ML20211J431
| ML20211J431 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1986 |
| From: | Roisman A TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1432 OL, NUDOCS 8611110132 | |
| Download: ML20211J431 (52) | |
Text
_____ _______- -________ - - - ______
/132.
WElXIED CORRESf,0JD)33 TRIAL. LAWYERS FOR Pusuc JUSTICE. P.C.
' COUN5tt1DRS AT LAW SulTE 611 2000 P STREET. NORTHWEST AN Y
g WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 (202)463-8600 ARTHUR BRYANT staff ATTORNEY g
situt CARDE DIRtcTon. INMRoNMENTAL
. wHs5TttstoWER PRottCT
/
pgggggD BARsARA PRATT omCt =xa NOV3 g f ;
KATHtttN CUMetRSATCH o
stCRETARY p HG&
SERVICE BRANCH f
c>
stcy.URC A
g October 31, 1986
...~.
Peter B.
Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway, 4th ffoor-Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Kenneth A.
McCollom Administrative Judge 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, OK 74075 RE:
Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak)
Dkt. Nos. 50-445, 4 4 6 - og Gentlemen:
S With reference to my letter of October 30, 1986,* enclosed are six additional relevant documents which we have received in discoverry from the minority owners.
The six documents, and some of the matters of particular interest contained in them, described below.
are l
t I
On page 2 of that letter, there was a typographical error:
item 1.a. should refer to page 3, not page 5, of the 8/30/85 Owners Committee meeting minutes.
pgh")DhuBIh8Ag5 3 583 t
i 1.
Ju ly 31, 1985, le t te r f rom Beck to minority owners with minutes of June 28, 1985, Owners Committee meeting.
a.
- Letter,
- p. 2: existence of an analysis by TUEC of the status of TUEC reviews of all MAC Report (1978) findings, including CPRT work.
b.
Minutes, p. 7:
indication that TUGCO was withholding discussion of certain matters related to MAC report because of an ongoing OI investigation.
c.
M inu tes,
- p. 8:
decision to postpone. results of
~
- TUEC prudency. audit until fuel load (thus keeping results out of ASLB hearings)*
d.
M inu tes, p. 9:
indication that TUGCO, not Brown &
- Root, is really running construction of CPSES.
2.
Minutes of May 9, 1986, Owners Committee Meeting.
a.
p.
3:
Compare explanation of reason for replacement of cable penetrations here with explanation giv,en by Mr. Counsil to Mr. McGaughy as discussed on pp. 3 '4 of McGaughy memo of April 30, 1986.
b.
- p. 4 and attachment B:
the existence or nonexistence of a plan by TUGCO to have study of plant cancellation.
c.
p.
5:
audit report by DH&S. and possible existence of more detailed version of it.
3.-
Ju ly 25, 1986, agenda of Owners Committee meeting with attached questions and including notes indicating that Mr. Beck refused to answer questions at that time but set up a conference call for 8/4/86 to discuss status.
This document was provided by Brazos.
4.
Brazos memo dated October 20, 1983, reporting on Owners Committee meeting of October 14, 1983, indicating (p. 1) the view that all problems identified by C. A.T. were problems already known to the project personnel.
Material in parentheses represents CASE's interpretation of the ' implication of the information and not a paraphrase of what appears in the documents.
7 4.,
0.
5.
Ownors Committee meeting minutes (12/11/85).
a.
- p.
10:
discussion of TUEC's view of the significance and import of the Board's Order of November 25, 1985, on a misleading statement.
b.
p.
10:
refusal of Mr. Beck to discuss any possible past mistakes at CPSES and to focus exclusively on the CPRT as going in the right direction.
-6.
Observation Package for the INPO audit which was concluded in August 1985 reflects substantial and previously undisclosed problems with operational readiness.
Of more immediate concern is the existence of substantial previously undetected and undisclosed deficiencies in installed plant equipment.
Attached is a copy' of the relevant pages of the INPO Observation Package.
Also attached are the comments of Dave Smith
'of INPO -indicating the intent to leave the observations out of the formal report.
This included leaving out favorable as well as unf avorable observations,. of which INPO said there were many more of the former than the latter.
We have also identified the following additional items of interest from our analysis-of discovery documents:
1.
The existence of a SAFETEAM Report which led to a major evaluation of cable terminations for the fire protection system, referenced on p. 4 of the' Minutes of the Owners Committee meeting of June 28, 1985.
2.
The existence of Project Status Reports and Monthly Summary Status Reports prepared by TUGCO, referenced in a letter from John Beck to the minority owners (9/18/85) and Owners Committee meeting minutes (8/30/85).
3.
Existence of an independent audit of the.CPRT to report to Mr. Counsil, which will decide, inter alia, which requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, are applicable to the CPRT, referenced on p.
6 of the minutes of the Owners Committee meeting of 8/30/85.
We will continue our - review of the discovery documents and keep the Board advised.
S in.ce r e ly,
j, [ y
- /4
/
Anthony /'. R isman enclosures
/
l cc:
Service List (w/ enc.)
f
- 0 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION OWNERS COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING AMFAC HOTEL - D/W AIRPORT FRIDAY. JULY 25, 1986-AGENDA I.
Administrative Matters J. Beck j/A. Approval of May 9,1986 Meeting Minutes B.
Accounting / Budget Information T. Rose II.
Construction Status Unit 1 R. Camp
(/B. Unit 2' J. Merritt III.Licen' sing Status J. Beck
/A.
Construction Permit Update
/.
CPRT Program B
)
/ C.
ASLB gi f
IV.
Comments fro 9 wners Committee Members O
I SW/
B 4 f, w ;/- [lGf V.
Schedule and Place for Next Meeting i
i I
(
/Ick
%.,112.</.
o.4_., -
t q
[7 e,.
.,*.,e.
e,.
t.....
m, 6
~
'/ ' I c 70 J n.,
QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
.4 /< /..
Om..g.,m, AT THE COMANCHE PEAK OWNERS MEETING
'
- C' " '
~#
/ fJs..E.
JULY 25. !?So 1.
In your ooinion, wnat generally and speci f i c al l y has caused the delays in the licensing of the Comanche Pe ak project?.
2.
Apart from me+ ting legal prerequisites to obtaining an NRC operating license, is the pl an t re ady to operate,?
3.
Is the p l an t ready to operate in accordance with the NRC regulations and standards?
4.
Has the filing of any of the lawsuits affected the minority Owners' access to the pl an t and informa-tion rel ated to the project?
5.
Has'there been any f ur ther consideration given to evaluating potential claims against Brown & Root and Gibos & Hill' If not, why not?
Have there been any releases giv.en the contractors taking part in the de-si gn and/or construction of the Comanche Peak proj ec t?
6.-
What FSAR modifications will be necessary as a result of the S&W an al ysi s?
What are the consequences if such modlfications are disallowed?
7.
Is S&W running behind schedule?
If so, why, and what is TUEC doing about it?
8.
The defineo scope of the S&W Generic Technical Issues report is " concerns, allegations, and evaluations raised by groups external to the TUGCO/ Comanche Peak or gan i z a t i on th a t affect the pipe stress and pipe sup-ports.requalification effort."
Many of these origi-nated en CASE's August 22, 1983 Proposec Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Wal sh/Doyl e Al l egat i ons).
Why weren't these oroblems identified 4irst by TUGCO ins te ad of by +xternal sources, and why weren't they accressed when first r a t sed?
?.
The Generic Technical I ssues repor t indicates that many portions were i ssu+d on MA/ S.
When di d TUEC's eval ua-tion of the report oegin, and of it began in May, why was nothing announced unti; Juiv about report's cost and schedule signi4 icanc+3
10. - When c an the Owners expect to rece i ve TUEC' 's proj ec-
~tions and.e s t oma te s of the cost and completion date for the Comanche-PekK project?
11.
Does Mr. Beck' understand that he has a fiduciary re-sovn si bi l i ty to the mi nor i ty Own+rs?
12.
Did Mr. B+ck know about the I -atssu i t' ag a i n s t the g
minority Owners on May oth?
Prior to its seing filed' 13.
Why dic TUEC sue the minority Owners?
I 14.
What law f i rms adv i sed TUEC reoardi no this decision?
15.
Does Mr. Beck on TUEC consider the law firm of Worsham, For sy th e. Samoels and Wooldricge as representing the minority Owners in tne licensing oroceecing?
16.
What about the other law f i rms reoresen t i ng the
" applicant 5" in connec t's on -wi th tn+ project?
Who re-presents TUEC and who represents the man'ority Owners.in connection with obtaining an oper a t i ng license and in
(-
connec ti on wi th the c on it. Auction permit proceeding?
f We~ would like to receive cops,es of all 1+ gal memoranda prepared by these respective firms in connection with their representation of the minor i ty Owners in the Comanene Peak project.
17.
Does TUEC still con si der themse l v e s to be the agent for the minority Owners?
How about in the licensing pro-ceeding?
[
18.
Does TUEC consi der Ropes & Gray as representing the Owners ( al l Comanche Peak Owners)?
Does.TUEC con si der Morgan, Lewi s & Brock i us, Si shop. Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds and Worsham. Forsythe.-Sampels and Wooldridge as representing the mi nori ty Owners?
10 Has CASE or any of i ts represen t a t i ves ever mace any overtures of s+ttiemen-tc TUEC?
1 j.
til i
TEXAS UTILITIES GEN
.m.
.o-..
.r,. ouv.. ERATING COMPANY
.u
'0".". 7. ".l.?.
January 20, 1986 Mr. R. E. McCaskill Executive Vice President and General Manager Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
P. O. Box 6296 Waco, TX 76706 Mr. J. H. Butts Manager Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas. Inc.
P. O. Box 1623 Nacogdoches, TX 75961 4
Mr'. E. L. Wagoner General Manager Texas Municipal Power Agency P. O. Box 7000 Bryan, TX 77805
SUBJECT:
December 11, 1985 CPSES Owners Committee Meeting Minutes Gentlemen:
Enclosed'is a copy of the minutes from the December 11, 1985 CPSES Owners Committee Meeting.
