ML20214X069
| ML20214X069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1986 |
| From: | Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Asselstine, Roberts, Zech NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214X072 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-AS, TASK-BN86-020, TASK-BN86-20 BN-86-020, BN-86-20, NUDOCS 8610030311 | |
| Download: ML20214X069 (63) | |
Text
_
p-. %
(g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~,
{
5 e j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
..... 2 2 SEP 1986 1
Docket Nos.: 50-445 and 50-446 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Zech l Commissioner Roberts '
Comissioner Asselstine '
Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Carr FROM: Vincent S. Noonan, Director PWR Project Directorate #5 1,4 Divison of PWR licensing-A -
SUBJECT:
BOARD NOTIFICATION - FOU.0WUP OF BOARD NOTIFICATION NOS.85-067 and 85-076 REGARDING 0FFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 4 I REPORT NO. 4-85-008 REGARDING THE FACTS SURROUNDING l
TEXAS UTILITIES UNTIMELY RESPONSE TO THE INTERVENORS DISCOVERY RE0 VEST (B0ARD NOTIFICATION NO. 86-20 )
This Notification is being provided to the Comission in accordance with the revised Comission's notification policy of July 6,1984, to inform the Comission on all issues on the cases before the Comission.
Backaround
/
On May 29, 1985, AppTicants notified the Board and parties that they had ,
identified a docum a t which they believed to be within the scope of a 1980 discovery request from the intervenors. Applicants had submitted their initial response in 1980 and supplemented their response through 1982. The
- document was a report prepared in May 1978 by Management Analysis Company (MAC) following a management review and audit of the quality assurance proaram of the Comanche Peak Project. On June 12, 1985, Applicants provided the Board and parties with their evaluation of the failure to produce this document at -
an earlier time. In sumary, the Applicants determined that an individual i responsible for licensing made an error in judgement not to produce the report ;
in 1980. By Board Notification No.85-067, you were informed the Executive !
Director for Operations requested the Office of Investigations to investigate the facts surrounding Applicants' withholding of the 1978 MAC report.
In addition, by Board N0tification No.85-076, you were informed that durina the OI investigation the staff became aware of some additional audits performed by MAC of the Brown & Root 0A Program at Comanche Peak and that the staff requested copies of these reports for review to determine whether these audits should have been provided to the intervenor as part of intervenor's 1980 discovery request as well. On September 16, 1985, Applicants provided the board and parties with these three reports prepared in 1976, 1977, and 1978 by MAC for Brown & Root concerning the Brown & Root QA program.
Applicants stated that the three documents appear to be within the scope of 003031
2g SEP M of intervenor's discovery reauests. As noted above (BN No.85-076), the staff first learned of these reports in an interview with MAC personnel by OI on the sub. ject of additional work by MAC relating to Comanche Peak (other than the 1978 report commissioned by Texas Utilities and produced in the May 29, 1985, submittal).
Result of 01 Investigation The Office of Investigations has completed its investigation which examined the circumstances surrounding the failure of TUGC0 to provide the MAC report on a timely basis to a discovery request by the intervenor and issued its report no. 4-85-008 (copy enclosed). OI concluded that the intervenor's interrogatory was sufficiently well-defined to reach the report at issue; the utility made a material false statement by omission of the report in response to the intervenor's request; however, the omission was not made with the intention of violating the ASI.B's order.
The parties to the proceeding are being notified by copy of this memorandum.
Vincent S. Noonan, Director PWR Pro. ject Directorate No. 5 Division of PWR I.icensirg-A
Enclosure:
01 Report No. 4-85-008 cc: P. Bloch, ASI.B W. Jordan, ASI.B K. McCollom, ASI.B E. Johnson, ASI.B SECY (2)
Service I.ist (See next page)
I
- See previous concurrence.
PD#5* PD#5* OGC*
AVietti-Cook:.js CTrammell I. Chandler BPayes 8/14 86 8/14/86 9/16/86 / /86 P DIR:PD#5 j 81 c VSNoonan y
/10/86 $66 0FFICIAI. RECORD COPY
7 2 2 m vrA On. September 16,.1985, Applicants provided the board and parties with these three reports prepared in 1976, 1977, and 1978 by MAC for Brown & Root concerning the Brown & Root QA program, which appear to be within the scope of intervenot's discovery requests. As noted above (BN No.85-079), the staff first learned'of these reports in an interview with MAC personnel by OI on the subject of additional work by MAC relating to Comanche Peak (other than the 1978 report commissioned by Texas Utilities and produced in the May_29, 1985, submittal). '
Result of 01 Investigation Office of Investigations has ekleted its investigation which examined the circumstances surrounding the failu.re of TUGC0 to provide the MAC report on a timely basis to a discovery request'by the intervenor and issued its report No. 4-85-008. OI concluded that the'intervenor's interrogatory was sufficiently well-defined to reach the report at issue; the utility made a material false statement by omission of the_ report in response to the intervenor's request; however, the omission was not made with the intention of violating the ASI.B's order. N N
The parties to the proceeding are being notified'by copy of this memorandum.
Vincent S. Noonan, Directo PWR Project Directorate No. 5 Division of PWR I.icensing-A cc: P. Bloch, ASt.B W. Jordan, ASI.B K. McCollom, ASI.B E. Johnson, ASI.B SECY (2)
Service list (See next pagel *See previous concurrence.
PD#5* PD#5* 'D OI AVietti-Cook:js CTrammell flChandler BFayes 8/14/86 8/14/86 f//#/86 8/ /86 l PPAS DIR:PDd5 SBlack VSNoonan A M' 8/ /86 8/ /86 0FFICIAl. RECORD COPY l
a = :: di _ _
1 } NP G86 On September 16, 1985, applicants provided the board and parties with three reports prepared in 1976, 1977, and 1978 by MAC for Brown & Root concerning the Brown & Root QA program, which appear to be within the scope of CASE discovery requests that were first learned of in an interview with MAC personnel by 0I on the subject of additional work by MAC relating to Comanche Peak (other than the 1978 report commissioned by Texas Utilities and produced in the May 29, 1985, submittal).
Result of 01 Investigation and Staff Evaluation Office of Investigations has completed its investigation which examined the circumstances surrounding the failure of TUGC0 to provide the MAC report on a timely No. 4-85-008 basis to(copy a discovery) enclosedrequest by the intervenor
. OI concluded and issued its report that the intervenor's interrogatory was sufficiently well-defined to reach the report at issue; the utility made a material false statement by omission of the report in response to the intervenor's request; however, the omission was not made with the intention of violating the ASl8's order.
The parties to the proceeding are being notified by copy of this memorandum.
Vincent S. Noonan, Director PWR Project Directorate No. 5 Division of PWR licensing-A
Enclosure:
01 Report No. 4-85-008 cc: P. Bloch, ASLB W. Jordan, ASI.B K. McCollom, ASLB E. Johnson, ASLB SECY (2)
Service list (See next page)
P ELD OI Lt- ook:js ammell LChandler Bhyes 8 6 l4/86 8/ /86 8/ /86 I
PPAS DIR: PD#5 SBlack VSNoonan 8/ /86 8/ /86 0FFICIAl. RECORD COPY
m, DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION Comanche Peak Units 1&2 Docket Nos. 50-445/446 Peter B. Bloch, Esq.
. William L. Brown, Esq.
William H. Burchette, Esq.
Mr. W. G. Counsil Mr. James E. Cummins Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
Mrs. Juanita Ellis Joseph"Gallo, Esq.
Billie Pirner Garde Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.
Renea Hicks, Esq.
Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
Elizabeth B. Johnson, Esq.
Dr. Walter II. Jordan Roy P. Lessy, Jr. , Esq.
Robert D. Martin, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. James T. McGaughy Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Mr. Lanny Alan Sinkin Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Homer C. Schmidt Mr. Robert E. Ballard, Jr.
Mr. R. S. Howard Ms. Nadcy H. Williams Nancy E. Weigers David R. Piggott s John W. Beck Mr. Jack Redding Rev. 02/19/86 14_
. SYNOPSIS' In 1978 Texas Utilities contracted with the Management Anal to perfom an audit of Texas Utility Generating Company's TUGCO) (ysis Company Quality (MAC)
Assurance (QA) program for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statibn (CPSES).
During 1978 MAC representatives conducted an audit of the QA program at the corporate office and at the Comanche Peak site. MAC produced a written report which MAC representatives presented to the utility's upper management. The MAC report contained findings which in some instances reported noncompliance with provisions of Appendix B.. -
In 1980 the intervenor for CPSES filed interro Peak Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board (ASLB) gatories for the through production the Comanche of numerous
, documents which included third party audits related to Contention 5.. After the utility requested.and received clarifications of the intervenor's request,
- the utility agreed to make the requested documents available for viewing by the intervenor. .
The utility's licensing group sent requests for file reviews to the affected divisions of the utility and collected their responses in an effort to assemble the documents requested in response to the ASLB order. During this review, a ,
TUGC0 Corporate QA Supervisor notified a licensing group representative of the i existence of the 1978 MAC report and expressed the opinion that it was within the scope of the intervenor's request. The licensing official responsible for collecting the requested documents obtained a copy of the MAC report and specifinally questioned a TUGC0 Executive Vice-President as to whether the MAC report should be included in the response. The Executive Vice-President, without consultation with other utility officials and without the knowledge that certitin QA' supervisors believed the MAC was producible, made a decision that the report was confidential and should not be produced. When the inter-venor subsequently reviewed the requested documents in the utility's office, -
the 1978 MAC report was not among the reports made available.
In 1985 during a prudency audit conducted by the utility, the 1978 MAC report was discovered. Utility corporate management officials ultimately decided that the report was within the scope of the intervenor's 1980 interrogatories related to Contention 5. The utility sent a copy of the 1978 MAC report to the ASLB and notified the NRC that the report had not been produced in 1980 based on a decision of the Executive Vice-Pre:1 dent and :b: cat the advice or input of other senior utility officials.
The utility subsequently conducted an internal investigation as to why the 1978 MAC report had not been produced in 1980. Affidavits were taken from utility l
employees, and the utility management again concluded the decision to wi'thhold the report was made solely by the Executive Vice-President and this was an error in judgement. Certain senior management officials also testified that the review perfomed by MAC in 1978 had been intended for use as a management tool to evaluate their program and had not been intended as an audit of the QA program, During the time the utility was conducting its internal investigation, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) investigation was in progress. Many of the same '
utility employees were interviewed and provided testimony consistent with the
! 1 .
Case No. 4-85-008 1
+ .
- t testimony contained in their affidavits taken during the utility's internal- ,
investigation. A Vice President (VP) who assumed responsibility for licensing soon after the Executive Vice-President made the decision not to produce the MAC report, testified that he was aware of the Executive Vice President's
- decision and said he chose not to revisit the decision. -
The OI investigation concludes that the decision to withhold the MAC report was made solely by the Execut'ive Vice-President. The investigation ~ further determined that certain QA officials believed.that the report was within the scope of the intervenor's request, but their belief had not been communicated to the Executive Vice-President. This investigation also concluded that the -
. senior utility officials who negotiated the MAC review intended that the resulting report be used as a management tool. It was further concluded that these senior' officials had not intended that the MAC review be used.as a QA audit to determine compliance with Appendix B. However, the 1978 MAC report -~
concluded that there was noncompliance with Appendix B related to certain -
areas of the utility's QA program. The interv.enor's 1980 request was suffi-ciently well defined to reach the MAC report as an outside evaluation, study, or audit related to Contention 5. The utility made a material false statement by the emission of the MAC report in response to the intervenor's recuest; however, this omission was not made with the intention of violating the ASLB's order.
S 4
O e
N. 9
~
.s ,
ACCOUNTABILITY ,
The following portions of this ROI (Case No. 4-85-008) will' not be included in the material placed in the PDR. They consist of pages J through A.
Case No. 4-85-008 3
. _ , . - -- - - - - . ---,--n,--- ,.,.,,-.e-,., , , . ,-.. , , . - - - -- - - - - ._-..n,, y--
Q THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Case No. 4-85-008 __ 4_ _
e .
1 l
. i ;
TABLEbFCONTENTS
~
I i
Pace SYN 0PSIS......................................................... 1
~
i ACCOUNTABILITY PAGE.............................................. 3 -
l
- APPLICABLE REGULATIONS........................................... 7 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION.........................................i' 9.
"~
~
Purpose of Investigation.................................... 9 Background.................................................. 9 Interview with John JACKSON, President, and Jack NORRIS,
. Vice President, Management Analysis Company............... 9 Interview with Andy JONES, Attorney for Texas Utilities..... 10 Interview with Thomas ROSE, Sr. Technical Engineer.......... 10 Interview with Homer SCHMIDT, TUGC0 Mgr. for Nuclear Serv... 10 Interview with William G. COUNSIL, Executive Vice-President, Texas Util i ti es Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. Interview wi th Susan PALMER, Sr. Auditor, TUGC0. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Interview with John MARSHALL, TUGC0 Licensing Supervisor.... 11 Interview with Debra ANDERSON, TUGC0 QA Audit Supervisor.... 12 Interview with Robert SPANGLER, TUGC0 QA Service Supervisor. 12 Interview with John MERRITT, Assistant Project General
. Manager..TUGC0............................................ 12 Interview with Joe and Construction and GEORGE, Pro ject General. Manager,Vice President of Eng Comanche Peak............................................. 13 Interview with Robert GARY, Executive Vice President TUGC0..................................................... 13 Interview with David CHAPMAN, Executive Assistant to the Executive Vice President Texas Util iti es- Fuel
- Compa ny. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. 13 Intervi ew wi th Ron TOLSON , QC Su pe rvi sor , TUGC0. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Interview with Michael SPENCE, President TUGC0............. 15 Interview with Perry BRITTAIN, Chaiman of the Board and CEO of Texas Uti1 ties........................... 16 Interview with Louis FIKAR, Retired Executive Vice President, TUGC0.......................................... 16 Interview with Billy Ray CLEMENTS, Vice President, Texas El ectri c 4ervi ce Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 W111 ful nes s/ Intent Section. . . . . . ~ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Agent's Conclusion.......................................... 19 Status of Investigation..................................... 19 LIST OF EXHIBITS.......................,......................... 20 i
i .
- g. 8 1
Case No. 4-85-008 5 -
--_____-._-_.._-._-w
e THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 4
f t : i Case No. 4-85-008 6
~
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Allegation: TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO):
ALLEGED MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT Part I. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, Chapter 16, '
Section 186: (Revocation)
~.
~
' ~
i Case No. 4-85-008 7
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
~
Case No. 4-85-008 8
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION Purpose of Investigation This investigation was initiated to detemine whether Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) officials made a material false statement in 1980 by withholding a Management Analysis Company (MAC) audit report in response to a Comanche Peak Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) order.
Background
In 1978 TUGC0 contracted with MAC for an independent review of the utility's Quality Assurance (QA) program. MAC completed the review in 1978 and furnished the utility with a written report (Exhibit-1). TUGC0 officials subsequently fomulated an internal response to the MAC findings (Exhibit 2). -
In 1980, the utility initially responded to the ASLB relating to interroga-tories submitted by the intervenor and characterized the intervenor's request as being too broad and too vague. The intervenor subsequently described specific reports as examples of the information requested. The utility agreed to make available for the intervenor's inspection documents within the scope of the request (Exhibit 3). The 1978 MAC report was not included among the documents made available to the intervenor.
j In April 1985, the 1978 MAC report was discovered during a prudency audit conducted by the utility. Utilit'y officials concluded that the MAC report was-within the scope of the intervenor's 1980 request (Exhibit 3), and the utility provided a copy of the MAC report to the ASLB and the NRC (Exhibit 4). The , .
utility also furnished an explanation of why the MAC report had not been produced in-1980 (Exhibit 5). The utility also conducted an internal investi-gation to determine why the report had been withheld; The utility's inves'tiga-tion concluded that the Executive Vice-President, who made the decision to ,
withhold the report in 1980, dio so with the belief that the report was solely l intended for the internal use of iUGC0 management and was confidential i (Exhibit 6). '
i In June 1985, the NRC Executive Director for Operations requested an investiga-tion to detennine if the utility intentionally withheld the MAC report in response to an ASLB order (Exhibit 7).
l Interview with John JACKSON, President, and Jack NORRIS, Vice President, , , . . _ .
