ML20138H567

Intervenor Exhibit I-CCANP-111,consisting of Minutes of Mgt Committee 810626 Meeting in San Antonio,Tx Re Mgt Reorganization of Brown & Root & Status of Show Cause Commitments.All Commitments Should Be Satisfied by 810901

ML20138H567
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	08/03/1985
From:	Thrash C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
OL-I-CCANP-111, NUDOCS 8510290080
Download: ML20138H567 (8)

Text

l So-Mt/4t? oL. Z-e U NPIII 7l3/8r

( SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Minutes of the Management Committee June 26, 1981  ::nc AJs Villita Assembly Building San Antonio, Texas 9:30 a.m. *dS g;, ,

A// '-

cer The following members of the Management Committee Obf.

and alternates were present from 9:30 a.m. until 11:40 a.m. E'Or;,-[h/4

[$}A{cyhD on Friday, June 26, at the Villita Assembly Building in San Antonio:

For Austin, Mr. Hancock For San Antonio, Mr. Poston (Chairman)

For CPL, Messrs. Borchelt (af ter 10:10) and Range For HL&P, Messrs. Oprea and Goldberg.

Also present were: for San Antonio, Messrs. Spruce and Hardt; for CPL, Messrs. Muench, Ford and Read; for HL&P, Mr. Jordan.

The sign-in roster of those in attendance is attached as Exhibit No. 1. Mr. Poston's agenda for the meeting is attached as Exhibit No. 2.

4 Mr. Poston began the meeting by explaining that the May meetings of the Management Committee, which had originally been scheduled at Bay City and the plant site on May 21-22, were orally cancelled on May 19 and that today's meeting, originally scheduled to be held in Corpus Christi, was moved to San Antonio instead because of the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) hearing currently in progress in San Antonio (see Mr. Poston's letter of May 29, 1981, attached as Exhibit No. 3).

Mr. Barker distributed his agenda for the project status report (attached as Exhibit No. 4). After brief opening remarks by Messrs. Oprea, Goldberg and Barker, Mr. Rice of Brown

& Root discussed the following new Brown & Root personnel directly involved in the Project:

Mr. Salterelli, the acting Project Manager for Brown & Root, was absent because of a prior schedul-ing conflict.

Mr. Frank Muellner, who had been a vice president at NUS and who is now a ,vice president at Brown &

Root, responsible for nuclear engineering.

h0290000850003 ADOCK 0500049s C

PDR CcAMP Ill 43g1

9 4

I .

,$8+

c#'

) # g# *;s st' /

<s '

• • < /

f',,t

'is d 6 /*+ 'f

? **~

./

l '/

s p

i

. Mr. Charlie Buck, senior vice president of Brown & Root, who will be the number two Brown &

( Root man en the Project. Mr. Rice stated that Mr.fBuck had had an outstanding record as a project manager for Brown & Root.

Mr. Crm Thompson, who will be construction manager at the site.

Mr'. Hancock requested that Mr. Barker furnish resumes on Messrs.

Salterelli, Muellner, Buck and Thompson.

Mr. Barker explained that the March report on the Project had been delivered in late May and that the April report had been delivered in late June. However, Mr. Barker said that the May report would be delivered in early July and the June report in late July and that thereafter the monthly reports would be issued approximately 30 days following the end of the period covered by the report.

I~ Mr. Barker nexE introduced Mr. Williams, HL&P's new construction manager at the site. Mr. Williams explained that he was a native of Bay City, had moved to Houston in 1960 and 3

then had been with Stone & Webster in Tampa until 1965. He thereafter had experience at the North Anna and Beaver Valley nuclear projects until 1978, when he was moved to Port Arthur, g

Texas to work on an ethylene unit for Stone & Webster. Mr.

Hancock requested a resume on Mr. Williams.