The next regular meeting of the CPSES Owners Committee is scheduled for January 30, 1986 at 10:00 a.m. at the Amfac Hotel & Resort inside Dallas /Ft. Worth Airport. A proposed agenda will be sent to the meeting.
to you prior Very truly yours, o.1La hn W. Beck Chairman JWB:kp Enclosure RECEIVED JAN 211986
' * ' " " ~ ~ ~. " ~ " ' "
^
""^"
c - M. D. Spence W. G. Counsil R. A._Wooldridge T. M. Ozymy T. W. Rose J. C. Kuykendall J. P. McGaughy (Southern Engineering)
I COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REGULAR MEETING ~0F OWNERS COMMITTEE DECEMBER ll, 1985
+
A meeting of the representatives of the CPSES Owners Committee was held at the Hilton Inn at DFW International' Airport on December 11, 1985, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
4 The following members were present, constituting a quorum:
J. W. Beck - TUCCO (Chairman & Member)
T. M. Ozymy - TUGC0 (Vice-Chairman & Alternate)
R. E. McCaskill - BEPC (Member) i J. H.. Butts - Tex-La (Member)
O'Neal Dubberly - Tex-La (Alternate)
M. P. Tate - TMPA (Member)
E. L. Wagoner _ TMPA (Alternate)
T. W. Rose - TUCCO (Secretary)
The following~were present as guests:
Jim Bailey - TMPA j
J. D. Copeland - BEPC B. Burchette - Tex-La J.-P. McGaughy - Tex-La/ Southern Engineering J. T.~Merritt - TUGC0 f
R. E. Camp - TUCCO H. C. Schmidt - TUCCO L. E. Powell - TUCCO 4
o Chairman John Beck opened the meeting and distributed the agenda.
Mr.
Beck informed the members of a discussion with John Butts just prior to the meeting, related to a December 5, 1985, letter in.which Mr. Butts i
asked to have legal' counsel present at the December 11 regular meeting to discuss the ASLB Ifenorandum and Order of_ November 25, 1985.
Mr. Beck stated that he and Mr. Butts had problems getting together before the neeting to discuss the matter.
He~ stated that the November 25, 1985, ASLB Memorandum and. Order had been added to the Agenda (III.B.1.) and he was prepared to discuss the technical matters involved.
However, he said that Mr. Wooldridge was out of state and could not be available.
Mr. Beck stated that he would be happy to arrange a meeting for owners and their counsel.
Messrs. Butes. Wagoner and McCaskill all asked the Chairman to arrange for a special meeting in which owners and their legal counsel could be They expressed concern about the November 25, 1985. ASLB present.
1 Memorandum and Order and asked that this be a main topic at the meeting.
Arrangements for the meeting were discussed later in the meeting (see page 10).
4 1
i
Agenda Item I.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A.
Mr. Beck asked that meeting be approved by the members.the minutes of the August 30, 1985, regular accurate reflection of the meeting.
The minutes were approved as an (M. Tate abstained).
B.
Mr.. Beck asked that regular meeting be approved. the minutes of the October 17, 1985, The minutes were approved.
C.
Mr. Beck stated that at the October 17, and a letter asking for owner approval of the1986 Nuclear Fu the 1986 fuel budget was'given to each member. One response, from BEPC, was received in which approval was deferred until a new CPSES Engineering and Construction Budget was released.
for a discussion of the fuel budget.The new budget was released in N Beck asked Mr. McCaskill asked if the CPSES budget.
Mr.. Beck responded that1986 fuel budget corresponded to the new schedule.
it did match the new budget and Jim McCaughy asked TUGC0 to explain again the actions that were being taking to reduce cap 4tal connitments and expenditures for nucl fuel.
Mr. Beck stated that ear regard relate to discussions with DOE about' reduction of TUCCO's
-enrichment service commitments.
relating to its most recent
~ DOE is currently involved in a lawsuit enrichment contracts however, DOE understands TUCCO's position relative to future commitments and is engaged in discussions with TUCCO.
to resolve the issue with DOE.
Due to the lawsuit, it may take time expenditures for enrichment The 1986 fuel budget contains no commitments for 1987 and 1988. services, but TUGC0 currently has Mr. Beck added that another area TUCCO is pursuing relates to possible sale of materials in inventory reiterated that TUCCO conducts careful economic analyais on any He potential inventory sales.
Earlier in 1985^ TUGC0 sold some future SWUs (enrichment) however, TUCCO is not inclined to sell more at due to discussions with DOE.
this time Manager of Nuclear fuels discuss details with the owners at any ti Mr. Beck then asked the owners to approve the 1986 fuel budget, if there were no more~ questions.
verbally approved the budget.There were no questions ena all members Mr. Beck stated that send approval in writing so TUCCO's records can be completed.each owner needs to L
2
.(
d AGENDA ITEM II.
CONSTRUCTION STATUS t
A..~Mr. Beck asked Mr. Camp to discuss the status of Unit l'
construction. _Mr. Camp stated that since the last meeting update, a new schedule for Unit i had been announced.
Unit 1 is still being targeted to meet.a summer 1986 completion date. All schedule measurements still relate to a June 2, 1986, target completion.
Mr. Camp stated'that the four major issues being: resolution of the TRT issues was progressing with I
4 Control Room Ceiling Gap Cleaning Train C Conduit Supports Steam Generator. Upper Lateral Supports
~-
9g/
The schedule for final completion of the control room ceiling had 4
slipped five days in the last one and a half months and is currently 16gG projected to be complete the first week in May 1986.
/
.i a.
U The contractor.for cleaning the gap between seismic category I structure y
walls is on-site and working. Major activities include cutting bolts, e
p g
i etc. and vacuuming debris from the gap. The original estimated time o
needed to complete the. work was 16 weeks. The work is going very well, but the schedule has slipped two weeks, with completion currently projected to be the end of February 1986.
7 f
The Train C conduit supports to be analyzed have been identified, Criteria for walkdown of supports to ide'ntify adverse interactions with p
safety related equipment is being developed. TUCCO edtimates that walkdowns will begin by the end of January 1986 and will be completed by j:
the end of April 1986.
The analysis related to the steam generators upper lateral restraints is scheduled for completion in. January 1986.
TUCCO expects the original configuration to-be satisfactory, based on preliminary analysis.
Some work will need to be' completed to assure adequate bolt engagement.
Mr. Camp then discussed the CPRT Design Adequacy program. He stated that the major areas are:
piping supports,
cable tray supports i
conduit supports I
Mr. Camp stated that Stone & Webster is performing the analyces of the pipe supports.
He said that work on 60% of the stress problems is in progress, with the overall effort 22% complete. About 10% of the supports are in final _ qualification analysis with 1% complete and finsl _ized.
The resolution of all technical issues is expected to be i
completed in December 1985.
3
m a
'Mr.' Camp stated that Eb'asco is approximately 90% conplete.with the production of as-designed drawings for the cable tray supports.
The final drawing walk'down effort is about 45% complete and 1% of the -
supports have been design verified. The as-buil t walkdown ef fort is currently ~ nn hold as a result of an NRC Audit (November 18, 1985) in which the NRC identified some concerns ~with the' effort.
TUGC0 is currently investigating the NRC's concerns and will resolve them.
The NRC concerns relate generally to discrepancies with dimensions reflected on the drawings.
Mr. Beck added that TUCCO is very concerned'about the results of the NRC audit and will be addressing those results with the NRC during a public meeting next week (members had been notified). The schedule for. the meeting in Arlington was changed earlier in the week to*
December 18, 1985 1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
December 19, 1985 8:00 a.m.
to 1:30 p.m.
.Mr. Camp added that the schedule for the cable tray supports as-built program was unknown at this time due to the hold and unresolved-corrective actions.
Mr. Camp continued with a discussion of the as-built program for the conduit supports.
The sample has been selected and the as-built effore has begun. There will be 60 power and control conduit runs and 60 lighting conduit runs involved in the program.
The as-built drawings are. expected to be complete' by the end of December 1985 with the
-analysis complete by the end of January 1986.
The analysis of two conduitrunshasbeencompletedwithnoproblemsgidentified.
Mr. Camp then discussed the schedule critical path items for Unit 1 (referenced to the June'2, 1986 target completion date). The primary critical path is the completion of the piping and piping supports. The logic for the completion schedule is currently being reviewed but is.
approximately 80 days negative. The second critical path item is the cable tray support testing ef fort f to be conducted by ANCO (California).
TUGC0 estimates this effort to be 60 days negative.
Mr. Camp stated that the manpower working on Unit 1 is as follows:
Craft -
453 Engineering -
364 Other 400 Total 1217 Mr. Camp added that outside the CPRT effort, 32 design modifications to Unit I are in progress. Most are related to licensing requirements in area of equipment. qualification.' Three design modifications relate to the efforto to improve steam generator reliability (condenser replacement, steam piping, etc).
The condenser pit for Unit 1 is complete, and the removal of the turbine building wall will begin in the near future.-
Mr. Camp then asked if there were any questions about what he had diacussed.
4
Mr. McGaugby asked what the 90% complete figure verification of the 4500 cable tray supports referred to. relating to the design Mr. Camp stated thq.c the 90% referred to the completion of as-designed drawings.
Mr. McGaughy asked if the 45% complete figure related to the verificarton of drawings to the field hardware.
Mr. Camp stated that it did.
He stated.that the 1% complete related to the final design verification.of the supports.
Mr. McGaughy asked if the three unresolved technical piping support issues (U-bolts, localized stresses, etc.) had been resolved.
Mr. Camp stated that as of two weeks ago, S&W estimated that.these issues will be resolved by the end of December 1985.
Mr. McGaughy stated that in May/ June 1985, TUCCO had talked about completing CPRT by the end of 1985.
He asked why TUGC0 hasn't met that schedule.
Mr. Camp stated that he was not sure what was said in May 1985, but that TUGCO obviously knows more about the effort required to complete the program now.
Mr. Beck added that in the May/ June time frame, he vaguely remembers S&W stating that it might he complete by December 1985, but he said he was not sure what meeting Mr. McCaughy was referring to.
1!r. McGaughy stated that he thinks it was in June 1985 in Arlington and that he wanted to know what had caused the change in CPRT completion from Deceeber complex than anticipated? 1985 to the summer 1986--are the issues more Mr. Camp stated that the S&W effort has slipped about six weeks in schedule in the last few months due primarily to resolution of technical piping support issues.
He added that the Ebasco ef fort has slipped about one month due to.several factors--production of as-designed drawings was less than expected, delays in mobilizing work force early in e ffort, etc.
This has pushed the Ebasco completiod effort for cable tray supports to the end of March 1986.
Mr. Beck added that the issues are more complex than originally anticipated.
Mr. McGaughy asked for a discussion of the worst on technical issues related to pipe supports.
thing that could happen Mr. Beck responded that from a schedule standpoint, the key issue is how many supports will be modified.
TUCCO currently estimates that 300 large bore piping supports will be modified.
the schedule might be extended.If any additional supports need to be modified, then Mr. McGaughy said that in the November 18, 1985, meeting in Dallas to discuss the new cost and schedule, directly relating to the CPRT effort.$120 million were identified as He asked if additional related engineering costs had been added to this number and if there was an effort to define these costs.
Mr. Beck stated that an ef fort is under-way to define these additional costs but it is not complete at this time.
Mr. McGaughy asked for a discussion of the critical path iten related to the fire protection system.
