ML20211K296
| ML20211K296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1986 |
| From: | Roisman A TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC), TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1492 OL, NUDOCS 8611170119 | |
| Download: ML20211K296 (33) | |
Text
i F -
/47L TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBUC JUSTICE. P.C.tGAIED COUN5EuCRS AT LAW 3g{ J['
SulTE 6f t N 2000 P STREET. NORTHWEST ANTHONY L ROISMAN WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 EXECUTM DIRECTOR '86 NOV 13 All :44 (202)463-86*
ARTHUR BRYANT STAFF ATTORNEY thiig ~at
- b l BALUE CARDE DIRECTOR. ENVIRONMENTAL OC II.p WHISTLE 8LOWiR PROJECT BARBARA PRATT OFFICE MANACLR KATHLEEN CUMBERBATCH SECRETARY November 7, 1986 Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway, 4th floor Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Administrative Judge 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCo llom
- -~~ ' - ~ - ~ - - "~ - ~
- ---Atlmin is t r a t ive --Ju dge- -
1107 West Knapp Stillwater, OK 74075 RE: Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak)
Dkt. Nos. 50-445, 446cL_
Gentlemen:
Enclosed are several additional particularly relevant documents that we have received in response to our discovery requests to the minority owners.*
- 1. December 23, 1985, letter from Wooldridge to DeReitzes with attached Work Specification indicating TUEC is or has undertaken a major audit specifically directed at the question, inter alla of management competence.
See, .e.g, pp. 2, 3-6.
The April 30, 1986, Memorandum from Jim McGaughy to John Butts and Richard McCaskill, which we sent to the Board on October 30, 1986, was one of the documents withheld by Tex-La on the grounds that it is material prepared in preparation for trial. We obtained it from Brazos, which did not claim such a privilege.
Thus our transmittal of documents to the Board does not always represent material made available to us voluntarily by all Applicants.
8611170119 861107 5 PDR ADOCK 0500 o
])so3
- 2. March 27,1986, letter f rom McCaskill (Brazos) to Ozymy (TUGCo) expressing one Applicant's view of the causes for delay in construction.
f
- 3. May 22, 1985, and June 5, 1985, letters between Spence (TUGCo) and McGaughy (Southern Engineering) documenting i another example of TUGCo's unwillingness to allow adequate and informed independent assessment of its performance.
As our review of this discovery material continues, we will advise the Board and the Staff when similar extremely relevant documents come to our attention.
Sinc rely, W
Anthony . Roi an cc: Service List (w/ enc.)
l 1
i
' .. ,. :. ~ ')-
a ,oom, su . ... . .s, ~.
{ , g ~Au a ,me= ~s m.. =: mes, u .es:
.b RECEIVED
~~
- l APR "" 'm. . %. Y ~~
1 ;995 The Brazos System .
SPIEnes. A McDinRMID .
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc . .
RICHARD (, McCA$ KILL E7c'iTM'O?$'7 March 27, 1985 Mr. T. Michael 0:ymy Director, Special Projects Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear MJ -O:
ymy: b As we discussed with you during our meeting last Friday, Bra:os is very concerned about the significant cost overruns and delays associated with the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, in particular'with the recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") reports of the problems with Unit I which have recently been discussed at length in the media. We are very concerned about the effects of the anticipated Comanche Peak construction costs on Brazos' power supply costs.
When Bra:os entered into the Comanche Peak Joint Ownership Agreement in January 1979, the Texas Utilities Generating Company, as Project Manager, estimated that the total cost of the unit would be approximately $2.325 billion (including AFUDC). Bra:os' 3.8% share of that cost would have i
been approximately $88 million. The construction schedule incorporated in the Agreement called for the date of Commercial Operation of Unit 1 to be f January 1981 and of Unit 2 to be January 1983. Despite the fact that TUEC i
had announced that the construction of Unit 1 is essentially complete and
, that preoperational testing is substantially complete, it now appears that Unit I will not be ready even for its full load license until early in 1986 and will cost an additional $670 million, among other reasons, as a result of delays. This recent cost increase will bring the total cost of Comanche Peak to approximately $4.56 billion (including AFUDC). Additional costs and delays may result if any rework is required.
It appears that the cost overruns and delays in large part may be the result
} of inadequate attention to quality assurance requirements of the NRC and to the commitments made by Texas Utilities Generating Company ("TUGC0") as Project Manager in the Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR") which is sub-mitted to the NRC. Any construction flaws will have to be corrected before
) the Unit can be operated in conformity with NRC requirements. In particular, l
we understand that the " Technical Review Team," specially assembled by the NRC to evaluate technical issues raised by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") at Comanche Peak has made numerous findings relating to the POST cFF'CE 804 6296 .v ACO TE t A S 76706-0296
. . - - -_ -.-.- - , . - - ~ -
PHONE (817) 752 2501 / cENERAL CFriOE N04 LaS ALLE AVE %E
Mr. T. Michael Ozymy 3/27/85, Page2 inadequacy of the construction of certain required safety features of the Unit (for example, pipe supports, cable trays, and electrical separation) and has raised serious questions regarding the adequacy of the quality assurance / quality control programs at the Unit.
