetings included a formal agenda to discuss construction activities, cost and schedule reports, areas of concern, safety, and identified design and procurement problems. The PAC man worked with the schedulers to initiate schedule improvements where possible. Schedule enhancements were incorporated into updates of the Construction Control Schedule (CCS) by the schedulers and the PAC man reviewed these changes. The PAC men provided input for the development of target forecasts for each of their respective areas.

The duties of the project area coordinators included:

1. Responsibility for the coordination of all work in an assigned plant area, including Bechtel and subcontract work.

2. Responsibility for identifying potential problem areas and recommending solution.

3. Assistance to the discipline superintendents, construction engineers, quality control, subcontractors, and project engineering to eliminate construction schedule restraints.

4. Review of detailed construction schedules for potential conflicts, including manpower densities and shift work.

5. Maintenance of planning centers, including reference drawings. The planning centers contained drawings and other reference documents applicable to the area. At times the area meetings were conducted in the field at the stations.

Responsibility for reporting overall status of area progress to construction management budget /cost accountability remained with the area discipline supervisor (e.g., lead pipe engineer, lead electrical engineer).

The PAC men spent much of their time in their assigned plan areas coordinating the work effort and facilitating communication between the team personnel.

In May 1988, the PAC men were given primary responsibility as systems/ facility completion schedulers to support the system completions phase of the construction of Limerick Unit 2, while continuing PAC-men responsibilities on an “as-required” basis.

WORK PACKAGING

Used in selected applications during construction of Unit 1, work packaging was expanded to all activities of Unit 2. Work packages contain all documents required bythe craftsmen to perform the work and to verify that required materials and equipment are available, including their storage location. This methodology substantially reduces the restraints to craft productivity caused by requirements for documented approvals to perform and continue work. An example of a function common to all commodities is the drilling of concrete walls for installation of expansion anchors or grouted rods. Several reviews for location of embedded commodities and proximity of rebar are required, These reviews, including sonic scanning for rebar locations, are done before the work is released to the crafts. This reduces interruptions to productivity.

As a further example, a work package for the installation of a large pipe support would include installation drawings, material requests, drilling/ excavation check sheet, expansion anchor test report, grout request, weld request and scanning completion report.

It is important to note that complex installations also are field reviewed by the resident design engineers prior to their issue for construction work package preparation. Following the package preparation, construction engineers physically check each area to finally ensure constructability and make any required engineering-approved changes. More than 64,000 work packages were prepared for this project.

PACING AREA MILESTONES

Typically, a project of this magnitude establishes a set of key milestones that are oriented toward management visibility (e.g., completion of a facility code hydro, fuel load). Limerick Unit 2 took this process a step further. Pacing milestones were established for each management area. These milestones were relatable to superintendents, engineers and craft personnel dedicated to that area (e.g., completion of small pipe supports in the drywell, placement of diesel roof slab). Each milestone was a building block of an integrated network leading to project completion.

The continuous attention placed on the achievement of these milestones provided the project with an ongoing pace for the completion of all construction and start-up activities. PE and Bechtel management frequently recognized accomplishment of these milestones with a memento (i.e., T-shirts, baseball caps, etc.) to the craft and non-manual labor involved in meeting the specific milestone. These awards were normally personally presented by a management representative.

PROJECT CONTROLS COMPUTER REPLACED

With the challenge of meeting the very aggressive target schedule/cost program discussed earlier, it was paramount that the project controls program for Limerick Unit 2 be commensurately rigorous and proactive.

The essential elements of the Limerick project controls system were the planning, reporting and monitoring of project work activities. Project controls provided Limerick management with the tools necessary to control the project by establishing cost and schedule goals, measuring performance against these goals and recommending corrective action as required. Effective cost and schedule management was the ultimate objective of the Limerick project controls system.

During the period of Unit 1 construction, the use of computers and management information systems (MIS) for construction projects grew dramatically, The Limerick project was one of the early leaders in the power industry in applying computer technology and management information systems.

During the 1970s, the principal computer systems used at Limerick for the MIS were the best available for the intended use at the time. These were two IBM System 3s and a Honeywell DPS-61-8 System. Later, in 1980, a third System 3 was added to help handle the system demands.

These systems supported the project throughout the 1970s. But beginning in the early 1980s, problems began to develop in the adequacy of the support provided. The existing systems became slow due to high usage demand and users became frustrated with the lack of responsiveness. Supporting the MIS needs with the existing systems became more and more difficult. These systems became so antiquated that IBM stopped providing service. Mechanical problems began to appear in the System 3s due to their age and heavy usage. The Honeywell DPS-8 was a hardware system, but the software data base program, although one of the best of its time, was inefficient by 1982 relative to new programs on the market.