Mr. Camp stated that this is related to a corrosion problem called Micrubiological Induced Corrosion (MIC) fire protection water piping system that may cause pressure boundary in the degradation and small passages to become plugged.
conductinc a flushing / flow testing program on the oldestTUCCO currently is piping to 5
O determine if it needs replacement.
Four water sprinkler systems have been tested to date.
replaced., TUCCO has established a preventative action p includes a temporary chemical treatment system.
the design of a permanent S& W i~s responsible for system to eliminate the problem.
The water-systees that are identified and should be complete with the flush / test a dinacce by May 1986.
The remaining systems n repair program also targeted to be complete with the(accessible during operation) are with the necessary repairs being performed during plant operatioflush/ te plant operation to proceed.vacches can be established in those areas re n.
Fire ow Mr. Beck added that if the fire protection resolve NRC concerns and allow fuel load and full powe is not critical path as far as fuel load is concerned This Mr. McGaughy asked for a status of the 50.55(e) related to the n IE electrical system.
referring to SDAR 84-27.Mr. Camp responded that on-class he thinks tir. McGaughy is off-site power and subsequentThis issue relates to the postulated loss of loss of HVAC.
load by modifying lighting is to be submitted to NRC in March 1986A program modification is relatively simple but The for the purchase of specials svitches. there is a long lead eine required B.
Mr. Beck then asked Mr. Merritt construction.
Mr. Merritt began by stating that Unitto discuss the status of Unit'2 78% complete and is on schedule for'a June 1987 fuel load date2 is approximat piping and piping supports and pre-operation testing being the primar
, with the critical path items at this time.
total site Engineering / Construction workforce:The following is a breakdown of the Cra f t 2876 Engineering 1033 Other 1264 Total Site 5173 Mr. Merritt stated that approximately 94% of the large bore pipe is working with S&Wsupports and 98% of the small bore pipe supports were installed TUCCO the cable tray support area, most of the cable trays andto initiate the In installed with as-built supports are that most drawings complete (3894 supports).
this arpa should have no significantof the supports have completed engin He stated impact on system turnovers.
Mr. Merritt stated that approximately 450,000 feet of a total of 3.5 million feet, of electrical cable, out The construction workforceremained to be installed (87%
ccmplete).
is installing about 25,000-30,000 feet of cable per week.
He stated that this area is no longer a primary critical path concern.
Also, he stated that application of protective
. coatings in the Unit 2 reactor building was complete down to elevation 905.
Although the protective coatings are non-Q, the NRC has evaluated the paint and records for Unit 2 and gave the project high marks on the quality of paint and adequacy of records.
6
c In the area of the excavation for the Unit 2 condenser pit, Mr. Merritt reported that being poured this week.the excavation was complete and the walls would begin The schedule for turnover of the Train B diesel generator is January 1986 while Train A is March 1986.
The current schedule for the Unit 2 startup program is as follows*
Cold Hydro-July 1986 2nd Hydro August 1986 ILT/ SIT September 1986 HFT November-December 1986
. Targeted Completion June 1987 Date At present, 61 out.of 223 Unit 2 plant subsystems (27%) have bien turned over to startup from construction, with 19 subsystems under review.
chemical volume and control system-(CVCS) was accepted this week.
The Merritt added that the main power producing systems are expected to be Mr.
turned over by the end of the year. However he acknowledged this schedule is very tight.
Most of the electrical switchgear (480v, 6.9 kv, etc.) have been energized and have power that is needed for testing
' Mr. Beck asked if there we/e any further questions on the construction status.. Mr. McCaskill asked for an explanation of the responsibilities of each A/E Engineering firm on the project.
responded as follows:
Mr. Camp and Mr. Merritt e
i k
7
Current Unit System Responsible A/E Responsibility
~
1&2 Piping systems G&H Piping system function and per formance/ hydraulics 1
' Piping supports S&W Requalification of piping supports / design of any modifications 2
Piping supports S&W Design & qualification of piping support systems 1&2 Piping-Stress Westing-Piping stress analysis to Analysis (Class 1) house determine. loads on supports 1&2 Piping Stress S&W Piping stress analysis to analysis determine loads on supports (Class 2&3) 1&2 Balance of Plant G&H Same as before 1&2 Electrical Cable!
G&H Functional design of cabling & circuits 1
Cable Tray Supports Ebasco/
Qualification of as-built Impell supports / design of any modifications in their respective scope of work 1
Conduit Supports G&H Confirmatory dnalysis/
approval of any modifications 2
Cable Tray /
Ebasco Design and analysis of Conduit Supports cable tray and conduit supports t
Mr. McCaskill asked if TUCCO was tracking the costs associated with the B&R rework of termination lugs for the fire protection system.
Mr.
Merritt stated that the costs can be-produced if necessary.
Mr.
McCaskill asked if G&H still has liability and responsibility for its work.
Mr. Beck said yes, as far as he knew.
Mr. McGaughy asked why it has been necessary to transfer responsibility from G&H to other A/Es.
Mr. Beck responded that the primary reason is a lack of C&H resources.
Mr. Merritt added that a large amount of G&H resources had to be allotted to ASLB proceedings and that S&W had resources available from completion of the River Bend and Hillstone units.
Mr. McCaughy said that he had reviewed the G&H contract (with supplements) and noticed that the February 1984 supplement contained a statement releasing C&H of liability for damages.
Mr. Beck responded that he was not familiar enough with the contract to discuss it, but he l
would look into the matter and get back with Owners on it.
After i
hearing no further questions, Mr. Beck moved onto the next agenda item.
b e
E t
-AGENDA ITEM III.
LICENSING STATUS A.
- r. Beck reported on the status of the CPRT Program.
He stated that during the fall 1985, TUCCO effectively moved from planning to execution of the CPRT Program. TUCCO decided to start implementation of the construction adequacy program without final NRC approval, even though it entailed some risk.
However, Mr. Beck said it is essential for TUCCO to obtain approval of the design adequacy program before substantive implementation. TUGC0 had hoped for staff approval of the design adequacy program in November 1985, but due to a number of factors (large number of people involved, increased scope, additional proof required, etc.) this did not occur. The answers to the numerous questions from the staff (discussed in previous meetings) have been provided in a twu-inch thick response.
Mr. Beck said these questions impacted the schedule for revision-of the program plan, and that as a result it is taking more time than expected to obtain NRC approval.
Mr. Beck stated that there is one remaining issue to be resolved with the NRC staff in the near future. This issue relates to the methodology of evaluating plant design adequacy--similar to'the sampling question discussed previously in relation to the construction adequacy program.
He stated that work with tHe staff in this area is nearly complete and TUGC0 expects an SSER on design adequacy in January 1986.
Mr. Beck stated that the NRC staff is in general agreement with TUCCO's construction adequacy progren and the staff is expected to issue an SSER in the near future.
TUCCO currently is 59% complete with the physical reinspection and 39% complete with the documentation review.
The results of inspections conducted to date are as follows:
1040 installation deviations noted 175 documentation deviations noted CPRT has completed evaluation of 542 potential safety significant items, and has found none to be safety significant.
He added that one safety significant deviation, the damaged cotter pin, was discovered earlier in another part of the CPRT program and had been mentioned in other owners meetings.
The construction adequacy program is not a critical path item for June 1986 completion target date for Unit 1.
Mr. Beck added that he expects the NRC to respond to TUCCO's recent response to these questions in the public meeting next week.
He stated that he hoped Revision 3 of_ the CPRT Program plan would be complete by the end of the year.
Mr. Beck then asked if there were any questions on the CPRT program.
Mr. McCaughy asked if there were any progress statistics (% complete, etc.) related to the design adequacy program.
Mr. Beck responded that there are none, since the program has not been implemented.
He added that all of the checklists, population decisions, etc. are finished and awaiting NRC approval.
He stated that TUCCO considerc the design adequacy program as a primary critical path item related to the CPRT at
.this time.
9
r-s.
B.
Mr. Beck started the discussion on the ASLB proceedings by asking everyor.e if they are getting the licensing correspondence in a timely manner--TUCCO is sending information out as soon as possible to the Owners.
All members responded in the affirmative.
1)
Mr. Beck stated that there has been a lot of interest in the November 25, 1985 ASLB Memorandum and Order relating to the' question of a potentially misleading statenent.
The NRC's office of investigation had concluded that the " random and representative" statement
" material false statement."
was not a The issue pertained to samples that were taken from Unit 2 -but the words used implied that samples were taken throughout the plant.
The samples were taken from Unit 2 because U-Bolts in Unit I had been painted while those in Unit 2 had not been painted.
This had been discussed with all parties to the ASLB proceedings in March 1985 so there should have been no misunderstanding.
There was absolutely no effort 1
to mislead anyone, and the engineering personnel had made an honest sample for purposes of the study. He added that TUGC0 management has enphasized to everyone that they have to be careful with every single word to preclude the reoccurrence of this type problem.
In the final analysis, the Judge did agree that the sample used was adequate to satisfy the requirements of the study.
Mr. Beck added that TUCCO is very concerned and is dissecting the memorandum from both a legal and engineering standpoint.
Mr. McGaughy stated that the.first phrase on top of page 4 of the M&O sounded as if the Judge was questioning the integrity of the lawyers, and asked if Mr. Beck could respond.
Mr. Beck stated that the Judge's view is interesting and he was entitled to his opinions.
He added that he was not sure what the Judge means with the statement but TUCCO will try to insure there are not similar questions in the future.
Mr. Wagoner asked Mr. Beck if he could discuss what actions TUGC0 is taking in response to the M60.
Mr. Beck responded that it is TUGCO's intent to submit the CPRT Program with results to the ASLB as soon as possible and let the program's actions speak for themselves.
TUCCO will be ready to begin hearings early in 1986, however, Mr. Beck said 1
hearings are unlikely to begin before late March-early April 1986.
Mr. McGaughy asked Mr. Beck if he could elaborate further on TUGCO's actions.
Mr. Beck responded that he intends that the thoroughness of the CPRT will speak for itself before the ASLB, and said that the company is conducting the CPRT as well as it knows how.
Mr. McCaskill stated that this issue is very significant to everyone concerned and there are tuo ways to approach the prnblem.
TUCCO can take the position that TUCCO was right and go on, or take the position that TUCCO nade a mistake and proceed with the proof.
He asked Mr. Beck to describe TUGCO's approach.
to characterize what happened in the pastMr. Beck responded that he was notegoing and that he is confident TUGC0 is proceeding in the right direction.
He added that TUCCO had expanded its legal support by adding the firm of Ropes & Gray, and that this is a change from the past.
This change is providing a fresh legal perspective without saying anything about other legal representation.
Mr. Beck stated that another example of change is the level of rigor being used in providing proof.