We are, therefore, writing to request a full explanation of the significant cost overruns and delays associated with the Comanche Peak Unit. In addi-tion, we would like responses to the following specific questions, some of which we raised with you during our meeting on Friday:
Is TUEC committed to completing Unit I? How much rework is likely to be required?
Is TUEC committed to completing Unit 2?
What is the " worst case" estimate for total costs, fuel load date and commercial operation date for Units 1 and 2?
Does TUEC have internal analyses of cost projections to unit coupletion and completion dates for construction and testing for Units 1 and 2? If so, what are they?
What steps has TUEC taken to respond to NRC findings of a lack of management effectiv,eness in Quality Control / Quality Assurance
("QC/QA") programs?W/p/;-f , 4 f oj y . /-
What steps has TUEC taken to respond to NRC findings of falsifi-cation of certain QC/QA reports and certain technical reports (e.g., as reported in IE Report No. 50-445/79-09 and 50-446/79-09
-- falsification of concrete compression strength results)?
What is the status of NRC/TUEC investigations of the following problem areas:
- a. pipe supports; e6"
, , , g, ,. 7 , , yg
- b. f~
cable trays and cable tray supports; " 47'
- c. electrical separation; J* I
("**
- 4 ' ' ( * * ' ' * ! r * * ~ ),
- d. as-built drawings; c rt "
- e. justification of reinforcing steel omitted en T in the reactor cavity;
- f. separation of seismic category I structures; cn?
Mr. T. Michael 0:ymy 3/27/85, Page 3
- g. seismic design of control room ceiling elements;
- h. adequacy of preoperational testing (i.e. , conformance with FSAR commitments and NRC requirements)?
What is the status of NRC investigations regarding allegations of the intimidation of quality control and other safety inspectors at Comanche Peak?
In light of the situation at the South Texas Nuclear Plant, what steps has TUEC taken to ensure appropriate supervision of Brown 6 Root?
We would appreciate hearing your response at our next meeting sometime within the next two weeks. We, of course, hope that we can work with you construc-tively to resolve problems created by the cost overruns and delays associated with Comanche Peak.
Very truly yours, AWf Richard E. McCaskill REM /1w cc: Mr. Michael D. Spence, President Texas Utilities Generating Company bec: Mr. Robert Jablon Spiegel 6 McDiarmid J. D. Copeland
~
WonSn A>t, FonSYTIIEe S A>1PELS & WOOLDRIDGE fMenty two nuNORED 200s savaN TC*Cm
= 0 sa-ecks moeCat A. wCOLOmeOOC DAttAs. Trus 7 scot SOC A. woes- Ame NCIL O. ANOtmSON s8ee. e976 SPENCge C. ACLTEA NON ALO .e. M ANSON FCLCPHONE (214) 979 3000 J. OAme SOpeANN AN i f aAves C.wANCEmmOOL JO5. smsON womSMAM JUOstn a. JOnNSON EARL A. FOR$TTMC meCMamo L. AOases i
OAvs0 C.LONCmGAN JOmeew.MentTNOLOS TELCCOPs ER. (2se) 330. O'Hs TeeOneAS r. LsLLAND
- ROStat m. wsSE TeMOf MY A. MACm woe. STEPMEN GOTO Mann a wASEM CMmeSTOPMC A m. MtLTENBE ROCm NCater p. Oktyce C A '*"*""",m,
,O O December 23, 1985 CCCELsA J. BRUN C R Mr. Foster De Reitzes Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell 1
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20007 Re: In the Matter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, IJnits I and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446, 50 445-2, 50 446-2
Dear Foster:
Enclosed is the work specification on the retrospective audit requested by your letter of December 10,1985.
g Very truly y.ours, i
/
i
-:!sCm Robert A. Wooldridge RAW /kiw Enclosure l
1 t
WORK SPECIFICATION RETROSPECTIVE AUDIT OF THE COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION PROJECT TETAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY O
I l
t l
I c_, -. -. - --v . ,, ,-_y.-- -
. . - - . _ . . - . . . - - . - . . . - , - - _ . . - - - - ,... -.- -. o -
. o RETROSPECTIVE AUDIT k'ORK SPECIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page I INTRODUCTION -
1 II OBJECTIVES 2 III SCOPE -
3 IV INFORMATION FOR CONTRACTORS 8 V
PROPOSAL REQUIRDENTS 12 i
e D
b i
M
I - INTRODUCTION Texas licenseeUtilities Electric Company (TUEC) is the primary owner and unit of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), a two nuclear generating station under construction in Hood and Sommervell Counties, Texas.
commercial operation in 1985. Unit 1 of2CPSES and Unit in 1986. is scheduled Texas Utilities for Generating Company (TUGCO), a division of TUEC, is the CPSES Project Manager.
billion.
TUEC's share of the total cost of the project is $3.31 '
TUEC (TPUC) will file a rate case with the Texas Public Utilities Cocmission to recover costs and expenses associated with the plant. In anticipation of this rate case, TUEC is initiating a retrospective audit of the project management decisions during construction of CPSES covering the period from determination of need for the plant through the present.