I Management Analysis Company _ __ _
JACKSON and NORRIS were interviewed on July 19, 1985 (Exhibit 8). JACKSON and NORRIS said that in 1978 they perfonned an audit of the QA program for Texas Utilities. NORRIS said the contract with Texas Utilities was negotiated with -
~
Perry BRITTAIN and said the audit was primarily aimed at determining manage-ment's awareness of the QA program.
- JACKSON said that MAC presented its written report on May 18, 1978, and explained that MAC's primary criticisms of the utility's QA program were in
! the areas of design verification, use of design changes in lieu of nonconfor-i mances, and document retrieval. NORRIS said that he formed the opinion that ll -
l l
Case No. 4-85-008 9 -
l l the utility representatives we're not in agreement with many of the MAC findings.
JACKSON said that MAC had also performed audits of Brown and Root's (B&R) QA program, but said he did not believe these reports had been made available to
, Texas Utilities (Exhibit 8A).
Interview With Andy JONES, Attorney for Texas Utilities ._ __ _ _
JONES was interviewed on July 31, 1985 (Exhibit 9). JONES said he'(:urrently-i worked as a Senior Auditor as part of a prudency audit for Texas Utilities.
j JONES said that in April 1985, while reviewing files in Hcmer SCHMIDT's (TUGC0
- Manager for Nuclear Services) office, he discovered the MAC report. JONES l said that as part of the prudency audit, he was looking for third party. .
evaluations of the QA program. JONES said that at the time he found the MAC l report, he was unaware of the 1980 request by the intervenor. JONES said he was later told of the relationship between the MAC report and the intervenor's I request by David CHAPMAN.
JONES said he had subsequent discussions about the MAC report with Robert SPANGLER (TUGC0 Supervisor of QA Services), CHAPMAN, and Thomas ROSE as related to the prudency audit. JONES said that he also discussed the report with SCHMIDT, and that SCHMIDT decided to provide the MAC report to Robert WOOLDRIDGE, an attorney retained by the utility.
JONES said he was unaware of any third party audits of B&R's QA program perfonned by MAC. JONES said he had not been involved in TUGCO's response to l the intervenor's 1980 interrogatories.
Interview with Thomas ROSE, Senior Technical Engineer TUGC0 ' -
ROSE was interviewed on August 2, 1985 (Exhibit 10). ROSE said that in October 1984, he was participating in the prudency audit headed by SCHMIDT when the MAC report was discovered. ROSE said that JONES brought the MAC report to him. He said the MAC report was eventually transferred to the Senior Review Committee (SRC) for the prudency audit and subsequently provided to WOOLDRIDGE.
Interview with Homer SCHMIDT, Manaoer for Nuclear Services, TUGC0 SCHMIDT was interviewed on July 31, 1985 (Exhibit 11). SCHMIDT said he was Project Director for the prudency audit under Michael SPENCE (TUGC0 President) when the MAC report was discovered. SCHMIDT said JONES showed him a copy of the MAC report and he (SCHMIDT) arranged for the report to be transferred to WOOLDRIDGE. ,
SCHMIDT said that in 1980 while the utility was formulating its response to the intervenor's request to produce, he recalled reviewing the TUGC0 response.
SCHMIDT said he was not aware of the 1978 MAC report at the time he reviewed and signed the utility's response. SCHMI'DT said he believed John MARSHALL (TUGC0 Licensing Supervisor) probably assembled the final list of documents to be produced in response to the intervenor's request. SCHMIDT said he did not recall attending any meetings or discussions in 1980 related to whether the ~
MAC report should be produced. .
~
Case No. 4-85-QQ6 10 -
t '
Interview With William G. COUNSIL, Executive Vice-President, Texas Utilities Company COUNSIL was interviewed on July 10,1985(Exhibit 12). COUNSIL stated he joined Texas Utilities on May 1, 1985. COUNSIL stated that during the fourth week of May, he telephoned Harold DENTON, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
-(NRR) and made him aware of the existence of a 1978 MAC report which had just' ,
been forwarded to the Comanche Peak ASLB. COUNSIL said he believed the utility l i
should have previously produced.this report in ' response to the intervenor's 1980 discovery' request. COUNSIL said that DENTON questioned him as to whether the report had been deliberately withheld and said that he told DENTON, "It would seem so.'t .COUNSIL said he also told DENTON that the failure to produce the MAC report had been an " error in judgment."
COUNSIL said that SPENCE was the utility representative who made the decision !
to produce the MAC report. COUNSIL said he first became aware of the existence of the MAC report on Tuesday the third week of May, nine days before he telephoned DENTON. .s
~
- .3 }
COUNSIL said he had read the MAC report and believed it was generally favorable to the utility. COUNSIL said that based on his knowledge of the history of the MAC report and the intervenor's discovery motion, it was his opinion that '
the MAC report should have been produced in 1980. COUNSIL said he was aware of the utility's response as to why the MAC report had not been previously produced, and said it was-his understanding that FIXAR was solely responsible for making the decision to withhold the report. COUNSIL said he understood that FIKAR's explanation was that he (FIXAR) believed the MAC report was proprietary.
Interview with Susan PALMER, Senior' Auditor, TUGC0 PALMER was interviewed on August 2, 1985 (Exhibit 13). PALMER said that she had been responsible for coordinating the assembly of documents collected from the various divisions within the utility to respond to the intervenor's request in 1980. PALMER said she was aware of the existence of the MAC report and recalled attending meetings with David CHAPMAN and Ron TOLSON to determine i
which documents were producible from the QA group. PALMER said she also reviewed QA files to determine what. producible reports existed.
!' PALMER said she recalled asking CHAPMAN whether the MAC report should be included in the response to the intervenor. PALMER said CHAPMAN told her "no."
PALMER said that David CHAPMAN and John MARSHALL were primarily responsible for collecting the documents in response to the.intervenor's request.
Interview with John MARSHALL, Licensing Supervisor, TUGC0 i
MARSHALL was interviewed on July 31,1985(Exhibit 14). MARSHALL said he was -
currently involved in the prudency audit for Comanche Peak.
1 MARSHALL said that in 1980 when TUGC0 received the intervenor's request, he was working in the licensing group under the supervision of SCHMIDT. MARSHALL said his job involved notifying the various. divisions of the utility of the request and gathering their responses. MARSHALL said he sent requests for reviews of files to the heads of the affected divisions including CHAPMAN, Case No.'4-85-008 11
,' l Joe GEORGE, and John MERRITT. MARSHALL stated that he recalled receiving responses from the three divisions headed by CHAPMAN, MERRITT, and GEORGE, and said he recalled the 1978 MAC report was identified among the responses. j MARSHALL said he also recalled that someone (not further identified except it was probably someone in QA) had told him about the existence of the MAC report. MARSHALL said he recalled that attorneys for Debovoise and Lieberman .
(a law firm retained by Texas Utilities) drafted the initial response to the intervenor's 1980 request.
MARSHALL said he recalled there were certain documents thht undoubtedly-were producible while other documents were questionable as they related to discovery.
MARSHALL said he recalled asking one of his supervisors, either SCHMIDT or FIKAR, whether the MAC report was producible. MARSHALL said that FIKAR I
eventually told him the 1978 MAC report did not fall within the scope of the
- intervenor's discovery request.
MARSHALL was telephonically reinterviewed on October 29, 1985 (Exhibit 14A),
and was questioned as to whether he had told FIKAR that TOLSON and/or CHAPMAN believed the MAC report was within the scope of the intervenor's request and -
should be produced. MARSHALL said he had not been aware of TOLSON's or
- CHAPMAN's opinion, and therefore, had not made any reference of their opinion to FIXAR.
MARSHALL said he h:d been involved in making the documents available for viewing by the interve.nor and was also involved in making copies of documents requested by the intervenor. MARSHALL said the 1978 MAC report was not among the documents reviewed by the intervenor. MARSHALL said that to his knowledge there was no actual list made which specifically identified the documents that were produced. .
Interview with Debra ANDERSON, OA Audit Supervisor, TUGC0 _ . . _ .
i ANDERSON was interviewed on August 2, 1985 (Exhibit 15). ANDERSON said that l as a QA audit supervisor, she had not been involved in responding to the intervenor's 1980 request nor was she involved in the current prudency audit.
Interview with Robert SPANGLER, Supervisor of 0A Services, TUGC0
- SPANGLER was interviewed on August 2, 1985 (Exhibit 16). SPANGLER said that JONES notified him of the discovery of the MAC report during the prudency audit. SPANGLER said he told JONES that the MAC report was considered a proprietary document within the utility. SPANGLER said he first became aware of the MAC report when he joined the QA group in May 1984, but said he was unaware of the relationship between the MAC report and the intervenor's 1980 request.
Interview with John MERRITT, Assistant Project General Manager, TUGC0 MERRITT was interviewed on August 8, 1985 (Exhibit 17). MERRITT said that in 1980, after the intervenor's interrogatories were received by the utility, he was tasked with having the files reviewed in the area of engineering and construction to respond to the intervenor's request. MERRITT said he was not involved in the orgins of the MAC contract, the MAC findings, nor was'he involved in the decision to withhold the MAC report.
Case No. 4-85-008 12
i i Interview with Joe GEORGE, Vice President of Engineering and Construction and Project General Manager. for Comanene Peak, TUGC0 GEORGE was interviewed on August 8, 1985 (Exhibit 18). GEORGE said he had not been involved in the original contract with MAC nor was he interviewed by MAC representatives during the audit. GEORGE said he was aware that the intervenor had made a request through the ASLB for large numbers of documents and said he presumed that his subordinates in engineering and construction furnished these documents to TUGC0 licensing. GEORGE said that he did not recall being involved in fannulating the utility's response to the intervenor's request.
GEORGE said.that he did not recall any meetings with CHAPMAN, TOLSON, or FIXAR regarding the withholding of the MAC report. -
Interview with Robert GARY, Executive Vice-President. TUGC0 GARY was interviewed on August 8, 1985 (Exhibit 19). GARY said that in 1978 he was involved in negotiating the MAC contract. GARY said that Perry BRITTAIN set the scope of the work MAC was to perform, and said that MAC's audit was intended as an analysis of their QA organization. GARY said that the contract with MAC involved site and corporate reviews. GARY said that he was interviewed as part of the MAC audit, and said he also attended the pre-audit and post-audit meetings.
GARY said he assigned some of his subordinates, including CHAPMAN, to' formulate an interim response to the MAC findings. GARY said that FIXAR also assigned some of his people to perfonn the same function. GARY said that the results of the internal response were intended to be used as a management tool. GARY
, 'said that he did not know why the MAC report had been withheld as it related to the intervenor's request. GARY said he was unaware that CHAPMAN and TOLSON held the opinion that this MAC report was producible in response to the intervenor's request. .
Interview with David CHAPMAN, Executive Assistant to the Executive Vice-President, Texas Utilities Fuel Company CHAPMAN was interviewed on July 31, 1985 (Exhibit 20). CHAPMAN said that until recently he had worked as the Manager of QA for TUGCO.
CHAPMAN characterized the 1978 MAC audit as an outside review of QA management {
for the internal use of TUGC0 management. CHAPMAN said he recalled being 1 interviewed by a MAC representative during their review on site, and said he also recalled attending a post-audit meeting with MAC representatives.
CHAPMAN said that TUGC0 formulated an internal response to the MAC findings, and said he recalled that TUGC0 implemented some of the ' changes suggested by MAC. CHAPMAN said he did not recall discussing MAC's written report with any of the MAC representatives.
CHAPMAN said he had been involved in the 1980 effort to respond to item 10 of the intervenor's interrogatories. CHAPMAN saic he had arranged for the QA files to be reviewed for any documents within the scope of the intervenor's request. CHAPMAN said that the reports that were identified were forwarded to TUGCO's licensing group.
Case No. 4-85-008 13
. . +
i CHAPMAN said that in 1980, he recalled identifying the 1978 MAC report to John MARSHALL in the licensing group as being potentially producible. CHAPMAN said -
4 he also made his opinion known to SPENCER, PALMER, and TOLSON. CHAPMAN said he recalled that PALMER and TOLSON expressed the opinion that the report was within the scope of the intervenor's request. CHAPMAN said he was aware that -
the MAC report was not produced as part of TUGCO's response to the ASLB.
CHAPMAN said that a short time after TUGC0 responded to the intervenor's request, Billy Ray.CLEMENTS became his supervisor. CHAPMAN said he recalled expressing his opinion to CLEMENTS that the MC report should be produced.
CHAPMAN said he recalled that CLEMENTS told him that he (CLEMENTS) also believed the report should be produced. CHAFMAN said that at the time-of this discussion..he did not believe CLEMENTS had any authority over determining what would be produced. .---
1 CHAPMAN was questioned as to whether he recalled TOLSON having warned him prior to their testimony before the ASLB that if questioned about the existence 1
! of QA documents producible under the intervenor's interrogatories, he (TOLSON) would be compelled to identify the 1978 MAC report. CHAPMAN said he did not -
recall the conversation, but said it may very well have taken place since both TOLSON and he felt it should have been part of TUGCO's response.
, CHAPMAN said that when the 1978 MAC report was rediscovered in 1985 during a prudency audit, JONES and ROSE contacted him about the report. CHAPMAN said he recalled recommending that they discuss the relationsnip between the MAC i report and the prudency audit with CLEMENTS. CHAPMAN said he recalled telling
) JONES and ROSE of his. belief that the 1978 MAC report should have been produced earlier in response to the intervenor's 1980 request. -
i CHAPNAN said he was familiar with the TUGC0 letter authored by WOOLDRIDGE explaining the circumstances of why the MAC report had not been produced in 1980. CHAPMAN said he had not discussed the withholding of the MAC report i
with FIKAR. CHAPMAN said he 'was unaware of MAC having performed an audit of B&R QA program.
Interview with Ron TOLSON, QC Suoervisor, TUGC0 -
TOLSON was interviewed on July 30,1985(Exhibit 21). TOLSON said that in -
1980 when the utility was responding to the intervenor's request, it was his opinion that the MAC report was within the scope of the intervenor's request.
TOLSON said he recalls several discussions with CHAPMAN regarding whether the documents should be produced. TOLSON said he did not recall discussing the matter with FIKAR.
TOLSON said that when the intervenor's request was received, he was asked to produce a list of documents in his possession which might fall within the scope of the request. TOLSON said he subsequently heard that a decision had been made at a higher level of management that the 1978 MAC report was pro- '
prietary and would not be produced in response to the request. TOLSON said he was aware that the MAC report was.not produced as part of the request.
TOLSON said that in subsequent years,. prior to his appearance before the Comanche , Peak ASLB, he confided to CHAPMAN that if he were questioned about other documents that should have been produced as part of the intervenor's
- Case No. 4-85-008 l 14
i : .
request he would be obligated to name the MAC report. TOLSON said he was not questioned about other documents during his ASLB appearance, and said he did not testify about the MAC report. '
TOLSON said that he did not agree with a number of the findings made by MAC, and said he believed they had adopted recommendations of site personnel as
- their own findings. TOLSON said that he had no recollection of discussing the i producibility of the MAC report with FIKAR or CLEMENTS. TOLSON said he was unaware of any MAC audits of the B&R QA program.
l Interview of Michael SPENCE, President, TUGC0 -
SPENCE was interviewed on August 8,*1985 (Exhibit 22). SPENCE said he was not. -
involved in the original contract with MAC to perform the 1978 audit. SPENCE said he became president of TUGC0 in June 1981 and was not involved with the nuclear program during the time the MAC audit was perfomed nor was he i involved in the utility's response to the intervenor's interrogatories.
