ML20214J958
| ML20214J958 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1987 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214G667 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8705280266 | |
| Download: ML20214J958 (85) | |
Text
liiti f.O /* en i ENCLOSURE 1 1 i 2 -
3
- 4 5
6 7-8 9
e .
10 l 11 TU ELECTRIC - NRC MEETING l 12 April 7,'1987
- 13 Dallas, Texas 14 1
15 16 17 1
18 19 20 21 22 23 8705280266 e7o515 l PDR ADOCK 05000445 T PDR 24 25 Taken by: Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR April 7, 1987 Carmen Gooden, CSR,-RPR, Metro 429-5532
2 1 ER0CEED1NGS I
i 2 MR. COUNSIL: Good morning. For those of you who 3 are not with Texas Utilities or in the Dallas area, welcome to 4 Texas. My name is William Couns11. I'm the Executive Vice 5 President of TU Electric in charge of Nuclear Affairs.
6 If I could, I'd like to have the doors closed in the 7 back of the room. I'm afraid ice skating and so forth make it 8 a little noisy in here otherwise.
9 The agenda for today's meeting: Very shortly I will 10 turn this over to Mr. Chris Grimes, Director of the Comanche 11 Peak Project, for introduction of staff, logistics and 12 detailed accounting of their responsibilities.
13 The second part of our agenda will be a discussion on 14 our CPRT status, where we are today. We will then turn to 15 Project activities, including our Corrective Action Programs, 16 and the status of my organizational staffing.
17 And finally licensing open commitments.
18 Now, obviously during this meeting, the NRC Staff is i l
19 free to ask any questions about any issue on our docket.
20 For purposes of introduction, people with me at the 21 head table: On my for left is Austin Scott, Vice President of 22 Nuclear Operations, TU Electric, reporting to me.
4 23 Next to him, Larry Nace, Vice President, Engineering 24 Construction, also reporting to me.
25 And on my right, John Beck, Vice President, Nuclear Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
2d _
3 1 Engineering, and Chairman of the Senior Review Team.
I
! 2 With that introduction, I would like to turn it over 3 to Mr. Grimes for his part of the agenda.
4 MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Couns11. If you will 5 bear with me for Just a moment, I'll go over to the projector 6 and I will make a presentation, 7 If I stand this close to the microphone, can I be 8 heard?
9 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is 10 Chris Grimes. I'm the Director of the Comanche Peak Project 11 Division in the Office of Special Projects. I'd like to first 12 introduce Mr. James Keppler, who is seated at the end of the 13 table. Mr. Keppler was selected by the Commission and the 14 Executive Director for Operations to head up this new office 15 that was assigned the responsibility for addressing the 16 complex and long-standing regulatory concerns related to the 17 TVA Project and to Comanche Peak.
i 18 By virtue of the selection of Comanche Peak for this 1 19 office, the NRC Staff has recognized that the regulatory 20 concerns need some direct Staff attention, and so they have 21 formed this division that I have been assigned to to address 22 those directly with a dedicated staff.
23 And I would like now to introduce the staff that I 24 put together.
25 First, Mr. Phil McKee, who is my Deputy Division Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
4 1 Director. He will assist me and take specific assignments as I
r 2 necessary to ensure that my activities are Hell coordinated.
3 To Mr. McKee's right is Hans Schierling. Hans 4 Schier11ng is,our Assistant Director for Projects. He comes 5 to us from his role as Senior Project Manager for the Diablo 6 Canyon licensing activities. He has considerable experience 7 in licensing matters and the conduct of the regulatory 8 projects, and I expect that he's going to add considerably to 9 our ability to identify and organize the regulatory issues 10 that need to be addressed.
11 To his right is Mr. James Lyons. Mr. Lyons is our 12 former Project Manager who has worked on Mr. Denton's staff, 13 our Director for the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, who 14 Hill assume new duties in the reorganization of the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission.
16 To his right is Mr. William Forney, who Hill be our 17 Assistant Director for Inspection Programs. He comes to us 18 Out of Region III with considerable inspection experience that 19 He hope he Hill be able to organize the inspection activities 20 at the site. l l
21 And I have identified on this chart NRC Staff that i 22 have been assigned to these organizations. And you will note 23 that there are some vacancies that He have identified here 24 Where He are continuing to pursue quality people to fill those I
25 vacancies so that He have a talented and dedicated team of
- Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 i
5 1 individuals to address these issues in a timely fashion, i
i 2 I'-d like to read into the record the purpose and 3 objectives of the Office of the Comanche Peak Project 4 Division. The Comanche Peak Project Division will efficiently 5 and aggressively evaluate Comanche Peak -- the Comanche Peak 6 facility -- to determine compliance with the Commission's 7 regulatory requirements, assess whether identified problems 8 are on a path to an acceptable solution, and where not, 9 identify acceptable solutions to enable the staff to complete 10 its licensing review consistent with the NRC's staff mandate 11 to protect the health and safety of the public.
12 I have added to that, "The Comanche Peak Project 13 Division is responsible for all of the safety environmental 14 project management, technical review and inspection activities 15 necessary to support licensing and ensure a clear and 16 definitive resolution to all technical issues and concerns."
17 Now, those are modified versions of what the 18 Executive Director for Operations put in the press release 19 that announced the formation of this office, and we will use 2
20 this as a cornerstone in building our office policies, 21 practices and procedures.
22 We recognize that certain precedents have been 23 established on the Comanche Peak licensing review in the past, 24 and we're going to take those into account and hopefully 25 develop a more efficient and effective means to address the Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532.
6 1 issues and handle and make sure that they are resolved clearly I
t 2 and concisely.
3 Also, I think it's important to-recognize that we're 4 assuming all of the regulatory responsibilities in terms of i- 5 the licensing and inspection and, to a certain extent, l 6 enforcement for Comanche Peak.
t 7 I'd like to describe now the logistics that we have 8 arranged for our Division and the approach that we intend on 9 using to conduct-the evaluations-and complete the licensing 10 activities.
11 First, it's important-to recognize that the staff 4
12 that's been assigned to this project-has been freed from all 13 previous responsibilities with the NRC so that they can i 14 dedicate 100 percent of their time, which, at least for me-
. 15 over the last six weeks, has been a9 proximately 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> a 16 day, and to address Comanche Peak issues and activities. I 17 hope that we can get to at least normal 60 hour-work weeks in 18 the near future.
19 We will have offices in both Headquarters in 20 Bethesda, Maryland, and we are arranging for office facilities 21 at the site so that we can do our reviews directly and conduct 22 audits in a timely fashion.
23 We will maintain offices in Bethesda, and most of the P
24 licensing and technical staff will commute back and forth so 25 that we get as broad a view and perspective on the issues as Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 '-
7 1 we can by drawing on the other NRC Staff for experience, but I
! 2 He will assume the responsibility for ensuring that the 3
technical reviews are conducted and documanted.
4 In that sense we are organizationally independent.
5 Our organization will assume the responsibilities for the 6 technical issues, and we will have the latitude to decide how 7 much effectively to address the issues; but we will still keep 8 a close coordination with the balance of the regulatory staff 9 wherever we can find experience.
10 And toward that end, there are going to be 11 specialists in particular fields that we will draw out of the 12 NRC staff and from consultants to ensure that issues are given 13 appropriate attention by specialized experts in whatever field 14 is necessary.
15 uur fi st objective is to organize all the issues 16 that we have identified while we are coming up to speed on 17 this project and to develop a comprehensive plan to ensure 18 that all of those issues are clearly and definitively 19 addressed.
20 Toward that end, we discussed at the last meeting, 21 Mr. Counsil, a prospective meeting in the future where we will 22 try to organize our review efforts and clearly identify what 23 we need from Texas Utilities in order to make sure that review 24 can be conducted.
25 We will adapt meeting and documentation practices to Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
8 1 make our process efficient and direct where we can communicate i
t 2 as effectively as possible. As I mentioned before, there have 3 been precedents established on this project to try to account 4 for its unique characteristics. We have been looking at those 5 processes. We have recognized that the Staff review up until 6 now has been spottily dedicated and more often fragmented, and 7 so we intend on developing practices that we will -- we would 8 hope would be more efficient and would be more direct.
9 And lastly, I want to make it clear that my 10 responsibilities include that I will provide clear, definitive 11 and timely management to this Project. When issues arise they 12 will be dealt with promptly. We will not let them sit around 13 and wait for the Staff to take time to address them. We will 14 direct Texas Utilities to take whatever action we feel is 15 appropriate to resolve an issue.
16 That concludes my presentation this morning. I'd 17 like to ask whether there are any questions.
18 Mr. Counsil?
19 MR. COUNSIL: No, thank you, Mr. Grimes, we have no 20 questions at this time. Perhaps during the course of the 21 meeting, however, we will have.
22 At this time, before going on with the agenda on CPRT 23 status, which Mr. Beck will cover in a moment, I would like to 24 state that at the conclusion of the meeting we will offer to 25 the representatives of CASE an opportunity to make any Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
9 1 statements they desire to make.
i i 2 MS. ELLIS: Thank you.
3- MR. COUNSIL: John?
4 MR. BECK: I'm going to start my presentation this 5 morning by giving a brief synopsis of the history of CPRT. If 6 you will bear with me, those who have heard it many times --
- 7 perhaps there are some who haven't -- and permit me to set the 1
'8 stage.
9 December 1983 the ASLB in a hearing process of 10 Comanche Peak issued an order that brought into question 4 11 certain aspects of quality assurance associated with this 12 plant. There were also available to the NRC a number of 13 allegations from current and former employees that related to 14 quality assurance and other aspects of Comanche Peak design.
15 In the summer of 1984 the NRC established a Technical 16 Review Team which was set up to investigate the allegations to 17 determine whether or not there was' foundation for these.
18 allegations and to characterize them within-some. disciplinary 19 constraints.
3 20 That investigation culminated in September, was 21 almost finished in September of 1984, with the issuance of the i first report from the TRT team.
22 This report requested in 23 letter form that TU Electric respond to the-findings and 24 address the issues. TU Electric's response was the formation l 25' of the Comanche Peak Response Team, the so-called CPRT.
1
) Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR,. Metro 429-5532
10 1 The CPRT organization evolved to the point in i
i 2 February of 1985 at which time Mr. Spence, President of TU 3 Generating Division, requested an expansion of the Response 4 Team from merely looking at the TRT issues to expanding two 5 self-initiated areas: quality of construction overall and the 6 design adequacy of Comanche Peak.
7 In June of 1985 Revision 2 of the Program Plan was 8 issued. That revision was examined very carefully by NRC 9 staff. There were numerous interaction opportunities with TU 10 Electric and the NRC staff which led to Revision 3 being 11 issued in January of 1986. That is the revision we have been 12 operating under since that time.
13 MR. KEPPLER: John, I take it Revision 3 has not had 14 sanction from the NRC. Or has it?
15 MR. BECK: Revision 3 was reviewed and the results 16 of the review were contained in SSER 13. That was issued by 17 the Staff, I believe, in June of 1986. Subsequent to issuance 18 of SSER 13, there were a number of questions contained in the 19 document. TU Electric and the CPRT Team interacted with the 20 staff and responded to those questions. There are a number of 21 submittals that were provided the staff in the interim since 22 the summer of '86.
23 MR. KEPPLER: So the answer to my question is no.
24 MR. BECK: The answer is yes, the staff did review 25 Revision 3 and that review is contained in SSER 13. The Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
11 1 answer is yes.
-1 1 2 MR. GRIMES: The Staff has formally said that 3 revision is acceptable.
4 MR. BECK: My interpretation of SSER 13 is the Staff 5 has accepted Revision 3 as an acceptable methodology to
- 6 proceed to investigate all the issues that were on the table 7 at the time, yes, sir.
8 MR. KEPPLER: You're going to hear this kind of 9 questioning all through this presentation. I need to know 10 what is approved and what isn't approved, and where things 11 aren't approved thct ynu're doing, I need to be in a position 12 to tell you whether I caree Hith them or not, so that you're 13 not spinning your Wheels and going off in a direction that the a
14 Staff isn't going to be able to support. I'm very conscious 15 in dealing both with this Project and with the TVA Project 16 that I don't see what I consider to be an agreed-upon game 17 plan for getting out of these problems. And it's important 18 that the NRC -- and I'm not blaming the Utility for this --
19 it's important that the NRC take a position one Hay or another 20 that what you're doing is acceptable or, if it isn't 21 acceptable, to tell you what Hill make it acceptable. And I'm 22 going to be asking throughout this because it isn't clear to 23 me what the NRC has approved or what it is still setting up.