The auditor performing in a detailed written report thetoretrospective TUEC. Theaudit will present findings auditor also may be called to provide expert testi=ony at public hearings in support of its findings.
Your firm is invited to submit a proposal for this study, which is due by noon on December 4, 1984.
detailed in this request. YcuThis proposal should address all areas may choose to address any additional areas which, in your opinion, also warrant review and evaluation.
i i
\
l 8
II - OBJECTIVES The principal objective of this engagement will be to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the construction of CPSES.
management decisions during The.sub-objectives of this audit will be:
o To review TUEC's original decision to construct the Cc=anche Peak Steam Electric Station; o
To assess the overall performance of TUCCO in planning, engineering, constructing and licensing CPSES:
o To develop an increased understanding of the primary factors causing cost and schedule changes; o
To address the effects each factor identified above had on construction costs and schedule changes; o
To determine TUGCO's ability to control each of these factors and related events; o
To assess the performance of TUCCO management in identifying ^ '
and responding to these factors; o
To reviewchanges schedule TUEC's occurred.
decisions to continue CPSES as cost and The audit of CPSES will necessarily entail judgements as to the prudency CPSES of TUGC0 management decisions throughout the history of the project.
For the purpose of this audit, prudency will be
, defined asenviron existing a standard
=ent, ofavailable reasonableness which takes into account the infor:stion, and practices used by the were electric utility industry at the time key canagement decisions made.
1-
III - SCOPE The study will encompass an assessment of the management decisions during construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
Specifically, the study should examine the follouing issues:
o Decision to construct a nuclear' plant Load growth projections
- Alternatives considered Economic tradeoffs Fuel diversification o CPSES Schedule and Cost 4
Review present schedule and cost projections.
Review the costs of the CPSES project.
Identify and cuantify schedule and cost revisions.
Establish primary factors for schedule and cost revisions.
Compare CPSES construction and cost performance with other comparable plants built during a similar period.
j o Project Pre-mobilization Planning -
Frem the date of the announcement of the CPSES project to the date of mobilization, review TUGCO's project planning efforts and early organization structure.
- Review the process that TUCCO used to select pri=e contractors--Gibbs & Hill, Brown & Root, and 'a'estinghouse.
Review the responsibilities that TUGC0 assigned to Gibbs & Hill and Brown & Root for project planning and organi stion during the =obilization process.
o Project Organization and Management Review policies, the andcurrent construction =anagecent structure, procedures.
3 l
l
/
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGE'4ENT (CCNT'D.)
Review the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of TUEC, TUCCO, Gibbs & Hill and Brown & Root as owner, Project Manager, Architect / Engineer, and Constructor respectively, a,s these roles evolved from project inception to the present.
Examine the the life continuity of personnel assigned throughout of CPSES by TUCCO, Gibbs & Hill, and Brown & Root.
Review steps taken by TUCCO to secure a solid base of nuclear experience for CPSES, and to expand it during the course of the project.
Review the project scheduling and control process including techniques and systems utilized. -
Evaluate the coordination availability, of engiaeering, materials construction readiness, crafts availability, overtime.
site workforce densities, and use of Assess the use of tracking and expediting aids.
Review management information and reports pertaining to cost and schedule status.
Review CPSES cost centrol methods.
o Contract Management Examine the contractor evaluation and selection processes, bid procedures, contract award procedures, project management review and approval procedures, and contract monitoring procedures.
Review the contract ter=s and conditions used by TUCCO.
Examine the reasons for amendments and and the process used by TUGC0 to amend contracts. renegotiations,
- Review TUCCO management control of contractors through contractual provisions and other management practices.
4
o Design Engineering Determine the level of engineering completed prior to mobilization of construction.
- Examine the processes and control mechanisms used by TUCCO to approve design changes, and to manage the performance of design engineering.
Review TUCCO's management. decision to assume control of engineering Evaluate the integration of engineering in support of both procurement and construction.
Assess the timeliness of response to NRC directives.
Review design cnordination.
o Procurement Management Evaluate the bidding and procurement policies for plant equipment, building equipment, and materials and supplies, construction personnel services.
Assess the vendor selection process.
Determine the adequacy quality inspections of delivery scheduling, and controls. and Examine procedures for expediting equip =ent and caterials delivery.
Review the history of claims for materials, equipment. supplies and Deter =ine and evaluate the disposition of salvage, o Construction Management i
Evaluate the interface between the engineering and construction functions.
- Examine the processes by which the workforce (including craft, engineering, monitored and controlled.and administrative personnel), were Review TUCCO's decision i of construction manangement. to assume direct responsibility S
CONSTRUCTION !!ANAGEMENT (CONT'D. )
Evaluate work work management practices, work methods, and supervision.
Review work rules at CPSES and compare wage rates with other nuclear projects.
Evaluate productivity standards and perfor=ance measurement techniques utilized to measure progress.
- Assess the process of identifying and productivity improvements. implementing Review the materia'1s loss program, prevention and security o Quality Assurance Program Review the organizational strategy and philosophy adopted by TUGCO for assuring quality at CPSES.