He said TUCCO recognizes that it is
(
under ext remely close scrutiny by many groups and is conducting the CPRT in a very riprous mann r--more than has been required in the past.
so
Mr. McCaughy asked Mr. Beck to explain the statement page 5 of the M&O, where he states that by the Judge on even with the new team, things haven't changed.
Mr. Beck responded that he is confident that TUCCO will resolve the U-bolt issue. The NRC Staff didn't find the statement to be misleading.
-Mr. McCaughy added that even though that may be true, the ASLB Judge rule before TUCCO can get a license.
Mr. Beck responded that must TUCCO's basic position in the Case Management Plan had not changed and that the company will do what it said in the plan.
The NRC Staff supported TUCCO's plan and the Judge's ruling on the timing of plan approval doesn't change the plan.
Mr. McCaskill suggested that a discussion related to the M60 continue in a forum that includes legal counsel from each owner in the near future.
A tentative date.was set for December 21, 1985, at 10:00 a.m. in Austin.
Texas.*
2)
Mr. Beck briefly reviewed the status of the OI investigation related to the 1978 MAC Audit by stating that he understands that the investigation is complete.
He added that he didn't know of any results from the investigation and didn't know when they would be published.
?
3)
Mr. Beck briefly reviewed the status of the Directed Certifications (DC) to the ASLB Appeal Board.
He' stated that the ruling on the first DC speaks for itself--there is clearly a high threshold standard to meet for a DC.
In reference to the second DC, he stated that the staf f supports the company's position and that oral arguments are scheduled - for January 3, 1986.
will happen.
He added that he does~not know what
- Date was subsequently changed to January 10, 1986, at 1:00 p.m.
at DFW Airport.
l e
!I
6.
e I
AGENDA ITEM IV.
COMMENTS FROM OWNERS COMMITTEE MEMBERS-4 There were no additional questions from the Owners Committee Members.
M 0
m je f
i i
4 0
4 i
}
'r 4
4 I
12 T"mm----w%,
'ACENDA ITEM V.
SCHEDULE AND PLACE FOR NEXT MEETING It-vas agreed to have.the next meeting on January 30, 1986, at 10:00-a.m.-12:00 noon at DFW Airport.
6 MI (E,t e
~
e m.
13
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION OWNERS COMMITTEE HILTON INN D/FW AIRPORT WEDENESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1985 I
_ AGENDA I..
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS John Beck A.
Approval of August 30, 1985 minutes B.
Approval of October 17, 1985 minutes C.
Approval of 1986 Nuclear Fuel Budget II.
CONSTRUCTION STATUS A.
Unit I B.
Unit 2 Dick Camp LICENSING STATUS John Merritt III.
John Beck A.
CPRT Program B.
ASLB 1.
November 25, 1985 Board Memorandum 2.
OI Investigation related to MAC Audit 3.
Appeal 3oard - Status of Directed Certificati IV.
ons COMMENTS FROM OWNERS COM ITTEE MEMBERS V.
SCHEDULE AND PLACE FOR NEXT MEETING e
o
~-
A
(
(
n(
MEMORANDUM
'h uRazoS CLECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE. INC.
Richard"McCaskill y.o rRou W.B. Townsend
,g-oArc October 20. 1983 s e Report on October 14, 1983 Comanche Peak Owners' Committee Meeting suo;ccr
.I attended the Comanche Peak Owners' Committee meeting on October 14,1983 at Comanche Peak.
All the owners with the exception of TESCO were represented at
'the meeting.
B.R. Clements handed out a new roster of the Committee.
A corrected copy is attached as exhibit "A".
Richard Smith, Mayor of Bryan, has replaced Charles Matthews for TMPA on the committee.
~
The minutes of the June 10, 1983 committee meeting were approved.
The minutes s
are attached as exhibit "B".
s The committee then went through the following agenda items:
I.,$tatus on 0perating License /ASLB
~
~
Y-2arings
' Homer 5chmidt handed out the status of licensing report, attached as exhibit "C" and reported that Peter Block is the new Hearing Chairman.
The ASLB Hearing would start on October 17, 1983.
The main subject of the hearing would be to close-out the C.A.T. report.
.,C.A.T. stands for Construction Assistent Team.
This team had in-1! spected Comanche Peak and made a report on the status of construc-s tion. The report did not identify any problem areas that were not known by project personnel.
The project personnel are completing one room at a time.
The problems mentioned in the report were in rooms not ccmpleted and will be corrected as the rooms are completed.
II.
Review ofsConstruction Activities John Merritt reported Unit #1 was 97% complete, Unit #2 was 65%
complete and the total project was 84% complete. Project personnel are reverifying that the design and material for the pipe hangers meet specifica tions.
There are approximately 17,000 hangers.
The 1163r.ing's Chairman said that he needed to be convinced that the de-
,7 sign _is torrect.
T.U. feels that the hangers have a larger safety factor than required by regulation.
The Chairman would not accept the test,imony of an outside expert on the hanger design.
/n The tube vibration problem in the steam generator has been corrected.
"~
The hot-functional test indicated inadequate cooling air around the rpactor.
This has been corrected and tested plus additional cooling s will be installed by the end of November to insure that the cooling is= above requirements.
V e
i' Y
(
(
o' o
f Richard McCaskill Page 2 October 20, 1983 III. Review of Start-up Activities John Merritt reported that the project was six to eight weeks behind schedule and all efforts possible.are being done to get back on sched-ule.
Officially, the scheduled fuel load has not been changed from December, 1983.
However, unofficially, February or March is a better date.
N.R.C. has not issued its new estimate for fuel load, however, it should be out in the next week or two.
Testing and retesting on 301 out of 338 subsystems on Unit #1,and 9 out of 365 on Unit #2 have been completed.
Of 198 procedures to be written, 185 have been com-pleted.
There are 149 scheduled tests of main systems, of which 147 have been started, 122 complete and 122 approved.
The electrical rework in the fuel building has been completed, now working on the containment building.'
IV. Review of Corporate Activities Jim Kuykendall reported on the emergency procedures. An emergency drill is scheduled for December 14, 1983.
The drill will be graded by N.R.C.
The project has added 25 more sirens for a total of 65 in a 10 mile radius of the plant.
N.R.C. had a review of all the plant, emergency systems.
N.R.C. stated that the systems were the best it' ~,
had reviewed for a project at this stage.
The review. indicated 138 open items.
There were only 13 major items out of the 134, and 9 of these are. waiting for delivery of parts.
V.
Review of Plant Operations Activities Dick Janes reported that 462 out of 475 authorized operating staff had been hired.
The remaining 13 should be hired by the end of Dec-ember, 1983. The project had 39 people take the licensing exam. A minimum to operate one unit is 8 senior operators, 4 reactor ope ~ra-tors and 1 staff.
The results of the exams are not yet known; but 3 estimates are that probably 30 out of the 39 passed the exam.
VI. Nuclear Fuel Management Plan i
B.R. Clements, Secretary, handed out the 1984 Nuclear Fuel Management to the committee for approval.
The comnii ttee, approved the plan as submitted.
The plan is attached as exhibit "0".
It was noted that-the cost should have already been included in the cash flow projec-tions and has not changed from previous projec'tions.
The T.U. com-panies have told T.P.U.C. that they would give ill the Westinghouse credit on fuel to the first fuel load.
Tnis will cause the fuel.to cost approximately $.41 per million BTU insteld of the $.55 to S 60 without the credit.
L-i.
f
\\
i
.h '
(
(
I jf\\
1 Richard McCaskill Page 3 October 20, 1983 a
VII. Standing Comittees Max Tanner asked the comitte to approve the attached exhibit "E" setting up' two standing comittees, Accounting and Operations.
The comittea approved the recommendations. Brazos appointed J.D.Copeland to the Accounting Committee and D. Swenke to the Operating Comittee.
The other owners were requested to give names of their appointment to the comittees to B. Clements by October 21, 1983.
B. Clements will send a list of comittee members to all parties.
Next meeting was set.for 10:00 A.M. on January 20, 1984, at Comanche Peak.
g t/,te
.b.Townsend WBT:rf attachments k
l
.t.
5 j
s s i
i I
c
~. -.
[
!g)" ')]
C C
yp ROSTER OWNERS COMMITTEE Dallas Power & Light Company M. H. Tanner, Jr. (Max) 1506 Commerce Street Lavern Clemmons Dallas, TX 75201 ALTERNATE:
214/698-7595 R. K. Payne (Bob)
. Texas Electric Service Company W. M. Taylor (We's)
P. O. Box 970 Libby Smith Ft. Worth, TX 76101 ALTERNATE:
817/336-9411 Willie Keel Texas Power & Light Company T. L. Loveless (Leon)
P. O. Box 226331 Helen Sikes Dallas, TX 75266 ALTERNATE:
214/748-5411 C. B. Derrick, Jr. (Charlie)
Texas Municipal Power Agency A ar.les_.Matthews - he c24[ Ms b P. O. Box 229 Anderson, TX 77830 ALTERNATE:
409/873-2013 y
E. Wagoner Brazos Electric Power Cooperative.Inc.
R. E. McCaskill (Richard)
P. O. Box 6296 Linda Wilson Waco, TX 76706 ALTERNATE:
817/752-2501 W. B. Townsend-Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Inc.
J. H. Butts (John)
P. O. Box 1623 Deana Selman.
Nacogdoches, TX 75961 ALTERNATE:
409/560-9532 O'Neal Dubberty TUCCO (Project Manager) REPRESENTATIVE Texas Utilities Generating Company.
R. J. Gary (Bob) 2001 Bryan Tower Glenda Benson Dallas, TX 75201 L. F. Fikar (Lou) 214/G33-4921; 653-4752 Mary Lou Funk l
SECRETARY
-Texas Utilities Generating Company B. R. Clements (Bill) 2001 Bryan Tower Cathy Pitman Dallas, TX 75201 214/653-4017 9/12/83
,'.# # ' h 8 A v,4
% p.
g-
-4 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY MM YWAY Tt9WER
- 400 NORTH OL8vt NT8 TEE,T. L.B. et
- DA LLAN. Tt;XAM T320t
'*"." T.?.i.c,"
July 31, 1985 Mr. R.-E. McCaskill Executive Vice President and General Manager Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
P. O. Box 6296 Waco, Texas 76706 Mr. J. H. Butta Manager Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.
P.O. Box 1623 Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Mr. E. L. Wagoner General Manager Texas Municipal Power Agency P.O. Box 7000 Bryan, Texas 77805
SUBJECT:
Owners Comm tree Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Minutes of Meeting on June 28, 1985 Centlemen:
Enclosed are the minutes of the regular meeting of th'e Owners Committee held Friday,' June 28, 1985, in the Nuclear Operations Support Facility.
at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
~
As the minutes indicate for agenda item VI.1, Status. of Specific CPRT Issues, we agreed to provide a cross-reference between some specific CPRT issues that the Owners had asked about and applicable CPRT Issue Specific Action Plans. This cross-reference is as follows:
1.