24 MR. BECK: I understand and I am fully in agreement 25 Hith everything you have said. I would heartily recommend Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
12 1 SSER 13 for reading and the interchange of correspondence that t 2 took place ~ subsequent to its publication --
3 MR. KEPPLER: We --
4 MR. BECK: -- to get us up to this point.
5 MR. KEPPLER: And let me ask another question I know 6 I should have the answer to, but don't. When was SSER 13 put 7 out?
8 MR. BECK: I believe it was June of '86.
9 MR. KEPPLER: Thank you.
10 MR. FORNEY: Pardon me, Mr. Beck, die I understand 11 you to say that the SSER provided several questions? I didn't 12 understand what your answer was, that all the questions had 13 been responded to.
14 MR. BECK: ' That's correct. Let me Just briefly 15 outline the organization of the CPRT program as it originally 16 was developed. We haVe a group of ind1Viduals who serve on 17 the SRT -- and when I use the word "we" in the remainder of 18 this part of the presentation I'm speaking in the collective 19 context of the SRT. We meet every week for a number of days, 20 depending on the amount of material that's on our plate at 21 that particular time. And the gentlemen who are on it: Mr.
22 John French, John Guibert, Dr. Tony Buhl, Mr. Warren Nyer, Dr.
23 Jack Buck. I won't go into any detail with regard to the 24 background of these gentlemen. It's in the record. We have 25 covered it in a previous presentation as to who they were, Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
13 1- what their qualifications are, and I suspect everyone would I
i 2 agree that-they're imminently qualified to sit in this 3 particular guidance role and serve as,the Board of Directors 4 for this Third-Party objective effort.
5 We also have Mr. Don Ferguson, Dr. Ferguson serving 6 as an ex-officio member of the SRT. He is also the CPRT 7 Program Director who recently replaced Mr. Terry Tyler, who 4 8 has moved into a position as Director of Projects with TU 9 Electric.
4 10 Reporting to the SRT are Review. Team leaders. These 11 gentlemen have been responsible for the direct preparation and 12 execution and implementation of many aspects of the program.
13 They do so within the context and guidance provided by the 14 SRT, governed by the Program Plan and by many policies and 15 procedures that He have developed in the course of 16 implementing the CPRT Program.
17 Let me continue, if I may, with an overview of the 18 program and the essence of what it's about. There are two 19 distinct elements to the CPRT effort. The first is an 20 investigatory phase. These investigations yield findings and/
21 or recommendations. The investigations are performed at all 22 times, either directly by Third-Party individuals or under the 23 direct guidance of Third-Party individuals, assisted in some 24 degree or other by Project personnel perhaps.
25 The corrective actions are the second distinct Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
14 1 element. These corrective actions address the findings and/
l-t 2 or resolve'the findings'and address recommendations.
3 The very nature of a licensee's responsibility demand 4 -that the corrective actions at Comanche Peak be performed by t-5 the Project and be' performed under the restrictions and j 6 guidance and law provided. It is overviewed, the entirety of 7 the correction actions, by Third-Party people, and I will 90 8 into that in a bit more detail.
9 The integrity of the program is achieved in two ways.
- 10 First, we maintain the objectivity of the individual 11 Third-Party participants, i.e., the key players, by' setting a 12 requirement that goes beyond their professional qualifications 13 and technical abilities, that they have had no previous 14 involvement whatsoever in Comanche Peak or the problems or i 15 areas of concerns being investigated.
i 16 We also provide an objective overview of all Project
- 17 efforts by the Third-Party people, in some cases by Review 18 Team leaders, in other cases by the Senior Review Team 19 directly. You will be hearing more about that later..
! 20 MR. GRIMES: Excuse me, Mr. Beck. How is the Senior 21 Review Team's activities documented in a way that we might
- 22 audit?
! 23 MR. BECK: We-have minutes-of every meeting we have, 24 but perhaps more importantly, the final product of all the 25 activities are contained in the Results Reports, which I will 4
Carmen Gooden, CSR,-RPR, Metro 429-5532 ~
15 1 go to in a moment, but by those two mechanisms you can audit I
t 2 everything we do. We have no restrictions, obviously, 3 against -- that would prohibit the NRC Staff sitting in on our 4 meetings, if they so choose, and that has happened from time 5 to time. It's an open process and one that we encourage 6 involvement at any stage along the way.
7 MR. GRIMES: At any point up until now has the Senior 8 Review Team ever provided any written recommendations or 9 guidance to Texas Utilities?
10 MR. BECK: Yes, we have, and the form those written 11 recommendations and guidance come in are either Results 12 Reports, which will have recommendations in them, or in 13 certain circumstances with a letter sent directly from the SRT 14 over my signature to Mr. Bill Counsil, to whom we are directly 15 responsible,
, 16 MR. GRIMES: Thank you.
17 MR. BECK: Let me talk about a response to popular 18 demand, I guess is the only way I can put it. There are a 19 number of what I will characterize as relatively minor changes 20 in Revision 3 that need to be addressed so that all parties 21 can understand precisely the rules under which we're playing 22 the game. I would have thought this could be handled in a 23 supplement, but nonetheless, we're going to issue a Revision 4 24 to the Program Plan. We hope to have that out prior to May 1.
25 This revision does not change the intent or scope of Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
16 1 the program in any substantive way whatsoever. What it will I
! 2 do is give a clear representation of how we're eliminating 3 some redundant activities and achieving some higher degree of 4 efficiency in the implementation of the program. These 5 redundancies and the gain in efficiency occur primarily in the 6 area of overview, who is doing it and precisely how we're 7 proceeding. Our intent is to issue this Rev 4 by use of 8 different colored sheets of paper that will go into the 9 original Program Plan and point out specifically every 10 instance where there is a shade of difference, so that there 11 con be no confusion on our part, on the part of the Staff, on 12 the part of any interested party, as to precisely how things 13 are proceeding.
14 Let's talk for a minute about a summary of where we 15 are with regard to the action plans contained in the document.
16 I've broken it down in the same area that the Results 17 Reports were originally statused by the TRT Team and how we 18 responded to them, and as you can see there are a total of 49 19 Issue Specific Action Plans that were initiated under the 20 CPRT.
21 We deleted three because of a number of reasons, and 4 1
22 in this particular case of Civil / Structural it was a matter of 23 condensation. We picked up some issues that were covered in i 24 one original ISAP in another one.
5 25 In the case of protective coatings, you will recall l
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
17 1 the protective coatings at Comanche Peak were originally
- -1 .2 classified-safety grade. .We achieved the change in.that 3 classification, and therefore there was no longer a necessity 4 to have an action plan that addressed those particular issues.
. 5 We did, however, instruct Mr. Hansel, the 00C-Program 6 Director, to be certain that he incorporated any quality 7 assurance-related matters that were involved in the protective
- 8 coating application program'when it was a safety system, if 9 you will. So he has paid careful attention and will d
10 incorporate in his collective evaluation-document, which'I 11 will get to later, any issues that were involved with. regard 12 to the conting program.
13 In the case of QA/0C -- right at this moment I can't 14 remember exactly which one that is, but We.will get to it --
15 He have issued -- and by that term I mean we have published i
16 and made available for anyone who wants to look the-Results
! 17 Report and all the files that support the Results Report. We 18 have a file set up in Dallas and one at the plant site; 29 19 Results Reports to date.
20 The SRT has approved three additional Results
]
l 21 Reports. Those reports are in the stage of having the. files 22 reproduced and transferred to Dallas, and as soon as that's'in i
l 23 place we will distribute the reports to all parties.
24 In addition, the SRT has reviewed six Results Reports 25 but has not yet approved them. They are in a state of being Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429'-5532
18 1 revised at the direction of the SRT in one way or the other.
i i 2 I might add at this point that the Results Reports that come 3 to us we call Rev 0. The Results Report we approve is called 4 Rev 1. Both Rev 0 and Rev 1 are in the files and available so 5 that anyone can see what influence, if any, or changes, if 6 any, were made by the SRT to that document, which was a
7 presented to it by the Review Team leader.
8 We have in process, not yet received or reviewed by 9 the SRT, eight additional Results Reports.
10 MR. KEPPLER: John, the number issued: Those are 11 issued by the Third-Party groups?
J l
12 MR. BECK: Yes, sir.
i 13 MR. KEPPLER: That have done the reviews?
i
- 14 MR. BECK
- That's correct.
15 MR. KEPPLER: Then they 90 to the SRT for review?
16 MR. BECK: Which is also Third-Party, with my 17 exception.
18 MR. KEPPLER: When the group doing the review 19 completes it, what is it, in the form of a report or --?
20 MR. BECK: It's a written report that identifies the 21 issue, summarizes the issue, specifically states in response 22 to the action plan. This has really been a two-step process, 23 Mr. Keppler. As the issue was presented, it was developed and 24 addressed in terms of an action plan. It says, Here's the 25 issue, here's what He're going to do to investigate it as to Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
19 l
l 1 its validity and make findings.
I l i 2 MR KEPPLER: Then that report sits until the SRT '
3 says either they agree with it or don't agree with it?
4 MR. BECK: We don't let it sit very long before we 5 address it. We address it immediately upon receipt.
6 MR. KEPPLER: Well, I guess I don't understand the 7 process, because if I look at Electrical, eight have been 8 issued --
- 9 MR. BECK: Yes.
10 MR. KEPPLER: -- I only see one approved by the SRT 11 and none in process.
12 MR. BECK: All of those that are in the " Issued" 13 column have been approved by the SRT. Twenty-nine have been 14 approved, published, made available to the public, the NRC, so 15 we are finished with --
16 MR. KEPPLER: Okay --
17 MR. BECK: -- the subject of the NRC comments.
18 MR. GRIMES: Stating it a different way: Does that 19 mean that 29 have been received by the NRC and three are on 20 their way? They have been approved by the SRT but not yet 21 submitted to the NRC?
22 MR. BECK: Correct. Six are in final stages of being 23 approved by the SRT, and eight are still being worked on. You 24 have in your hands 29.
25 MR. KEPPLER: Okay.
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
20 1 MR. BECK: To be more specific, this is a slide which i
! 2 shows the 29 Results Reports which you have in your hands in 3 the subject areas that are covered. That's included in the 4 handout.
5 These are the three Results Reports that have been 6 approved by the SRT. We're simply waiting to get the files 7 reproduced before we put them in the mail.
8 These are the Results Reports which the SRT has 9 reviewed but not yet approved for one reason or another. We 10 anticipate getting most of these out within a matter of two to 11 three weeks. VII.c will be a while longer. I might Just 12 comment in that particular case that this particular Results 13 Report is the one under which the reinspections were performed 14 at Comanche Peak.. It was a very comprehensive effort that 15 involved dividing all of the plant and the end product 16 hardware into what we refer to as homogenous populations and 17 sampling in a very rigorous way those populations and their 18 attributes. There are some 48 file cabinets of data which 19 support that one Results Report, and therefore the time 20 required to make certain that all those files Justified the 6
21 statements and conclusions that are drawn in the document 22 itself.
23 These are the Results Reports which are in process.
24 Most of these are being addressed as part of Corrective Action 25 Programs that Mr. Nace Hill speak about later, and therefore Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
21 1 until those Corrective Action Programs are finished, the I
i 2 Results Report by the Third Party cannot be published.
3 One exception is VII.o.9, the last one on the list, " Receipt 4 and Storage of Purchase Material and Equipment". That.
5 particular Results Report involves a lot of interaction with 6 numerous vendors off-site. The very nature of that process is 7 one that is slow but is necessary to execute it and implement 8 it. Our anticipated completion date is June 1 for that 9 particular item.
10 I might add, the asterisks on the " Electrical Conduit 11 Supports," this says "to be deleted". This Hill be covered in 12 our Rev 4, the reasons for it, and how He are completing the 13 intent and scope of the program in lieu of publishing a 14 Results Report in that particular document.
15 I think it's important to cover in a separate slide '
16 the Discipline Specific Action Plans that came out of the 17 self-initiated Design Adequacy Program. There are four areas:
18 Civil / Structural, Piping and Supports, Mechanical Systems and 19 Components, Electrical /I&C Systems and Components.
20 The Results Report for DSAP 8, Civil / Structural, will !
21 be covering one area: Cable tray supports, conduit supports, 22 Train A and B and C greater than two inches. The Results 23 Report for DSAP 9 will cover large bore pipe supports only.
24 We are not going to include in that particular document small 25 bore pipe supports. Small bore pipe supports will be covered Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
22 l' by a project report which will be prepared under-the overview, i
i 2 and a very-careful overview, of the Engineering Functional 3 Evaluation Program, our Technical QA Audit Program and the SRT 4 being intimately involved in that document. That's one of the 5 redundancies that He hope to eliminate with our Rev 4.