By the time Unit 2 construction was restarted in 1986, it was evident that computer technology had advanced to a state such that it was economically and technically feasible to update the equipment installed at the Limerick job site. During the 1980s, programs had been developed for use on an IBM System 38 that were similar but broader in scope than those in use at Limerick. An overall review demonstrated that program replacement would be feasible and advantageous to the project.

Limerick Unit 2 control room.

An IBM System 38 was therefore installed prior to restart of Unit 2. The System 38 allowed all job personnel to obtain information and data from most applications at any terminal. Also, every program was interactive (i.e., changes and additions were immediately visible as they were made). The added cost of changing-out the site computer was recovered many times over by the timely availability of information with which to manage the project.

DESIGN ENGINEERING MOVED TO JOB SITE

The Unit 2 engineering design effort to complete the remaining physical designs was relocated from the Bechtel San Francisco home office to the job site. This relocation was found not only to be cost effective from the standpoint of providing engineering design support to the field but it offered lower overhead costs for the project.

Relocating the appropriate personnel with design approval authority to the project vicinity permitted faster decision- making and response when drawing changes were needed, as well as closer coordination among project engineering, construction engineering, and other field forces. Additionally, it allowed the responsible project engineering personnel to quickly observe first-hand the actual field conditions associated with a given issue and, therefore, enable them to provide more timely resolution in support of construction activities.

Experience on Unit 1 had indicated that it was more effective and efficient during the later stages of design to perform the remaining bulk commodity and construction-dependent design closer to the field. This was due to the necessity for close coordination between the field and the development of the construction-dependent design, rapid resolution of field change requests, and the timing, quantity and quality of as-built data needed to prepare the construction-dependent detailed design.

START-UP PROGRAM

The principle role of the start-up program was to control the release of installed components from construction, to organize these components into plant systems, conduct performance tests on these systems demonstrating their operability, and then “turn over” these operationally proven systems to the operating organization for power ascension testing and ultimately commercial electric generation.

Historically, system completion and start-up testing have been a particularly difficult period for nuclear construction. During this period, major start-up related efforts are required to identify the priority by which components and systems should be completed by construction, develop the procedures to be used during start-up testing and operations, and performance testing of components and systems. On many projects, the start-up team was not staffed until at least the systems completion phase, causing all of these efforts to occur virtually simultaneously.

It was felt, from a management standpoint, that early staffing of the start-up group would be beneficial to the project. The Unit 2 start-up manager was assigned to the project in April of 1986, two months after project restart.

Early start-up staffing provided input to the system scoping process and assisted in identifying the priority of components for installation and systems for completion consistent with logical and sequential testing needs. Thus, one benefit of early start-up staffing was the ability to draw upon the experience of the start-up personnel in making these important construction planning and scheduling decisions.

A second benefit of the early staffing of start-up was identified as a result of lessons learned on Unit 1 and from experiences at other nuclear construction projects. From this experience, management determined that if procedures were developed well before start-up activity began, start-up engineers would not be required to divide their time between development of procedures and their other duties. A critical key to the efficiency of the start-up schedule progress was the start-up engineer's ability to dedicate his time to physical testing of the plant. The actual testing of components and systems would be streamlined if the testing procedures were well thought out and ready prior to their schedule use. Advance preparation of procedures also provided greater schedule flexibility should changes in the testing sequence be required.

Additionally, the writing of operating procedures by the Unit 2 start-up group would allow operations personnel to concentrate on their ongoing Unit 1 responsibilities and would provide the opportunity to ensure that all changes resulting from differences between Unit 1 and Unit 2 were integrated into the operating procedures prior to the physical tie-ins.

A third benefit to early start-up staffing was the favorable influence of such action on the project team; that is, this early staffing allowed the start-up organization, manual craft, supervision, non-manual field forces and management personnel to be developed into a cohesive integrated project team. Working relationships, which take time to develop, would be well established between construction personnel and the start-up people such that an efficient process would ensue when the tensions and rigors of the testing period began.

Another key management decision was the implementation of a preventive maintenance program once the system was turned over to start-up. Typically this program was initiated at turnover to Plant Operations. Start-up was responsible for implementing preventive maintenance activities and for programming preventive maintenance requirements into PE‘s computer system data base. Consequently, when the system was turned over to operations, the preventive maintenance program was already in place.