SPENCE said that the ongoing prudency audit was being conducted at his direction I by SCHMIDT. SPENCE said,he first learned of the MAC report in May 1985, when l it surfaced during the prudency audit. SPENCE said he subsequently held discussions with WOOLDRIDGE about the potential relationship between the MAC
, audit and the intervenor's 1980 request. SPENCE said he directed WOOLDRIDGE to conduct an internal investigation to find out.why it had not been produced earlier. SPENCE said that after reviewing the MAC report and after he received advice of counsel, he believed the MAC report should have been produced in 1980. SPENCE said he made a decision to produce the MAC report in 1985 as it related to the intervenor's request.
SPENCE said he had questioned FIKAR about why FIKAR had withheld the MAC report.
SPENCE said FIKAR told him he did not believe the MAC report was subject to i
' the discovery request because it had not been in. tended as a permanent plant record. SPENCE said FIKAR told him that the MAC audit was intended as a utility management tool. SPENCE said FIKAR told him the MAC report had been
- treated as a proprietary document since 1978. SPENCE said FIKAR also told him the MAC audit had not been performed to detemine compliance with Appendix B.
SPENCE said he had not discussed FIKAR's decision with CHAPMAN or TOLSON.
i SPENCE said FIKAR told him he had not solicited the opinion of his subordinates !
prior to making his decision not to produce the report. SPENCE said FIKAR also had told him that before he made his decision to withhold the MAC report, l he (FIKAR') had not sought legal advice.
SPENCE said he also had a discussion with CLEMENTS as to why the MAC report was not produced in 1980. SPENCE said CLEMENTS told him that he had been
- aware of the existence of the MAC report in 1980, but said he knew that a decision had been made not to produce it. SPENCE said CLEMENTS told him he
' chose not to revisit FIKAR's decision. SPENCE said that based on his discussion with CLEMENTS, he believed CLEMENTS was aware that CHAPMAN had felt the report should be produced. SPENCE said CLEMENTS also told him that he had not read the MAC report at the time he had made the decision not to revisit FIKAR's' decision.
i
, s Case No. 4-85-008 15
l -
i .
l Interview with Perry BRITTAIN, Chairman of the Board and Chief E2ecutive l Officer (CEO) of Texas Utilities BRITTAIN was interviewed on August 8, 1985 (Exhibit 23). BRITTAIN said that l in 1978 he negotiated the contract with MAC to perform a review of the manage-ment of the utility's QA program. BRITTAIN.said the contract with MAC did not include an audit of the utility's adherence to the provisions of Appendix B.
BRITTAIN said at the time he negotiated this contract, he was the president of TUGCO. BRITTAIN said an evaluation of B&R's implementation of the QA program was not part of the MAC contract. BRITTAIN said he attended the pre-audit
- meeting with MAC representatives, and said he also had a meeting with the MAC i
representatives when they presented their final report to TUGC0 in 1978.
BRITTAIN said he requested an internal response to the MAC report . arid he said that GARY and FIKAR were responsible for this internal response.
BRITTAIN said he viewed the MAC contract as an appraisal of their organization's management of the QA program. BRITTAIN said that GARY implemented certain suggestions made by MAC.to improve their QA program.
BRITTAIN said that the intervenor's interrogatories in 1980 were haridled by the licensing group, and said he was not involved in responding to the inter- i i venor's request. BRITTAIN said he was not involved in any discussions regarding l
the decision to withhold the MAC report. BRITTAIN said that at the time the utility was fannulating its response to the interrogatories, he was not aware :
i that individuals within the QA group believed that the MAC report was producible. ;
i BRITTAIN said that he was aware that the MAC report was discovered during th'e '
prudency audit in about April 1985. BRITTAIN said he concurred with the ,
decision to produce the MAC report as it related to the intervenor's interroga- '
- tories. BRJTTAIN said it had been characterized to him that a decision had ~
l been made in 1980 that the report was proprietary. BRITTAIN said that he still considered the MAC review as an appraisal of QA management, and said he considered the MAC report findings as originally intended as confidential to senior managers within the utility. BRITTAIN said FIKAR may have factored his (BRITTAIN's) intentions into his (FIKAR's) decision to withhold the report.
Interview with Louis FIKAR, Retired Executive Vice-President, TUGC0 FIKAR was interviewed on August 21, 1985 (Exhibit 24). FIKAR said, as part of his supervisory responsibilities over the licensing section, he was responsible
! for responses to the hearing board which included responding to Board orders.
- FIKAR said that the greater portion of his duties were unrelated to the nuclear project. FIKAR said he spent approximately 20-30 percent involvement
- with the Comanche Peak Project, and approximately one-third of that time i involved licensing. FIKAR said he relied heavily on individuals within the licensing group to perform the duties related to licensing.
FIKAR said he was interviewed by MAC representatives during their 1978.QA review. FIKAR said the purpose of the MAC audit was to have an outside party review the QA program, ine'uding its comitments to Appendix B. FIKAR said that he attended pre-audi. And post-audit meetings with the MAC repre::entatives during their 1978 audit. IKAR said that when the MAC review was completed, the MAC representatives presented their written report to BRITTAIN, GARY, and ,
himself in 1778.
. 3 . .
Case No. 4-85-008 16
i : .
' FIKAR said it was his understanding that SCHMIDT was the licensing supervisor responsible for responding to the intervenor's 1980 request. FIKAR said he was not generally involved in responding to the request, but said that if he was asked a question, he was responsible to get the appropriate answer. .FIKAR said he recalled that someone, although he did not recall who, about whether the MAC report should be produced in response to' thequestioned intervenor's him interrogatories. FIKAR said that his instructions to the licensing group were that this report was not producible because BRITTAIN, GARY, and himself considered this a privileged document to be used for management review within the company.
, FIKAR was questioned about a particular finding in the MAC report which said,. -
"The current practice of after-the-fact design change reviews provide signifi-cant risks of error and is in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B."
FIKAR said he recalled that in the internal response, the utility did not agree -
with this finding. FIKAR said that he believed the method used at Comanche
, Peak is in compliance with Appendix B. -
l FIKAR was questioned as to whether he consulted anybody prior to making the decision that the MAC report was not producible, and he said that he did not recall discussing it with anyone. FIKAR said that he had been familiar with the intervenor's request and he did not believe the MAC report was within the scope of the request. FIKAR said his decision was a judgement call. FIKAR said it was his opinion that the MAC review did not constitute what is generally considered a precise QA audit, and was more a review of what management was doing in the QA arena.
FIKAR was questioned about MAC findings which reported that the QA program was !
i not.in compliance with Appendix B. FIKAR responded by saying that BRITTAIN, GARY, and himself had all agreed that MAC had been wrong on these points.
FIKAR said that the adverse findings in the MAC. report were not a factor in
! his decision to exclude it from discovery. FIKAR said that since the MAC
__..__. report had been received by the utility, it had only been in the possession of GARY, BRITTAIN, and himself.
FIKAR was questioned about whether he was aware of CHAPMAN's and TOLSON's opinion that this report was producible, and whether he factored this into his decision to withhold the report. FIKAR said he was unaware of CHAPMAN's and
, TOLSON's~ position on this subject. FIKAR said that subsequent to his having made the decision not to produce the document, he did not recall anybody questioning his decision until May 1985.
FIKAR said at the time the MAC report was discovered during the prudency audit, he still had his copy of the report which he subsequently provided to .
3 WOOLDRIDGE. FIKAR said at the time CLEMENTS assumed responsibility over the
- QA function in 1980, he (FIKAR) did not discuss with CLEMENTS whether the MAC report should be produced as it related to the intervenor's request.
, Interview with Billy Ray CLEMENTS, Vice President, Texas Electric Service Comoany CLEMENTS was interviewed on August 19,1985 (Exhibit 25). CLEMENTS said the QA program was transferred under his supervision in August 1980. CLEMENTS said he was generally aware of the existence of the MAC report, but said he Case No. 4-85-008 17
--% - - -- - - - - - - - - - - + , - .v., %.. - , , - - - - , . . - - , , --.w-...w..---,----.r..m- ,. ---,.-.-v-wm----,,----..-,--w,, . . , - - - - -
e t .
had never seen a copy of it. CLEMENTS said that after he had assumed super-visory responsibility for QA, he recalled a conversation in which CHAPMAN told -
him he believed the MAC report was producible under the intervenor's 1980 request. CLEMENTS said his supervisory duties over QA involved continued resp 6nses to item 10 of the intervenor's request. -
CLEMENTS was questioned why he,had chosen not to " revisit" FIKAR's. decision to withhold the MAC report from the intervenor's request. CLEMENTS -said that his '
decision was based on the fact that the decision to produce the report was not a QA decision, but rather a licensing decision. CLEMENTS said the fact that a corporate official, senior to him and not in his chain of consnand, had made this decision. He chose not to revisit that official's decision. CLEMENTS <
said that after he had assumed the responsibility for QA, he did not review'-
, any past decisions related to the intervenor's request. CLEMENTS said that he i
had had no discussions with FIXAR or MARSHALL regarding whether the MAC report
- should have been produced. CLEMENTS said that CHAPMAN had been the' one who '
told him that the MAC review was intended to be used as,a management tool and was not subject to discovery. CLEMENTS said his decision not to revisit the
, potential production of the MAC report was not based on adverse findings in i the report. CLEMENTS said he was not aware of any reviews performed by MAC on the B&R QA program.
Willfulness / Intent Section ,
- 1. The utility contracted with MAC to perform an audit of the utility's QA program related to Comanche Peak. JACKSON and NORRIS said they performed the audit in part to determine if the utility was in compliance with Appendix B and reported findings which indicated portions of the QA j program were not in compliance with Appendix B (Exhibit 8).
I 2. The intervenor's 1980 interrogatories as clarified (Exhibit 3) requested outside or subcontractor evaluations, studies, or audits conducted by subcontractors or agents of subcontractors or by consulting firms (Item
- 10) related to Contention 5. The utility agreed to make the infonnation requested by the intervenor through the ASLB available for viewing at the utility's office (Exhibit 3).
- 3. During the time that the licensing sectdon was assembling the requested infonnation, TOLSON expressed an opinion to CHAPMAN that the 1978 MAC report was within the scope of the interve or's request (Exhibit 21).
- 4. CHAPMAN conveyed his belief that the MAC report was within the scope of the intervenor's request to MARSHALL (Exhibit 20). MARSHALL said he did not recall that CHAPMAN expressed this opinion (Exhibit 14A).
- 5. MARSHALL specifically questioned FIKAR o'n whether the 1978 MAC report should be included in the response to the intervenor's request (Exhibit
, 14). ,
- 6. FIXAR decided, without consultation with other utility representatives, l that the MAC report was confidential and not within the scope of the .
j intervenor's request (Exhibit 24)..
t Case No. 4-85-008 18
. 1 i
I
- 7. The 1978 MAC report was not included among the documents made available to the intervenor (Exhibit 14).
- 8. CLEMENTS became. aware of FIKAR's decision not to produce the MAC report when heFIKAR's
" revisit" assumed supervisory decision Exhibit(responsibility 25). over QA and chose not to
~
9.. The utility notified the ASLB of subsequent audits related to Contention 5 that were within the scope of the intervenor's request as thes.e audits were performed and reported (Exhibit 3).
- 10. GARY, BRITTAIN, and FIKAR testified that the MAC audit was intended for ~ ~
their use as a management tool and was not intended as an audit of the QA program to determine or ensure compliance with Appendix 'B (Exhibits 19, 23,and24). . -
- 11. COUNSIL testified that the failure to produce the MAC report in 1980 had been an " error in judgment" (Exhibit 12).
Agent's Conclusion The utility made a material false statement by the omission of the MAC report in response to the ASLB's order.
l of violating the Board's order. This omission was not made with the intent -
Status of Investigation This case is CLOSED. . .
h e
+
9 e
8 e
- e i 8
LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1 MAC report, May 17, 1978 .
~
2- Utility's internal response to MAC findings.
3 Intervenor and utility filings to the ASLB related to Item 10 of the intervenor's 1980 interrogatories.
4 Utility's notification to ASLB of MAC report, May 29, 1985.
5 Utility's explanation for failure to. produce the MAC report, June 12, 1985.
6 Results of utility's internal investigation of failure to produce the MAC report.
7 EDO request for Investigation, June 13, 1985.
i'
.8 Report of Interview with JACKSON and NORRIS, July i
19.-1985.
8A MAC audits of Brown & Root QA program.
9 Transcript of JONES, July 31, 1985.
l 10 Report of Interview with ROSE, August 2, 1985.
11 Transcript of SCHMIDT, July 31, 1985.
~
12 Transcript of COUNSIL, July 10, 1985.
13 Report of Interview with PALMER, August 2, 1985.
14 Transcript of MARSHALL, July 31, 1985, 14A Report of Interview with MARSHALL, October 29,
- 1985.
15 Report of Interview with ANDERSON, August 2, 1985.
16 Report of Interview with SPANGLER, August 2, 1985 1 .'
l t-Case No.
.-4.85-008- . _ . _ . . _ . .-._20._ - .
. i ;
17 Transcript of MERRITT, August 8,1985.
18 Transcript of. GEORGE, August 8,1985.
19 Transcript of 5ARY, August 8,1985.
20 Transcript of CHAPMAN, July 31, 1985.
21 ReportofInterviewwithTOLSON,Juky 30, 1985.
22 Transcript of SPENCE, August 8,1985. .:
23 . Transcript of BRITTAIN, August 8,1985. .
24 Transcript of FIKAR, August 21, 1985.
25 Transcript of CLB4ENTS, August 19, 1985.
J I
4 Case No. 4-85-008 . 21
_m =-g gg.-
_ 3 _- - _=
- . f-M k .
i h. 7% -
}.@%ggp A > p, ?
.i g(1,s
,s ~53
.. r . .n y-is .
L e @ -
hm : p -
'<i A .s
, h, ;l ,
es gp- d i
. si;; -
i b .. M l .x.~g
' g - \ l i
) fR g
- r Mgggd -
ig.t.
( E- 4 g-ggesp(- ;r-ace 3, .
- ~~
fMS$$QSY3W,.y.
.R . nie .I . p t
. ~
W
.o 3. M .e d.f ,afr9p'?c .
t
.pppg.g,a ,;W Ici, A :
.t r g .T
- W fe i .%g eA f
~ 'awAwh,g.si,.
s 1;)C :. :
- Man.fr'
' L:':'T ~ ^
.'.! aw,;? 3 .
's.Oj.Q:p.g ~ ~
C-'ag
~ .a.):;*::.
~ #' w[ly"
":;2.~,7 w p':m:
"" Rib'::
m :~"M:
Om',.2;ff.::;mW .,J 1 v m _ ,j
- ;C%:1 5$ %
~:::::=~~?-t&,;st;m;;t,~2.VAM*P.C
~~" #;$5%#'A ~ ~~~;r" M i
- i- 4..Qv.'ov 2. .I e]q)
'-~
~
~
~.
gM7g . -
a
. . g. 6 5 , .
f.h.M .
Nh$j._?. EX4IBITS TO REPORT NO.: 4-85-004 E C.C : .:.';;.=:+ ? -
+4 4l +* ])
ra'2: .::
7y?: $.';:W r.2'*:: .by ! 4
~
. .i *. ~'::. ;C~L S *:.
f;vM .