Status of Specific CPRT Issues CPRT Issue Issue Specific Action Plan 1.
Pipe supports VII b.3 plus Stone & Webster Analyses (Appendix A).
2.
Cable trays and cable tray I.a.,
I.c.,
and VII.b.5 supports 3.
Electrical separation I.b.1, I.b.2 and I.b.3 A GDt VC % TOM 000' Tt'XA n C *TILIT89'N KL9:VTorte rostt*ANY RECElVED AJJ ' 2 :.:5
l 4.
As-built drawings All design-related action
- plans, e.g., pipe systems and supports, electrical cable trays, supports and design. See for example, Appendix A Design Adequacy Program Plan, 'and Plan VII.b.3 5.
Reinforcing steel omitted II.a in the reactor cavity 6.
Separation of seismic V.c I
category I structures 7.
Seismic design of control II.d room ceiling 8.
Adequacy of preoperational III.d testing I indicated during our last meeting that we would provide a breakdown of the 1978 MAC report findings to identify which' items have been resolved by the project and which are being further addressed by the CPRT effort (meeting minutes Agenda VII,.C.3).
The current, the NRC of all circumstance's related to the 1978 MAC report dictatesformal' investigation that we defer this question.
completion of the investigation.We will provide the tabulation following The CPRT Program Plan and the CASE Management Plan have been filed with the NRC and copies have been sent to the members of the Owners Committee.
Please let us know if you have not received these documents.
The next scheduled meeting of the Owners Committee will be held on l
August 30, 1985, at the Dallas-Ft. Uorth International Airport.
I will advise you as to the specific location.
Very truly yours,
- a. 7Ls_
ohn W. Beck Chairman HCS/blu Enclosure cc:
M. D. Spence W. C. Counsil J. U.
Beck T. M. Ozymy J. C. Kuykendall
- 11. C. Schmidt T.-W. Rose
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION REGUIAR MEETING OF OWNERS COMMITTEE JUNE-28, 1985 A meeting of the Representatives of the CPSES Owners Committee was held in the ~ Nuclear Operations Support Facilit'y at CPSES on Friday, June 28,- 1985 at 10:00 a.m.
The following were present, constituting a quorum:
M. H. Tanner, Jr. - TUFC0 (Chairman & Member)
T. L. Loveless - TUCCO (Alternate)
R. E. McCaskill - BFPC (Member)
W. B. Townsend - BEPC (Alternate)
E. L. Wagoner - TMPA (Alternate)
J. H. Butts - Tex-La (Member).
O. Dobberly - Tex-La-(Alternate)
The following were present initially as guests, with subsequent changes as described below:.
J. D. Copeland - BEPC J. McGaughy - Southern Engineering J. W. Beck - TUGC6 T. M. Ozymy - TUCCO J. C. Kuykendall - TUGC0 J. T. Merritt - TUCCO Fred Powers - TUCCO D. W. Braswell - TUCCO Ed Powell - Consultant to TUCCO H. C. Schmidt - TUCCO (Acting Secretary)
The Chairman opened the meeting, distributed the agenda, and asked for any additions thereto.
Mr. McCaskill requested that a discussion be i
scheduled under Item VI. a. to address the " Worst Case" budget possibility.
Mr. Tanner explained that the agenda differed from the proposed agenda that had previously been mailedi o the Owners Committee t
members. The changes were made to incorporate items suggested in letters received from Tex-La and BEPC, as well as to respond to questions from Tex-La and BEPC contained in recent correspondence to TUCCO.
p L _
l Agenda Item I.
Administrative Matters Under Agenda Item I., Administrative Matters, Mr. Tanner reviewed the fact that he had recently changed positions from Vice-President TUGC0 to Executive Vice President, TUFCO.
He also recited changes in other TUEC representative responsibilities, and distributed a letter dated June 28, 1985 from.J. S. Farrington to the Owners, designating J.
W. Beck and T. M. Ozymy to be TUEC's primary and alternate representatives, respectively, to the owners Committee. It was also proposed by Mr. Tanner, that Tom Rose, TUCCO, be designated as Secretary, replacing B. R. Clements.
Because of these. changes Mr. Tanner suggested that a motion was in order to elect a new Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the Duners Committee.
Af ter a motion by Mr. Butts, and a second by Mr. McCaskill,
.the following were duly elected by vote of the Owners Committee:*
J. W. Beck - TUCCO (Chairman)
T. M. Ozymy - TUCCO (Vice Chairman)
T. W. Rose - TUCCO - (Secretary)
Mr. Tanner indicated that J. C. Kuykendall will continue to serve as Alternate Secretary.
Following the election of officers, Mr. Beck distributed copies of a correct'ed Owners Committee roster (Attachment A).
Mr. Beck then requested a motion for apprhval of the minutes of the previous Owners Committee meeting. Upon motion duly seconded,'the minutes of the April 11, 1985 meeting, as distributed by the Secretary on April-23,1965, were approved.
Agenda Item II.
Review of Construction Activities Mr. Beck called on J. T. Merritt to discuss the status of CPSES l.
construction activities.
Mr. Merritt indicated that he would discuss the status of construction activities on Unit 2 and Fred Powers would discuss the status of Unit 1 construction activities as a temporary replacement for Mr. R. Camp.
Unit 2 Mr. Merritt indicated that construction on Unit 2 is 74 percent complete.
Unit 2 scheduling is operating on a December 1986 fuel load
.date with a current 30-day negative against this date.
for Unit-2 activities is as follows:
Current staffing Construction Craft 2509 Startup 144 Engineering 866 QC 279 Other 465 Total Personnel for Unit 2 4263 Mr. Wagoner, TMPA Alternate, was not present for the vote..
,.,--s,e---t=
I l
The critical path item for Unit 2 construction pertains to electrical activities, and terminations.
including cable tray, conduit, supports, cable The first turn-overs for electrical systems are behind schedule and are planned for the end of July 1985.
Electrical is now running two shifts for cable pulling and terminations.
Several changes are being used in construction on Unit 2, based on lessons learned from Unit 1.
Key status items presented by Mr. Merritt included:
In March 1985 the first Unit 2 system was turned over to o
Operations.
Installation of pipe hangers is one month behind the current o
construction schedule.
Based on acceptance by NRC of a TUCCO proposal, the paint o
inside Unit 2 containment has been declassified and is no longer subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
o Unit 2 containment building construction closure concrete work is scheduled to be completed by the end of August.
N-5 stamping of AbME piping systems is progressing well and is o
scheduled for completion in October 1985.
The excavation for Unit 2 condenser tube change out from o
copper-nickel to titanium has begun. Current plans are to change tubes in Unit 2 first, followed by Unit 1.
Installation of large bore hangers is 85 percent complete and o
is scheduled to be completed in August, 1985.
Selected schedule items identified included:
o l
Completion of 80 percent of electrical work - Dec. 1985 i
Perform cold hydro test - February 20, 1986 Perform ILRT - May 1, 1986 Perform hot functional testing - July 1, 1986 Unit 1 Fred Powers reported that approximately 410 peopic are working on Unit 1 in va rious areas, such as electrical (80), mechanical (45), civil (207), records (28-30), area'systeen coordination (10) and engineering (over 30).
All Unit I work is being done inside the Unit I security boundary. All work is done under the control of Work Orders which requires that construction engineering, startup, and operations must review all work items.
Current activities on Unit 1 include:.
1 1
i Fire damper modifications in auxiliary electrical and o
control, fuel, and safeguards buildings.
i o
Replacing 1300 feet of carbon steel steam extraction piping o
which is being upgraded to stainless steel for future steam generator protection.
Rework on cable terminations for the fire protection system o
is underway, and is scheduled for completion by October 1, 1985.
This work is being done as a result of a report from Safeteam.
Replacement of all shallow underground transformer conduit o
allow for condenser replacement.
to A discussion ensued regarding rework and other construction activities, particularly on Unit 1.
addressed:
The following questions were 1.
How will the fire dampers be controlled after the.
modifications and what caused the modifications to be necessary? The modifications consist of locking some dampers in an open position so they will be permanently open~ or repairing some dampers.
l 2.
Who installed the cabling and lugs that are being reworked and who is replacing the lugs? Brown and Root initially installed
'the cable terminations and they are reworking the terminations
- but not using the same crews. B & R is under the supervision of TUCCO on the rework.
3.
Mr. McCaskill indicated that he would like to know at some e#
point whether the initial cable terminations were shoddy or g
the result of poor workmanship and who is paying for the rework.
4.
A question came up about what work is being done on the control room ceiling.
Mr. Beck indicated that this item-is under evaluation but no physical work.is currently being done on the ceiling.
5.
When is the change-out of condenser tubes for Unit 2 planned?
This change-out is scheduled to begin in August of 1985.
6.
Who is the contractor on the condenser tube change out?
tir.
Merritt indicated that bids are being evaluated and a contractor had not been selected yet.
7.
A question was asked about whether pipe hangers are being replaced in Unit 1.
The answer was that no physical replacement is planned until Stone & Webster completes enough of their re-analysis of hangers to enable complete evaluation of the system..
.e.
-, wee =^-""* 6 *""
+
Agenda Item III. Review of Startup Activities Mr. Merritt indicated that' the startup group is to begin issuing draf t procedures in early July 1985 for the 150 acceptance and preoperational. tests that have to be run on Unit 2.
So far a total of 26 of the 223 sub-systems on Unit 2 have been turned over to Startup.
The startup group is currently doing system walkdowns.
Agenda item IV.
Review of Plant Operations Activities Dwight Braswell addressed four plant objectives for the operating staff.
1.
To continue to maintain the plant systems in good readiness condition.
2.
To support ongoing construction and rework activities on Unit 1; e.g. issue work permits, control activities. Operations is treating Unit 1 basically as if it were in an outage situation, similar to a refueling outage.
3.
Maintain technical competency and qualifications of the operations staff, a
4.
Maintain morale and enthusiasm of the operating staff.
Operators are being sent to various other nuclear. plants to observe operations and to receive additional training.
TUCCO has received from the Department of Commerce an Accreditation Certificate for the plant's radiation dosimeter program. Operations has recently installed the primary neutron source into the first two assemblies with minimum radiation exposure. This will cut approximately eight hours off the eventual fuel load. schedule.
Duke Power Company reviewed operations activities and the Operational QA Program recently. They had only minor findings that need to be corrected.
The security program was implemented in September,.1984. This program was recently relaxed somewhat to accommodate the work effort going on in Unit 1.
The plant is currently doing routine and preventive maintenance and calibration on schedule. They are using approved procedures and making any changes as necessary based on experience gained.
To date, a total of 57 operator licenses have been issued by ?RC, 39 to shift personnel. A total of 36 are required for two unit ope ra t io n. Six of seven candidates passed the most recent NRC exam.