Examine the evolution of quality assurance organizations and procedures over the life of CPSES.
Review contractual requirements for quality assurance among prime contractors.
o Nuclear Fuel Management Evaluate nuclear fuel. the major contrac ts for obtaining finished
- Assess cycle. TUGCO's plans for management of the nuclear fuel Investigate the plans for spent fuel storage.
o Licensing Management Review last how the NRC licensing process has evolved over the five years, and its effect on the CPSES project.
Review the impact of changes in NRC regulatory require =ents over the life of the CPSES project.
6
LICEMSING MANAGE!ENT (CO?. 'D.)
Examine TUGCO's management response to changes in NRC regulatory require =ents and the licensing process.
Review licensing.TUGCO's organization and responsibilities for o Budgeting and Control Examine the project budgeting and utilized. control system Evaluate responsibility and cost tracking accounting, variance reporting, processes.
Assess the reliability of cash requirements esticating.
Review the extent and activities, effectiveness of auditing o Startup Management Review the overall strategy and approach adopted by TUGC0 for startup.
Assess startup.
the organization structure used by TUCCO for Examine systems. the process used by TUGC0 to turnover completed l
l l
l l
l 7
i .
.a L
1 i
)
\','
IV - INFORMATI0V FOR CONTRACTORS '
_ APPROACH a The audit will be initiated in a two part effort.
the contractor schedule, and will develop the administrative proceduresIn the first part, support requirements necessary
, work plan, technical performance of the audit. to implement the In the second part, the contractor will conduct the technical audit. This two part approach will ongoing expedite performance construction project of the audit with minimum disruption of activities. '
_ SCHEDULE -
1 ACTIVITY DATE DUE
- 1. Deadline for Proposal t 12-04-84
- 2. Selection of auditor 12-07-84
- 3. Initiate Part I 12-11-84 4.
Work Plan and Schedule 12-21-84 5.
Initiate Part II, Kickoff Meeting 01-08-85 .
- 6. Project Progress Reports Bi-Weekly
- 7. Interim Technical Briefing (s)
As Required
- 8. Draft of Final Report 04-29-85
- 9. Final Report 05-13-85 10.
Provision of testimony for hearings As Required REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES
- 1. audic Work Plan will - Abe detailed work plan for perfor=ance of the initiation.
required within ten days of project during the course The of Work the Plan project shall be revised as necessary so that it re=ains current.
- 2. Schedule - A detailed days of project schedule will be required within ten initiation.
revised to recain current duringThe theschedule shall also be The schedule =ay be integrated witiif course of the, project.
the work plan.
8
i , ;
. i- .
c u 1 \
is a
- y .
_ REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES (CONT'D.)
- i iS
- 3. Project Progress Recorts - The auditor will submit written
bi-veekly progress provide adequate reports to TUGCO. These reports shall
! information to allow TUCCO to reach
[ accurate work. The conclusions regarding the current status of the reports shall include, but not be limited to, a statementaddressing statement of work accomplished the during the past period, a schedule status, of work and relative and a discussion of any unexpected developments their impact and f on the schedule and work objective. Any other 4
i ,
nertinent subjects should also be addressed.
j '
- 4. Interim Technical Briefing - The auditor will, as required, hold interin technical briefing (s) concerning the audit. The content of conclusions, these briefings may include key facts, preliminary emerging issues and strengths, possible future recommendations, and other relevant technical matters.
5._Drafe Final Reoort - Ten (10) copies of the draft final report shalt be submitted to TUCCO. A period of two weeks
'after prepareissr.ance comments of onthe draft report will be required to the report, and to allow for verification of facts before issuance of the final report.
- 6. Final Reoort - Forty (40) copies of the final report, plus one reproducible original will be submitted to TUCCO.
- 7. Testimony -
The auditor must support his findings and
, future conclusions with TPUC hearings. written and oral testimony, if required, in The same principal personnel who i
perfor=ed the audit must provide the testi=ony.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS .
{. /
- 1. any Public Disclosure data,
~
findings,
- There will be no public disclosure of or conclusions by the auditor or subcontractors without specific written permission from the Company.
)
- 2. Disclosure of Procosal Contents - Infor=ation provided in the proposal will be held in confidence, and will not be revealed or discussed outside TUEC and its agents without auditor agreement.
4 9
1
TEPl!S AND CONDITIONS (CONT'D.)
- 3. Proposals - To betoconsidered, the proposer must submit a complete response this Work Specification. Each proposal must be submitted in five copies. No the proposal shall be made by the offeror.other distribution of Proposal must be signed by. an official authorized to bind provisions. the offeror to its Proposal must include a statement that the proposal is valid at least ninety (90) days.
- 4. Accentance of Procosal Content - TUCCO reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received, to negotiate with any respondent relating to this specification, or to cancel this specification in part or in its entirety. TUGC0 reserves the right to request additional data to clarify any aspect of the proposal.
This docu=ent does not commit TUGC0 to award
'of a contract a proposal to or to this pay any cost incurred in preparation request.