POWER ASCENSION TEST PROGRAM

The success of the power ascension program at Limerick 2 was unsurpassed. Based on commencement of fuel load on June 23,1989, and a commercial operation date of January 8, 1990 (the 100-hour warranty run began January 2, 1990), the power ascension program lasted only 198 days. The overall program duration was originally scheduled for 252 to 256 days.

A key factor in attaining this success was the preparation for power ascension testing which began in February 1986. At that time, several key start-up and PE nuclear operations department personnel reviewed at length the Unit 1 program to identify and evaluate potential program improvements to be used during the testing of Unit 2. Additionally, the power ascension test programs at contemporaneous nuclear power stations were analyzed. The results of these reviews, including recommendations, were presented to and approved by PE management. Thereafter, PE made a successful presentation to the NRC, and the program improvements, which were expected to reduce the duration and complexity of the power ascension test program, were subsequently incorporated in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). PE also revised the G.E. contract to include an incentive bonus for the achievement of, or improvement in, the scheduled February 1990 power ascension testing completion date.

The power ascension testing process transitioned the plant from initial fuel loading to full power commercial operation. This test program consisted of formal tests defined in the FSAR and other tests deemed prudent to be performed in the conduct of the program. These tests were conducted to demonstrate the capability of structures, systems and components to perform in an integrated and dynamic mode to meet design requirements and to accomplish their safety-related functions.

HUMAN RESOURCE PROGRAMS

Limerick 2 implemented an array of human resource programs to achieve strong team spirit. The programs included:

• Employee luncheons with upper management
• Upper management tours of the plant
• An annual open house
• A jobsite newspaper, the Limerick Ledger
• Management presentations to the crafts
• Jobsite safety programs
• Employee suggestion program

The last two provided the employees (manual and non-manual) with a means of communicating their thoughts and concerns to management. In return, the employees received recognition of their involvement through awards and gifts.

Jobsite Safety Program

The PE and Bechtel construction management team emphasized health and safety as a key element of the construction program.

A safety award program was inaugurated early in 1986 to promote the implementation of good safety and health practices on the project. Subcontractor and Bechtel employees (manual and non-manual) participated in this program. Performance goals were established for each craft, subcontractor and non-manual department to determine eligibility for awards. Recognition was given to departments that did not have a lost-time accident within a prescribed period of time. Awards/gifts were also presented to employees who corrected unsafe condition.

The project itself mandated a goal of a million manhours without a lost-time accident. Awards were provided to all personnel when the goal was met.

The Limerick Unit 2 project achieved a total of four one-million-manhour-safety milestone awards without a work-related lost time injury. This event broke the Bechtel record for the most safety milestones achieved at any United States nuclear power plant. These awards were achieved on October 20, 1987; July 5, 1988; December 14, 1988; and June 23, 1989, respectively. Table 3 shows the appropriate time spans and corresponding safe manhours for these awards.

The attainment of these milestones, as well as a strong overall safety performance, was attributed to a strong commitment towards safe construction by management, supervision and construction workers. Safety training, field audits, continual surveillance and rapid corrective measures played a significant part in the safety performance on the project. Remedial training programs helped eliminate repeat safety violations in construction activities.

Limerick 2 bettered all Bechtel safety performance targets and far exceeded industry lost-time accident rate standards as shown in Table 4.

Indications were that craft participation in the safety program was well above that normally experienced on a major construction project. This can be largely attributed to the caliber of craft personnel on the job and the quality of supervision at the foreman/ general foreman level.

The project experienced a significant cost savings in insurance premiums due to this excellent safety performance. It was one more area that supports the outstanding blended performance of safe and quality production associated with the completion of Limerick Unit 2.

Employee Suggestion Program

A jobsite suggestion program was formed to help foster a greater atmosphere of productivity, job satisfaction and employee involvement among Limerick employees.

The jobsite suggestion program was administered through a suggestion committee comprised of Bechtel non-manual personnel, draftspersons, and representatives of PE. The suggestion program was open to manual and non-manual personnel.

Suggestions and ideas on specific work-related activities were deposited in suggestion boxes that had been stationed throughout the job site or by mail. A suggestion or idea was judged to be valid only if it met the following criteria

• When enacted, the suggestion must have the potential to improve safety, reduce planned costs and avoid unplanned costs, and enhance working conditions and employee productivity.
• The suggestion must provide a solution to a clearly identified problem or clearly present a work method or situation that shows potential for improvement.
• The suggestion must be implemented (in part or whole) or cause management action to effect appropriate changes. Evaluation for awards that have been incorporated into the suggestion program will be based in part on the percentage of the suggestion implemented.