6 Mechanical Systems and Components and the Electrical /
7 I&C Systems and Components Hill not have a Results Report.
8 They Hill also be covered by a project documentation prepared 9 under a similar overview program I have talked about.
10 There are two large supports that Hill culminate the 11 CPRT activity. One is in the quality of construction 12 collective evaluation. This document Hill summarize all 13 quality-related activities of CPRT, the VII.c program, the 14 reinspection effort, as Hell as all programatic QA/QC 15 activity. This Hill be a document which is the deliverable of 16 the bottom line With regard to quality assurance at Comanche F
17 Peak, as far as the CPRT has investigated it.
18 The second document Hill be the collective 19 significance piece that the SRT Hill put together with the 20 assistance of all participants at the Review Team leader level 21 and below. That Hill bring'together not only the. quality 22 assurance, the quality of construction, but also the design 23 area. We anticipate having the first document out midsummer 24 and the second document in the fall.
25 MR. CHANDLER: Very briefly, does this represent a Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
23 1 change in terms of the number of collective evaluation reports i
1 2 that you intend to release?
3 MR. BECK: Yes, it does, Mr. Chandler. We are not 4- going to publish a separate piece on the design adequacy 5 effort. That crea will be covered under collective 6 significance in conjunction with the quality of construction.
7 .MR. CHANDLER: And testing also. I think --
~
8 MR. BECK: And testing, yes. All the areas will be 9 addressed. It's a matter of condensation in that one report.
10 MR. GRIMES: At the present time do you envision that 11 these collective evaluations will identify any additional 12 corrective action that will 90 beyond what you developed for 13 the Issue Specific Action Plans or the design assessment?
14 MR. BECK: I don't want to eliminate that 15 possibility.
16 MR. GRIMES: Do you know of any now?
17 MR. BECK: I do not.
18 MR. GRIMES: Thank you.
19 MR. BECK: This is another way, and I won't spend a 20 lot of time dwelling on this since we've seen it all, but 21 since they're in the handout, it's a compilation by discipline 22 of the Results Reports, where they are in regard to issuance.
23 And in some cases the "no" means it hasn't been issued yet, in 24 other cases, as you'll see in Rev 4, the "no" means it won't 25 be issued. But we will very carefully explain each one of Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
24 1 those instances so there's no possibility of confusion.
I i 2 I won't out the rest of those slides up in the 3 interest of time, but if there are any further questions on 4 CPRT at this Juncture in the program, I would be happy to 5 respond to them.
6 MR. MIZUNO: Can you give us c' time table for issuing 7 the DSAP Results Reports and also the Project Reports as far 8 as the small bore piping project is concerned?
9 MR. BECK: Let me catch the second one first. Mr.
10 Nace will address the Project Reports. The time table on the 11 DSAPs is going to be the two where reports will be issued 12 before summer.
13 MR. COUNSIL: As to the second part of your question, 14 Mr. Nace will cover that when we get to his presentation, or 15 I
slides in that presentation.
16 Mr. Grimes, this is a logical break point for the 7
17 reporter before we go on to the next part of the presentation, 18 which might take as long as an hour to an hour and 15 minutes.
19 With your concurrence, I'd like to adjourn the meeting for 15 20 minutes.
21 MR. GRIMES: I concur.
22 MR. COUNSIL: We're adjourned until no later than 23 five after ten.
24 (A break was taken.)
25 MR. COUNSIL: We're reconvened. We'll continue the Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
25 i 1 meeting with a discussion of project activities by Mr. Larry I
L_ 2 Nace.
3 MR. NACE: In several earlier public meetings, most 4 recently last Thursday, we explained the genesis of the 5 Project Corrective Action Programs. Today I'm going to detail 6 the description ~of key Corrective Action Program Reports and 7 the status of the necessary engineering and construction and '
i 8 production work which is associated with CPRT issue resolution 9 as well as the TU Electric self-initiated comprehensive design 10 reviews and design validation activities.
11 The first key product of the Corrective Action-12 Programs is what we have called the Generic Issues Reports.
13 The Corrective Action Program consists of 11 specific 14 Corrective Action Plans. There is a Generic Issues Report 15 associated with each plan. Each Generic Issues Report has two 16 basic parts to it.
17 The first is a compilation of technical issues l
18 identified by external sources, external meaning external to '
19 the project. These are issues such as the CASE issues, the 20 TRT issues, CYGNA issues -- CYGNA is the independent design l 21 assessment activity which was initiated some time ago. Also 22 addresses issues identified by the CPRT Third Party. They're 23 TERA and ERC components, i i
24 These were all compiled into the Generic Issues
)
4 25 Report such that the report can serve to focus Project l I
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 1
26 1
1 activities on all the issues that must be resolved in I
i- 2 conjunction with the ongoing design reviews and design 3 validation activities.
4 Also contained within each GIR, Generic Issues 5 Report, is a basic plan for resolving those external issues, 6 as well as the basic plan for validating the design basis 7 itself.
8 As you can see from the next page of the handout, the 9 next slide, there is a listing, actually on two slides here, 10 of each Corrective Action Plan -- as I said, there are 11 of 11 them -- and what the status or issue date is of the respective 12 Generic Issues Reports. The large bore piping Generic Issues 13 Report is Revision 0 issued June of 1986. So on down the line 14 on this chart to Cable Tray Hangers Generic Issues Report, 15 which is currently Revision 2, dated March 18, 1987.
16 The second slide has the remainder of the 11 Generic 17 Issues Reports shown and the issue dates of the respective 18 revisions.
19 What that does, as I said, is summarizes the issues.
20 MR. KEPPLER: Larry, let me 90 back to a fundamental.
21 The GIRs are an outgrowth of the ISAPs?
22 MR. NACE: They're an outgrowth of many issues, 23 ISAPs being only one. If you remember our earlier discussion, 24 our Thursday discussion, what the Project was faced with was a 25 large number of questions relative to the design in the many Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
27 1 key areas of the project. What we chose to do is to combine I.
I 2 .the issues -into the 11 plans so that we could have an
, 3- integrated, comprehensive way of-resolving the~ issue and 4 ending up with the necessary licensing support documentation.
5 So it's the ISAP issues, it's the TRT issues, it's CASE 6 issues, it's CYGNA issues, it's TERA issues, ERC issues,-ERC 7 being the quality of construction part of the CPRT It's~a
~
8 combination of all' issues.
! 9 MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Nace, will the relationship 10 between the GIRs and the CPRT be laid out in Rev 4?
11 MR. NACE: Yes. '
12 Now, the next series of slides I have here deals with 13 some of the specific sets of issues we're dealing with. The 14 first one I'm going to talk about is the CYGNA issues, 15 remembering again that CYGNA was performing an independent 16 review of the design activities which were started some years 17 000. CYGNA maintains what they call a Review Issues List, 18 which is a design-related issue that has to be resolved.
. 19 The next slide shows the current-status of the CYGNA 20 Review Issues List, or RIL issue items, showing fer-each of 21 the categories which CYGNA reviewed the total number of issues 22 that CYGNA generated in that category -- for example, in pipe 23 supports they had 45 issues -- and shows you what the 24 corresponding number of CYGNA closures has been since we have 25 initiated not only the design validation program but also i
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
28-d 1 since we have been meeting with CYGNA to resolve issues and i
r 2 permitting-CYGNA to come in and do some follow-up close-out 3 audits with respect to their open items.
4 The pipe stress issues, 27 of them, as you can see, 5 have been closed by CYGNA in their most recent exit report.
6 The pipe support issues, 29 of those 45-have been 7 closed on the record. The remaining have to do with the 8.
8 Civil / Structural activities such as attachments of the pipe 9 support to concrete or embedment plate or a surface-mounted 10 plate. There was a close-out audit activity underway last i
11 week, which we expect to hear the results of that during our 12 April 21st meeting, and have high expecations that all the 13 pipe support issues are being closed out.
14 MR. GRIMES: Excuse me. When you finish closing out 15 the CYGNA issues, what do you. expect CYGNA is going to provide 16 to the overall CPRT activity? How will that fit in with your 17 findings?
3 18 MR. COUNSIL: That involves potential hearing-type 19 activity, and we're not at liberty to discuss hearing activity 20 at this point in time without legal consultation.
21 MR. GRIMES: Thank~you.
22 MR. NACE: The next two sets of CYGNA items on the 23 chart deal with cable tray hangers, abbreviated CTH, and-the 24 safety-related seismic conduit support issues. We have had 25 exchange of information with CYGNA. In the last three months l
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
29 1 -we have made presentations to CYGNA on virtually all the i
I- 2 issues. CY.GNA has been conducting close-out audits on cable 3 tray hangers since the month of February, and this month will 4 start'on conduit supports. So we expect very high activity in 5 cable tray hangers and conduit supports in the next two-month 6 period.
7 Our basic game plan is to meet with CYGNA to resolve 8 all of their issues by the end of June of this year. We 9 expect we're going to be able to meet that schedule, c 10 Another type of issue that we're dealing with is on 11 the next slide. These are called Discrepancy Issue Reports, 12 or DIRs. These are design-related questions or issues which 13 have emanated from the TERA Design Assessment Program. On our 14 plate right now is a total of 3980 DIRs, as the CPRT program 15 refers to them. One thousand and nineteen of those have been 16 resolved. That activity is also ongoing, and we expect by the 17 middle of this year to have all of those issues closed.
18 The remainder of those issues, roughly the 2900 remaining, 19 are basically spread between and among all of the 11 20 Corrective Action Plans and, again, are categorized in the 21 respective Generic Issues Report.
22 Another important set of issues that we're dealing 23 with in the project activities associated with the --
24 MR. SCHIERLING: One quick question. That design 25 review by TERA: Is that a hundred percent review?
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 1
30 1 MR. NACE: That was a sampling basis. From those i
i 2 samples we -have extended our hundred percent design validation 3 activity.
4 The next slide is labeled Corrective Action Request, 5 which we call in the Project CARS. The quality of 6 construction part of the CPRT program, again a sample-based 7 inspection to the physical hardware itself, results in two 8 types of interfaces with the project.
9 First of all, if they note a specific hardware 10 deficiency, that goes through a series of documentation 11 activities and comes to the Project as a nonconformance 12 report, which on the specific case is resolved one by one.
13 In addition, there is an evaluation process that 14 takes place which results in the referral to the Project of a 15 Corrective Action Request, which may be a programatic issue; 16 it may be something that reports to a total population of 17 hardware that requires an additional look, either inspection 18 or there is some question related to, for example, the 19 specification.
20 We currently have open 68 Corrective Action Requests 21 which have come from Third Party and expect that there are
)
22 approximately 50 more coming in the very near term.
23 Again, these on the Project are packaged among the 24 appropriate Corrective Action Plans and resolved in that 25 integrated fashion.
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 4
l
31 1 The final product of the Corrective Action --
I i 2 MR. MIZUN0: Excuse me. Just roaming back to the 3 CYGNA slide. Can you tell me how the issues under RILs -- as 4 they're closed out, are they going to be documented or how 5 they have been documented? And second of all, are you going 6 to collect all those closecuts in a single report or 7 compilation? And finally, do you expect the NRC Staff to 8 review them?
9 MR. COUNSIL: The issues that are CYGNA-type issues, 10 because of the protocol of the IDVP that was in fact done and 11 given to us via the Board, are submitted to all parties. That 12 includes telephone conversations, documentation of all answers 13 to all questions and submittal, once again, to all parties at 14 all times. So in your possession are all of the CYGNA issues 15 and our answers to same.
16 MR. MIZUN0: Do you expect to compile those into one 17 document?
18 MR. COUNSIL: I believe that CYGNA has a 19 responsibility to NRC to issue a Phase 4 report, which they 20 are working on at this point in time,.Hhich should close all 21 issues.
22 Mr. Beck corrects me. The responsibility to us.
23 Once Phase 4 is issued, you will have it.
24 MR. NACE: The final and perhaps most important 25 product of the Project activities with respect to the Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
32 1 Corrective Action Program right now is what we're going to 2 call the Pr'oject Status Reports. Some of you may have been 3 part of our earlier discussion where we discussed calling them 4 Final Reports, Interim Reports or what have you. As recently 9
5 as yesterday the official word is Project Status Reports, the 6 reason being that by the nature of the design validation 7 activities underway, you really cannot get to an end point 8 until all the Unit 2 activities are. completed as well.
9 As you will see in my later-on slide presentations, we're 10 focusing today on Unit 1 status. Unit 1 is obviously leading 11 the two units to completion.