- 5. Facilities and Procedures - TUCCO will provide adequate work space, office equipment, and clerical support to assist the auditor at the CPSES site and in the TUGC0 offices. TUGC0 will have procedures for scheduling interviews and providing requested with data; and all reasonable the auditor will be expected to cocply procedures.
- 5. Indeoendence of Auditor - TUGC0 uill not contract with any firm that has financial withina the past two (2) years performed a audit, management audit, a management review, or any other construction assistance canagement censulting for TUCCO, nor on behalf of any affiliate, subsidiary, holding or parent cocpany. Proposals submitted must contain a statement that no such relationship has been in effect for the past two (2) years.
- 7. Role of the TPUC - Discussions are taking place between TUGC0 and the Texas Public Utilities Co= mission (TPUC) regarding their possible oversight role in the CPSES audit.
The proposer should specifically state his willingness to perform the audit with TPUC oversight.
- 8. Termination - TUCCO reserves the right to terminate this project prior to its completion by providing seven (7) days uritten notice to the auditor. In the event of ter=ination, the auditor time shall be paid for services rendered up to the of termination.
10
_ - . _ . + ~ " - * ^ -
EVALUATION CRITERIA Evaluation factors will include, as a minimum: Proposals will be eval o Experience of contractor firm o
Qualifications project of key individuals assigned to this audit o Approach and work plan o Commitment to schedule o
Exceptions to proposal requirements.
o Total price estimate TUGC0 may require oral presentations. If given, these presentations will be evaluated in the contract award.
will consider all the above factors in selecting an auditor.The TUGC0 evaluation pro evaluation process may result The bid price bidder. in selection of other than the icwest 11 l
i V - PROPOSAL REOUIREMENTS Each offeror's proposal will address, as a minimum, the topics in this section.
The offeror's proposal may suggest alternative approaches but must clearly specification. be responsive to the intent of Section II of this SCOPE OF WORK
- 1. Aporoach audit and- Describe your understanding of the purpose of the your approach to its performance.
clearly how your approach Indicare objectives. '
will achieve the audit's
- 2. Work Plan - Describe the plan which will govern performance of the audit.
This will include the sequence of major project activities, the specific techniques to be used in performing to be the audit, the records to be kept and the reports generated. The work plan participation and will define the support expected of TUGC0 discrete activity of the for each audit, including relationships, documentation and data sources, and access to working records and personnel.
It will also include a description of the analytical techniques to be used to evaluate data obtained and to render conclusions. A detailed work plan !
will be required within two weeks of contract award.
- 3. Creaniration - Describe the audit team organiration. Indicate l the functions of each part of the organiration and how the l organirational objectives. structure will support achievement of the audit i and the amount of timethe individuals to be assigned to key roles Identify !
Substitution of named personnel will notthey bewill be assigned permitted without to the project.
prior written approval of TUGCO.
- 4. Deliverables for their delivery.- Provide a list of deliverables and a schedule The deliverables, as a minimum will include those identified include additional deliverables in Section IV. The offeror may which will enhance the quality of the audit project.
- 5. Schedule audit project.
- Include a schedule for the performance of the The schedule will commit to the requirements of Section IV. Further, milestones for project the schedule will identify the major perfor=ance and submittal deliverables. of i
12 c.
._/
SUPPORT REOUIRDEJCS Identify the specific support requirements to be furnished by TUCCO to the contractor in performing the scope of work.
clerical support, administrative Include such items as equipment, etc. support, word processing, office
, Support items not identified in the offeror's proposal the offeror'swill be assumed to be provided by the offercr and included in price.
CO.TIRACTOR'S INFORMATION
- 1. Contact Information - Provide the name, mailing address and telephone numo' er of the' individual to contact if further information is needed.
- 2. Comoany Excerience -
Submit a statement of management or operational similar audits conducted by the consultant's company in the previous five years. Indicate specifically any audits of utilities. Studies or projects referred to should be identified and the name of the client shown, including the name, address and telephone number of the responsible official of the client company ~or agency who may be contacted.
' 3. Professional Exnerience Subtit a description of the qualifications on the project. of all professional personnel to be employed Provide a summary for each individual including dates, clients, duties and level of responsibility for experience specifically relevant to the scope of this audit.
! i
- 4. Subcontractors shall - If any subcontractors are to be used, each be identified in the proposal. The work to be performed shall -be described share thereof as well as the dollar value or monetary percentage of said work compared to the entire price.
! proposal will be All such subcontracts indicated in the deemed consented to by TUGC0 upon acceptance of the proposal. Any additional or substituted subcontractors will require TUCCO's prior consent.
\
! t-1-
13
-- , c . - - - - , . - _ ,
..j- .
3 .
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
- 1. _ Cost Estimate -
for the scope of work Provide withthe theinformation listed below of Testimony: exception of Provision
- a. Manpower Costs. Itemize to show the following inforsation different forper rate each category of personnel having hour: a
- 1. Category; e.g., project manager, senior consultant, etc.
- 2. Estimated hours.
- 3. Race per hour.
- 4. Total cost for each category and for all manpower needs.
- b. Out-of-Pocket Expenses Including Travel and Lodging.
- c. Costs of Supplies and Materials.