At 9:44 Mr. Barker presented a series of slides, the first being labeled " Status Overview" (a copy of this chart is attached as Exhibit No. 5). Mr. Barker explained that the word

" scheduled", under engineering, meant scheduled per the 1981 work plan. Mr. Bob Gibson of Brown & Root explained that the

" phrase " probable estimate" referred to the numbers that will,

' if not changed, become the new forecast in September.

l< Mr. Barker next displayed slides showing the progress of engineering physical design on Unit No. 1 (copy attached as

' Exhibit No. 6), Unit No. 2 (copy attached as Exhibit No. 7) and the engineering on Units 1 and 2 total (copy attached as Exhibit No. 8). Mr. Barker explained that there was no engineering

, progress on Unit No. 2 because all of the effort was being con-

-centrated on Unit No. l'at this time.

Mr. Barker next displayed a slide showing the percent c of construction progress on Unit No.1 and common (a copy is attached as' Exhibit No. 9). Mr. Goldberg felt that the progress on Unit No. 1 and common should be up to 67% by the end of the

year. After an extended discussion of factors affecting both I

engineering and construction progress Mr. Gibson concluded it would be the.first half of 1982 before any substantial construc-(- tion effect would be felt from the major effort being made now in engineering.  ;

I 4U562 l

l

1 At 10:10 a.m. Mr. Hancock asked Mr. Gibson what opportunity would exist to make faster progress on Unit No.

k 2. Mr. Gibson felt that this opportunity would develop later but not in the immediate future. l l

l In answer to Mr. Poston's question Mr. Gibson l 3

explained that the factor preventing the Project from achieving l a 15 to 184 per year construction progress at the present time is a lack of construction drawings. In response to a further l question from Mr. Poston Mr. Hawks expressed his view that the 4 principal fault, which caused the lack of construction drawings l (particularly on critical items) , was the shif t in the design i effort on cable tray supports from the site to the Houston i office of Brown & Ro't o i

Mr. Barker next displayed a slide on construction percent complete for Units 1 and 2 total (copy attached as Exhibit No. 10) and Project manpower as of May 30 (copy attached {

f as Exhibit No. 11).

Mr. Barker asked Mr. Thompson to display a slide on Brown & Root's new organization under Mr. Thompson, whereupon r Mr. Thompson displayed and explained the slide (copy of which is attached as Exhibit No. 12) which displayed the new organiza-tion. Mr. Thompson explained that the strong emphasis of his management technique is area responsibility.

I Mr. Poston asked Mr. Goldberg whether, if the Project had achieved 67% progress on Unit No. 1 at the end of-1981, the remaining 33% could be completed at the rate of lit per year in the calendar years 1982, 1983 and 1984. Mr. Goldberg expressed the view that it was unlikely that lit progress could be made in the last year because of the time consumed by tests, etc. ,

~

Mr. Oprea explained that a new schedule and budget were still scheduled for September, although heavy drains on Project manpower had been caused by the ASLB hearings.

Mr. Hancock inquired what changes were being made in the baseline quantities and productivity rates. Mr. Hawks felt that some of the quantities will increase, particularly in the electrical area. Mr. Hawks reported that the productivity factors were still being studied.

1 In response to Mr. Bancock's question about the continuing lack of a level ITs aetwork schedule, Mr. Gibson conceded that this was one dl t un Project's important deficien-cies. In answer to Mr. W dbr>l's question about whether he had

, enough competent plannerg, ks Jibson replied that he needed more l and explained the difficulties of keeping competent personnel. 4 Mr. Hardt inquired whether the NRC holds on welding

(

i were still a delaying factor and Mr. Gibson replied that they were.

4563

At 11:00 a.m. Mr. Barker gave a brief report on the

( status of licensing, explained that the next hearings were scheduled for a week in Houston beginning July 20, followed by a recess and then two weeks in Houston in September (the weeks beginning September 15 and 29).

1 With respect to show cause commitments, Mr. Barker explained that out of the total of 236, 210 have been closed l'

out, 24 are ready for NRC inspection and only 2 (having to do with audits and records management) remain and should be closed out by the end of August. Mr. Barker concluded, therefore, that l

all of the show cause commitments should be satisfied by

September 1.

f l

Mr. Barker next displayed a slide naming the " Major

' Problems" (a copy is attached as Exhibit No.13) . Mr. Barker commented as follows about such problems:

1. Reactor cavity ventilation. This is a design problem which is being worked out satisfactorily.

2. Conduit separation. Mr. Barker felt that the technical work was under control (he explained a contract to assist with this work which had been recently entered into with NUS).