M; ~
r ' * *
- S '-
.hk'lh' h &' ~~
hif.'.' .$k$$$ ^ ifl.? .) ' # u,
4 a w U Y.- Ih .h ': b !I fh ,kh hh ... A b h s m eGDhus n' h ' e qnvy un mien z. bdMIhI2itk IbSMudhhah kyndk k i ';. i:.cMas 1;bewin
, <i..
- a
, . c:
t v
@ n L' D _>
.c. ..
N
';i>'.4}:fhSOj?$;*y?.u
$ f.. h.kh.h':k;?hf
..t.Y l
+9 a.._m .
g><ss _y;k
,i m
h
- r
~- o 'M~.].
y [:,9{,n. .ryt f.- .4a.4%,y*Il,f.W *U..
kNY'.g;'~,fl?r
.ts
.Q; v_.*J+.
.'?. W j' yO-e
- t. rip y
-,$U:%
's_i%.s yn.*.:'.
5'0'
. wit-
- .g , .ym;
- z. 7 :.p.. v. 9.;.
3%?.D
.Q^~ij:.?'.~h').,
$5;Y'b;$Y0.'fbth:
- b.-$
2, f. .
e.nn ;asmgm{g,.vy.b,'!~Yh:' $$0?$.$hl;l m y. re s M e. p m s.
%re%rstAa:iM#8WQd myg m 4@% h ylygc ..ret:m K o W& m :(WaWwree:4ggg:. n*n,.nng : ;,
.g g rJ: & $ l F V g @?n s & &ges%Mhi. % y:% % !@7 v% 5:
m h .m.m AiMip@fkhh m m s' h em a1sm i
_m
aaw W Manag:m:nt Analysii Company _
.5 4-998 .
11100 RoseU2 st , san Diego. CA 31221 .
. 71Cl?S21331 - ^ - ' _ .
May T7,1978 -
MAC-JPJ-471 Mr. Perry Brittain President ,
Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Br .
~
Dallas.yan TI Tower 75201 "'
Dear Mr. Brittain . ,
~
Enclosed is the report of' the Management Quality Assurance Audit conducted for Texas utilities Generating Company.
~
The audit disclosed that, in general, the Quality AssurancEactivities were effective, the Architect that there isand
/ Engineer good theteam spirit between TUGCD/TUSI personnel a'nd Constructor.
The audit resulted in the Quality Assurance Plan or the.PSAR. identification of some failures ts an Audit Report as Appendix A. These deficiencies are identified in _
improved practica.
These are identified as Observations and Recome
? @,3 M and Appendix B to this letter.
the Comanche Peak site and signif'icant improvement is noted sin .
Management Analysis Company received full cooperation from ali personnel con i '
tacted during the audit, TUGCD/TUSI, Brown & Root, and Gibbs & Hill I
general openness of personnel and their frank discussion not only enhanced. Then '
theany of conduct deficiencies. of the audit, but exemplifies an attitude conducive to correction Company and Texas Utilities Services,. Inc. and hope If there are any corrrnents. or questions regarding this worie, please contact .
Mr. J. M. Norris or me at (714) 452-1391.-
5.f acerTI ,
,]
J
,r .
< John P. Jackson Principal Partner JPJ:bew
Enclosures:
Appendix A Appendix B
e .
J -
. EXHIBIT 1 e
'~
... ,- - ... n --..~ , O
.~ - N- - _ _~ ~~~' ~-.-
' '~"
U . . ,
e .
==
i . -%
.L e
- f. ~'.
APPENDIX A .
e . e* * "*
{ '
AUDIT REPORT e h
= =. _.
e
- e T e
.s
- 'P-
- L
, .'o ,
- t
. e e
- y e
. e e
e l
e l
i i
i e
e e
e
, ,**,*ys******- , = = * * .N e ?
- t ; *T* fWAa,+-=**-= e===-**e*a**4a-*--***,=e*s*e=e%**********--***N**-tm****3*-ma-*==**=.i I
. ~~
, AUDIT REPORT
) Sub.itet:
,f ..
Audit of Texas Utilities Generating Company, taiTas Officas and Cc=anche Peak Staa::r ETectric station C:nstr .-
Date of Audit MayT-Tb1sfE Audit Sc:pe:
A management itudit was conducted of the Quality Assuraner Progrant of Texas Utilities Genera *ing Company during tha ,, -
- weeks of May I and: May E.,1978. The purpose, ,of the audit
' ~
was ts.datarmin~Ethe adequacy of the QuaTity Assuranca- .-
. Program as reTated te NucTear RaguTatory Commission rel -
aants andi the affectiveness of inpTementation to.1neet prog
' ', , requffamants and authorfty delagations.
Act!vities were
- audited at both the TUGC2 officas in baTTas and at th !
Cmanche Peak constructiert site. ActfiFiiTes of! )
Engineer and Construe:ce were auditad enTy at the c:nstruct site.
The scope of the audtt incTuded ccm:it:nents mada in
! . the PSAR,, the C$porate Qurfity Assurance 7tnuai, the C:m i bk. . .
~
Park Quality Assurance PTarr,, the Project Proceduras Manuti l and the Brown & Root QuaTity Assuranca Manua.Ts and ProceI i
reTated ta the Comanche Peak sita.
. -1
' ~ .
\
Audit:rs: . ..
Dallas office,May. T-1 ,T978' Je P. Jackson,, MAC Audit Teant Leader J. M. Morris , MAC Auditor
- Comanche Peak Constructierr Ette',, May 4 & f, May 8-12..,1978 J. P. Jackson., MAC Audit Taanr Leader -
J. M. Norrfz, MAC Audfter )
J. A. Hendrorr, MAC Auditor (May E-72 onTy)
Personnel' NAME -
COMPANf h"$ { D. H. Chapmarr TUGCG TITLE bnager, *-1-2 I R. E. Tolsort TUGCQ
' R. Y. Fitek.
Mgr, site Surveillanca, '-1-2 TUGC3/GM Civ. Inspec. Supv. i J. V. Hawkins *-1
,J TUGCO/ GAM Prod. Assurance (QA),, *-1
, .. ,.p-.y........-..~oo<*~~. .
Y' ~ ~*"' ** T *" ? Y *
,,.4 w , ...r=,-"* **i "'***F'W '
. - - - - . . . - - -.--.--.--,-,----.n, . . . , - . - -. _ _ . - , - - , _ - . - , _ - - , -
~ . _ _ . . . - -
trsennel NAME n. . . ,
COMPANY TITLE - . . - .
l"d
- d. J. B. George TUSI Prof. GeneEa~1 Mgr., *-T-2 J. T. Merrit TU5I Resident Manager, *-1 -
E. E. G.ibson - TUSI Project. Engineer, *-1-2 B.. J. Murray TUSI Engineering Supv 2 *-T J J. Moorhead GaH Residen: Engineer, *-1,-2 B. C. Scott BE Sita QA Mana'ger.. *-1 J P. Clarke BE Site QC Manager. *-1 It. Manrt .. BE QA Records Coordinator.
- H. C'. KirkTand BR '
, Prei. Generat Mgr, *-T L D. DougTas EE Project Manager. *-1 C:. C. Frankunt RE ;
Asst. Profact Mgr., *-1 q
P. Foscolo
[ Hancock BAR -
BE Prcf. Chief Engineer. *-T l.j g.
j
~
Mat'T Procurement, Con- ; ;
structicn Branch, *-1 "
A. Beren l TUGCD Vender Cx:plianca
,. C Beggs TUGCQ
, Syster.:s. Cc=sTiance,. *-7-Z -
It. Gary -
T1JGCC V.P., Operations, *-1
- t. Fiker TUSI V.P., Design 1 Procurement, '-1 :
P. Brittain TUGC0/711SI j .l Pres.ident,1 _ , _ _ ,. _ , g
- Interview .
1 Pra-audit meeting- l l
Z Post audit meeting '
t 1 : Method: -
The aud.it was conducted through a series of interviews with l
\
responsible management end supervision and exar.:ina-ion of QuaTity Assurance manuals, procedures, records and work '
l l
operations both at the DaT1as headquarters of Texas. Utilities
}
Generating Company and Texas Utilities Services Incorporated and at the Co=anche Peak construction rita. :
L I f ry:
- The audit disclosed that recent changes in auth$rity e. ale- !
r gation: had. been genera 1Ty welt accepted and that ecrale >
l I
-Lp
' 1 m \
Summary (f.ont.'d): -. . .
and team spirit ~were good. HowveF,. the changes had n yet been fematized in revisions to the PSAR and the
- - Comanche Peak Quality Assurance Plan. ,
, The audit also disciosed that present practicas in the control of des changes. and of cartain nonconformancas do not providj requisite level of review by the original designer. In i
other instancas it was evident that design changes were i
being used in Tieu, of nonconformanca reports. Except f , , , , , ,
the areas noted hare.fn and below., there was gerierall 4
' adherence te er.fsting procedures.
Findings: .
1 T. The current activttfes of TUGCQ Quality Assuranca sonnet _are not cons'stant i with the authority delegations ta Brown & Root and te Gibbs & HtU_as_ defin .
PSAR and Conanche Peak QuaTity Assurance Plan.
SimiTarTy,. the- Qurfity Assuranca Piarr and Procedu '
q' .
not consistant with currant and pTanned revisions. in .
Q/ "
authorft;r. delegationsI o the Architect / Engineer and the t
Constructor, and fs not completa in addressing all .
eighteen criterfa of 10CFR50 Appendix 8. ,ye lack l .
weTT fde.ntified plan of reorganization and responsib causes uncertainty in carrying out some activities.
There needs to be a plan for revising the Auslity Assur-1 ance Programs. such a plan should include the establishme of an architecture of procedures to show how other TUSI/
TUGC3 and contractor manuais intar-relate with the Q Assurance ManueT.
! - The TUGC0 QA Manager should establish-a schedule and assign responsibilities for completion of '
the necessary procedures.
[ The scheduit should be supple.
mentad with a. management effort to monitor adherence to 1
the plart and achieve:nent of the schedule.
- 2.
The current sita DC DCA sys.ta= of after the fact cocrti-
- natierr of design changes with the original designer i
J i
3
_ . . - - - - ~
r
- .,j,gp 9 -
",,} ,g *$ g J v., y na
- *
- 9 ' *e 0 8
- ( . - - -
....c.... . . . - - . --.-~--.----v - - -
Findings: ^
provides a s.ignificant risk of' design error and does
" I, (Cont'd) .
' not meet the requirements of IbCFR50 Appendix B, nor m -
.[.h, of ANSI N45.2.iT, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants".
A systes for e.xpediting and documenting'Gibbs'ilill
- home office approvals. should be established'using teTephona, telecopier or telex as. a means of speed,1,ng .'.
communication.
- 2. The Comanche Peak Quality Assurance Plan does. not provide I
for a Quality Assurance review of procurement documents '
and changes theretor prior to purchase order placemept,
. .. .'.. azcapt for site originated procurements. Such a review '
,, is identiffed in 10CFR50 Appendix-B Critarfen IV' and is a requirement of ANII N45.2.13. It should be required on aTT.safaty related procurements.
- 4. The current cont.ination af Chaptar 17 of the PSAR, the '
i TUSCD Corporate Quality Assurance Manuai, the Comanche
~
Peak Quality Assurance Pian , Project Procedures and ..
Erowrr s Root Manuals and Procedures provides a complex
, array of procadures which is difficult to maintain current and consistant.
.I . -
b .
. 5. The current systes of providing inspectNn ' instructions or checkTists te 1.nspectors is too generic, placing an l undue burdere on the inspector in attempting to determine l '
applicable drawings and. specifications. and applicable *
- revisions thereto. A review of records. of concrete
., pours iheidatas. that configuration reflecting the as-poured cond.ition is. not clearly defined. AppTicable DC DDAs are nec *noted in inspection documentation.
Cnnfiguration needs to be clearly identified to
- inspectors on e current hasis, including aT1' applicable T
' . ,y
. EiEE , ,
h A r3 . -
V
_ _ _ - _ - _ - - . - ~ = -
,}
Findings 5 '
- (Cort'd) DC DDAs. and c::repleted, documen$aticn must refle5::t the -
status of the appTicabTe changes.
f r.
E.
SpeciaT peccessing markings for later in-service .-
inspections. are carelessly applied. The circia and arrow used. for such marting is sometimes. inco6r;1 eta and not recogn,izable-for its intanded purpose. In one instance only a. ;iortion cf the circle resembling the Tettar T", was discarnibTe. . FaiTure tiiprdperly -
1 -
mark thess'Tocators now wfIT cause delay 'and possibTe '
1 .
error whers in. service inspections are made in highTy frradfated areas. '
- 7. .
Disposittorr of nonconforming itar::s does not always
- ~
achieve the recuistta ' review by_ app:=priately qualified desig:: personneT. A procedure ,Timited t=. defects in concrete, was, recentTy issued.efch bypasses. the estab-
" lished noncon"cr::ance contrcT system. and,. thus, violates -
A' reguTatory requirements. fit this r;egard. In other V
T ~ instances., the DC' DOC program has been used to bypass the nonconformance reper ing Systam. The nonconformance-control systen should be the means' Tor maintaining in.
spector integrity, identifying problem areas and provide e driving: force for their correction.
8'.
The records storage facfTity does not curren Ty have any means af intarnaT. fire protaction during hours it is unmanned,.although it is understood some method is '
pTanned:.
Quat.fty Assurance re' cords, such as personnel quaTifications,. are not maintained in the Records Center, but are maintained in fireproof file cabinets. in a trailer under the cognizance of Browrr 1 Rect training coordinator.
9.
Approximately twenty-four percent of Cent 11 Staff audits
-' have not been conducted as scheduTed. Cx:bining Central Sta.ff audits,. site audits and site surveiIlance activities i
-y m, -.***o* ** 7 '
, - - ,-~, ;;w_ . .. . . - ~ ~ . . -
--.~.....
.s
. - - ~
dn :
, by TUGCD and by Brown & Rect into a single, cohesive -I program wuid provide 1:::preved visibility to the overa.11' .) '
nudit and surve17 Tan:a effort nnd Permit evniustion and tjustnant to the audit schedule to attainable and yet affeCtfye frequencies. '
, #9 . .
su.
, I m
S g me we g
M 5s .
4.a75 4;:
j .-
Ii e
, e e
s .
es a on ^
7.
, c _ i s
) . .
. APPENDIX B TEXAE UTILITIEE GENERATINE COMPANY ,
083ERVATIONS AND RECHENDATIONF, .
e e "
4 e
g 6 e
. . .S .
l q .
w .
e e
- e . O 9
e G
G
. e * ,
6 9
e 9
e e e e
e O
h s' .
9 Oe.
I e 9
- =. . -_
, e /*
e o ~
- *. #T' * **'*
._** [ ,
- l', ( * % ' . *g .# h t ~. E', ' k
' ** ode.pW 99 * . * *P
- bei M F *** P f"f '
- **=b
-F- -=**N* *
- ^ ^
e, r .J % .',I('".* * . E ' S $ ' '" ' ' ' *
- $ ' Y *
- r - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " - - ' --- ~
'a*Lt!9 AUDIT ~
CBSERVATIONS AND RECDM1ENDATIONS L . . :.'
) I. ORGANIZNTION '
<~A. _ General ,
TUGDD Qua.lity Assuranca has undergene considerable- reorgani:ation in the past year.
The general thrust of this, effort has been the. assumption of greater direct involvement in the anagement and supervision of the Comanche Peak Quality Assurance Program.
It is to be noted th'at important shifts. in respons.15111ty wert being mada at the time. of NAC's review.