- d. Other Direct Costs.
- e. General Administrative Burden or Overhead.
percentage and total. Indicate
- f. Fees.
- g. Total Bid Price.
- h. Period days). of Validity of the Bid Price (not less than 90 The maximum contract price quoted by the contractor shall i include all items of work defined in the proposal except for the Provision of Testi=ony.
arise that Should an unforeseen situation
- price increase, requires the rescheduling or that may cause a potential situation should be described in writing I
to TUCC0; any resulting modification in the maximum price will be made only upon the mutual agreement contractor. between TUCCO and the Barring any unforeseen events, ,the contractor will deliver the that specific price perfor=ance quoted. described in its proposal within 1
\
14 J
.- . g ,
TEE!S AND CONDITIONS (C0!;T'D.)
- 2. Provision disclosure of Testicony - The contractor's support of the process anc time and materials provision of testi=ony will be on a basis. A separate budget will established at the end of the be management different than above, provide the races for performing this audit. If scope of work.
These rates shall remain in effect for a period of not less than one year from the date of proposal.
- 3. Invoices - The invoice with itscontractor proposal.will submit a copy of a typical supporting documentation will beAs a minimum, the following required.
a.
Primary study contracter's record for keeping track of charges;
- b. Time sheets; s
- c. Travel expense docu=entation, i.e., receipts for hotels, airlines, rental cars, etc.;
d.
Schedule of interviews actually conducted by the consultants during the billing period;
- e. Billing rates for each consultant involved.
- 4. Accentance incluce a of Ter=s and Conditions specific The proposal will state =ent accepting the tet:s and conditions terms and identified in Part IV. Exceptions taken to the conditions will be considered evaluation process. during the
- 5. Indeoendence of Contractor - The proposal shall include, for the contractor and, if any, subcontractors, a state =ent of compliance with the independence requirements of Section IV.
ADDITICITAL INFOU!ATION Each offeror may include in its not specifically requested in proposal any additional infor:ation this work specification. Such information shall be considered in the evaluation atthe discretion of TUGCO.
15
a e
Sou: hem Eng.nt-mnq Co 1800 Pmch ree St . fr.V Atlanta GA 303674301
. . (4041352-9200 Southern Engineering May 22, 1985 Mr. Michael D. Spence President Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street L. B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201
Reference:
Comanche Peak
Dear Mr. Spence:
As commercial operations approaches for Unit 1 at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative have an intense interest in the progr'ess at the plant and in your efforts to address the various issues now under discussion with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In order to facilitate their understanding of this jointly-owned power plant, we are monitoring this project on a routine basis. These efforts are necessary to help Tex-La and Brazos develop funding requirements and expenditure forecasts and to provide requested infomation and evaluations to the Rural Electrification Administration. These efforts will also be utilized for planning of generation requirements and development of future business strategies.
In order to help us perfom our function with a minimum of interference with your plant operating and construction staffs and to avoid possible future misunderstandings, we request that you, as our cliants' project manager, direct your Comanche Peak staff to provide us with the following:
- 1. An updated FSAR, and copies of any future amendments.
- 2. The opportunity to observe any Comanche Peak related meetings, other than those that involve TUEC personnel issues, which are conducted during the times when Southern Engineering
~
representatives are at the plant site or at TUEC's offices in Dallas. Please include the Southern Engineering representatives on the distribution list for agendas for regularly scheduled or pre-announced meetings.
RECEIVED ny 241935
s.
Mr. Michael D. Spence May 22, 1985 Page 2
- 3. Complete and ready access to any published documents or correspondence between the NRC and TUEC concerning Comanche Peak, and provision for obtaining copies of these documents. In addition, similar access should be provided to TUEC internal correspondence and memoranda concerning design alternatives, bid evaluation, budgets, schedules, and any other matter concerning the design, construction, or operation of the plant.
- 4. The opportunity to be placed on all distribution lists for routine reports which are identified by Southern Engineering representatives.
- 5. Complete access to both Unit I and Unit 2. Southern Engineering representatives would agree, of course, to comply with your Security, HP and training requirements, and other administrative controls, as you require.
I know we can expect your cooperation in facilitating these arrangements.
Yours truly L- ,b tv ,
/ James. McGaughy, P Jr.
Director, Generation Services JPM/am cc: Mr. John H. Butts Mr. Richard McCaskill s/
I l
l
{ - - .
c.\
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
% K V W4 Y 'l e DW E N . S tess N e #H I H s el.I W F % 3 H F E'i, I. 04. ae l
- 19 4 51.A *, 8 E A % % T 3 Jet t MICH AEL D. SPENCE
""a' June 5, 1985 Mr. James P. McGaughy, Jr.
Director, Generation Services Southern Engineering Company 1800 Peachtree St., N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30367-8301
Dear !!r. McGaughy:
We have reviewed the requests in your letter of May 22, 1985, on behalf of your clients, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
As Project Manager of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Texas Utilities Generating Company intends to carry out the obligations and responsibilities as required by the Joint Ownership Agreement. The Project Manager, as you are aware, acting as agent for the owners pursuant to the Joint Ownership Agreement, is authorized to direct and control all day-to-day activities and is fully authorized to act for the owners with respect to the licensing, design, construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the Project. Interchange of information regarding Project status is provided for in the Joint Ownership Agreenent through the Owner's Committee, and that is the appropriace forum through which the information being sought for your clients could best be obtained.