4 12 What we intend to do as we finalize information 13 through the Corrective Action Program is document it on 14 periodic Project St'atus Reports so that all parties are 15 knowledgeable of where we stand with respect to the respective 16 issues and the respective units. So it will be a living 17 document, growing as the Project activities continue. I would 18 expect we will issue up to three or four revisions per 19 calendar year until Unit 2 is nearer completion.
20 The next two slides tell you what it is we intend for 21 the scope and content of the Project Status Report, and then 22 in response to an earlier question by Mr. Mizuno what our i
23 schedule is for the next issuance of these documents.
24 The basic reports will identify and clarify the scope 1
25 of the report itself and emphasize the extent of the effort of i
l l
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
33 4
e 1- the Design Basis Consolidation Program that is ongoing. We i .
f 2 will discuss in the report the work that has been performed to 3 date, the methodology, the extent of the technical reviews 4 performed, the emphasis to work-instructions, which primarily 5 we're talking about directly to tne engineer and designer at 6 this stage of the game. We'll discuss the extent of. internal 7' and external reviews, the work effort; for example, the 8 overview activities of the Third Party,-the TU Electric 9 Technical Audit Program, as well as the engineering functional 10 evaluation, and the disposition of the external issues which 11 led to the formulation of the Corrective Action Program, which 12 is what is identified in the Generic Issues Report I_ talked 13 about earlier, 14 MR. SCHIERLING: What do you mean by " external"?
15 MR. NACE: " External" meaning all sources outside the 16 Project. If you go back to one of my earlier slides, that's 17 the TRT issue; the ISAPs and CYGNA: CASE; in some cases 18 specific allegations; NRC, as well; ASLB issues.
. 19 A third part of the basic report which presents the 20 results of the work to date, what the impact has been on the 21 design and/or the plant as appropriate, and what corrective j 22 and preventive actions are taken. The report will contain 23 three appendices, which are shown on the next slide.
24 Appendix A will detail the resolution of the issues 25 identified through the CPRT program, as well as the external Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
34 1 issues.
I
! 2 Appendix B will reveal and discuss non-CPRT-related 3 issues. Those are-issues that may have come up during the 4 course of the hundred percent validation of the design in that 5 particular area.
6 Appendix C will tabulate the preventive actions we 7 have taken to prevent recurrence of situations which created 8 issues that led to the Corrective Action Plan in the first 9 place. Appendix C will likely be a running inventory of 10 preventive action.
11 The next two slides show the projected issue date of 12 the next revision to the Project-Status Reports. You have in 13 your possession right now a Revision 0 to a large bore pipe 14 support plan which, by the way, is titled Final Report, and at 15 its next revision that title will change to Project Status 16 Report, 17 MR. SCHIERLING: When was Rev 0 issued?
18 MR. NACE: Rev 0 was issued in the November time frame, 19 1986. We do expect to issue Revision 1 to the large bore 20 status report by the middle of this month, and the dates for 21 the rest of the 11 reports are as shown, and we expect we will 22 meet that schedule.
23 As you can see, the last one on the schedule with i i
24 respect to the first issue is instruments and controls, which 25 right now we expect to issue -- and by ~1ssue" we mean to the Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 l l
_ .~
35 N
.NRC and all parties - by the first of August.
2 We expect.those issues will deal with fundamental I
3 questions relative to Unit 1 and deal -- detail our corrective 4
4 action' approach to all those issues.
4
- 5 I'm coing.to' talk in the next series of slides about t
6 status of the production activities associated with the
- 7 respective action plans.
~
8 The'first slide deals with the most recently 9 initiated Corrective Action Plan, Civil / Structural,
{
10 Mechanical, the Electrical and'the Instrumentation and i
11 Controls. And I want to emphasize this only deals with those 12 four Corrective Action Plans at this time on this slide.
13 What you see is a tabulation"of the design basis i 14 documents, our term for control design criteria documents; the
$ 15 calculations, drawings and specifications, the. Quantities of +
16 those documents that are associated with this particular scope j 17 of work and this particular set of Corrective Action Plans.
- i. l j 18 The first key milestone for the Corrective Action j 1 19 Plan in these four disciplines deals with a hundred percent >
i I
20 design review. What this slide is-intended to show you is
- 21 where we are with respect to that milestone. That milestone 22 is scheduled in time for July 1st of this year. We' expect to 4
- 23 meet that.
10 l
24 What this shows you is the number of, for example, 4
25 calculations that have been reviewed. What that means is 480 I
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 4-
- ,- . . _ , .....r,,
_ _ r ,,.,e. ..m,-,,, , . . r_- ,, - 7...m,,. y._m.m.,. - .._c,, _--.v,-,_
36 1 out of that set of 2089 calcs have been check list reviewed.
2 The review results are on file. If the results of that review I
- 3 indicated He can stand behind the calc as it exists, that's 4 documented If the results in the review indicate that
]
5 additional design work or calculation Work has to be 6 performed, then that work is scheduled consistent with the f
7 schedule for the plant completion.
J 8
If you find, for example, where the 409th calculation 9 is reviewed, that that calc by itself is okay but an 10 additional calculation should have been performed, then you 11 should also expect to see the 2089 or 2090 and work being 12 initiated to complete that additional calculation. So in that 13 sense it is a rubber yardstick until He get the whole scope.
Excuse me, Mr. Nace. We want to plan 14 MR. GRIMES:
15 audits or inspections related to rework to come out of these j 16 plans. Where Hill He go to find the schedules if they're 17 only being scheduled consistent with overall planning?
18 MR. NACE: The schedule Hill be maintained on the 4
19 site. We have one integrated project schedule on site, on the 20 premise system; regardless of where the Hork is performed, it 21 is integrated into that project schedule.
22 MR. GRIMES: How often is that schedule updated?
23 MR. NACE: That schedule is updated, all activities i
really updated, every two weeks. There is ongoing activity 24 25 all the time. It is a living, dynamic integrated schedule.
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
37 1 I might clarify. We have all the engineering and design and i
i- 2 construction activities in the integrated schedule. At this 3 point we are not entirely complete with pulling in the testing 4 and the operations activities yet, but that effort is ongoing.
5 MR. GRIMES: Thank you.
6 MR. NACE: I might also comment from this slide, the 7- specification review on the far right-hand side, the 8 specification population of 207 includes erection 9 specifications as well as procurement specifications. The 17 10 that are shown as having been reviewed are the most important.
11 Those are the erection specifications. We have been 12 concentrating our activities on those specifications. We 13 expect to reissue all of those specifications about-the end of 14 April, and the corrective and preventive action for most of I
15 the quality of construction concerns are addressed in those 16 revised specifications. So that is a very important milestone 17 on the activity and we do think we're going to make it.
18 With respect to the remaining seven Corrective Action i 19 Plans, these are more hardware-oriented, and I'm going to 20 start through those with the next slide.
21 The next slide basically shows the flow chart of work
- 22 for the pipe support revalidation program, and I want to 23 emphasize from here down all the slides say Unit 1. From a 24 program standpoint, the same program applies to Unit 1 and The status information shown on the slides, though, 25 Unit 2.
1 Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
38 1 deals strictly with Unit 1 status. I can provide amplifying i
1 2 Unit 2 status, but I thought it was important to understand 3 where we are in Unit 1 at this time.
4 MR. SCHIERLING: Just for orientation, what is the 5 time lapse between the two units?
6 MR. NACE: Approximately six months.
7 This process flow chart shows you the real extent of 8 the pipe support, piping, pipe support Corrective Action Plan 9 in that all systems are reanalyzed, all supports are 10 requalified; and we mean by that, in a hundred percent of the 11 cases that's a completely new stress calculation and 12 completely new support calculation for each and every 13 safety-related pipe support.
14 As you can see, the flow chart is obviously the 15 stress analyses, the support analyses. If there are 16 modifications that come out of those analyses, which there are 17 some and I will show you on the next slide, the modifications 18 are made in the field. Each support undergoes a reinspection.
19 By and large each support is completely reinspected except for 20 weld attributes such as radiographic examination for those 21 welds. We have a film on file and did not choose to redo 22 that one over again.
23 There are also some visual weld examinations which we 24 have chosen not to redo for lack of any sufficient reason 25 which would require it. As you know, under that issue we have l
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 1
39 1 also committed to CASE to take an extra look at that decision, I
i 2 and that effort is ongoing. Following the inspection we also 3 have an update of our I&E bulletin 79-14 effort to make sure 4 He have captured the as-built configuration in the plant that 5 looks like the model that was stress analyzed in the first 6 place. And the results of the inspection and the as-built 7 79-14 Halkdowns are back in Engineering for final 8 reconciliation.
9 Now, we have two separate Corrective Action Plans; 10 one for large bore, one for small bore. The reason for that 11 is they started off from different points in time. At the 12 present time the programs, except for the differences in size 13 of the pipe, are identical. The large and small are flowing 14 through the same process.
15 The next two slides show you where we are in the 16 respective programs.
17 MR. SCHIERLING: What's the breakdown between large 11 18 and small bore? Two inch? Six inch?
19 MR. NACE: Two inches.
20 This first slide deals with the large bore program.
21 A point of clarification also: This slide deals with Unit 1 22 as Hell as Unit 2 systems that are required for Unit 1 23 operations. If you go to the engineers' information, there 1
24 are really 317 stress problems in Unit 1; however, to make the 1 25 Unit 2 systems work complete in the common areas that we Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
40 1 really want to have complete for Unit 1 to operate, that 317
~
2 stress problems becomes 388.
3 The current status: 376 of those are final.
4 Just to show you how dynamic the process is, if you 5 had asked me a week ago, there were 388 filed at that time.
6 We did have another issue come up that caused us to take 7 another look at eight of them.
8 There are 11,800 supports associated with those 388 9 large bore stress problems. Currently there are 8072 fully 10 qualified supports with new calculations. Out of that work we 11 have identified 4675 modifications that need to be made. And 12 what this slide shows you is that 2050 of those identified 13 modifications have been translated to work procedures, and the 14 work is in the field to make those modifications.
15 As I said, each support goes through an additional 16 inspection. There are 906 supports now that have the new 17 final inspection.
18 In the final reconciliation, that's only one of the 19 388 stress problems. We did one to push it all the way 20 through our procedural process to make sure, but basically 21 that final reconciliation activity is May-June-July-type 22 activity.
23 Just as a point of reference, if I go to the Unit 2 24 side of the plant, there's another 254 stress problems on Unit i 25 2: 247 of those are complete final reanalysis.
Curmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
41 1 There's another 7400 supports on the Unit 2 side not I
i 2 shown on this slide. About 3500 of those are also completely 3 reanalyzed and cales final at this point in time.
4 As you can see, Unit 2 is really marching along 5 behind.
6 MR. SCHIERLING: Is the effort on Unit 1 and Unit 2 7 about the same that you are expending right now, or are you 8 primarily concentrating on Unit 1?
9 MR. NACE: We're concentrating on Unit 1. I might 10 add that Unit 2 is easier because it is not as complete. You 11 know, things like insulation and so forth is not complete, so 12 accessibility is easier. Sometimes this made -- progress was 13 made on Unit 2 that's not on Unit 1, so that's a constant 14 battle in the plant.
15 The next slide shows similar numbers and status with 16 respect to the small bore effort. There you have 370 stress 17 problems and 6000 supports. You see the same type of 18 information and the projected completion dates based upon the 19 current schedule and schedule analysis.
20 Again, this is Unit i numbers -- I'm sorry. It's 21 Unit 1 and Unit 2 in the common areas.
22 The next Corrective Action Plan I want to talk about 23 is the Cable Tray Hanger Program.
24 Again, you see the basic flow chart of the production 25 work on the project. We started out with engineering Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
42 1 as-built, engineers.in the field Walking down the hangers, I
r 2 documenting their actual as-built, as-installed condition.
3 You do a design verification using the existing original 4 licens'ing commitments, the design criteria and qualify the 5 existing hardware. Those cases Where existing' hardware cannot 6 be qualified, it is modified to the point where it can be 7- qualified. Modifications being issued to construction in 8 those cases, the rework done on both cases, either reworked or 9 not reworked, there is an additional quality inspection that 10 comes into play. By and larga, again, these quality
, 11 inspections came out of earlier work on the quality of 12 construction activities by the Third Party which deemed it l 13 appropriate to 90 back and redo this particular set of 14 inspections. Again, there is a final engineering 15 reconciliation of each of the cable tray hangers.
16 You see from the next slide where He are. Again, in 17 Unit 1 there are 4532 cable tray hangers. I might add that 18 there is an additional 70 hangers not shown on these numbers 19 that are attachments to supplementary steel in the cable
, 20 spreading area that are also being requalified. It's just 4 21 that in our project bookkeeping system their nomenclature 22 didn't qualify them to be a cable tray hanger by name.