Ar operator requalification program is underway.
This is necessary to meet NRC requirements.
-5_
A question was asked about whether the maintenance surveillance program was being maintained.
Mr. Braswell indicated that the surveillance program was stopped in March 1985 because the final technical specifications have not been issued. Proper maintenance is ongoing, however, (e.g. for rotating equipment, etc.).
Agenda Item V.
Status of Operating License /ASLB Hearings /CPRT Mr. Beck reported on the status of various licensing activities.
Revision 2 of the CPRT (Comanche Peak Response Team) Program Plan and Issue - Specific Action Plans is in the first stages of production and is scheduled to be submitted to the NRC on Monday, July 1, 1985.
Mr.
Beck indicated that copies would be sent'to the Owners on Monday via overnight mail.
Various portions of-the CPRT nians previously have been reviewed with the NRC staff and Mr. Beck indimated that he expects changes prompted by comments from the NRC. The Plan was characterized as being in the 90+ percent acceptable category. A preliminary copy of the CPRT Plan was displayed.
Mr. Beck informed the Owners that two additional licensing events were to occur on June 28, 1985:
1.
Final oral argumepts were being heard before the NRC Staff
" Contention Five"' Panel Management in Washington, D.C. on Docket No. 2, Intimidation and Harrassment. The' purpose of this pleading is to bring this issue to a close or to provide a definition of how to close this issue.
2.
By late June 28, 1985, TUCCO would be filing with the ASLB a document entitled " Applicants' Current Management Views and Case Management Plan for Resolution of All Issues".
This document is being finalized by the attorneys in Washington, D.C. and this was not available for distribution to the Owners.
l A copy will be sent to the members of the Owners Committee via over night mail on Monday July 1,1985.
This document details the Applicants' proposal for resolution of l
outstanding licensing issued and contains a proposed schedule for this process. This schedule anticipates resumption of the ASLB hearing process by early December 1985.
Mr. Beck referred to the public meetings on the CPRT effort held in Arlington, Texas, on June 13 and 14, 1985, and characterized the response from the NRC staff reviewers as generally favorable.
Agenda Item VI.
Resoonse to Owner's Ouestions l
The topics in Agenda Item VI were taken f rom several letters l
received by TUCCO f rom varicus members of the Owners Cc,nnittee.
i._
a.
Budgets and Schedules for Units I and 2 Because of uncertainties in the CPRI effort and NRC's response, TUGC0 is not able at this time to develop a specific schedule and therefore, a specific cost estimate for CPSES.
This position was stated in Texas Utilities' the situation has not changed.
10 K filing in May and Mr. McCaskill brought up the " Worst Case" scenerio, i.e. can TUCCO make a worst case estimate? Mr. Deck reiterated that the uncertainties
~
with the CPRT efforts preclude development of an estimate at this time.
D Mr. McCaskill asked when an estimate would be available, and Mr. Beck responded that more would be known by December 1985, but it is not known at this time if a revised schedule and budget can be developed then.
b.
Budgets for Pipe Hanger Reinsoection TUGC0 has not yet identified in enough detail the Stone &
Webster effort in order to establish a budget.
The target date for completion of the Stone & Webster work on Unit I and common pipe supports is December, 1985; however, if rework is extensive, the schedule and budget will be impacted. TUGC0 expects to have a contract, scope, schedule, and budget for the Stone & Websfer work by-the end of July.
Mr. McGaughy indicated that a rough estimate of rework cost could be derived from an estimate of man-hours stated in recent TUGC0/NRC meetings by applying an average man-hour cost.
Using an average of $50 per man-hour the resulting approxiuation would be about $100 million.
Mr. McGaughy suggested that TUCCO is in a better position to make a similar type of estimate and questioned whether TUGC0 would do this.
Mr. Beck indicated that this approach is an arithmetic estimate but because of the uncertainties TUGC0 has made no attempt to guess at the cost at this time.
c.
Cause of Delays Mr. Beck stated that given the existing open issues (TRT, CPRT, ASLB process) TUCCO is not satisfied with the current status of Comanche Peak.
It is necessary to resolve all safety significant concerns.
d.
1978 MAC Report Because of an ongoing 0.I. Investigation by NRC, TUCCO is unable to diccuss certain aspects of the ?!AC Report at this time.
The issues addressed by MAC have either been resolved by the project or are being addressed by CPRT.._
i l
c.
Prudency Audit The background of the Prudency Audit including the hiring of a consulting firm and review of the scope with the Public Utility Commission was reviewed. The purpose of the audit is to support a TUEC rate case on CPSES. The audit report is expected to be due sometime around fuel load for Unit 1.
Mr.
Beck indicated that the audit is not part of the ASLB proce'edings or licensing of CPSES, and the audit costs are not being charged to'the project. TUEC will share the' audit results with the Owners at the proper eine.
Mr. McCaskill asked 11 the audit scope had been approved by the TPUC.
Mr.
Schmidt indicated that the scope had been reviewed with the TPUC, but they would not officially comment on' or approve the Scope.
f.
Cygna Mr. Beck indicated that all concerns raised by Cygna Energy Services will be resolved by the CPRT effort.
g.
Responses to NRC OA/0C Concerns See item "m" below.
h.
Response to Allegation of Falsification of Concrete Strength Results
'The NRC conclusion on co~ncrete strength tests presented in SSER #8, were that the allegations could not be substantiated; however, they required TUCCO to test it anyway. This issue is being addressed in the CPRT Issue - Specific Action Plan II. b.
- i '.
Status of Specific CPRT Issues Specific issues that the Owners had requested information on are being addressed in the CPRT program.
Mr. Beck indicated that TUCCO would provide a cross-reference of these issues with the specific CPRT action plan to identify where they would be resolved. This cross-reference is provided in the transmittal letter for these meeting minutes.
J.
Status of Allegations of Intimidation Mr. Beck _ indicated that oral arguments on the status of this issue were being presented on June 28 and offered the opinion that TUCCO is confident that the NRC staff vill support the position that there was no pattern or pervasive atmosphere of intimidation.
-g_
,y p.
4
__-.-._,,.vm
. I*
k.
Supervision of Brown & Root The role of Brown & Root at Comanche Peak is different from that at STP.
TUCCO has been involved in project management, as well as construction management, since early in the project. Tex-La suggested that supervision of Brown & Root be an agenda item in the next Owners meeting.
1.
Comments on Spiegel & McDiarmid Memorandum This memo is a summary of TRT issues which are being addressed by CPRT.
m.
Response to January 18, 1985 letter and May 24, 1985 Memorandum and Order 1
The response is being provided on June 28, 1985 to the ASLB in the " Case Management Plan".
The Owners will receive a copy of the plan.
Mr. Beck read several passages from an early draft of the plan.
i Commitment to complete Units 1 and 2 n.
Mr. Beck indicated that TUCCO is totally connitted to complete Units 1 and 2.
(
Restructuring of Ownership Interests o.
This subject is being diccussed separately with individual Owners.
Agenda Item VII. ' Comments from Owners Committee Members A.
BEPC t
(
1.
BEPC indicated their agreement with completing the plant.
j They had looked at STP earlier and felt that CPSES was much better off but they are not sure now.
The Owners must all be aware of the dollars involved. BEPC questioned if there is a 3
time and place to hold contractors accountable financially and stated that we may-be sliding a lot of rework under various rugs but TUEC has the burden to see that it is done right.
I-2.
The Owners Committee should look at a " Worst Case Budget" at a future meeting. Financing is " uncertain" for BEPC and Tex-La and they must know what to budget.
t i
i
~
l
-9_
-- - - =
B.
TMPA Mr. Wagoner questioned whether we might be double paying for some of the Comanche Peak rework. TMPA Board Members want to know. We should monitor the rework and hold the contractors accountable if they are at fault.
C.
Tex-La 1.
For financial planning purposes, Tex-La is estimating an increase of 100 million dollars. TUEC can do a better job of estimating the costs and they were encouraged to do so.
This would be helpful in estimating cash requirements.
2.
Because of TUEC cost estimate and scheduling uncertainties, Tex-La financing is also uncertain.
3.
Mr. McCaughy requested a breakdown of the MAC Report findings to identify which items have been resolved and which items are being handled in the CPRT effort.
Mr. Beck indicated that this tabulation would be provided to the Owners in the transmittal letter for the meeting minutes.
- Agenda Item VIII. Establish Time and-Place for Next Meeting It was suggested that members consider meeting more frequ,ently than in the past because of the rapidly changing events. This suggestion was agreed to by all members. Contact with members by phone to relay information between regularly scheduled meetings was discussed.
Mr.
Beck agreed to keep members informed of significant events and encouraged members to call him as the need arises.
Following a brief discussion of meeting locations, Mr. Wagoner suggested that the Committee meet at a location other than the CPSES site. The members agreed that it was not necessary to hold every meeting at CPSES. A location ~at or near DFW Airport was suggested as a preferable location for the next meeting.
The next Owners Committee meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m., August 30, 1985, at the Dallas-Fort Uorth International Airport. Committee members will be informed of the specific location at a later date.
At the conclusion of the meeting Mr. McCaskill requested that the meeting notes indicate a Resolution of Appreciation for the work of the retiring Chairman, Max H. Tanner, as well as for the service of the Vice Chairman, Mr. J. L. Loveless. The resolution is so noted.
With the conclusion of the agenda and with no further business brought forth, the meetir.g adjourned at 12 Noon, June 8,,1985.
~
V y
Iomer C. Schmidt (Actirg Secretary)
See cover letter __
d TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
...T,.ou m. m r.
.......u
..r m......
%"."T.'"?
August 15, 1986 Mr. R. E. McCaskill Executive Vice President and General Manager Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
P. O. Box 6296 Waco, TX 76706 Mr. J. H. Butts Manager Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas. Inc.
P. O. Box 1623 Nacogdoches. TX 75961 Mr. E. L. Wagoner General Manager Texas Municipal Power Agency P. O. Box 7000 Bryan, TX 77805
SUBJECT:
Revised Minutes for May 9, 1986 Owners Committee Meeting Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of the approved minutes (revised) for the May 9, 1986 Owners Committee Meeting. The revision was made as discussed in the July 25, 1986 regular meeting and is highlighted on page.4 Please replace ~the draft minutes contained in a July 14, l986 letter from me with the enclosed minutes.
Sincerely,
%. >h 5John W. Beck Chairman CPSES Owners Committee JVE:kp Enclosure RECElVED Aug 19 1986 A DfVisf0N or TEXAS (ITTtJTIES EEECTltJC COMPANY
j CPSES OWNERS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MAY 9, 1986 A regular meeting of the Comanche Peak Dwners Committee was held on May 9, 1986 at the AMFAC West Hotel in DFW Airport from 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 The following members were present representing a quorum:
noon.