However, in the spirit of cooperation and to be i responsive to your request, TUGCO is agreeable to the following:
- 1. TUGCO will furnish you an updated FSAR with copies of any future amendments.
1 I
I A EDC VC.%8tDN E DF l'E t A N C *TELITIEN ELECYNIC CtDMPANY t
o e Mr. James P. McGaughy June 5, 1985 Page 2
- 2. T' CO is not agreeable to allowing Southern igineering representatives a cartc blanche to attend "any Comanche Peak related meetings" because to do so would restrict the free exchange of information between representatives of the Project Manager and outside parties and could impede the decision making process. TUGCO, as I have stated, does intend to keep the owners fully informed through the Owner's Committee meetings and to answer the owners' questions in keeping with TUGCO's obligations under the Joint Ownership Agreement.
- 3. TUGCO is willing to provide complete and ready access to any document of public record between the NRC and TUEC. Indeed, your clients are already on the mailing list for documents filed with the NRC. Additionally, we are willing to provide similar access to other information as requested, compatible with the contractual obligations of the Joint Ownership Agreement.
- 4. With regard to your request for " routine reports",
we will address individually your written requests for specific reports.
- 5. Access to Unit 1 and Unit 2 will be provided on an escorted basis, at reasonable times and upon specific requests made to Mr. Joe B. George or his designee, provided Tex-La and/or Brazos' representatives explain the particular purpose for such access.
We trust these procedures are responsive to your requests within the spirit and intent of the Joint Ownership Agreement.
Very truly yours, MDSpence/ma c: Mr. R. McCaskill - BEPCI Mr. J. Nichols - Tex-La
'T C ~
TRIAL 1.AWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE. P.C.
COUN5ELLoR5 AT LAW SulTE 6tl 2000 P STREET. NORTHWT.ST ANIHONY L ROISMAN WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202)463-86o0 utCurnt DIRECTOR (
ARTHUR BRYANT staff ATTORNEY BILUE CARDE C^RtcTOR. ENVIRONMEN TAL WHISTLEBLOwtR I'ROJECT BARBARA PRATT G7FICL MANAGER -
CATHutN CUMBERBATCH SECRETARY November 7, 1986 Robert K. Gad, Esq.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 RE: Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak)
Dkt. Nos. 50-445, 446
Dear Mr. Gad:
It has come to my attention that on numerous occasions, most recently last night, you have sought to or have in f act communicated directly with my client, Ms. Juanita 3111s, with regard to matters directly related to pleadings prepared by me or Ms. Garde or issues for which Ms. Garde and I are counsel for CASE. For instance, last evening you sought to obtain Ms.
Ellis's assent to an extension of time to- file responses to Sets 3-7 of the CPRT adequacy discovery. Since these contacts are often for the purpose of seeking some concession from CASE, your f ailure to commulcate directly with Ms. Garde or me is par t icu lar ly disturbing.
As you should be aware, it is a violation of the legal ethical standards for you to communicate directly with a party represented by counsel without first obtaining the agreemant of counsel representing that party. The seriousness of the violation of this prescription is ilustrated by the recent opinion of a Department of Labor hearing examiner which disqualified the law firm of Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell &
Reynolds in the case of Hasan v. Nuclear Power Services, Inc.,
Stone & Webster and TUEC for improper and unauthorizad dirace contacts with a party.
To avoid a similar course of action being pursued here, you and other Applicants' lawyers
- will forthwith discon*inue all Direct contacfs between Ms. Ellis and non-lawyers represen*ing App lican t s, such as Mr. Counsil, pursuant to the discovery agreement reached on August 19, 1986, are of course sepa ra te ly treated, non-obj ec t ionab le, and actively encouragod by CASE and its counsel.
e -
direct contacts with Ms. Ellis or other lay representatives of CASE on any issues for which Ms. Garde and I have entered a notice of appearance and/or where we are the persons preparing the pleading about which contact is sought. Contacts with Ms.
Ellis are only appropriate on issues for which she is the CASE representative and for which she has direct responsibility, i.e.,
Set 12 of CPRT adequacy discovery and other pleadings filed directly by Ms. Ellis, design issues, and CASE's participation in the CPA proceeding. Should you have any doubt about the proper person to contact, you will contact Ms. Garde or me and not Ms.
Ellis.