23 You see the status of the design verification 24 activities to date and the schedule of completion, the number 25 of modifications, and I should emphasize in each of these Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
43 1 slides where I say modifications issued in the population, i
i 2 that number, like 517 of this slide, is a current estimate of 3 the number of modifications we're going to have to make based 4 upon the experiences to date. So that could be a rubber 5 number as well; could vary.
6 In some of the older plans, such as large bore 7 piping, cable tray hangers and seismic conduit supports, we 8 expect that number is pretty firm. On some of the newer 9 Corrective Action Plans -- newer being small bore piping which 12 10 was initiated at a hundred percent in September of last year 11 and as well as the four discipline areas estimates of 12 modifications are soft at this point in time.
l 13 Okay. The next plan I want to talk about is the 1
! 14 Seismic Conduit Support Program. This is the safety Train A 15 and B, as Hell as the non-safety Train C greater than two l
16 inches. Again, you see a similar process, that all the work 17 is flowing through. The conduit itself is walked down, l 18 isometrics created using the as-built information. That 19 as-built information is subjected to a design verification i 20 against the original existing licensing criteria.
21 Modifications necessary or not necessary. In this I l
22 particular case, if no modifications are made, then that !
23 particular support does not receive another DC inspection, 24 even though it already has received engineering inspection per l
25 se by virtue of the walkdoHn. That's a Judgmental decision we Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
44 1 made based upon the type of information we received in the F- '
i 2 Halkdown activities.
3 The following slide shows the status of that program 4 again on Unit 1. We inspect 6868 isometrics; currently 5 prepared and issued 811. I might emphasize as an aside, this 6 program on the Unit 1 plant was originally conceived to be a 7 CPRT sample. There was 231 isometrics. I believe that was 8 the number- in a CPRT sample that was done in the first three 9 quarters of last year. The results of that sample indicated 10 it should be expanded to a hundred percent. So the effort to 11 take the Unit 1 program from the sample basis to the hundred 12 percent decision was made in the fourth quarter of 1986, and 13 that's why it might seem that this is somewhat behind in l 14 schedule.
i 15 The procedures are very Hell established. It does 16 move relatively fast. The modifications that we're seeing are 17 not extensive, but nevertneless they are there.
18 MR. SCHIERLING: What do He mean by seismic conduit 19 supports?
l 20 MR. NACE: The'se are safety-related conduit supports.
- 21 MR. SCHIERLING
- But He're not only talking about j 22 the seismic. We're talking about all of those.
l 23 MR. NACE: Yes, Maybe it should be more 24 appropriately called safety-related conduits as distinguished 25 from the next slide which is non-seismic or non-safety-Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
45 1 related conduit supports. And these are specifically only I
t 2 Train C, non-safety trains smaller than two inches. It is 3 black conduits less than two inches in s1Ze. Since this is a 4 non-safety aspect of the plant, we subjected these to a i 5 hundred percent engineering walkdown, cualification of the 6 supports on a one-by-one basis by the engineering 7 organization, modifications as necessary, and-Just a 8 scheduling activity. We're doing that on a room-by-room 9 basis. This is not safety related. There are no additional 10 QC inspections presently detailed for this plant.
4 11 MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Nace, on both this slide--
l 12 actually the next slide -- and the preceding one where you
)
13 list the modifications issue again, is that anticipated 14 modifications?
15 MR. NACE: On the population, yes: on the current 16 that's an actual.
17 MR. CHANDLER: Okay. So if I look at what you have 18 now labeled Seismic Conduit Support Program and you have 2060, 19 that's --
20 MR. NACE: -- a guess.
21 MR. CHANDLER: -- given the rate at which -- a i
22 guess -- given the rate at which these things are turning up 23 now, where you would be.
24 MR. NACE: And 927 of those have been sent to the 1
25 field for work.
- Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
4 1 MR. CHANDLER: And likewise on non-seismic.
I
, ! 2 MR. NACE: The same thing.
3 And that leads to the non-seismic status chart and 4 the pr'ojections on the schedule.
- 5 MR. SCHIERLING
- The " current" means that they have 6 been issued but not necessarily the work completed.
7 MR. NACE: That's right, t
8 From the information I have brought here, if you go 9 back to the previous, the non -- the safety conduit support t
10 program status chart, this is an undershoot because it's more 11 than that, but from the information you have here, the best 12 number would be eight, but they have to reinspect it out of a 13 population of changes. Now, there's also in this case 14 isometrics that have been walked down to qualify with no 15 changes that are also final because there was no rework 16 associated with it. The best indication to use is the 17 schedule information.
18 I might also point out on both of our conduit 19 programs we are not seeing changes that necessitate ,
l 20 de-termination and re-terminating the cables. So there's not 21 anything in this schedule. There's no schedule risk.
22 The next plan I want to talk about is the HVAC, l.
23 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning, Duct Support i
24 Program.
25 As you know from several significant deficiency l
l Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
47 1 reports under 10CFR50.55(e), last December --correction i
i 2 --last September He made a decision to reva11date the design 3 and installation of the duct supports associated with the 4 HVAC.'You see here a typical process which we're using on the 5 duct supports.
6 Again, each duct support receives an engineering 7 Halkdown for as-building. I might also expand with respect to
, 8 total HVAC the ducting also against that kind of Halkdown, but 9 this is aimed strictly at the duct supports from a 10 documentation status standpoint.
11 Each support is as-built. It is design-verified. It 12 is modified if necessary, and in either case reinspected, and 13 finally reconciled by the engineer.
13 14 The next slide is the current status of the Duct 15 Support Program. As I indicated, He started this program in 16 the fourth quarter of 1986. We have currently as-built now 17 all 4010 of the Unit 1 duct supports. The design verification 18 activities have only recently begun. The HVAC activities on 19 the Project are one of the key critical paths to completion at 20 this point in time.
21 As you Hill see when He talk later, from an 22 organization and staffing standpoint, we do have the resources 23 and the supervisory leadership strength on the Project now to 24 complete this within the scheduled date.
25 We have other activities ongoing on the Project that Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 1
48
. 1 I Just Hant to summarize for you. It's important to all of I
i 2 us, and again, these are spread among the various Corrective 3 Action Plans. One of the key activities is the resolution of 4 Significant Deficiency Analysis Reports. These are the 5 10CFR50.55(e) programs on the project.
6 There have been some public statements in the past 7 relative to the number of SDARs, as He call them, since 8 ' January 1984. There have been 177 issued as potentially 9 reportable.
, 10 You can see Hhat the breakdown of those has been i 11 historically. Thirty-three have been determined to be l
12 reportable. Sixty-three are still in the categories of i 13 potentially reportable and remain under investigation, and 81
- 14 have been evaluated and reported as not reportable, f 15 And many of those still have to be closed out. They're still l 16 open.
! 17 MR. GRIMES: Mr. Nace, when you say that they were i
18 evaluated as not reportable, you made your final determination 19 and concluded that the 50.55(e) report was not necessary for 20 those non-conformance reports.
21 MR. NACE: Yes.
22 MR GRIMES: When you say "potentially reportable,"
i 23 does that mean that you haven't completed the procedure by
- 24 Hhich you make the final determination?
, 25 MR. NACE: Yes. However, He have still notified you Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
l
\
l 1 as -- He have still written and said it is potentially l l
t 2 reportable.
3 MR. GRIMES: It still. exists as a non-conformance 4 report'.
5 MR. NACE: Yes.
4 6 MR. GRIMES: And for the reportable 33, have you l
7 taken corrective action on those?
8 MR. NACE: In progress. In progress within the 9 respective Corrective Action Plan. For example, remember when 10 I mentioned the HVAC program, much of the HVAC activity that 11 is ongoing right now has stemmed from a series of reportable
- 12 items in the HVAC area.
13 MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Nace, to the extent that these 14 matters are captured by the Corrective Action Program, will 15 they be highlighted in there or will they be separately 16 reported to close out the 50.55(e)?
17 MR. NACE: Both Hays. One, separately because we're 18 required to do that by law, and two, in the final report, in .
I 19 the Project Status Report, He Hill umbrella all of the
-f
- 20 reportable activities associated with that Corrective Action 21 Plan.
l 22 Also for your information, a series of what we call 23 major plant modifications are underway on the Project, and 1
- 24 some of these have been covered in earlier meetings. And I
- 25 might add that some of these are also associated with the Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
50 1 Corrective Action to 10CFR50.55(e) reportwhichHeJusttalkeb
I t 2 about. T !
3 The first item shown here is the rework associated 4 Hith the seismic mounting.of the Electrical 6.9 KV'switchgear.
5 That is in response to a 50.55(e) report. Basically, He're 6 remounting the 6.9 Kv switchgear such that it Hill perform its 7 intended safety function.
8 The second item has to do with the replacement of c
9 containment penetrations which, again, is an open reportable 10 10CFR50.55(e) item, and this is a corrective action with 1
l 11 respect to that.
12 And again, I emphasize these dates are Unit 1 dates.
i 13 There is also ongoing activity on Unit 2 for all of these s
14 items.
15 The third item has to do Hith replacement of j 16 main condenser tube bundles, which was.information carried <
17 from earlier status reports on the Project. That activity has i
- 18 been completed on both units, where He have replaced the j 19 condenser tube bundles with titanium tube bundles.
i l 20 MR. SCHIERLING: That is not on the 50.55(e)?
) 21 MR. NACE: That is not. That was non-safety
- i
- 22 related. In fact, that was not a problem in the sense of i 23 others. This was a deliberate decision made to upgrade the i 24 condensers in line with industry practices. ,
i i 25 The fourth item on this page deals with the addition i
) Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 .
i
1 51 L6 i
'I I. 1 of non-safety-related chilled water capacity, a recent i .
< -i' 2 decision made, but it is a major activity on the Project.
1 3 This activity, associated with the requalification of the duct 4 suppor'ts themselves, this whole HVAC schedule is a critical 5 path activity through the Project until completion.
6 On the following slide, the first item shown here is 7 reduction of lighting heat load. This is a companion t
8 modification to HVAC improvements. This is basically a change 9 out of lighting fixtures to eliminate heat loads to improve 10 our HVAC capacity overall. It is not a critical path 11 activity.
12 And the final activity I want to highlight, again 13 mentioned in previous public meetings on Project status, deals 14 with fire protection modifications and three specific tests 14 15 underway. One is a replacement of small bore piping due to 16 corrosion problems; virtually complete at this time. Just a l
1 17 small amount of piping remains to be installed, and major s
! 18 activities ongoing right now deal with flushing.
19 The second activity is NFPA 13 upgrade, and finally
, 20 water treatment and storage, which is really a long range
~
i 21 preventive action against the corrosion process we talked 22 about earlier. Major fire protection, Water supply and 23 storage system is a closed system.
24 MR. GRIMES: Except for those upgrades, do the fire 25 protection provisions in the plant conform with the FSAR J
i Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
52 ,
i i systems as we reviewed them? And I believe that was almost a I
, 2 year ago.
3 MR. NACE: I believe a year ago was the most recent 4 corres'pondence. I think the Appendix R audit, if you will, is 5 a bit older than that.
6 Let me digress a minute. The Fire Protection Program 7 is a separate subset of Mechanical Corrective Action Plans.
8 We are upgrading all the documentation and the fire protection 9 requirements on the plant. That part of our corrective action 10 effort is well along, and we expect to be ready for a -- the 11 only thing I con call it -- classical NT0L Appendix R audit in 12 the June time frame.
13 MR. GRIMES: Thank you.
14 MR. SCHIERLING: All of thesa major plant 15 modifications they will be reflected as necessary in the FSAR.
16 MR. NACE: Certainly; as necessary, yes. I said 17 that, but certainly that's the way we do business.
18 There is no SAR clarification or change that I am 19 aware of associated with these modifications right now.
20 MR. SCHIERLING: Right now the FSAR does not have to 21 be.
22 MR. NACE: Right now. I reserve the right to change 23 my mind tomorrow, but right now I know of no reason to change.
24 MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Nace, the schedules that you have 25 listed on this slide and the preceding slides where you talk Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
53 1 about projected completion, when roughly in time do you expect 2 that some report will be made to the Staff? I know some of 3 the preceding slides tie into your Corrective Action Program 4 and Hill be reported against the schedule that you have 5 outlined before, but some of these items are not picked up in 6 that, as I understand it.