J. W. Beck (Chairman)
T. M. Ozymy (Vice-Chairman)
R. E. McCaskill (BEPC Member)
J. D. Copeland (BEPC Alternate)
Ed Wagoner (TMPA Member)
O'Neal'Dubberly - (Tex-La Alternate)-
T. W. Rose (TUCCO Secretary)
The following were present as guests
- Jim Bailey (TMPA)
J. P. McGaughy (GDS Associates)
L. E. Powell (TUGCO)
J. T. Merritt (TUGCO)
R. E. Camp.(TUCCO)
The meeting was opened by the Chairman, John Beck, and the agenda was distributed (Attachment A).
Agenda Item I.
Administrative Matters A.
Mr. Beck asked for-approval of the minutes from the prior meeting. _ The minutes from the March 12, 1986 regular meeting of the CPSES Dwners Committee were approved as written by all members present.
B.
The Chairman asked BEPC and Tex-La for a status on the approval of the 1986 Fuel Plan. Mr Dubberly stated that the approval letter would be sent to TUGC0 next week.
Mr. McCaskill stated that he would look into the status of approval of the plan by BEPC.*
Agenda Item II.
Construction Status The Chairman asked Mr. Camp to provide a status of Unit I construction 1
activities.
A.
Mr. Camp stated that the evaluation of the Unit I comprehensive integrated schedule was continuing.
- Subsequent to the meeting approval of the 1986 Fuel Plan was received from both BEPC and Tex-La.
-m---,-w--,
,w
The walkdown effort for the cable tray support design verification ef fort was approximately 60% complete and was expected to be complete in 1986.
June The QC inspection of these supports had just begun and
~
approximately 600 drawings were in the QC department for inspection.
The design verification effort was progressing based on the engineering walkdown drawings.
Ebasco had completed preliminary design verification of about 200 supports and Impell has completed preliminary design verification of about 500 supports. These supports vill require confirmation following QC inspection before verification is final.
Completion of the design verification of all cable tray supports is expected by September 1986.
The sample as-built walkdown effort for the electrical conduit supports was complete. The seismic design verification analysis was approximately 60% complete. Since the sample does not cover all potencial design and construction issues TUGCO is expanding the effort to include the full revision of.the design basis document for these supports. TUCCO vill perform walkdowns (not engineering as-builts) to verify on a sample basis that the conduit supports were installed per the revised requirements.
The walkdown effort for the Train C conduit supports is expected to be complete in August 1986. The Project is in the p' recess of finalizing the walkdown criteria and procedures to complete this work.
1 The effort to clean the seismic structural gap between buildings is progressing. It is scheduled to be complete by July 1986; however, this schedule is soft. Testing to remove the concrete with a hydro-blasting process is proving to be very successful and may help recover some of the schedule slippage.
The as-built valkdown of the HVAC duct supports is approximately 15%
complete. The procedures to conduct the seismic design verification of
'these supports are being finalized. The design verification of these supports are expected to be complete in August 1986.
The effort to design and install the new control room ceiling is
. progressing.
It was scheduled for completion in May 1986;'but the schedule has slipped to an August 1986 completion. Construction is currently holding to this schedule.
The new tube bundles for replacement in the main steam reheat and auxiliary feedvater condensers have been received on-site.
Delivery of all. tube bundles is scheduled by the end of July 1986. TUCCO expects the total project to be complete in September 1986.
TUCCO has authorized Grinnell to replace approximately 30,000 feet of 2 inch or smaller fire protection piping due to microbiological induced corrosion. The corrosion impairs the ability of small piping to get an adequate supply of water to all fire protection areas. This program is scheduled to be complete by October 1986.
a The seismic stress analysis for large and small bore pipe supports should be complete in June 1986. The design qualification should be complete by the end of July 1986.
Design drawings for all large bore modifications are expected to,be delivered to the site by September 1986..
The schedule for the completion of all pipe support rework is under review and evaluation.
TUCCO decided to replace the containment electrical penetrations due to concerns over the~ environmental qualification of the modules purchased from Bunker Ramo.
TUCCO currently is finalizing the purchase order for replacement of these penetration sleeves.
The schedule to complete the replacement work is under development.
B.
Mr. Beck asked Mr. Merritt to provide a status of Unit 2 construction activities.
Unit.2 construction is currently 81%
complete. The total manpower for Unit 2 is as follows:
Craft 2269 Enginering 970 Startup 230 Support 640 TOTAL UNIT 2 4100 TUCCO just has completed the inspection of reactor internals. Internals have been placed in protective storage. The protective coatings effort for the containment building liner is 82% complete.
The turnover of sub-syst4ms from construction to startup is progressing.
The Train A Diesel generator should be turned over in the next two weeks.
The reactor coolant system will be turned over after the preservice inspection has been conducted. One hundred fifteen sub-systems out of a total of 228 sub-systems (approximately 50%) have been accepted by startup.
All power producing systems have been turned over to startup, except for the reactor coolant system which should be' turned over in 2 weeks.
TUCCO has begun to secure the turbine generator building.
Access control has been establishe'd on Elevation 905 in the containment building.
The effort to install the security system for Unit 2 has begun with the removal of temporary buildings.
The integrated flush of piping started on April 26 and should take approximately 6 weeks. The chemical cleaning of the turbine-generator lube oil system is complete _ and flushing of the system with oil should begin in the 'near future.
The next major milestone in the startup program is the Cold Hydro which is expected in' October 1986.
Agenda Item III. Licensing Status A.
TUCCO has received a memorandum and order from the ASLB relating to the Construction Permit which accepts the contention by the int e rvenor CASE.
Mr. Beck stated that to this order.
TUCCO is preparing an appeal B.
Mr. Beck stated that he didn't know of any reason the CPRT program couldn't be finished in 1986 (except for the potential discovery of an unexpected deficiency).
There are several Results Reports in the draft stage.
Three Results Reports were approved in April.
TUCCO.does not have an exact schedule for final
_3
f issuance of Results Reports, mainly due to the company's and the NRC's time-consuming review and approval process.
(NRC periodically audits
- he CPRT Program).
C.
The schedule for holding future ASLB hearings is supposed to be issued this month.
Agenda Item IV.
Comments from Ovuers Committee Members Mr. McCaskill asked if TUGC0 has considered slowing down work on Unit 2.
Mr. Beck commented that TUGC0 always reviews allocation of resources as a normal part of the planning process. There is a minimum of 6 months of separation between the Unit I and Unit 2 schedules, and manpower is
-allocated between Unit 2 and Unit I as needed.
Mr. Beck distributed a May 1, 1986. letter from TMPA to TUGC0
~
(attachment B) which related to possible studies of the cancellation of CPSES.
Mr. Beck stated that since receiving the letter, he had checked and is not-aware of any cancellation study on CPSES. He added that no such studies are planned or in process.
Mr. Beck finished by stating that Mr. Wooldridge's comments, as cited in.the referenced letter, shouldn't be taken as a commitment for future studies that might be conducted.
Mr. Wagoner septed that TMPA vanced to know if any.
cancellation studies-vere' conducted and added that.it's unacceptable to the TMPA Board for TUGC0 not to inform the board if such a study were conducted.
Mr. Dubberly-stated that the minutes from the last meeting accurately reflect Tex-La's position on negotiations. Tex-La and TUEC resumed negotiations for a period but they have been suspended.
Mr. Ozymy responded that since the last meeting, negotiations between Tex-La and TUEC vere re-opened. Several days were spent in good faith discussions Revis but no settlements were reached.
Mr. Wagoner stated that the lack of a cost and schedule estimate for CPSES is of great concern to the TMPA Board. TMPA stands to loose $50 million if it is unable to refinance its bonds in the near future. He stated that TMPA is making its payments under protest and it needs to know the cost and schedule estimate as soon as possible.
Mr. Beck 7
stated that TUGC0 is making every effort to provide this information.
Mr. Wagoner asked if the minority owners are paying a share of the recent NRC fines.
Mr. Beck stated that TUCCO paid the entire $40,000 fine to the NRC and does not plan to bill the'other owners for their share. TUCCO has.not made a decision on the other proposed fines, but the costs, if any, would probably be handled in a similar manner. The decision by TUCCO to bear these expenses should not be interpreted as an admiission by TUCCO as to the validity of findings made by the NRC which gave rise to the fines, i. -.
4
,-ru-y 9
+,-
.,---,,.--.-+-t-.,
,,,e, w
w-
,-m-,.
m v.
_ Mr. McCaskill asked if-TUGC0 can describe the role of the various Architect Engineers on CPSES since the roles seem to be changing.
Mr.
Beck stated that the role of the A/Es will be discussed at the next meeting.
Mr. McCaskill stated that he is concerned about the lack of detail in the DH&S audit report on CPSES he received last week.
Mr. Dubberly asked if there is another more detailed audit report filed with TUGCO.
Mr. Beck stated that he would look into the matter and report back at the next meeting.
Mr. McCaskill commented on 'the settlement negotiations between TUCCO and BEPC.
He stated that BEPC and TUGC0 have reached a preliminary agreement, which has been sent to the REA for its consideration. BEPC-has not received either approval or disapproval of this agreement.
Agenda Item
~V.
Schedule and Place for Next Meeting The next regular meeting of the CPSES Owners Committee was scheduled for July 25, 1986 at 10:00 a.m. at DFW Airport.
M Tom Rose 4
Secretary CPSES Owners Committee TWR:kp 9.
ATTACHMEST A COMANCHE PEAK STEAM EI.ECTRIC STATION OWNERS COMMITTEE REGULAR HEETING AMFAC HOTEL - D/FW AIRPORT FRIDAY MAY 9, 1986 AGENDA I.
Administrative Matters J. Beck A.
Approval of March 12, 1986 Meeting Minutes B.
Approval of Fuel Plan II.
Construction Status
~~~
'- ~ A.
En'it T -~ ' #
~
-~~ ~'
R. Camp B..
Unit 2 J. Merritt III. Licensing Status J. Beck A.
Construction Pernic Update B.
CPRT Program C.
ASLB Ir.
Comments from Owners Conmittee Members V.
Schedule and Place for Next Meeting 1
.3.%m N
m m
,v,-
9'=-'**' ' ' " ---' ' ' * -"
Ai
.t
' e'%
tmatv tD M
t u.y - 3 B5 serving the cities of Bryan, Denton. Garland & Greenville, m m D.SDEMCE May 1, 1986 Mr. Michael D. Spence, President Texas Utilities Generating Co.
2600 Skyway Tower 400 N. Olive St.
L.B. 81 Dallas, TX 75201 RE: Comanche Peak Due Oiligence
Dear Mr. Spence:
A due diligence meeting was conducted last Wednesday, April 30 with TMPA, our underwri ters, underwriters
- counsel, our engineer, and representatives of TUGCO.