S incerely,
[
Anthon . oisman AZR/bp cc: service list
1 TRIAL LAWYERS FOR Pusuc JUSTICE, P.C.
COUN5ELLORS AT LAW SulTE 6H 2000 P STREET, NORTHWEST ANTHONY Z ROlWAN WASHINGTON, D C. 20036 (202)463-8600 EXICUTIVE DIRfCTOR CcTHUR BRYANT staff ATTORNEY nlLul GARDL CRECTOR. ENVIRONMENTAL WHiSTLiBLOWIR PRO lECT BARBARA PRATT G7FICE MAN AGER arrHutN CumsERBATCH November 7, 1986 SECRETARY Robert K. Gad, Esq.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 RE: Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak)
Dkt. Nos. 50-445, 446
Dear Mr. Gad:
It has come to my attention that on numerous occasions, most recently last night, you have sought to or have in fact communicated directly with my client, Ms. Juanita Ellis, with regard to matters directly related to pleadings prepared by me or Ms. Garde or issues for which Ms. Garde and I are counsel for CASE. For instance, last evening you sought to obtain Ms.
Ellis's assent to an extension of time to file responses to Sets 3-7 of the CPRT adequacy discovery. Since these contacts are often for the purpose or seeking some concession from CASE, your f ailure to commulcate directly with Ms. Garde or me is par t icu lar ly disturbing.
As you should be aware, it is a violation of the lega l ethical standards for you to communicate directly with a party represented by counsel without first obtaining the agreement of counsel representing that party. The seriousness of the violation of this prescription is ilustrated by the recent opinion of a Department of Labor hearing examiner which disqualified the law firm of Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell &
Reynolds in the case of liasan v. Nuc lea r Power Services, Inc.,
Stone & Webster and TUEC for improper and unauthorized dirace contacts with a party.
To avoid a similar course of act ion being pursued here, you and other Applicants' lawyers
- w ill for thwith discon*inue all Direct contacks between Ms. Ellis and non-lawyars represoneing App lican t s, sucn as Mr. Counsil, pursuant to the discovery agreement reached on August 19, 1986, are of course sepa ra t e ly treated, non-objectionable, and actively encouraged by CASE and its counsel.
1 o o
.2-direct contacts with Ms. Ellis or other lay representatives of CASE on any issues for which Ms. Garde and I have entered a notice of appearance and/or where we are the persons preparing the pleading about which contact is sought. Contacts with Ms.
Ellis are only appropriate on issues for which she is the CASE representative and for which she has direct responsibility, i.e.,
Set 12 of CPRT adequacy discovery and other pleadings filed directly by Ms. Ellis, design issues, and CASE's participation in the CPA proceeding. Should you have any doubt about the proper person to contact, you will contact Ms. Garde or me and not Ms.
Ellis.
S incerely, N
[ Anthon .
oisman AZR/bp cc: service list f
t -
TRIAL. LAWYERS FOR Pueuc JUSTICE. P.C.
COUN5t1LORS AT 4AW SulTE 6tt 2000 P STRf1T. NORTHWTST ANTHONY L ROISMAN WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (AECUTM DIR[CTOR (202)463-8600 ARTHUR BRYANT STAFF ATTORNEY BILut CARDC DIRECTOR. ENVhtONM'NIAL WhiSTLIBLOWER PROl[C.T SARBARA PRATT c2FICE MANACAR
'qHLtgCuMetRaATCH
, November 7, 1986 Robert K. Gad, Esq.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 RE: Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak)
Dkt. Nos. 50-445, 446
Dear Mr. Gad:
It has come to my attention that on numerous occasions, most recent ly las t night, you have sought to or have in fact communicated directly with my client, M s. Juanita Ellis, with regard to matters directly related to pleadings prepared by me or Ms. Garde or issues for which Ms. Garde and I are counsel for CASE. For instance, last evening you sought to obtain Ms.
Ellis's assent to an extension of time to file responses to Sets 3-7 of the CPRT adequacy discovery. Since these contacts are often for the purpose of seeking soma concession from CASE, your f ailure to commulcate directly with Ms. Garde or me is par ticu lar ly disturbing.
As you should be aware, it is a violation of the legal ethical standards for you to communicate directly with a party represented by counsel without first obtaining the agreement of i
counsel representing that party. The seriousness of the violation of this prescription is ilustrated by the recent opinion of a Department of Labor hearing examiner which disqualified the law firm of Bishop, Liborman, Cook, Purcell &
.Reynolds in the caso of Hasan v. Nuc lea r Power Services, Inc.,
Stone & Webster and TUEC for improper and unauthorized direct contacts with a party.
To avoid a similar course of ac* ion being pursued here, you and other Applicants' lawyers
- will forthwith discontinue all Direct con
- acts batwoon Ms. Ellis and non-lawyors representing i
Applicants, such as Mr. Counsil, pursuant to tho discovery agreement raachod on August 19, 1986, are of course separately treated, non-objec*ionablo, and activoly encouraged by CASE and its counsel.
8 -
t direct contacts with Ms. Ellis or other lay representatives of CASE on any issues for which Ms. Garde and I have entered a notice of appearance and/or where we are the persons preparing the pleading about which contact is sought. Contacts with Ms.
Ellis are only appropriate on issues for which she is the CASE representative and for which she has direct responsibility, i.e.,
Set 12 of CPRT adequacy discovery and other pleadings filed directly by Ms. Ellis, design issues, and CASE's participation in the CPA proceeding. Should you have any doubt about the proper person Ellis.
to contact, you will contact Ms. Garde or me and not Ms.
Sincerely, (l Anthon , oisman AZR/bp cc: service list l