7 MR. NACE: They are by endorsement and umbrella, but 8 also the reason it's hard for me to answer is you take -- 90 9 back to the previous slide for a minute, Jim, and start at the 10 top, the first bullet there.' That is a specific 50.55(e) 11 report. It has its own internal recording requirements.
j 12 The same Hay with the second. The third one is no report 1
13 required. It's not safety related. It was on upgrade of the 14 plant. The work is done.
15 The fourth one, as well as the first one on the next 16 page, are inherently part of 50.55(e) reports and also --
17 MR. CHANDLER: The last one -- l l
18 MR. NACE: The last one Hill be umbrellaed in the 19 fire protection appendices to the Mechanical Project Status 20 Report.
21 MR. CHANDLER: Submittal Hould then be through 22 appropriate FSAR amendments, if necessary.
23 MR. NACE: Yes, if necessary: if necessary.
24 MR. GRIMES: But primarily we would look for this 25 activity in the Mechanical Corrective Action Program 1
I Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 j
54 1 appendix --
i i 2 MR. NACE: Yes.
3 MR. GRIMES: --
before we could see an FSAR-4 amendment if one were necessary.
5 MR. NACE: Yes.
6 The final schedule activity I wanted to show here 7 somewhat lightly is your new office facilities. We do have 8 building components on site. We understand your major 9 location selection and we will have that building completed by 10 the end of this month, come hell or high water.
11 MR. GRIMES: Thank you, sir, and I would like to add 12 that we have a contract that we will pay a reasonable lease 13 rate.
14 MR. KEPPLER: I'm sure the building will be filled 15 with people.
16 *R. NACE: Good.
17 The final three charts I want to show you here: One 18 of the questions on the agenda was the discussion of overall 19 schedule and are we on target with the_ schedules published in ,
20 the latter part of last year?
21 There are three slides here, and I apologize for not 22 clearly marking it, but the first two deal with Unit 1, the 23 third deals with Unit 2. These are essentially -- these are 24 within the schedules we have publicly announced. We know of 25 no reason right now why this Project cannot complete within Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 l
55 1 the published schedule time frames.
2 The only thing I wanted to talk about from this 3 slide, because it will be useful information for you on the 4 site, is the ffrst four time lines on the first chart.
1 5 We have chosen a system and area completion strategy 6 as an overall strategic basis of our planning to finish Unit 7 1. We are completing on a system basis and an area basis so i 8 that we can interface with Mr. Scott's people on retesting and 9 turn this plant into an operating plant on an orderly, logical 10 basis. All of the work associated with all 11 of those 11 Corrective Action Plans are sequenced into the system and J
12 schedule conipletion strategy.
13 That's all I wanted to show you on that.
14 Unless there are any questions, that completes what 15 my planned presentation was up to the point of the 16 organization.
15 17 MR. SCHIERLING: I went through those three slides 18 real quickly, and of interest to us is on page 2 where it says 19 license, and you indicate there final NRC approval of text 20 specs but no where does it say issuance of license,'which I 21 think is a critical element in there.
22 MR. NACE: I understand. All we can do is get the 23 application. -
24 MR. SCHIERLING: And try to out guess us.
25 MR. NACE: And that is our time line. These are our Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
56 l
l 1 time lines for being able to finish the work as we understand !
l
! 2 it and you can see the progress to date. I might also add a 3 point of clarification. The time line on the bottom of that 4 chart was dealing with the CPRT-related activities. It's the 5 Project's expectation of when we're going to be able to answer 6 to the SRT, with the answers to whatever questions are 7 inherent in the various Results Reports and do not conflict 8 with the information Mr. Beck showed you earlier. This is my 9 schedule for getting information back to him.
10 MR. SCHIERLING: Will you make any comment on the 11 last two slides on reorganization?
12 MR. NACE: Yes.
13 MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Nace, while you're on these little l
14 slides, I think, in part, Mr. Schierling's question may be 15 answered on slide 1 where it says " commence fuel load". Am I 16 reading that line and the next line off to the right there 17 where it talks about power ascension to suggest one month for 18 low power testing? Fuel load and low power?
19 MR. NACE: What you see is the schedule activities of 20 commencing fuel load in the middle of July.
21 MR. CHANDLER: Right.
22 MR. NACE: And the power ascension in the first 23 quarter of '89. We have arbitrarily said that's the~first of 24 January.
25 MR. CHANDLER: But if I translate that into recent Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 '
57 1 history in terms of NRC licensing, Phase 1 is typically i
, 2 issuance of a license authorizing fuel load and low power 3 testing -- maybe I shouldn't say typically but would be fuel
~
4 load and low power testing up to five percent. Operation 5 above five percent then being accomplished under a full poHer 4
6 license sometime after low power test activities up to five 7 percent have been completed. And if I read this -- I think 8 I'm reading this to suggest that there is a month in which you 9 would accomplish fuel load and loH poHer testin9.
10 MR. COUNSIL: Look, what was placed on the end of i
11 this chart just for flags is that if, in fact, He commence 12 fuel load on X date, that 1-1-89 date as He have stated is 13 truly first quarter 1989. That's a loosey-goosey schedule out 14 there at the end because obviously He do not know What the 15 hearing process Hill bring, so He have not-tried to pinpoint 16 that. HoHever, He do have on site a detailed breakdoHn of all 17 testing, everything that must be accomplished from the.
18 commencement of fuel load to the end, which Will be integrated 4
19 into this schedule when we know what the schedule truly is.
20 MR. CHANDLER: I wasn't looking at particular dates 21 at all. I was Just trying to figure out if I looked at the 22 sequence of events that you tried to capture on those lines, I 23 read it to suggest perhaps a month for fuel load, low power 24 testing, followed then by poHer --
25 MR. COUNSIL: That is not typical of the industry, Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
_-- 1 _
58 1 and that is not what He Here tryin9 to indicate.
1 i i 2 MR. NACE: The other thing I Hanted to point on the 3 schedule: You'll notice the time line to the left of the two 4 you were talking about, ~ Plant Completion". It is our 5 objective to have the plant completed to a point where fuel 6 could be loaded in the March 1988 time frame, and that 7 schedule is attainable at this time.
~
8 MR. CHANDLER: Okay.
9 MR. COUNSIL: Mr. Grimes, we have now gone a little 10 more than an hour since the last break. We have a couple more 11 things to cover, and that's the organization staffing as well 12 as our licensing open issues. I'd like to suggest a 15-minute 13 break and then come back and reconvene for the last issues.
14 MR. GRIMES: All right. If you would give us a 15 moment?
16 Yes, Mr. Counsil, a break at this time would be 17 convenient. l l
18 MR. COUNSIL: We'll reconvene shortly after 11:20.
19 (A break Has taken.)
20 MR. COUNSIL: If He could reconvene at this time, 21 please. One announcement: On the stenographer's table in 22 the front of the room is the attendance sheet of everybody who I 23 came today for those of you who Hish to have it,-and Mr. Tyler 24 on my left also has one.
25 I would like now to turn the meeting back to Mr. Nace Carmen Gooden,'CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
59 1 momentarily for clarification of a couple of items.
I i 2 MR. NACE; I need to make one clarification and one 3 emphasis. There has been discussion, questioning, really, the
~
4 extent of some of the Corrective Action Plans on the Project, 5 and let me Just say unequivocally one hundred percent of the 6 safety-related design of this plant is being validated. There 7 will be no question of that. It is broken down by 11 8 resoective Corrective Action Plans. We are also looking at 9 some key areas that are non-safety related, such as the 10 subjects that I talked about having to do with non-safety-11 related conduits. We are also looking at some of those 12 important to safety aspects in the plant, such as aux feed 13 water, feed water interface and so forth. But 100 percent of 16 14 the design of this plant is being reva11 dated. There will be 15 no question about that.
16 The point of clarification I wanted to make -- if I 17 could have the SDAR slide -- when I talked about this slide, I 18 said the 63 in the middle there we had not yet finished our 19 review. That's not quite correct. Some of those 63, a small 20 number, we have said are reportable, but we have not made the 21 complete information transmitted to you yet with respect to 4
22 our corrective and preventive action. But they are open items
- 1 23 on the Project for future reporting.
24 MR. COUNSIL: We could now 90 on to organization and 1
25 staffing of the TU Electric organization, Nuclear. I have l Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
60 l
1 pointed out in the past, in this meeting, who I am and the I
i 2 three vice presidents sitting with me. They will in turn 3 describe their organization and staffing momentarily.
4 I would like to point out, however, others that do, 5 in fact, report to me that I did not introduce at the 6 beginning of this meeting.
7 On the chart on the screen you will see a Vice 8 President of Support. That is Mr. Joe B. George. He is 9 largely at this time responsible for technical activities in 10 the area of industry activities. That includes some areas of 11 AIF, IDCOR, IMP 0 and so forth.
12 I also have the Manager of Safeteam, Mr. Richard 13 Warner, reporting to me, and I think the Safeteam does not 14 need any explanation as to what it is.
15 In addition to that, one additional person that I 16 have not introduced previously is Vice President of 17 Administration, of Nuclear Administration, is Mr. Jim 18 Kuykendall. He has a small staff of budgeting-type personnel.
19 That's my own internal-type stuff of where my dollars are 20 going, as well as health physics support that conducts audit-21 type functions of a health physics and emergency preparation 22 of the site activities. He also has a project under him for 23 configuration management, of which we are now putting that 24 entire program together, and also within configuration 25 management, but a separate project, is our records management Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
61.
1 systems.
~l 1 2 Wi-th that, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Scott at 3 the end of the table to discuss the Nuclear Operations 4 organization.
5 MR. SCHIERLING: One question before we do that. Who 6 is in charge -- or who reports to your Quality Assurance?
7 MR. COUNSIL: Quality Assurance Hill come up on the 8 Nuclear Engineering slide. Maybe by Hay of clarification, if 9 I may, nuclear safety ultimately is my responsibility as far 10 as the Project is concerned and operations. That has been 11 delegated to Mr. Austin Scott in the operations mode. Mr.
12 Beck in Nuclear Engineering supports Mr. Scott; however, he 13 has no pressures of operations or whatever placed upon him, 14 and he Hill describe his organization in which the Director of 15 Quality Assurance reports, typically the Operations Review 16 Committee Chairman, and some of the members of-the Operations I
17 Review Committee as the oversight committee reporting to me 18 Hould come from his organization. In other words, he has no 19 line of responsibility for operations but oversees what both 20 Mr. Nace and Mr. Scott are doing.
21 Mr. Nace, as you know, provides total support to Mr.
22 Scott in the operations mode, although today, because He are 23 not licensed, Mr. Nace is on lead. At the operations phase he 24 Hill be providing engineering and construction support to Mr.
25 Scott.
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
62 1 So Quality Assurance is in Mr. Beck's organization as I
L_ 2 direct reporting to Mr. Beck and direct access to me at all 3 times.
4 MR SCHIERLING: That's what I was after.
5 MR. SCOTT: We apologize in advance for this chart.
6 It's a bit busy. It's also in a couple of spots anticipatory, 7 Which I Hill explain, and it's approximate in that in many 8 cases the clerical and ad min people have not been shown.
9 It's edited to show, for your information, the relative size 10 and the organizational distribution of the various members of 11 the Operations Division.
12 Let me direct your attention to the top of the slide.
13 We have organized to put power production in a tight group 14 reporting directly'to the Manager of Plant Operations. Mr. J.
15 J. Kelley is shown. He Hill Join on Friday. As He speak, the 16 position is currently open. Mr. Kelley Hill assume those 17 duties on Friday. So the chart is anticipatory in that 18 respect.
19 Also, the Operations Manager position is currently 20 open. It Hill be filled on Monday by Mr. J. W. Donahue. Our 21 Shift Operations is supported by managerial staff, and also 22 the shift operators and the relative numbers therein are 23 listed there. I have tried to show where applicable which 24 persons are qualified carrying a senior reactor operator's 25 license or a reactor operator's license for your information.
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
63 1 The Maintenance Manager has engineers, mechanics, i
1 2 electricians and technicans working for him, and we have moved 3 the Instrumentation and Controls Manager under the Plant 4 Manager in order to have complete and total -- so the Plant 5 Manager has a relatively broad span of control over those 6 things which will affect power production and operations.
7 Down in the lower tier let me start with the lowest 8 tier. Manager of Administrative Support contains the public 9 information, emergency planning, records and site services 11 0 groups. The Manager of Plant Support, or the -- closer to the 11 support issues of matters that are closer to tne actual plant, 12 you will see security, warehouse and safety services in that 4
17 13 group. I have a Director of Nuclear Training with full j 14 responsibility for all training conducted on site and off. He 1
15 is the conduit through which all training activities flow.
16 Moving up to the center tier, I have a Manager of 17 Technical Support, which is the engineer for the' plant; the 18 results engineers, radiation protection group and chemistry i 19 environmental group to support both units.