4

3. IVC. Mr. Barker felt that this work was

( proceeding satisfactorily.

4. TMI. The 24 items which have resulted from TMI are being incorporated in the normal work plan. A significant item is the instrumen-tation control, with respect to which Mr. Hancock requested a statement on cost impact.

5. American Bridge. This problem will require more work but the work is progressing satisfactorily.

6. Quadrex. Mr. Goldberg presented the report on this work. He felt that the HVAC problem, on i which NUS is working, and the computer program veri-fication should both be completed by the end of 1981.

With respect to the other items covered by Quadrex, Mr. Goldberg reported that he and Mr. Salterelli have a plan to resolve all of them within the near term.

7. Project manpower levels. Mr. Barker explained that this would be clarified in the April report.

f

8. Hilti bolts. Mr. Barker expressed optimism l that this problem will be resolved soon.

[ l i

i 4564 l

l

. . ._. .._._ - . . . . _ , . _ _ , _ _ _ . __.m.._ . , _ _ , - _ _ . - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . .

REVISED

'

• July 7, 1981 k 9. VCP release system. Mr. Barker explained that a new vendor control program will be placed -

in effect July 1.

10. Cable tray supports. Mr. Barker felt this problem was uncer control but still required much work.

11. Pipe hanger supports and restraints.

Messrs. Hawks and Barker agreed that this is one of the most critical problems and will probably not be under control until a year from now.

At 11:15 Mr. Hancock inquired whether, in light of Mr. Barker's report and the QuadrexMr. results, Mr. Goldberg felt Goldberg replied that comfortable about the engineering.

the Project now knows what its problems are and that the next few months should see quantification of them and, where neces-sary, implementation of corrective actions.

4 The Management Committee returned to a discussion of the ASLB hearing schedule and thereafter inquired of Mr. Rice when Brown & Root felt it would have its new project manager on board (Mr. Guerts having resigned April 30). Mr. Rice felt that an announcement could be made on this very soon.

(

Mr. Oprea explained that HL&P had a new site QA manager, Mr. J. E. Geiger, who has had 22 years with Bechtel.

Mr. Oprea explained that Mr. Frazar will stay several weeks to work with Mr. Geiger and will then return to the HL&P corporate offices. ,

4 At 11:35 Mr. Buck presented a slide. displaying the organizational responsibility lines within Brown & Root at-the Rice-Salterelli-Buck level (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit No. 14).

Mr. Barker distributed copies of, but did not discuss, the following exhibits:

No. 15 Actual vs. Scheduled Progress Engineering-Manhours No. 16 Engineering Productivity No. 17 Construction Percent Complete Unit 1 Power Block No. 18 Construction Percent Complete

( Unit 2 Power Block 4565

No. 19 Construction Percent Complete

( Unit 2 No. 20 Construction Productivity Unit 1 & Common No. 21 Construction Productivity Unit 2 No. 22 Construction Productivity Units 1 & 2 Total At 11:40 a.m. the Management Committee meeting was adjourned.

Mr. Oprea's letter of May 14, 1981, transmitting to the members of the Management Committee a preliminary statement of Project costs incurred through April 30, 1981, is attached as Exhibit No. 23.

Mr. Oprea's letter of June 15, 1981, transmitting to the members of the Management Committee a preliminary statement of Project costs incurred through May 31, 1981, is attached as Exhibit No. 24.

Prepared this 6th day of July, 1981.

Charles G. Thrash, Jr.,JEecretary

(

4566

2/f 9/ ElW e F/ '

5xA&bl Ab.8 l

MAJOR PROBLEMS i i

l l

1. REACTOR CAVITY VENTILATION l

2. CONDUIT SEPARATION

3. IVC PROBLEMS '

4. TMI ACTIVITIES  !

5. AMERICAN BRIDGE

6. QU ADREX A%2mr- Revdw

7. PROJECT MANPOWER LEVELS

8. HILTI BOLTS ,

9.VCP RELEASE SYSTEM ,

10. CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS

11. PIPE HANGERS, SUPPORTS, RESTRAINTS l(

4579

_ _ _ - - _ - . - - - _ . _ _. _ - _ - - _ _-__ -