Important highlights of the jobsite suggestion program were:

• The suggestion program was semi-anonymous; the suggester's identity was not publicly disclosed unless the suggestion was implemented.
• Suggestions were implemented solely at the discretion of the Limerick project in accordance with relevant site directives and instructions. Submission of a suggestion was considered disclosure for patent purposes and any such patent rights became the property of the Limerick project.
• If approved, the suggestion was evaluated by the Suggestion Committee for an award in the form of a memento. This evaluation was based on a scoring sheet using the following criteria:
  • Presentation effectiveness
  • Seriousness of condition
  • Extent of application
  • Ingenuity, and
  • Tangible benefits.
• The author of an accepted suggestion chose his/her award from an array of items based on the Suggestion Committee's evaluation.
• All employees whose suggestions were chosen for the suggestion program were acknowledged in the Limerick Ledger.

The suggestion program was a definite benefit to the project. Many suggestions were implemented with significant savings.

Limerick Ledger

The Limerick Ledger, a jobsite news publication, was created for the construction employees of the Limerick Generating Station. It first went into print in 1975 when construction activities at Limerick were in full production.

The intent of the Ledger was to focus mainly on the outstanding work activities and teamwork of the employees from both Units 1 and 2. The stories it contained emphasized the many milestones and goals achieved throughout the years, giving credit to the dedicated personnel who worked so hard to complete Limerick Unit 2 ahead of schedule and under budget.

The Ledger was a positive factor to overall employee morale. The publication continued through 1989 when Limerick Unit 2 achieved fuel load.

Team Approach

PE strongly believed that a true team approach to the Limerick 2 project was required if the PaPUC cost cap was to be met. The “we-they” relationships between owner and contractors and contractors and labor had to change. A true “we” spirit encompassing owner, contractors, and labor was a must. We truly believed we accomplished this goal.

The project agreement with the local building trades was the first step. Bechtel could have signed an agreement at the national union level. However, we wanted buy-in at the local level. Although we recognized this as being a more difficult approach, we succeeded in negotiating both a good agreement and in getting local buy-in for the project. The Built-Rite process became part of the agreement and kept communications open throughout the project.

PE project management continuously fostered a “we” relationship with Bechtel and the other contractors. All PE employees assigned to the project were constantly reminded that “we” collectively with contractors and labor had successes and failures, they never failed alone.

PE executive management on a regular basis toured the project, not in the traditional sense of viewing the work, but rather to meet and speak with the workers, both craft and non-manual. This succeeded to the point that craft labor and PE executives were on a first-name basis by the end of the project.

Regularly scheduled box lunches were held with PE and Bechtel management and individuals representing all worker groups in each management area. Non-manual and craft labor were asked to report on various current activities that they had participated in. Pride of accomplishment was quite obvious.

Bulletin boards showing project status, productivity, schedules, and any other information were erected around the site and updated regularly to keep the crafts informed. Two large bulletin boards carried the Built-Rite logo and the logos of all the craft unions and contractors working on site.

All project employees were remembered at Christmas time with a gift from PE‘s chairman. Some 5,000 portable radio-tape players were distributed one year and an electric coffee maker the next. The positive impact on the recipients was well worth the cost. This must have been a first for a project of this size.

Open houses were held on a yearly basis. All employees and their families were invited to attend. Tours of the plant, refreshments, and project mementos were part of the program. “This is where Dad works” and “My Dad built that” were the most often heard phrases.

Feedback from contractors and labor during and at the end of the project supports our feeling that we accomplished our goal, Limerick 2 was engineered, built and started-up by a team.

SUMMARY

Many negative stories have been written of nuclear plants that far exceeded their estimated cost and schedule. Limerick 2 is the story of a nuclear unit that, through outstanding management and a true team approach by owner, contractors and labor was completed eight months ahead of schedule and $400 million under budget.

Limerick 2 was such a success that should a new generation of nuclear plants be built Limerick 2 would be the example to follow.

Thomas P. Gotzis recently retired from Philadelphia Electric Company after thirty-five years in the construction and engineering department of the company. As general manger of nuclear engineering, he was responsible for the overall project management and construction of Limerick Unit 2. He previously served as the construction manager for Limerick Unit 1 as well as the two units at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Station and the eight unit Moody Run Pumped Storage Generating Plant. He has been a member of the Delaware Valley Chapter of PMI since its inception.