20 Plant Evaluation Manager. The plant evaluation group 21 is a group that I have assembled to try to make sure that 22 everyone understands that I feel that quality is a line 23 responsibility. This will be an in-house auditing group that 24 will be able to do surveillances, performance-type 25 surveillances, and compliance-type surveillances directly for Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
64 1 me. And also you Hill notice that the independent safety I
i 2 evaluation group is in that category, and this group Hill also j 3 serve as a watchdog for other problems coming up -- throughout 4 the industry in the significant operating experience reports 5 and so forth.
6 And last but not least, the Manager of Startup 7' reports to me. He has a small TU Electric staff supported by 8 contract test personnel in the form of startup engineers that 9 are contractor supported.
10 That is the way He are currently organized in 11 Operations.
- 12. Can I answer any questions?
- 13 MR. SCHIERLING
- The Westinghouse startup 14 organization: Where would that fall?
15 MR. SCOTT: I don't have that shown there. I would 16 expect to use them as an adjunct when required, when He get 17 closer to fuel load.
18 MR. SCHIERLING: Is there any differentiation for 19 Unit 1 and Unit 2, or is there -- the same organization 20 applies to both units?
21 MR. SCOTT: No, this is a dual-unit organization.
22 The operators --
23 MR. SCHIERLING: In other words, everybody in there 24 serves on both units.
25 MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
65 1 MR. SCHIERLING: Except the operators.
I I 2 MR. SCOTT: The operators -- yes, they Hill 3 eventually have to split when He get both units up on the 4 line, but right now we're all together.
5 MR. SCHIERLING: You Hill or will not have a manager 6 for each unit separately?
4 7 MR. SCOTT: At the present time I don't plan that, 8 although that's an alternative that's being considered.
9 MR. SCHIERLING: Thank you.
10 MR. COUNSIL: Are there any other questions? We'll 11 move on then to Mr. Beck's organization, Nuclear Engineering.
12 MR. SCHIERLING: One more question. They're all 13 geing to be located at the site, this entire organization, 14 except probably you, Mr. Scott?
i 15 MR. COUNSIL: The entirety of the organization, with 16 the exception of Mr. Beck and I.and certain of the licensing 4
17 people he'll discuss, certain of the nuclear engineers, which 18 Mr. Beck Hill discuss, are all located at the site. There is 19 a very small contingency in Dallas. Everybody else is at the 20 site.
21 MR. SCOTT: My office is at the site.
22 MR. BECK: Turning now to the Nuclear Engineering 23 Division, I report, as it shows, directly to Mr. Counsil. And 24 I have responsible to me the Manager of Nuclear Licensing, Mr.
25 Gil Keeley. There are 14 professionals in'the Licensing l
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
~
66 1 Department. They work both here in Dallas and at the site.
> l .
- 2 Director of Reactor Engineering is Dr. Ausuf Husain.
3 There are 22 professionals in that organization. Their ,
4 responsibilities cover such areas as transient and safety' 5 analyses, also coolant accident analysis. And also included 6 Hithin Reactor Engineering are all fuel-related activities, 7 both in core and external to the core.
8 Manager of Administration is Dr. Ed Powell. He has 9 in support of him some 21 individuals who provide 10 administrative and clerical support across the entire facet of 11 activities that are ongoing in the Dallas office.
12 I show the Director of the CPRT, Dr. Ferguson, on 13 this slide. Included in that organization are some 320 14 individuals as of April 1 of this year. We anticipate as the 15 program nears completion a substantial reduction in the number 16 of individuals that are assigned to CPRT. The vast majority 17 are Third-Party individuals. Dr. Ferguson himself is an 18 employee of Dlian Corporation, not TU Electric.
19 MR. CHANDLER: Will that box continue to exist?
20 MR. BECK: After licensing --
- 21 MR. CHANDLER
- After licensing.
22 MR. BECK: -- no.
23 MR. CHANDLER. Okay.
24 MR. BECK: The Director of Quality Assurance is Mr.
25 John Streeter. Mr. Streeter is at the site, and as of next i
. Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532.
i J
67 1 week, all quality assurance activities will be located at the I
i 2 site. -
3 We have a small contingent of vendor audit people who 4 will be moving from Dallas to the site next week.
5 Mr. Streeter has in his organization some one hundred j 6 TU Electric employees in the management administration of the 7 quality assurance area, and a total contingent as of April 1 8 of 432 individuals; TU Electric plus contract inspectors.
9 Any questions?
a 10 MR. COUNSIL: Mr. Nace will now discuss the I 11 Engineering Construction organization.
12 I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Mr. Beck's charts 13 were in the first handout. Now we're back with Mr. Nace's 14 handout where you can find his organization.
15 MR. NACE: Mine is the one that has the little black 16 square in the lower right-hand corner. At the top of the 17 hierarchy in the Engineering and Construction Group, two staff 18 positions. The one on the left is my executive assistant, Jim 19 Muffett. Jim came to us recently from NRC IEE, Region III, 20 in the Chicago area.
21 I also have a Director of Administration to handle 22 the routine administrative matters within the Engineering and 18 23 Construction organization. That's Bob Deatherage, a long-time 24 TV Electric employee. He's the individual who really will be 25 building your new building for you.
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
68 1 Down on the long line of the direct reports, the line 1
- i 2 organization per se -- before I start talking about the people 3 and the size of the organization, what I would look you to do 4 is mentally draw a vertical line between the Director of
- 5 Projects and then the five contractor organizations shown on 6 the right-hand side. The three organizational entities on the 7 left, the Director of Engineering, the Director of 8 Construction and the Director of Projects, is, in fact, my
) 9 long-term permanent TU Electric organization. That is the 10 organization that will be maintaining the plant in support of 2
11 Nuclear Operations once we get an operating license.
- 12 It is also from a project standpoint the focal point 13 of direction with respect to ongoing. corrective action effort
! 14 on Unit 1 and 2 at this point in time.
15 From a design control standpoint, under the Quality 16 Assurance Program of TU Electric, design control is exercised 17 through me, through my Director of Engineering and to the
- 18 respective engineering contractors. So when you get out the 19 detailed organization chart there is dash lines there showing 4
20 design control responsibility and path of accountability that 21 can't be reflected on this simplified chart.
22 Simply stated, what that means is the respective 23 engineering contractor organizations shown on here do, in 24 fact, report directly to me. I have delegated design control 4
25 to the Director of Engineering. I deal directly with the Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
69 )
1 respective contract organizations on contract administration, I
i 2 schedule, cost, as Hell as steer the design control effort 3 through my Director of Engineering.
4 Looking at the respective blocks on the organization 5 chart, starting with the Director of Engineering, the Director 6 today is Mr. John Krechting, who is a loaned employee from 7 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation to TU Electric at this 8 time, filling a line position within TU Electric.
9 under his organization I have shown a breakdown to 10 give you an indication of the size of this organization. It 11 is also shown in a format that shoHs you What the sub-tier 12 organization looks like. I have six direct reports to the 13 Director of Engineering in the groups as shown; mechanical, 14 electrical, civil, projects, engineering assurance and a Hork 15 tracking group, which work tracking is merely an organization 16 that keeps track of where all the paper is and who has to do 17 the next one next.
18 The numbers in the parentheses shown to the left of 19 the sub-tier organization, for example, in mechanical, the 20 82,27 is intended to show you the size of that organization 21 and also shows you the number of people who are TU Electric 22 permanent people. In mechanical it's 82 permanent TU 23 electrical -- mechanical engineers, 27 contract employees.
24 MR. SCHIERLING: Is that plus or --
25 MR. NACE: Plus. The ultimate size of that Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
70 l
i 1 engineering organization, we expect, will be in the vicinity I
u__ 2 of 350 TU Electric employees.
3 The next block is Director of Construction, and in
~
4 conjunction with Austin's anticipatory announcement, my 5 Director of Construction currently is Mr. J J. Kelley.
6 Mr. Kelley Joined TU Electric recently from Northeast 7 Utilities. He is transferring Friday to oeccme the Manager of
- 8 Plant Operations.
9 Mr. Don Reynerson, shown on this slide, who is 10 presently my Unit 2 Project Manager, has been announced as the 11 Director of Construction effective this coming Friday. Don 12 Joined me last fall from Gulf States Utilities where he was, 13 among other things, most recently Director of Engineering, a 14 comparable position at the River Bend Station for Gulf States 15 Utilities.
16 Currently in the Construction organization shown on 17 this slide are 2500 people. That includes the construction, 18 non-manual construction supervision, and the contractor craft 19 personnel in support of construction activities.
20 The third block is Director of Projects, Mr.-Terry 21 Tyler. The Director of Projects is responsible for project 22 managers, cost and schedule management systems. Mr. Tyler 23 most recently was the CPRT Program Director in Mr. Beck's 24 organization. He Joined me recently as the Director of 25 Projects. Prior to his experience in the CPRT-related Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
-71 1
t activities with TU Electric, he also had prior utility i-2 experience,.non-TU Electric.
3 The organizations to the right of that then are my 4
current contractor project organizations in support of ongoing 5 activities. We are organized into five separate engineering 6 projects. Shown: Gibbs & Hill, EBASCO, Stone & Webster --and 7
1 I might add parenthetically after that first one, the 8
i Corrective Action Program project -- IMPELL, and finally, the 9
Stone & Webster Pipe Stress and Support Project.
10 Below, the names of the head of each of the projects 11 is as listed, and below that is a representation of current 12 l size of that organization, broken doHn into the number of
! 13 i
people on site and the number of people off site in support of 14 Comanche Peak.
15 But if you count up all the numbers, you Hill find 16 that there is right now approximately 6800 people in the i
17 Engineering and Construction organization associated with work 18 at Comanche Peak Unit 1 and Unit 1.
19 A couple of points to make. Number one: We have the 20 19 resources available and on site as needed to finish the plant 21 on the currently announced schedule. We have the leadership 22 talent, and He have the technical talent. We.also have Within 23 that 6800 people, there are approximately 4200 of those who i
24 are engineers.
Because of the number of engineers that Here :
25 needed to complete the corrective action effort, it was not Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
72 1 feasible to utilize one engineering organization to get the i
1 2 work done.
3 At the same time, by virtue of using the number of 4 organizations shown here, it has become very important to us 5 to have a very good set of interface procedures from a design 6 control standpoint. You will find those procedures in place 7 on the site. They are all controlled from Engineering 8 Procedure Number 1.01, which details how we describe and 9 control the tasks for each of the respective contractors and 10 how we control the technical interface. Just the first part 11 of that task description, the procedures themselves, is 12 approximately 15 feet long, so a very complete.and complex set 13 of procedures that we're going to have to become familiar with 14 over this project.'
15 I'd like to start now and go back from the right-hand 16 side of the chart to the left and give you a little flavor of 17 what each of the contract engineering contractors is doing on 18 the project.
19 Starting with the Stone & Webster -- PSAS, it says:
20 that stands for pipe stress and support project -- that is'the 21 original Stone & Webster project that was hired, contracted in 22 mid-1985 to redo the piping stress and support analyses on 23 both units. We have chosen to maintain that as a separate 24 organizational entity as a matter of convenience since those 25 procedures were in place at the time we expanded some other Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
73 1 activities. Their scope is entirely pipe stress and support i
1 2 on both units.
3 The next task is the -- the next contractor shown is 4 IMPELL. IMPELL has several tests for us today. Number one:
5 They are involved with cable tray hangers in Unit 1. They 6 primarily have two buildings with cable tray hangers they're 7 requalifying under a joint program Hith EBASCO.
8 IMPELL is also doing the Train C smaller than two 9 inch Corrective Action Program, qualifying non-safety-related 10 Train C program from a two-over-one standpoint. And they are 11 also the lead contractor for me with respect to fire 12 protection and equipment qualification.
13 Skip the Stone & Webster Corrective Action Project 14 under Ralph Ackley for a minute and 90 to EBASCO. EBASCO also 15 has several tests as a lead contractor. Number one is the --
16 has the balance of the cable tray hangers. All cable tray 17 hangers for Unit 2 and the remaining buildings of Unit 1. As 18 I said earlier, IMPELL is doing two of the buildings, and 19 EBASCO is doing the remainder for Unit 1. It is basically 20 done under a joint program. EBASCO is also doing the 21 safety-related conduits Train A and B and Train C greater than 22 tHo inches. EBASCO is the lead contractor for HVAC and also 23 is responsible for our systems interaction program, systems i 24 interaction being hazards two over one and so forth.