At that meeting, Bob Wooldridge, your general counsel, stated that in his opinion TUGC0 would be under no duty to disclose to TMPA or any other Comanche Peak minority owner any Comanche Peak cancellation study, or the fact that any such study was contemplated or planned.
' The existence of such a study, or the fact that one was planned, would be very material information to TMPA, especially in the context of TMPA preparing a disclosure statement for a bond sale.
We believe that such disclosure would be re' quired by sections 5.03 and 5.04 of the Joint Ownership Agreement, among -
others.
We are very disturbed at what appears to be an expression of TUGCO's policy regarding discl osure of
- relevant, material in forma t i on.
If we have misunderstood Mr. Wooldridge's comment, plea se let us know.
Otherwise, we want to discuss this matter at the next scheduled Owners' Comittee meeting on May 9.
This letter will serve as notice to John Beck that this matter should l
be placed on the agenda for that meeting.
Sincerely, i
e kl/Cd im Bailey Attorney JB/wmc cc:
Mr. John Beck Mr. Bob Wooldridge Mr. Ed Wagoner I
Te,as AlunicipaJ Pa.,e A gency p.o. no, nww) n,v an, Te, a, ? ? s0 5 t 074 3'3 ;
l
~
'H.
MATERIAL CONDITION INSPECTION OF INSTALLED PLANT EOUIPMENT Scope:
A general inspection of installed plant equipment was conducted in the turbine, auxiliary, safeguards, and containment buildings.
Observations:
1..
Many of the valves inspected exhibited some type of deficiency.
The following is a sampling of the valve problems seen in plant:
A.
Debris in stem cavities (manual operato.rs):
1HD-130 Gasket Matl IMS-240 Nail, wire THD-178 Nail 1MS-241 Screw, metal strip 1HD-195 Roll of tape IMS-242 Wire, cigarette butt, 1HD-196 Cigarette butt roll of tape 1HD-197 Roll of tape IMS-243 Nail, cigarette butt 1HD-198 Nails, cigarette" butt IMS-476 Nail 1C0-008 Paper 1MS-477 Screw B.
Lubrication:
1HD-033, 036,.166 No stem lubrication evident.
Valves have been operated.
1C0-006, 011. 012, 017 No stem lubrication evident.
Valves'have been operated.
1HD-138, 139, 174 Zirc fitting painted over.
1C0-151, 153 Zirc fitting painted over.
1GS-049,'050 Zire fitting. painted over.
SG10-S522 Zire fitting painted over.
C.
Fluid leaking from motor operators:
HV-6583-1 1-HV-4515 1-LV-2035 Discharge valve for SGFWP-2 D.
Pac' king:
1TV-4693 Cocked packing glanc.
1-55-18-5523, 5525 Packing glands all the way up.
1-55-18-5522 Bent packing gland.
Valve in Overheac Cocked packing gland.
by 5522_
3GE305BSGMA (neater Ser.t packing gland.
HD1-3B) n c-
E.
Valves leaking by:
1TW-110 100-117 XDD-307 1C0-118 1MS-405 1C0-295 IMS-625 F.
Miscellaneous:
- Im~ properly installed lock tab washers on HP turbine steam valye (north side)
- Rust.and pitting on SGFWP LP stop valve stems 2.
Numerous clamps and connections in the plant safety grounding system
. are loose.
Examples include the following:
Hotwell sample pump motor and SH-11Z11 (J-Box) switchbox IHV-6078, 6079 1C0-003 ICT-135 CPI-CPAPBW-01 RCDT pumps 1 and 2 CP1-CVVPMC-01 1HV-4526, 4527 CP1-CPAPSP-02 HDAPDP-02 (Motor)
CPX-TWAPTP-01 CPI-ELLPNC-28 & 29 1MS-329, 332, 333, 341, 579 Ground strip near ED 1-3B Heater i
The following grounding system deficiencies were noted for equipment in spaces turned over to TUGCo Startup.
ECB CP1-ELDPEC-14 XFCB4 CPX-ELTRNT-27 CPI-ELTRET-05 CO2K11517 (Conduit) 1ARR4 (Relay Rack Conduit Grounds)
ESB3 ELDPEC-03 C-Phase Conduit at High Voltage Cabinet A Train EDG-PET !967 1DG01A CP1-ME0'YSA-04 Conduit by JB15666G
~~
==
Conclusion:==
l The pattern of deficiencies in valves and the plant safety ground system are not adequately addressed through existing plant programs.
e
-.,m,.
~
i CDMANCHE PEAK ASSISTANCE VISIT
SUMMARY
DAVE SMITH'S COMMENTS Mr. Brittain, gentlemen,.we aopreciate the opportunity to report qgirFA TERA oP.'RArw", 3 w.ast to you on our second NTOL assistance visit to Comanche Peak.
Since our last assistance visit to this. stati.on, we have shifted to more performance-or results-oriented evaluations. We are now using " Performance Objectives and Criteria for Near-Tem Operating Plants", which, was distri-buted to you last August, as a basis for this type of appr.oach.
We have concentrated on preparations and readiness for operating the nuclear plant in a safe and reliable manner.
Our current method for conducting thes'e assistance visits effectively provides the team with more on-site time'and increased opportunities for discussions with your staff and observation of activities.
This enhances our ability to look at selected areas in greater depth.
Debriefs have been held regu-
. larly during the visit with station m=.nagement.
Our' purpose today is to relate the teams reccmendations and provide appropriate supporting details to exe-cutive management.
We encourage your coments and questions.
The Team Manager has provided you with copies of written observations made by team members.
These are primarily observations of station personnel at They will not appear in our fomal recort to you, and they are pro-work.
l vided solely in an effort to assist you in imoroving coerational activities.
They should be used to identify underlying or root causes of croblems, rather than as a oasis for action against indivicuals.
0-herwise their usefulness in future INP0 evaluations may be degraded.
Accordingly, we suggest that tneir distribution be limited.
w
-m
?
s We indicated to you at the previous exit that responses to our recommendations were not necessary, but that we would follow up on them during the next visit.
r As a result of this followup, we can report that nearly all have been addressed
~
satisfactorily.
We commend you on your progress.
'Our report process for this year will be the,same as last time. A response
~
to our recommendations will not be necessary.
Before proceeding further, I want to express our appreciation to Jim Kuykendall and Dick Jones and the rest of the plant staff for their cooperation and
. assistance.
Bob Lewis has been our assistant team manager for this evaluation and will now guide the team's discussion of the various areas.
t 0
8 9
0 9
O 1
q, PLAT (T EVALUATION EVALUATION NO..
t SUtfARY 5 fy-c3 AREA' j;r>NT _MAMTAI, CONDITION 1
OBJECTIVE NO.
.M.A.2 M IACCR(S.'
k()2 /]O V)Cl-l t
1.
Performancs Ob iective 1
The material condition of the plant 5hould be maintained to support safe and reliable plant operation.
,.s
+
2.
S t-I wa= v of Perfo-mnce AcMevement
&l fW fMf9. 2-/ )
W Mk
/A G ' MM
.)
Q.jo & f ed
"'^
- s. nyyk ppaMo
- c. M M ><L;44 ay y &&"l Q soeb tbW
-. ~ s - e,Y -niac-n g m W Wq#
g Q. }7 W
n A CA/- Ci'Rfa:J-o/
add t * / y J-SS-/,P-S.S~2 3f.C.S~2.5" dZUWy 6
/ ~ rY- $$ 3 W di~y
- A f
- b. '
Vh dW XM A
- ~' _,. '}lf/V-4'5/5' HV-45~83"/
rh r f~f S 6' P J P -0 2
' /-L y'~ 2o35 C. M '
O
&p & a het~d! Q ji~ f m e f( M w t A NAM ca.
mA
/seiey
~)
'$ w l. E CA,
C,$/- Es b PEC -/ b/
Zl~C A 4' bX E4 7~/PAJY-B '?
/ HS-3 2f, 3 3 2, 333, ?V/, 3^?? [e8 r s)
,,~
(
a
.r i
PLANT EVALUATION f
tVALUATIOtd NO..
I SUMARY 5-f446 3 l
AREA DO NT uA M 7AL CONDITION l.
OP,JEC'."IVE NO.
'"A 2
I EVALUATOR (S)
/)2 ddl//C,//
t 1.
Per*ormance Obiective The material condition of the piant 'should be mai'ntained to support uafe and reliable plant operation.
\\
i
.s l
2.
Snnwa=n of Perform =nce - AcM evement 0 & A 40
~
f<.Tho (ivig. 2-2 Auet0,1%64 fila Q %a.
A
%mM-Qno
,1 t
&p /,'
C.l"t /.A Q.4b V
--4d s~./ M &
@&,u; 4 h g. 6. N -< c a k o A M :
f
- a. 77) % Q & m M k
<-m4
- e. alp p a ~a p m y.
4 mm a. '
W afu m LM y
dr w~ a '
ed.zda & w k Ai
- c. A, w d X fo-;La e d @n m. u d l' g
Wrw A.
d.hi m p',A.ka-v M- " y <. ~ c 1 M. 4 - y _ -
nm M d.
\\
uG 4nn-w-
" A h,.c ~,22 y= Ac ~ V FM f.
t i
m 1-PLANT EVALUATION-EVALUAH ON NO..
e H
SUMMARY
5-#v-o 3
.s. 1 I; D PRNN 9 7NMARCE OBJECI..vs NO.
MA.5
- 37ALUAMR(S)
/,/ 2 b d /// C A/
.y
,1 lt 1'l.-
Performance Obiective3 Preventivemaint$nanc'Sshouldcontriburetooptimumperformance-33 and reliability,of plant ecuipment.
(
r 1
2.
S'===7 of Pedormance AM evement Y
k
^
(em.<-i) k Asmws W M: M G - M-' vel. M -
0 M in ZWl. & C-a ~h '}' /
^
f l
U:c4v-l.
.D l
J
- b. g m p,'~ L
- c. r k & c k @ &
ka.&
q 6 -. & M /M m fc cus s >
.g 422 x n L '/'t @ eo C
' n" $ p& ryx. % Mk
&&p MA Art 4 d b u i?
Jg7& Y M <d & sp#
.G-f T J w.W/Mg
'Q.' O.ic L %. d,.A n
/ M 3'- Z Y O
)}
w)s_,I
/ttS-2y2 J.A. &s)
.:u
/ns :3 <'/
% n 21 &
- s. ohJ +m un% =&-/9's /?
/Mny
/ G.5 - O V ?~ 6 %
'/ P D - /~1 V
.fG/O - S5^2 2
/ ND-/ 3 9 M S$~uo h~k }M duw y N )
[
C. /
i.,o-oa1,o u 0 ~ 00b, C // 0,I S 1
-._