.. . ~
As e part of this assessment., MC evaluated: the reactions of key unagers, s'upervisors and farpectors te 'the overai.T changes that have taken piace to date. -
+-
It was. generaT1y observed that those intarviewed tE. cught. that with few
~ ,
_, - exceptions the changes. were for the better. There; appeared to..be a. team effort ort the part cf QA and Construction with excellent TUSI executive r.anagement and project. management supper of the QA prcgram. There was -
ne noticea'bie. problem wittr'organfrationaT prejud. fee becught about by t g
~
organjzational in,tarmixing of TUSI, Brown & Koot or Efbbs. s Hill. work O forces and supervision. ,
B. Oreanization .
! During the course of the audit MC discussed the value cf a reviset organi.zat;iona.1 structure wittr the TUGC0 Quality Assuranet Manager and
,the Manager. Site Survei1Tance. -
.It is reconrnended that TUGC0 adopt an' organitationa.1 realignment of activities. as set forth in Exhibit T, whersby Quaitty Engineering and Inspectier, report to the Site QA Supervisor as two separate sub-organizationiti entities with responsibilities as defined in Exhibit T.
- Such an organization will better supplement the existing Construction organization and wit 1 per=it better organization for handTing cay-to-day sita probie=s as well as i=clementing recomendation: of this repor .
This. ts particularly se in the area of inspection planning.
s .
sii;E
. . . . . . .. - - C - - ~~
- .,**' * ** ., " T [ .* . $ . b ."r 3 *
.. . . - Ame '. *m, -
.X '*U.* ? " .
~ ..
. o _. .. . .. .. ... c - - - - ~ - - - - - -
.' . - ' - -'l - 2="~-
}
. C. QuaTity Surveillance coditetee .
p ATT minutes of meetings of the QSC since its inception we e reviewed .
1' It is noted that the QSC was established as a mechanism/ for pro to;r TUGCD management with a' periodic update on such matters as " sc and afTestones" or " audits and corrective actions". t~-
f
[
It was noted that recent meetings dealt with ' trackingo on the st r.
action ttams as se't forth in the Outstanding Surevillance}R or the QuaTity Assurance Itams of Concern Report.
In such instances.it #.
appeared the QuaTity Surveillance Committee was. taking on the ro
~ task forca or probTem solving group. - .
The problem that exists if.the QSC-assues. suctr a role is tivtt probTems wouTd tand to awatt the thre meeting cycle before the necessa: / management attantion is effected .
It is racermended that TUC re-evaluate the darter cf consideratien 'given as to its. vtTue tc the project. recogni:ing that:
.. . *. .~* . .
T.
- h -
AT.T action' te.
~
resoTve through the functioning organization., and problems. shouid be -
handled --
Z.
- The primary objective of maintainingynagement awareness o g .
. Assurance status might be accomplished more efficiently, ef ,
and on a more timely basis through a.nonthly Quality Assuranca progress report distributed to the TUGCD/TUSI executives.
D.
QuaTification of Personnel .
MAC reviewed the qualifications of all TUGCD/TUSI and Eibbs & Mill ,
Qua.lity Assurance personnel and many of the Brown 8. RootItpersonnel.
was observed that most of the TUGCO/TUSI Quality Assurance personnel ga.ined only. their Quality Assurance experience through Comanche Peak ac Although the project has provided valuable experienca,. it is ree-cmended that any fu ure assignments in Quality Assurance be filled with cuality engines s hired from outside the company with bread nuclear ex-perience,. preferably in construe:1on. ,
Suc*r experience added to the existing s.taff will serve TUGCD/TUSI weTT in acco=plishing the importa "
Q
._ . . . . . . . . . . ..-.l. -- -. -
I '
s
) ,' piping, electMcal and startup activities ahead- _ ._
MAC had occasion. throughout the audit to assess the quaTifications and k, . .-
expeHenca of 20-30 inspectors throughout the construction s.ita. These observations arn worth mentioning:
- - }(6 1.
The inspectors are generally young and inexpeHanced with many having g as little as six months expeHence. in inspection.
,,, ,yp
~ .. . =
. 2 ..
'~ There_was.an obvious need for nere seasoned ' inspectors tc. work with y\
the novice inspectors. on a day-to-day basis. 8
- 3. ~
Too much responsibiTfty is pTaced on the inspectors with respect to .
'preparatforr of inspection pTanning. .resolutioA of site problems and deterutnation cf the design configuration base for perfor=ance cf inspectians.
, 3 -
I!.. DUACITY ASSURANCE pROGRA4 ~'~
..c,._.
4' The Quality Assurance Prograar is defined in three. basic documents:
yI~.~
' The Corporata Quality Assuranca Manual ' .
-h Chapter 17 of the PSAR ','
The C:xnanche Peak QuaTity Assurance Plan -
These documents are not irr total agreement with one another. Since there is no other nucTear piant currently planned and since the* authority dele-gations identified in the Corporate Manual are not irt consonance with ~
practices on Comanche Peak,. TUGCD should consider discontinuance of the Corporate Manual unless there are other pro,1ects to which ft is to be applied.
If a. Corpora'te ManuaT is required at a later date, a new one '
i could be prepared based on Comanche Peak experience and the requirements of any new projects to which it wouTd be applied. .
The Comanche Peak Quality Assurance Plan addresses only the fc1 Towing cM eria of the eighteen identified in 10C.:R50 Appendix B.
V t
e g- . '
e epg..ye 7* -f' * - -
g e * *
~ - - ---
.,~ _
} .
Orgarri:xden I '
i" Desig:7 Control *h U)'
Procurement Ad::inistration -
Inspectier!
Nonconformnnce contrcT -
W~nt Control .-
. Records . .
Audits --
~ With the expanded responsibil.ities of.the TUGCE QuaTity nce Depart-ment, the pian. needs to be expanded ter address eTI eighteen critaHe to reflect the creation and func::fons of the Procurement Department and to . . . .
.I I be consistant wit!r the authority deTegations and functions stilt resting'
- witfr Gibbs & Hilt and wittr Browr E Root. . .
~ ,
- - (
There needs to be a pian for procedurai identificaban and development and a schedule and assigned responsibilities for their completion, including
~
~
a compTete arefittactde of QuaIfty Assurance procedures., project procedures and intarfacing procedufes of the Architact/ Engineer and constructor. y=.. =
The gj9.c3.-
effort shou,Td be to affrimize the numer of procedures required and to eliminate dupTfcating or overlapping procedures through consolidation of *] .
detifT and joint approvais af the'ergani:ations involved.
It is recomendait
' that the QuaTity Assurance Manager use his orgartization as. tne driving force to achieve requfred. procedureT coveruge on schedule.
It was noted that TUGCC is planning on obtaining its own Code manual.
The stated reaserr for this was the fear, that Browrr E Root would not achieve
' Code acceptance.
The auditors feet ttiat the Browrr i Root manual would be acceptable to the Code Survey Team and that its weTd practices as exempli-fied in. the Wald Shop ars varf &ccaptah.fe. The auditors are of the opinion that obtaining a Code Stam;r wili be difficult where all the work of impTementing the progrant is performed by others.
III. DESIGN CONTROL The present system cf expediting field changes by referring design changes -?
t:r the originaT design organization for approval after the fact does not V~
t Q. , ; ,
- , . , _ __y ~ = - - - . .-e-,--~ v=._; w2*=% v y.,-we - ; , _
7-r= .-==~--**y=o.-~~q
=.n~.v-~=m-----
M l
>p
) ' .
~
.i g.
-e meet the intant of 10CFR50 Appendix E nor of ANSI N45.2.11, re wh
'- that field changes be subject to design controls ca~nensurateC
- exercised on the original design. witn theserd TUGC0 audits have already disclosed.
4 that the Architect / Engineer has. not been reviewing field nated changes oHgi on a concurrent basis, thus the. design engineer's co=rnents Y may be after the specific construction work is complete resulting in possib t
loss of d.esign integHty, undue pressure on the designer i a
to justi has been done, loss of designer responsibility or .vepossible*ixpinsi repairs.
yIt.is recommanded' that a systes for expediting: review and- ,
approval b', the'eriginat designer be established on ah' safety raTated .
changes using teTephone,. teTecopier or tetex as necessary to coor and document changeitpprovais. '
IV. --
PROCUREMENTDCOUMENTCDNTROI.
~~
~ -
Except for site procurements, the. Comanche peak Quality Assuranc
, prior does. net provide for a review of procurement documnts. and th to placing. a purchese order. -
This. Ts. contrary to requirements af O
D 10Cr"A50 Appendix R, Crfterion IY and ANSI N45.2.TI. " Quality Assu Requirements fo'r Contraf of, Procurement.....".
rance - - - -
There is a review of pro-curement documents hf QuaTity Assurance duHng Design Review, but i -
ascertained that this. was a review of the drawings and specifications and not the purchase order or contract.
Procurement document review by Quality Azzurance should assu that aTI necessary requirements for access. to the supplier's facilities are provi and tnat necessary controis and documentation have been specified and ,
i that the appropriata configuration has. been defined .
_ The review should.
else assure that requirements imposed are appropdata to the procu .
and that there are no excessive requirements for quality program -
ment or for the delivery of unnecessary documentation.
Scrne of the pro-curement packages reviewed appeared to. have both blanket r requiremen Quality Assurance programs and excessive requirements .
n.
for dec::ne
.y k "
t
__ g [_ , w, ** " ~
.=_ _
. . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ....... . - - - - -"-
} . Y .- , -. .
INSTRUCTTDMS' - - -
A. Inseection plannino The current system of providing inspec:fon instructions or checklists to '] ~ ' ' .
the inspectors is too generic in nature. In the case of concrete inspection planning the inspector fili.s out a simple pour card with an attached Concrete Placement Checklist, a Reinforefng Steel, Eiectrical,. NecI. anical and Embedded -Item Placement Checklist and. a Stair. lass Steel Li the cabination of whick: -
,_ 1. - --
e
'* Provides no. information with respect to. unique,. embedments or periatrations to be incorporated. in the pour. ~ ~
\ . *
. I.
PTaces an undue burderr on the inspector fn atImptinh. to datermine'
_. ~
esppTicabTe drawings , specifications,, appiica5Te revisions and applicable DC D'cA's.
Much of this input shes1T bTprovided by Y
y ciericaT support under the direction and: st6 sequent approvai of
()
a quaTity engineer , .. ,
C.u.;
Inspectors estimated that 45-7Ct of their time is spent on docu- ';fjf .
_ mentation rather thart physical inspectierr activity. Welt thought out pTanning could de mch ta alleviate this st*wation. ,
Traceability It was observed that Comanche Peak has established a program of unnecessary material traceah1Tity which, based on one estinate, consumes at least a three-man Tevet of effort and perhaps as high as a six man levet of effort if one considers aTT. the support functions required to-implement the program. ATT anchor bolts and 8 series cadweids are fu.11y traceable to heat numbers such that through an elabora*a and extensive system of mapping eTT instaliations., the capability exists of identifyine each embedded anchor bolti,. E series cadweids and other standard. embeds to itz heat number. There existi no such NRC or industry requirement for this degree of traceability. It is inter-esting to note that rebar does not require traceability on Comanche Peak (and shouTdn't) MAC knows. of ne other project that imposes this require-
.---.---.--.-,-..,-,,...~-,..a
^^ ^ O
1 .
- ) .
m .
i ment ar;dit.could not identify a Comanche Peak specification or proce requiring - s
/% Accordingly, it is recomended that this practica be dropped i cediately.
Such a neve would enhance inspector morale as -
those involved are aware that the prac:ica serves no useful purpo .
[,
C.
_ Procedure Simolification ~
f t
Newly established procedural systems are such that Construction and 3
. Quality Assurance issue. procedures. on similar subjecs ma,tter " h
.fo'r example,, the recen Ty issued procedure on shop trevelerd w g jointTy p'repared, by Construction and Quality Assurarica It is recom-
." .[
. 'annded. that imperiant pmcedures such as. those related to- co }'l-
~ reviset and 1ssued. as a s. . .
I Quality Assuranca. ingle ' procedure approved by Construction and -
s.
Similarly, those procedures related. to piping and . '
eTectricaT should be revised and jointTy issued as a single Comanche.
Peak procadurs. ,
t y ,
D. +
_ Procedures. Indeoendent of' Houstotr ' .
i h
J . on construction procedures should be modified.T .--f. -E
?.
Guidelines should. be
- t D worked E out wfttr the Houston' office whereby they a,pprove only y top lev .
P ccedures,
, sita procedures. pemitting the' site fuTT flexibility in revising detailed, /. [e i Perhaps the Brown & Root,. Houston offica could retain
?-
approval authority on, those top level documents that establish Brown &
Root policy', controT the necessary type of for=s, etc.
.- However,. '
detailed operating procedures should be changed with site approva .
Perhaps'the Houston office wouTd agree ts a retroactive review proc
.=- '
E '
n Con *fouri:1on controT
$/ ^'
A review of records. for ccmpleted concrete pours indicates that the configurati6n refTecting the as-poured condition is not property '
p.
defined.
It was noted that the inspectors record the particular drawing nu:cer and revision letter, however, all applicable DC DCAs ant no:
noted. anywhere in the- inspection supporting docu::entation.
-;m.
.m .
g
- i .
t
~
..- . .. - .- .,,..m.-.
+.
, m ,. _. _ .- m m w - n m. m-.:s::v. mama:a
.... .. ..........-.---..-~-...t
" - . ~ - - - - - - - ' ~ ~ - ' ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
F.
.m -
) Preolannine of Construction Work - -
In discussions with constructicn management personnel it was indicated that a new scheme of ccnstruction planning is being developed. This '
new scheme provides. for e c'etailed material . takeoff on ali Gibbs & Hill drawings which provider detailed instructions to the crafts as to .the civil, mechanical and electricai items to be included in each segment ,
of work. This formalized approach of taking mateHa1 takeoffs in the offica and providing this information to the field forcest on an apprcved ~~~
materiaT takeoff Tist wf11. da much te. fmpro' v e the quaTity of%he work. -
Since the materieT takeoff is a format pro, cess accomplished by construction engineers welt in advance of' the work, it. provides a significant measure of propianning, incTuding the process.ing of necessary design changes ts
- accompTfsh the work.1 Such arc effort wiTT, do much to minimize fie1d errors.
with respect ,to. Teft out e=6edments or inability to co=clete werk as a. '
result of design errors. - ~ ,
It is ree:mmended, however that this effort. beQQ formalized ints a Comanche Peak sita precedure. As such, it will be-recogrri:ed; as part of the system-and will de much to assure that Gibbs E -
Nii.Tdrawings.,areflorwarded.tathesiteonatimeTybasistoaccomplish dB ,,
this preplanning effort ,
VI. DOCUMENT CCNTROL While there appeared ts be some problems with bringing the Automatic Records Management System on Tine, the manual.. system backing it up appeared'te be functioning satisfactoriTy. The auditors found no
' deficiencies in document contrui. -
VII.
CONTROL 0F PURCHASED MTERIAI.. E0'UIPMENT AND SERVICES The QuaTity Assurance Pian is not up ta date in regard to TUGCD's responsibfTities for procurement, source evaluation and source sur-veillanca.
TUGCQ has developed. e program for rating suppiter perform-lnce and shows evidence of actions when reatings are unsatisfactory.
The list of suppliers requiring evaluation and source surveillance is not kept up to data by the Architect / Engineer. The list in use is over F
g .
~
~
m
) .
.c - -
four months old.ibut is maintained ma'nually by.the TUGC0 Supervi Supplier Compliance. -
q .
There does not appear to lie any method of assuring that the latest co '
figuration is supplied ts the personnet performing source inspection pHor to shipmant of procured items.
The source inspector appearr to be at the narcy of the supplier irr datemining dat changes have been identified and incorporated.