25 Finally shown is Gibbs & Hill, which was the original Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
74 1 architect engineer on the project. Gibbs & Hill's current I
L__ 2 scope involves the accumulation and collation of vendor 3 documentation on the Project. They have no direct design 4 responsibility to make.
5 The remainder of the work on the Project is the Stone 6 & Webster Corrective Action Program contractor under Mr. Ralph 7 Ackley.
8 Any questions?
9 MR. SCHIERLING: Each of these organizationr. has its 10 own QA program. Has that been reviewed by you and in essence j 11 everybody comes under your QA program?
j 12 MR. NACE: All contractor QA programs have been 13 reviewed and approved by TU Electric. We are using --
14 depending on which one you're talking about, He are using more 15 or less of that contractor's particular QA program, but from a i
16 hierarchical standpoint, they have all been reviewed and 17 approved by the TU Electric QA organization and it all pulls 18 together.
19 MR. SCHIERLING: And any QC inspection that is being 20 done is being done by your organization, right?
21 MR. BECK: Yes, sir.
22 MR. SCHIERLING: And you do inspection of these 23 different entities.
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532 !
75 1 MR KEPPLER: And that's Mr. Streeter's group?
l L__ 2 MR. BECK: Yes, sir.
3 MR. NACE: Any other questions?
4 MR. COUNSIL: If there are no further questions on 5 organization and staffing, we will move on to the licensing 6 open issues. That is in the first handout that was issued at 7 9:00 a.m. this morning.
8 What I have done here is summarize the 55 issues that 9 He consider to be open items as far as licensing is concerned.
10 I have broken it down into three categories, those where we I
11 feel -- where clearly the ball is in the NRC's court for 12 review and/or closure. There are 23 items. I will show you 13 precisely what those are in a moment.
14 There are 17 items where we have had discussions with 15 the Staff and where the ball is in our court. We owe you 16 submittals or updates in that regard.
17 There are 15 where we know the train is on the track.
20 18 and we have got to get submit als to you but we have not had 19 any substantive interaction tu date.
20 The first 23 items are shown on this slide, which is 21 in your handout, which I am sure someone in the Staff is quite 22 familiar with. And the second slide which picks up the 23 remaining four.
24 The second grouping of 17 are these items where we 25 owe you a response, and they're in various stages of l
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
76 1 preparation and discussion between our staff and the NRC i
1 2 staff.
, 3 The final list is the 15 which we know we're going to 4 be providing information to the Staff on, and will likely 5 require staff action.
6 Are there any questions on those 55 items?
7 MR. CHANDLER: One quick question. The number of 8 the items listed here have a parenthetical which refers to the 9 tech specs.
10 MR. BECK: Yes.
11 MR. CHANDLER: Is the Project undertaking an 12 overall review of tech specs?
. 13 MR. BECK: We are in the midst of a comprehensive 14 review of our tech specs involving all aspects of TU Electric 15 organizations, and we anticipate a completion of that tech 16 spec review this year. In' fact,-Mr. Haskovec, who is in 17 charge of it, is with us at the moment.
18 Ronny, when is that going to be --
19 MR. HASK0VEC: Complet.1;n of that schedule is for 20 February 1st, 1988.
21 MR. SCHIERLING: The tech specs are based on the 22 Westinghouse standard tech specs?
23 MR. BECK: That's correct.
24 MR. CHANDLER: So in addition, then, to the items 25 listed here, there may be others which would require some Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
77 1 change.
I t- 2 MR. BECK: In the text specs themselves --
3 MR CHANDLER: In the tech specs.
4 MR. BECK: --
that's possible. We're going through 5 that, as I said, with a comprehensive program right now.
6 Bill, if there are no further questions, that's all I 7 have.
8 MR. COUNSIL: Are there any further questions from 9 Staff?
10 MR. SCHIERLING: I think probably each and every one 11 of those deserves a one-day Horking session ruling, but He'll 12 get to that later.
l 13 MR. COUNSIL: .Some of those I don't think Hill take 14 the full day.
1 15 MR. SCHIERLING: There are other ones that make up 16 for it. 1 4
17 MR. COUNSIL: There are some -- you're right.
18 With that I'd like to go off the record for a moment.
19 (An off-the-record discussion Has held.)
20 MR. COUNSIL: At this point in time, in order to 21 011oH the NRC to caucus, as Hell as obtain lunch if at all I
22 possible, and also to allow Mrs. Ellis of CASE to gather'her 23 thoughts, we will break for one and a half hours and reconvene 24 at 1:30.
25 The meeting is adjourned.
- Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
78 e
'l 1 (A break was taken for lunch.)
I i ? MR. COUNSIL: If we could, I'd like to call the 3 meeting to order.
4 At this point in time, I'd like to turn the meeting 5 over, for comments of NRC, to Mr. Chris Grimes.
6 MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Couns11, 7 First of all, I would like to thank the 8 representatives from Texas Utilities for taking the time from 9 your obviously busy schedules to brief us on the activities at 10 Comanche Peak. I think that this meeting is valuable for us 1
11 and informative and will help us to organize our review 12 activities promptly.
13 And along those lines I would note that there are a-14 lot of activities coing on at Comanche Peak, and it's clear 15 that our first objective will be to try to get caught up with 16 those activities and get on top of them so you don't 90 too 17 far down the road without having some impression about the 18 NRC's views regarding the acceptability of your activities.
19 Toward that end, we'll make every effort to get to 20 the site as quickly as possible to make arrangements so that 21 He can begin doing our reviews and audits promptly.
22 We will try to schedule detailed working meetings 23 between the people on my staff that will be responsible for 24 conducting these things and your counterpart so that they can 25 get up to speed as quickly as possible.
Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
79 1 We will Continue with public meetings on a monthly or I
! 2 every six-weeks schedule to report progress, both from the 3 standpoint of the NRC Staff's review and also giving you an 4 opportunity to summarize your progress as you have today.
5 We also intend on establishing procedures and 6 practices to give you -- to elicit formal descriptions of 7 these activities from Texas Utilities and to provide you with 8 formal NRC responses, either in.the form of an approval of the 1
9 approach or position on what needs to be done 1n order to make 10 it acceptable.
11 In the very near future we would like to participate 12 in some working meetings to kind of diagram all these 13 activities so we can better understand the relationship I
{
14 between them, which activity feeds what other activity and so 15 forth, because, quite frankly, right now we have a general i
16 understanding of what the work is, but in order for us to 17 organize our activities, I think that diagramming all of them 18 would be useful. So you might be thinking about doing that.
19 Also, I think it's important for us to understand ---
20 this was a question that was raised at last Thursday's meeting 21 and I will raise it again in a redundant way -- we've heard 22 descriptions of your QA programs, your approval of 23 contractors' QA programs, and in order for us to make 24 effective inspections of all of these p?ocesses, it's 25 important for us to understand when did the QA programs go Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
80 1 1 into existence in their present form, when Here they approved I
i 2 and to what work do they apply? so that He do not in the 3 future confuse problems of the past with the activities of the 4 present. And we need to do that very soon.
5 I think it's important for us to start getting on 6 paper clear descriptions of your activities, for' example, from 7 the standpoint of your one hundred percent design 8 verification. We understand and have approved in the past 9 exclusions, for example, Westinghouse scope of supply was 10 excluded to a limited extent. And there are other areas like il that where there are caveats or exceptions or clarifications,
- /
and we'd like to see all of that written down and accepted by 13 the NRC in whatever form needed so that that no longer haunts 14 us from a historical perspective.
15 We Will continue to try to work toward efficient and 16 effective documentation procedures and a clearly defined 17 review and inspection scope so that-you Hill know what to ,
i 18 expect from us, and I hope that He Hill be able to get that 19 settled very soon.
20 That's all I really have to offer in the Hay of 21 general comments at this time. I expect He Hill provide you 22 with more specific comments and questions later, and He Hill 23 do that as soon as we can get them organized.
24 With that, that concludes the NRC remarks. I'd like 25 to ask Mrs. Juanita Ellis, as President of CASE, whether or Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
'\
81 1 not she would like to make any comments on today's meeting.
I i 2 MRS. ELLIS: Just some very brief statements.
3 Not having seen the transcript of last week's meeting, I 4 suspect that some of the things that were discussed there 5 will, of course, be of interest, and so I won't ask'some of 6 the-questions I might have because I suspect some of the 7 things were discussed there.
8 We will have some further additional comments in one 9 form or another which we will get to the NRC, either formally 10 or informally, through meetings such as this or in writing in 11 some instances.
12 I understand that you are interested in our input in 13 all of this, and we appreciate the opportunity to have input 14 in this sort of program and also in future meetings.
15 I do think it's appropriate to say that the meeting 16 that we had recently where Mr. Doyle, one of our past 17 witnesses and possibly future witnesses, flew down and talked 18 with Stone & Webster people, I think, was a very good step 19 forward, and we are hopeful that we'll be able to continue 20 with that sort of informal process with the applicants because 21 I think it was very helpful to everyone involved. And I think 22 that in resolving the technical issues especially, that this-23 could be a very, very helpful procedure and process for 24 everyone involved, and including the Staff, of course.
25 And there are some specific documents that CASE would Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
82 1 like to be sure that the people Hho are newly on board with l
I 2 the NRC do-review, and I can tell you a few of them off the 3 top of my head, and He Hill Let yot know of some of the 4 others.
5 One that I think is absolutely imperative is the 6 August 22nd, 1983, proposed findings of fact on the 7 Walsh-Doyle allegations. That one is one of the more 8 definitive statements, I guess you might say, of some of the 9 Walsh-Doyle concerns that were raised regarding the pipe 10 supports and so on, and I think that Hill be very helpful.
11 The Stone & Webster summary document regarding the 12 procedures and so on that they are using, I think, would be 13 helpful in that regard as well, and Stone & Webster had some 14 very candid comments which they made at the meeting recently 15 with Mr. Doyle, which I think were appropriate, and 16 appreciated, by the way. It's been a long, hard fight to gain 17 recognition that the problems existed, and we're glad to see 18 that the Utility is beginning to take steps to recognize the 19 problems and hopefully deal Hith them adequately.
20 We do still have some reservations, however, I want 21 to hasten to point out, about some of the other aspects of the 22 program and some of the other contractors that are workjn? on 23 the program. And we're concerned, as we pointed out in the 24 past, and when you read some of the things that we have filed, 25 you'll see that we're concerned about things like the Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
83 1 independence criteria and so on. And I won't go into a lot of I
i 2 detail with you on those right now.
3 But welcome to the-Tar Baby plant. I think that was 4 a phrase coined by someone with the NRC, by the way. And we 5 will try to work as best we can with both the Staff and the 6 applicant to try to make what lies ahead as painless as 7 possible for all of us and as productive.
8 I guess that's about it.
9 MR. GRIMES: Thank you very much. We appreciate 10 that. We're in the process now of trying to review the 11 voluminous records of the Comanche Peak Project, and so we 12 will probably be calling upon you fairly regularly to try to 13 help us focus on some specifics of the past. And we will 14 particularly take d look at the August 23rd, 1983, proposed 15 findings of fact to make sure we understand that record.
16 Thank you very much, Mrs. Ellis.
17 With that, Mr. Counsil, I want to thank you again for 2
18 this meeting. Would you like to make any concluding remarks?
19 MR. COUNSIL: Yes, I would, possibly for 20 clarification, Mrs. Ellis.
21 When Stone & Webster makes a statement, although we 22 do not tell Stone & Webster what to say or how to say it, they 23 are stating a TU Electric position; and myself and the 24 officers sitting at this table say that yes, everything they 25 said is entirely accurate. And I wanted you to understand Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
- _ . _ . ~,
1 that. So they are not making a statement on behalf of Stone &
I 2 Webster Engineering Corporation. They are making a statement 3 on behalf of TV Electric.
4 MRS. ELLIS: 'We appreicate that.
5 MR. COUNSIL: If there are.no further Staff 6' questions, the meeting is closed.
7 (The meeting was closed.at 1:45 p.m.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 7
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532
= _
85 1
STATE OF TEXAS )
i
)
L__ 2 COUNTY OF TARRANT )
3 4
I, Carmen Gooden, Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 5
State of Texas, certify that the foregoing TU Electric-NRC 6
Meeting was reported stenographically by me at the time and 7
place indicated, and is a true record of the proceedings .
8 Given under my hand and seal of office on this the 10th 9 day of April, 1987.
10 11 '
/[,;/
12
-- W/
13 Carmen Gooden,N 'otary Public and Certified Shorthand Reporter in 14 and for the State of Texas.
15 Certificate No.. 2353 Expiration Date: 12-31-87 16 Notary Expires: 08-10-87 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 j l
25 l
1 Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR, Metro 429-5532