Thus,. it is concaivable that; items wili,ba---
]
shipped to, the site tit de, pot meet the desired coeffdration everr r
~ --
though requirsments of the purchasing document have been .
met Such u
receipts can- ca se delays and unwarranted costs in meeting the prop
'~ ,
configurntion .,
.~
It is .reewnended that. a practice be estabTished, of identifying and confirming
- required configuratiert prior to procurement and pHor to ship::ent of ~
purchased mateHals and c==ponents. '
.~ ,.5-VIII. .. -
., IDENTIFICAfION AND' CDNTR0!:. OF MUERIALS. pAsia. ANCT C k* No defideic'y noted.
MatadaT revie$ed irt the warehouse in open.
~' " [
- storage and 'in' *Je weld, shop ap'peared t: be adequately identified.
, il ,
IX. _SpECIAL PROCESSE3 -
A. Ra dicarachy Irfdfum'192 is being used as the radiation source for all radiograph at the site.
This isotope has its optimum capabil.ity at about 1.5 inch '
.75 inches IO thickness of steel and, is not recomended by the Code below .
i It is pemitted for lesser tMcknesses when the use of other radiation-sources is not practical and whert resoTutiert of the outline and 4T hoTe ,
' size of the penetrameter can be demonstrated.
iridi um isotopes are higher than optimum for materials 375 inches or The energy levels of y
thinner, resulting in a flat image and Tack cf contrast. Because exposure time relates opposite the film. to distance, the isotope is nemally placed against e the pi cf the image. With e .10a inch source si:e, this causes blurHng Lack of contrast and a blurred image makes it uniikely E'
. _ . - - . . _ . . . . . . . - - - " - ~ ~ ~ ~
-.*.--w-, . -
- . . . . -.--.......-. . .......1.................
. . . w. ,,_. ~ .
. that hairline larga indications. cracks will be seen and difficult to accurately na defi -
,x.
cf the Code, but by not providing optimm iden j ancnclies it does thres undesirable things.
First it causes unnecessary removai and repair of indications that can be seen but not pro .
identified; secondly, it masks narrow cracks, tight lack of we -
tration and non-fusion sich can be detMmental to servica life; it does not provide an adequata base line for in-service inspecti ,
performed. aftite the plant has,gone ints operation.
Fa.iTure:ta have cTear: ,
identification of the origintI' indications at that point can cau
~
~
the cost of which greatTy excaeds the cost of providing battar ide .
' cation and necessary repair of defects, found inon- the constructi phase.
Recournendation - Ii: is recaranded that TUGC0 reqdire e s. ,,
x-ray and consider its use whers practica1 for constraction weids
~
X-ray machinas in the range of thirty pounds of weight are avafiahTe and
. nearly as. portabTe as the.' isotope.. Because of its s==TTar .-
foc
- size andi variable vcitage,. x-ray can stve superior radiography. The-
' ~
' feedbacit of informatiert to. welders can improve the quaTity ,"~yf of -
minimize the potentfaf for defects. -
The abiTity to discHainate betweerr indications having roundness or shagpness at the ends can eTim .
- The ability to positively identify in the cons.truction phase , hose ind .
cations which have a po.ential for growth and faiTure can permit '
. . repair without radiation hazards that are inherent if found latar in the operatingrphase. '
S. Weidino '
~
No, causes~for concern and na procedurai noncompitancas were foun .
review of the weld. shop. There seesed-to be a general opiniorr that after radiography repairs. are being required that are acceptable. with the Code.
A review of a smell quantity of rejected film-indica.tas this.
9eneraTi:ation may be valid.
It was disclosed during the audit that radiographs may be reviewed. by as many as five ind.ividutis.
cassive review leads to supercritical evalua: ton of film and te excess 5uch ex- g[.
repair. '
As. previously stated., better radiography pe, ;ts better d}
J ' '
.__- - - - e N. h a.a., -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - =--
17.c------ c s
) - ,. -
identification. of conditions accaptable within t6e Code. Unnecessary'
'. repaire increase cost and reduce pipe reifahitity.-
Recorrnendations - Have radiographs which have been rejected for revientd by TUGCC Level III radiographer.
If a reasonable statistic =T sample shews that excessive repair of weids har been requiredv esta -
the policy that Code acceptable indications shall remain untouched ,. but shall be recorded on the reports. '" ~
As arr economy,' consider reducing the number of persons perform sequentfa7 review of radfographs. -
- . t C. - ,
NDE OuaTifications. ~
i
[ [~
~
The site NDE Level III situatiert is unclear. Only. LeveT- II certificatien by Erewrr & Root was available for the NCE Supervisort however, it is understood that TUGC3 has. issued a Tetter identifying: him is Levet --
Re -
h '- 'su'coccandation - CTarify the authertty and responsibil.ity of the NDE 4' '
pervisor in 'ad[rinistering tests and evaluating: and certifying. p sonnel'. .
This is 'very important as related to Code work,. ,
since ,the Level III will be working under the authority of the holder of the Code stamp. -
i 1
... X. INSPECTION- _ . .
- -There were ner deficiencies noted relative to inspection; however, it ! '
was no.ted that a large number of inspection personnel are receiving their first nuclear construction experience on the Comanche Peak site .
As a consequence, it is necessary to improve the quality of inspect planning and to increa.se the TeveT of supervision and quali support.
Inspection planning should identify the required. configuration including appitcable DC DCAs,. the features to be verified , the~ inspection method and errer.
and acceptance criteria in orcer to minimize possible confusion 4.)
ui/ .
Q! ) -
. -_._ ......-.. .:~. = =- =- - - - ~ ~ ~~ ~~~
__ - ..- =-- ~
..p.,. w.w a nkwnne. nun a unY ' ' .,,...
..... ... .. . - ..- - 1* **** *
. - +- " ***".T2- -
s , -
XI. TEST CONTROL
.3 A review was made of the TUGCa startup administrative procedures the following observatienc.
') ..
1.
The procedures. appear to" be writtan around the cid organizati.on '
that is, in several instances they refer to the Brown & Root QA/QC input required in the . preparation of "startup work requests".
Z. .,.. . ...
' It was noted that un unique systas is being established *te handla .
nonconformances during the startup. phase.
It is rscomended that' .
wherever possibTe exis' ting. schemes utilized in construction be use during ti.he startup process. This is important since most person _
- involved in dispositioning such items as nonconformances and d changes wiTT be the same persons. involved in consraction. '
XII. =
CO*CR0t. OF MEASURING & TEST EQUIPMENT It was observed that out'of 2k instruments sampled which are utilized in civil., structuraT, mechanicaI.and. eTectrical work, appecx.imately 50
~~
percent had not been withdrawn frca the caTibratiort laboratory since %- its Tast caTibration' date.
This is. particularTy significant when it is recognized that the present sysham is such that if a calibrat becomes due, the instrument is recalibrated whether or not it has been issued for use.
It is recomended that consideration be given .o. simply
~
changing the calibration data rather than going through a calibration cycle if the toot has not been used.
It was notad that many constmc* don toots are caTibrated. It is important to note that calibration of constructi'on toeTs is not necessary with respect to.10CFR5tT Appendix g. ATthough calibration and maintenance is extreme.Ty important on construction tools., it may be that frequencies may be relaxed. -
XIII. INSPECTION, TEST AND OPERATING S~ATUS No deficiencies were acted in this aret. Material and equipment observed in receiving inspection, in the warehouse and outside storage g;;g -
l
~~~ :
- % 4
) area appeared to.be adequatelyifdantified e No tests were observed. *
..S XIV.
HANDLINGr. STORAGE AND SHIPPING '
Extarier storage practicas~should be reviewed.
The pectaccive- coverings of many items are damagedi scme reported on monthly survei.11anc have not been correc:ed.
I.arge tamporary structures, such as those over the emergency diesel engines, require wind bracing to prevent further '
damage.
Because of scii chemistry, rain and humidity, the current p tice of eTTowing: Targe stainless steel piping to remain uncovered
be reviewd.' Sens.fttzed. stainless. is. extremely sensitive to chloride ,.
9m i <
i fluoride cause intergra,.
and sulphide
. contamination dich with water as a couplant 1g can nuTar corrosion and premature friTure.
i X7. '
CONTROt. OF NONCONFORMANC55.' .
~ ~
There appears to be an effort to reduca the nu::cer of do confermancas. canted non-
- . . s 6, r.
, It was noted that DC DDAs were being utiTized for nonconformanca r1 9.*.t.' ', . ; ,
"" --- Although this was observed on L small percentage of DC DDAs
. -r is
~
the month of AprfT. it is reconnended that this practice be stopped fanedtately. .
The TUSCD system is. correctTy established whereby non-conformances design changes before are the written fact. after the fact and DC DDAs are rese - ~
It is important that this. practice be ,
enforcad,since DC D!Rs prepared after the fact necessitate .that workers be directed verbally :r.vioTate the drawing since the deviation will be handled .after the fact with DC DDAs. This.is t poor Qua.lity Assuranca practice. ~ '
l * .
Proceddre CPQT-AB Rev. D, dated 5.F-78 was issued for the purpo providing. expedien.t disposition of concreta discrepancies. The procedure ,
infers that discrepancies of 72*F versus 7D*F or 6.2t air content versus 6.Dt. maximum is perfectly acceptable when it is signed off by the field engineer.
Such a system shcrtcuts the established none:nfer=ing =aterial l
centrei system as defined in Brown & Root and TUGCD procedures and should
-Q . ,
l i
,g ,p..m. we g* t.*4 ** P. *# '
-,,.-n.,,,.--,.-,,.----.,.,_.---,,.,,,'m
- , . - . , . , - - - - , - - - . _ . . . - - - - - , - - . _ - _ - _-e , ,- ,-,,,,-a ,,,_ _ , , ,- - - - - , ,
__.-.____.._m_.-.m__-.- ___ _
- .- J'
. : . s '
be discontinu'ed.
) If tolerancas are unrealistic such that. the 72*F is . .
acceptable, then the design specification should, be changed to se indicate. ' 's
.. ]; _
It is recommended that good inspection planning be provided inspectors, !
identifying the characteristics to be inspected., the method. of inspection
. and acceptance critaria, and that inspectors identify nonconformances to such criteria. Th,is will maintain the integrity of inspectors ahd provides identification of problent areas and providis a means for the.ir correct 1.on.
, It fs reasonable te assume thEarr a project as Targe .at Comanche Peak.
there will be several thousand nonconformance reports. The nud6er does
'. . not reflect. adversely on the quaTity of construction, but the failure te -
identify nonconformancas does refTect adverseTy arr the integrity of 4 inspectors and. leaves unknown the queTity of the plant. ~ ~
~
XVI., O RRECTIVE ACTION
- There were no deficiencies noted. reTatfve ta corrective actiom on hard- -
, . ware. The Sappifer CompTfance supervisor has established a mathed of . C.. , ~
tracking. vendor performance and s' hows positive results. froar actions taken t2 correct supplier quiity probTems. K. review of repo.rts of site s'ur2 ~
veillance conducted by TUGCD showed corrective action responses. were -
being promptly received. A review of reports cf survei1Tance actions by Brown E Root showed genernTiy adequate response and resolution of corrective. ' action except for; e period of four renths when surveitlance personnel were assigned to other tasks. ,e In general e corrective action appearr to. be adequate and t mely on vendor and site related problems., but some deffefencias identified irr audits of major contractors. stili persist._ Fame of the changes in authority dele-gation to major contractors appears to be actfor taken to correct inadequate or untimely response by those organizations;. however , other actions taken, sucn as handling cf field changes and. nonconfernances, appear t6 be those
, of circu= venting the problem rather than correcting it.
l s
i d'- t-
..._.,-...~.-....-.--:---.. .
s-
~-
=
- "_~: - - _ -
~ ,. . . .
- ~ "'
XVII. RECDR F ' .. ..
' ~ - -
Except for Tack of intamm1 fire pro' taction,. the quality racerils area
~
~
considered to be satisfactory. Scrne Quality Assurance rec:rds, such
- personneT qualifications, are not st
- red in the records cantar but .( '
i are =ai.ntained separately by the Brown & Root training coordinator.
There is net curren Ty a catalog or Tisting of required ree:rds a1Ehough ,
it is being prepared. A review. of a' selection of Quality Assurance '
records showed the documents in them to have beerr properly cer:pleted'... g.,
an'd irt the correc: ordar. ..
. Recortnendatierr .. _, _ . . ..
.The installatfort of arr inert gas fire- extinguishing ,l
\.
systacr or the identfficatfor: of geograptricaT'iy separate duplicata" records ~
should be expeditad.. TUGCD shouTd review the fire protection capabfif ties. '
cf st: rage fac1Tities in the training superytsor's tra.iler and consider a dupTicate set of.such records t:r be me.intzined' fn the- records cantar.
VIII. AUDITI ' ' '
Tae e are several audit and; surveiTTance progra=5 in effect. Audits by t Quality Assurance Department Central staff are perforud on site ;
..civities, majaf contractors and. suppTfers. Site surveillance actions ~ ~
are perfomed under the d.irection of the TUGC0 QA. >51te Supervishr' 6 Similar' .f i' survef'1Tance ac.ivities are carried out under the direction of the B Rcot Site- Qua.lity Assurance Manager. While calTed surveillance actions, the surveillance programs are femaTTy planned and scheduled, utfitza
' checkTists to guide the activity and record resuits,. and issue, reports of deficiencies and require correctiert. Except for formi and documentac pre-audit and post-audit meetings,. aTT the elements of an audit program are irr place.
It was repor.ed t* rat the reason for catling the activity , .
"survef1Tance" was te avoid outside auditors finding the program deficient i
because it did net include the documented. pre- and post-audf meetings, '
i yet the auditors found. that such ineetings were conducted, but on an inform 1 basis. -
l b
Ree:rrnenca ica - Tne audit:r: c:nsider the pre.sant program to be an i
effective ::c1 which could. be further i=;: roved. TUGC0 should consider !
g .
~ '
,y --r_
3 y% .*-*******"*8*S" , .
. ~ " M 7 'C . -
...-.m .n-
. . . - .. -. . . . ... ..... .... .. .. . . . - - - - ~ . . . . . _ . .a_..., . .. .,.
- m. .
.J combining the audit and'surveiTiance acdvides. ints a s. ingle,. c hesive affort. Such an intsgrated affar cou1d cover reqdiret arnas. cere: ,
efficientTy, wimout duplicatten and at e frequency that can- be min- ' .) '
tained. Such an audit progrt:r should be described in wrinen procedures ,-
and include e descriptien cf bcth the fennt.T audit and the continuous audit plan.(survei1Tanca) and the narthod of conducting pre-. and peit-audit meetings should be described ts preclude later criticisms by outside organizations. ,
The. resulting audit prograar should be e superior~ tool . ..
f.o.,r ,__
management assessment of brogracr impTementation and effeettvene5s. ,~
9 S
m l
m .
l I
p ';
, z . . .. -
i l .
., .)
e .
. p g
I .
L
- .- . ..m.. - w t- m.- '.--w.~-
'~ * -~+m.-v......., . . . . .
t
. . D. .
- I ? .
en vt-t*
U't w E C W W E% C at Em Dw === C S p= =E eW wz
> W -
E* E
=
e- w L.J C E E C a W5 == c
--w Q" 2Ces= ==-""*
et E E .d >= m E
& sum een emm e 3mm .,
>=
- h. *pm - wC Lad :pma llD E ame .
=
- .. pun #
- aC . .
- ? - Sm -
E
? 8 tab tot suo pm
, . r
.f i t _.
_E . . - -
- >= .4 T
< .= pm.
e vv
=
- a. Nw wuE 8 wm -'- , . -- - ._
E W. K=W w og sa w . . . .
us m" 1.i2 A
>g6 tu..
w9 r.i.- . .%.
m .
= - ,
- . h,'[*^
g 5wE W.Q gom E .
>.O- ma g
W WW g as; .y
=
p.
2". X
>==
WE anne
= 4s
.M A UT C W .W 3 O E Wgg
w >= E CC
>= pm= w
. Ime W G =s== mamm >
E
==
E == W O vi a=
C 2 >=
W E>2 >6OM Q .w" E 1 au O te. S.e mo c & f.J '
ta6-J W =m =g w
. i W9CWM5 G a. =m m= == 6 e8 we -
y i l
. l m
. I I
o l
.. . . _ . _ _ _ . . l
- ,. -- a mjw s ~,,.'..-..._.1--,...s-=,yn.-:..--
7m-.r S' '*' ? ? '.t -~--,_.,,.,.,,--.m.-.a'.
, - , , - - - .--. , - ---~-n- , - - - - , ,- e-.- - . - - ,-,..,..m. . - - , - , - - . , - , . , ..-----..-----.-._--.n...en-,.--
. a. . . . . . - - - . . - - - -
- ;_.p ,.uy.1( . sr.~a uw.ma uouuuwa cou. . wr;. :f. - _s
, ... - - = = . *
- . - ~ -
re d es v s. sh{w (1 AOFFICE MIMcRANDUM
. i.,,y 6,69-- -
t.,* g s. .. . 47 -
) sub y Manaement cum 14tv Anume. Auef e -
DFCFTVF JUI.12 !!" ~ '
F. G. BRITTAIN Attached are our resolutions to the findings and: recomendations. mada- .
by Management Analyris Company as a result of their audit in May.' .
Our analysis of the audit results has been discussed in general terms with John Jackson, and we see no need to respond formally to this audit.
e e
/ -
. ge
'~ -
k.f.stry. 1
. +
~
L. F.H xar '
/# /% ~
i-
. . . _6.
.a - . ;-
. ' ,: (
.t ;
y r.
I.) ,
t t
./
/
4 i .
i ! i .
_x.__. ,
_e _ w- mx m-w, s . - ww= - ~-w-=-- =- - ~ ~ ~ -
- FINDINGS (APPENDIX A) m 4-85-008 O. 1. Findine Sumary:
autner1ty celegations to B&R and to G&H.Our QA Plan and Proc
, ' ' Resoonse:
approvec deviations. At the ti=e of, the audit we were operating under properly.
These deviations were incorpcrated into a.
pemanent QA Plan Manual revision on July 1,1978.
2.
Findine Sumah: ..
enange review provides significant risk of error and is.
noncompliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix E. -
' .. . 4-i Response . : ;
We disagree; on bottr counts. The 63H Resident Engineer- ,
has exerc:ised extremely good judgment in impl delegated torhis. - -
i Of the approximately 2000. changes /devia- ~
that have provided exposure to. a significant risk 1
was impienented on
. To. - ' c;
" 25, Mayprovide 1978 greater visibility of the design '
_ changes and permits continuing evaluation of the-field. efforts.t This systae is current for ongoing activities at the present time 1S78.
and wt11 be completed for past activities on or Appendix B is. supported.by internal audits by TUGC0 fndependent audits. by two separate NRC Inspectors. n QA perso!
Taave the design change systam.as is. We propose-to _)
k, .T. Findinc Sumary:
E/
anc cnanges tnerata prior to release.TUGC0 'QA does. not review -
Resoonse:
- We disagree that' bis is a requirement.
purchase order and is applicable ,to all supplements. re Changes to these requirements are authorized only by Quality Assurance .
4 Findine Sumam comp)ex ana cifficuit to maintain,The current array of QA manuals a Ressenre: We agree.
. Tneofcorporate goal streamlining QA it. Program.Manuti, is currently under s* .
l
! 5. Findine Sumary:
clearly. Records. do n'ot reflect the as-poured configuration Rescense:
Configuration has always been made visible to inspectors, Q
- s. >
EIBIBIT 2 l
. p w., , , ,,- ,. mr-
- ~mu s.-o:.za:xe.a.urk:.u.:uzac:::,::.s uco n 2
~
s - .v -
- r. .: =. . - *.- - -v~.- - ,m
- - an,d steps have,been taken to icprey the visibitity for the record.
- 6. Findine Sumarv: .
- always etst1nct. Markings for in-service NDE inspections were not Resconse: . J. .
inspect special process ISI markings prior .
to turnove QC will
- 7. Eindino sumarv bypass une -nonco:nformanca. system.We are using the DC/DDA (de Resoonse: This is not true. If construction identifies a,nd ,
~
corrects.
inspection,. a. -no defect NCR. or obtains art approved engineering change fs required. . ~
~
- 8. Findine suman: . ..
internel fire protectfart during off. duty hours. _The record s
Re'oonse: _
Target cate for instaTlatiert is. August I,1978.An inert gas
~
9 Eindine Sumarv:
staff cave, noc~Deert conducted.Appet:ximataTy 24t of audits scheduled by coactned tre one overali effort. Audits by T1JGCG anc. BAR shouTd be _
Resoonse: .
c.:
carn 71ng manufacturing status and to aTIoe "us t invei,tt ..
6 itarise.
as it is.gate j probTem areas of' the most imediat ,
- 9 9
e e
~
.\
.i
- W t .
. . I i
CBSERVATIONS AND RECCNMENDATIONS (APPENDIX. ' '
B)
I Oceanizatton .
Recomendation:
(planning). Separata -
inspection frem Quality Engineering .- ;
i Resoonse: We h ;
assurance group;ad begun worie on this. before the audit. Our predict I
. has taken responsibility for Quality Engineering . l' Recomendation: -
comitae. .
,: , Re-evaluate the chartar of the Quality.Survei1Tance'" '
Re snonse: ,,,,,q ,
We have decided tu discontinue the Quality Surveillance Committee. Instand ~
_- to kaap includfag top manageme, TUGCC QA. Manager wili issue. a.Jreport quarterly .
nt apprised of the status of QA satters ' .
u August IS, 1.97 quality trends. The first suctr. report will be issued by ~
. - . ~
- 8. - ~ ~
Recomendation: .
Hire more seasoned inspectors. .
Hire any future engineers construction. free outside the company wit.T experience ant in nuclear -
[ pl U
Resoonse: ,
We are err thi Tockout for welt qual.ffied pe continuei to. review ap'plicants froar outsideThethe company.rsonneT and _
relatively young inspectors. wil.1 be strengthened. best and quickest .
~.
9 by
.f. Jproviding taking e from thes the responsibtifty for inspection-T' checklists. th's ut*Jr adequate, but concise instructions and . andpTanning '
This has. been done and is effective. ..
II
_ Quality Assurance Procram ___. _ _. 1 Recomendation:
Reva=p our present QA manual system.
Resoonse: We agree. .
1978. .
TUGC0 @ issued a revised QA Manual on. July 1,. .
Ocinfon:
worz.1s. done by others.Obtainfng our ASME Code swap- e wiTT be difficult if a Resoonse:
We know ft wiTT be dtfficult, but it can be done ,__ -
N.report stamp. ooes not accurately record our stated. reason . The . for obtaini ng'an -
II Desten Control , . _ .
i Recomendation: l Abanden our present system of expeciting field -
l I
1
} . . -
.W' .
i i
d t
l lI
-
- i i i
..,..s..,. . .< - . - "~' _
m .x.- _. , ; .; , ..uu s..,g.netuww;w. .n. .a., u;;g,_, w .
.,s . *
- ' ~
ching:s.-
m O
~
Re onn=e: we wiii leave it as it is- ~
s.
IV ,
)
Procurement Document Controi
- Recorrrnendation:
All pro &rament documents should be reviewed by QA.
Resconse: <-
We disagree for reasons. stated on Page 1.
Y Instructions . .
Recommendation:
preparam on. Streamline-4nspection planning and chec lidt - - '
Response: '
January. - We agree,, and have been active it: this effort since '-
, Reconmendation:
~~ . .
Discontinue mapping in#1vidual standard imbeds. ~ '
Resoonse:
Mapping has been dtseontinued, but ihave retained a: ---
reasonaole degree of traceabtTity on embedded itams.
l R'ecorsnendatfon:- Combine cons,tructfon.and- QA procedures. ' ' -) t Resoonse: . . .
. i ano, wnerr revi' Sfnce singJanuary we have been doing this for new proce& des 7 old procedures.
Recorreendtfon: -
procecures. Discontinue requiring BAR Houston approval of.
Resoonse:
now approved All procedures at the site. except those invoTving ASME Code work are i
Observation:
cocumentatton.AT1 appTicable DC/DOA's. are not included in supporting
Response
Refer to Page I, Appendis A., Iter f.-
R'eccanendatfon:
construct 1 ort work.Establish e formal sita procedure for planning-i Rescon'se:
formal procedure This planning for it. is. being done. We don't intend to create a. .
/
l ) 1
. O e ee e e
...~ ~ = .m VI Document Control i , .
)' - } ~
"~ Observation: The ARMS system should be backed u (scaac versally in exit management intarview). p by a manual systam j
_Resoonse:
The auditors'. lack of confidence irr ARMS was the result of Insufficient familiari::ation. with the system err their part.
VII
' ~ ' '"
Control of Purchased Material, Eouipment, and Services. - ' - - ~ ' - -
Observation:.
The QA Plan is not up to date in this. area.. . - - < "
Response
., .. Manual revision war. ::ompTeted ont July 1. ~
4 Statement: . . .
- \
of sne supplier in detartining what changes. have beerr inco Response: .
__ This is not true. We (TUC0 CR) prepare our owrr - ~~
cnecklists after sea-ching: the appropriate files. _
auditors.' (verhal) comments that this. method placas-en-additionalWe agree wittr the depending upon Gali to prepare the checklists. did not wori:. b
, VIII Tdentiffcation and Control' of Materiefs, Partr, and Comeonents -
.f .) Io observattons. . . :- .
IX Soeef al. Processes _. .
Recomendation:
for all snop welds and for field welds, where practicaT.The use of Iridiu
, Response:
Browrr & Root is. studying ttris recomendatfort,. and is comitted to have e report for TUCQ/TUSI by July 15.
Recomendation:
Reduce the ndaber of individuais reviewing.
ractograpns and establistr the policy that Code-acceptable indications. be recorded. but not repaired.
Resconse:
This had been accomplished prior to the audit, but apparently the auditor talkad with someone who wasn't aware of it. ~~
R ecomendation:
relacive to code wort. Clarify the responsibility of the NDE supervisor e 9 ,
g .
~
. 8
. - O g. k
-~
... ... . . - - . - -~~~- ~ ~ ~ " ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~
. .. Response:
'Tha auditors were confussd in this area. Our only Levab--
. . 111 at, the sitai is. in civil work, not ASME Sec.711 Div. I work.
X Inspection '
h Included in the report. here was a. re-statement of observations covered elsewhe XI Test Control _
.Reconsnendation:
usec,auring startup. Existing nonconforma~nce control systems should her.
' ~~
2---
~..
. Response: .
The new 04 Manuat,, with, input fres TUGC0 Operattons,. vt1F ,
... accress. noncertformance controT systas. . . . -
-- - XII contret of MeesurTne and Test E'oufoment
'- Recorrnendatiert: Equipment shouTe not be reca.Tibrated on the due' case tf it nas not,beert used. -
Resoonse: The rec 5rAn~da51on has. been adopted for items whose caltorattert is, not subject to change while not irt use.
Implementatforr cata was.JuTy 1 -
XIII Insoectiert, Test and Coeratintr Status ~
No observations I:-
XIV HandTine, Storace and Shiocine 1i Reconnendation: ~
Exterior storage & protectiort practices should be reviewec.
Resoonse:
We had previously reviewed the storagec practices and have-no: reason ta beTieve that a problen exists. Yartous NRC inspectors.
have also inspected thfs activity However,. Westinghouse is reviewing this,, and their metallurgist will report by July 1.5.
XV ControT of' Nonconformances-- , .
~ ~~
Observation:
control. This is a restatement of concern over nonconformance Resoonse:
We reject the inference t' hat problems are circ' ave'nted I
ra.:ner nan corrected at CPSES.
M .
t g g g . .
e:u u r ~ -
e g
XVI .Correctiv7 Action- m
~ ,
7 .
No specific findings.
XVII Records * .
Recommendation:
system. This sectiert resta*.ad the need for fire protection - -
Response
The inert. gas systam will be installed by August'i, 1978.' ~
XVIIIAudits , , . . _
i - - " .
~
Reconnendation: -"
' ac=1vities snould be coefned.The audit (Dettas). ~and survef1T Resoonse:
surveillance. We intend tar Teave our audit progas. separate from rf te
~
4 4 -
9 R '
h . .e ! ..
\d' 9
j -
- g 9
e .
e e
0 e
a'"',
G.- -
W
. - .v. . .~ :"% c:a . ' n d*-i ~"- ' "'
~
~ ~
<.m- . . s * . . . '.e.. ,
- ~
. 4-85-008 s -
7/7/8o bapw STATES OF AMEKICA
, NUCLEAR REGUIATORf COW.ISSION l
EEFORE THE ATC> TIC.SATET!7 AND LICENSI?G 3OARD In the Matter of [ ,
. .~ .. -;~LD { -
APPLICATION OF TEKAS UTII2 TIES l .r -
GENERATI10 CQ4PART, ET AL. POR AN { Docket Nos.:50 -
OPERATING LICENSE-POR CCMANCHE [ and-50-46 . . . .
PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION [ i . - . ZZ~ _. ..
UNITS fl AND f2 (CPSES) __ {
.- fots . Ilc) l E k~.
CASE FIRST SET OF INITRROGATORIIS -
TO APPLICANT b ay C/J p
O Pursuant to 10 CFR g 2 7kO(b), Intervener CASE (Citizens Association
, s e for Sound Eneirgy) requests that the attached Interrogatories be answered fully, 7- .
i* in writing, and under oath by the officers or engloyees of the Applicants utto ...
%J j ,,
have personal knowledge'thereof or are the closest to having personal knowledge .
thereof. Provide the nane, title, and company a'ffiliation of each son answering Interrogatories, together with an identificati~on of which Intierrogatories such person is responsible for answering.-
1 Each Interrogatory has been identified as to
- which specific accepted Contention it pertains to.. .
CONTENTION ES:' -
- 1. Supply copies of each and every.Deficitacy ani Disposition Report-(DDR) log.
- 2. Supply copies of each and every Ncn-Conformance Report (5:R) log.
3 Supply copies of each and every Field Request for Engineering Action V
(FREA) log. -
) EXHIBIT 3
. .- m. ,, a._ w
~
+ *
- i +
. . h v ... *
- 4. Supply copies of each and every Corrective Action Request (CAR) log. l
-l
. supply :opies of each and evuy concrete ;our log.
5
- 6. For items 1 through 5, supply a signed statement that each and every -
- .. . log requested has been supplied, and that there are ank have been no' -
e others. . .
- 7. . . For items 1.through 5, supp1; full-size, rather than reduced, copies. -
.- u-
~
' of each. . --
' 8. How man;g internal audits have the Applicants performed on 2trown and Rect?
9 How many' audits have been perfomed by insurers (industrial risk, builder's n.
. . . . _ __._, : rink, etc.) on work done .at the Ccannehe Peak plant? -.
d,Q
. . , . 10. .Jtov many outside or sub-contraetor evaluations, studies or audits have ~
been conducted (by sub-contractors o'r agent's of sub-contractors or by consulting firms or others, etc.)?
l l 11. Regarding items 8 through 10, provide the following information:
1 (a) t' 'was the purpose of the audit, evaluation, or study?
(b) What were the conclusions of the audit, evaluation, or study? "
. (c)~Dho % stituted the audit, evaluation, or study? ,
(d) Where is the audit, evaluation, or study kept so that we can review it?
- 12. Do Brown & Root, Texas Utilities or any of its subsidiaries or ec:spanies, or any of the other owners of CPSIS have a public relations department 0.\
1
-e- .
e
.t . * '
t i for the Cananche Peak plant (or if not specifically for the Cec:anche
. Peak plant, which provide information regarding the plant)?
,_ 13 If the answer to. item 12 is yes, itemize the specific companies which
._ have. such depaz$ments and state the extent of and the type of informa ~
. ~
. tion supplied by each. (For =41e, is there a specific public rela'
_ . tions department for CPSEST ",does a particular company provide informa --~
~ ' '
tion as a part of its over-all public relations u.
department's work? 'do o
the campaniets, or a specific ccupany, prepare special public relations materials specifically for the CPSES7 'It'so, what type of infor=ation?)
- 14. If the answer to tem 12 is yes, supply copies of all publications or
!.Q[,'y' q information.by all such departments regarding the quality control, quality assurance, safety, worir==nahip, and hthod by which the plant is beQ '
built. -
. 15. Was there another method of documentation prior to use of deficiency anddispositionreports(DDR's)?
- 16. If the answer to iten 15 is yes, what was such method of documentation?
17 If the answer to item 15 is yes, supply copies of each and every los regarding such method of documentation. -
t
'18. Supply copies of any and all progress reports to the public regarding CPSIS, including infor=ation provided at the CPSES information center. I g ,
8.
D
,,- p._ '.. s ; ywa . . '
, .: '^
- 6
.. .;\ ,
I ;l 19 Supply copies of all quality control nanuals, folders, pamphlets, and any other printed infomation regarding quality control, including procedures. for quality c' ontrol, not only currenti but the originals ande-all revisions. -
- 20. Are there any_ audio tapes or video tapes of a$y of the infomation - '
~
referred to in item 197 ,. r-
~
_21. If the answer to item 20 is yes, where are ,such . tapes kept so that we -
o can review them7
- 22. Supply copies of all quality control' specifications ==m=7 s, folders,
_ pamphlets, and any other printed inforisation regarding quality control ..
-'g
- . specifications,.'not only current but the originals and all revisions..- .,7.-
'e4 23 Supply copies of all manuals, folders, panghlets, and stay other printed -
information regarding quality. assurance, quality assurance specifications, and quality assurance procedures, not caly current but the originals and all revisions. If this infomation has been supplied in response to item 19, so state.
- 24. Are there any audio tapes or video tapes of any of the information referred to in' items 22 and 237 25 If the answer to iten 24 is yes, where are such tapes kept so that we can review them?
l 5
e
- __-u___ _-_ __
. . . . .-. u . .
- e_. .
-i i , ,
i
- 26. Per items'14,17,18,19, 22, and 23, supply full-size, rather than ._
. reduced, copies of each.
CON'ETTION f25: . --.-- . -
.- :,J - 27. :EaseTexas . Utilities or any of its subsidiaries or 7=4es- signed . . ...
- -- - a letter of. intent to negotiate the sole of an interest in CPSES to :- - .-
. Tex-La Electric Cooperative? . . _ .. :.
- 28. If-the answer to item 27 is yes, supply ecnipletE details of such nego- .-
tiations, including date of such letter of intent, copy of such letter of intent, percentage interest invo$.ved,' expected date of sale, espected .
value of percentage :ta be sold, expected sales price of percentage.to.be-
~ G) ' - -- - - . .
sold, method.of payment by buyer to seller, and any other pertinent .
' ~
details. ...
. *29 Ess Texas Utilities or any of its ' subsidiaries or cendes made over-tures to or had discussions with any other party or ccupany to negotiate
.. . the sale of an interest in CPSEST.
- 30. If the answer to item 29 is yes, supply complete details (as outlined in item 28) of such overtures or discussions.
o
' Respectfully submitted',
,,gm !A S (Mrs.) Junedta Ellis, President CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY)
- - ik26 S. Polk
- y Dallas, Tr 75224 i Dated
- 7/7/80 21k/946-94h6 i
, ~i
. .g
, _ , . . . . . , . , , , , _ . , . . , . ~ , , , , _ , _ _ . - , , _ _ . .
~
UNITED: STATES OF AMERICA -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- t BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,}
In the Matter of I I
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR AN 1 -
and 50-446
~
OPERATING LICENSE FOR COMANCHE I . ., f -.
PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION ~ ** _
l - -- - --
UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) X ,
~
._ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies; of CASE's FIRST SET OF INTERROGATCHIES'TO APPLICANT '
in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit-in -- ~
the. United States mail, first class, this 7th day of July,1980: : -
- i- -- - -
~ ' ' -
2 y,.
- ;3.: .,.-; 'y-
', :.. -;.,. > . , ...,)
?., ~ -
Elizabeth S. BoweEs, Esq. , Chairman David J. Preist'er, Esq.
Atoinic Safety and Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.'S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Division Washington,' D. C 20.555 P. O.' Box 12548, - Capitol Station Austin, Texas , - 78711 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member ~
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board~ ' Mr. Richard Foulie - - '
305 E. Hamilton Avenue 1668-B Carter Drive ~
f-]y State College, PA. 16801 Arlington, TX ; 376010 '
Dr. Richard Cole, Member ~
t'omic Safety arid Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board LPanel :-
. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C. 20555
. Nicholas S. Repolds, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Dabevoise & Liberman * . Appeal Panel i 1200 - 17th St., N. W. '
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C. 20555
. Marjorie Rothschild Docketing and Service Sect 5'.on Counsel for NRC Staff Offica of the Secretary U. S.. Nuclear Regulatpry Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. '20555' Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay : .
West Texas Legal Services ,
100 Main Street (Lawyers Bldg.)
Fort' Worth, TX 76102 u u (R. %
(Mr,s . ) .Juanita t.111s , President '
, CASE (CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR 4 SOUND ENERGY) t
(
^~
g, -
[
- .= -
,, e m July 28, 1980 p.
'gg UNITED STMIST'MF AMERICA
.' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- . _ . BEFORE THE AEO'MdC 5KFITYAN6 LICENSING BOARD .
~
In the Matter of ) -
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING Docket Nos. 50-445 ke se!' N COMPANY, g al. 50-446 g _
- . dComanche Peak Steam Electric ) '(Application for .
-/8- -
. Station,,, Units 1 and 2) ) operating License) --
APPLICANTS' ANSWERS TO CASE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.740b(b), Texas Utilties Generating Co., et al. (" Applicants") hereby submit answers ._
to " CASE First Set of Interrogatories to Applicant" (" Inter-(CAg f regatories")l, dated July 7, 1980.With respect to CASE's -
- . requests.for production of documents, Applicants will' : -
respond pursuant to and ch the schedule provided in 10 C.F.R. $2.741(d).
Throughout this proceeding Applicants have pursued ,
and will continue to pursue a prompt and fair. resolution of al1' issues properly raised pursuant to the NRC Rules
~
~ of Practice. Thus, during the discovery phase of the proceeding,, Applicants will respond fully and expeditiously-to all discovery requests which seek information re.ievant
~ .
to the issues being considered. However, in order to facilitate our good faith efforts to comply with discovery
'". requests, the parties seeking discovery must assure that V ,. heir t requests are set forth with reasonable specificity and scope, consistent with the NRC Rules.
ol)3'2 tr/2"" 6 7 ~
ff__ M_
, , .w -**a w e - **N s
-)
e.'E With regard to CASE's first discovery request', Applicants must seek clarification as to the scope and subject matter of certain interrogatories and requests to produce documentse '- l Applicants request that CASE respond to this request .for -
, clarification promptly so that discovery may continue -ori- - - ' ;' ;~#
a timely basis. */ -
APPLICANTS' ANSWERS TO CASE INTERROGATORIES - -- - - -
AND REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION Each interrogatory or request to produce is identified '
I' by item number, corresponding to the numbers in CASE's J
July 7, 1980 Interrogatories.
A. CONTENTION 5
.l,1.} ,
. .~'. .
Question: '
- 1. Supply copies of each and every Deficiency and ' '
Disposition Report (DDR) log.
- 2. Supply copies of each and every Non-Conformance Report (NCR) log.
- 4. Supply copies of each and every Corrective Action Request (CAR) log.
- 6. For Items 1 through 5, supply a signed state-ment that each and every log requested has been supplied, and that there are and have been no others. -
- 7. For items 1 through 5, supply full-size, rather ~
than reduced, copies of each.
- / The Board has urged the parties to conduct discovery with " reasonable promptness". See " Order Subsequent to the Prehearing Conference of April 30, 1980" '
(June 16, 1980) at 18. Applicants intend to comply s.a with'the Board's direction and assume that all parties will do the same. , , ,
s w
.._ ~ - - ...- - _- . . .-
- ^
<- : x , ,
~
- 14. If the answer to item 12 is yes, supply copies of all publications or information by all such
' departments regarding the quality control, quality assurance, safety, workmanship, and method by which the plant is being built.
- 18. . Supply copies of any and all progress reports to
.' provided the public regarding CPSES, including information _
at the CPSES information canter. -
- 19. . .. Supply copies of all quality control nhnuals,
. . .. folders, pamphlets, and any other printed - - - -
.,information regarding quality con' trol, including - ' - - - -
procedures for quality control, not only current but the originals and all revisions. ,
22.,, Supply. copies of all quality control specifications manuals, folders, pamphlets, and any other printed information regarding quality control specifications, ,
not only current but the originals and all revisions.
23.- supply copies of all manuals, folders, pamphlets, '
.and any other printed information regarding
' , ,qu,al1,ty assurance, quality assurance specifications, ;'-
O.
~ D,gp.;' ' and qual ~ity assurance procedures, not. only current
. .htiti 'th'e' originals and all revisions. If this '
- , '
- '. . . . ] .information has been supplied in response to . ~~ '
. item 19, so state.
- 26. For items 14, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 23, supply full-size, rather than reduced, copies of each.
.. Answers,, , ;.
Applicants will respond to these requests for production of do,cuments pursuant to and on the schedule provided in 10 C.F.R. $2.741(d).
Question: _
- 3. Supply. copies of each and every Field Request for Engineering Action (FREA) log. ,
- 5. Supply copies of each and every Concrete Pour log.
Answer: -
_ /. Applicants do not maintain any records as described by CASE in Interrogatory 3 as " Field Request for Engineering Action log" 4
F*-'*? *t- - ' - - - - - , - - p ,____,..,,,..._,__-m_,___..,,,.,_.w, , , . . , - , ___..m , . _ . , . , - , - . ,,,,y,,,,,,,...m. _ow..wc--.- ,.w , . , , -% , , . .s-e,e--mygs.--
e _. - ._ e m. e . ~, ..N .:v...r..r.m.-l ,.-~ n - w g N.,..w m.su w A. n~ - w w<. m - ~ A l ,
. ~. :
or in Interrogatory 5 as " Concrete Pour log." Clarification is necessary as to those requests including the specific
.. nature and substance of the information sought. .
f Question: , _ .
4
.8.--How many internal audits have the Applicants -'-' -
, performed on Brown and Root? ~
- :07 5-Answers . _- !
There have been eight audits of Brown and Root by
. : . . Applicants.. Four of these audits were performed on Brown - ? t- 'I f
and Root in Houston, and the other four on Brown and Root at Comanche Peak. '
Question: -
..r .
9.,-'How-many audits have been performed by insurers
' $d.d
- (industrial risk, builder's risk, etc.) on work - 2" '-
done at' comanche Peak? '- *
- 10. How many outside or sub-contractor evaluations, -
studies or audits have been conducted (by sub-contractors or agents of sub-contractors or by -
consulting firms or others, etc.)?
. Answer:
Applicants object to these interrogatories as being overly broad and as requesting information not relevant to the matters at issue in contention 5. ,
Further, to respond to such vague interrogatories would cause undue burden and expense in' researching voluminous materials. Accordingly, Applicants request that CASE specify the topics of the evaluations, studies or audits with which CASE is concerned, the relationship of such studies, evaluations or audits to Contention 5 and, with respect to Interrogatory 10, the y
- . , s.-, r-- -,%.----.,-- -w. .------.----------~+-e-'---+-'5-~'*---' " " ' - ~ * * * " " ' ' " * * - - ~ ~ ' ' ' " ' ~ ' ~ - ~ ' - "
- -... - ~ .-- - -
_ _ , _ . . . . _ . .= ..*6e**.m *hM54' '
' ' ' 'h' e 5-sub-contractors or consulting firms on,which Applicants might have. performed the audits, evaluations er studies whichCASEseeks} -
Question: ~~ ., .
- .
- .: 11. Regarding items 8 through 10, provide the .. ::.:2:
following information: ..- .
...- (a) What was the purpose of the audit, evaluation or study?- ,
Answer: . .
Item 8: To review implementation by Brown and l Root of appropriate regulatory requirements. See response to Interrogatory 11(d). .
g - -
It, ems 9 and los See response to Items 9 and . : ,
to .j . , 10. -
q9 ,
Question: .-
...(b) What were the conclusions of the audit, - '
evaluation,.or study?
Answer:
. l l
. Item 8: All findings were resolved. See reponse to Interrogatory 11(d).
Items 9 and 10: See response to Items 9 and 10.
Question: __
(c) Who instituted the audit, evaluation or study?
. Answer: ._ __.
Items 8: Texas Utilities Generating Company -
Quality Assurance Division.
Items 9 and 10: See response to Items 9 and 10.
Question:
J (d) Where is the audit, evaluation, or study
. kept soithat we can review it? - .
t
. O
t .
t ;
-Q p .
)
. .. )
Answer: ,_,
. Item 8: The audits are kept in Texas Utilities Generating Company's Dallas offices.
. An opportunity to review the audits will be afforded as set forth in
- .. Applicants' responsa to CASE's
.. .. . requests to produce to be filed
.. . ;.., pursuant to and on the time schedule provided in 10 c.F.R. $2.741(d).
~
Items 9 and 10: See response to Items 9 ,
e and 10.
Question: .:-
. 12. Do Brown & Root, Texas Utilities or any of its sub-sidiaries or companies, or any of the other owners of CPSES have a public relations department for the Comanche Peak plant (or if not specifically for the Comanche Peak plant, which provide information re- r garding th.e plant)? '
c.S ,
7.;. ,
.13. If the answer to item 12 is yes, itemize the -/"--
. _.. specific companies which have such departments and - - ;--
state the extent of and the type of information supplied.by each. (For example, is there a specific public relations department for CPSIS? Does a particular company provide information as a part of its over-all public relations department's work?
. Do the companies, or a specific company, prepare special public relations materials specifically for
. the CPSES7 If so, what type of information?)
Antwer:
Applicants object to Interrogatories 12 and 13 as seeking information which is irrelevant to any matter at issue in, contention 5. Thus, the requested information is beyond the scope of permissible discovery under the NRC .
Rules of Practice. 10 C.F.R. $2.740(b)(1). Nonetheless, in the interest of reaching an expeditious ccnclusion to discovery, the Applicants respond to Interrogatories 12 and
-' 13, las follows. t-l
~~
~ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ '~ ~ ~,~,~
- ~-
. Dallas Power & Light Company ("DP&L"), Texas Electric Service company ("TESCO"), Texas Power & Light Company
("TP&L") and Texas Utilities Services Inc. ("TUSI") each have general public relations departments. Brown and* Root. .
has a general public relations department in its Houston .
- offices... Brown and Root does not have a public relationst.
. - - ~-
office at the Comanche Peak site. -
Communication with the public regarding electric -- - - --
utility and Texas Utilities Company System matters is carried out through the communications departments of the -
three operating. companies (DP&L, TESCO, TP&L). Part of that communications offort includes the Comanche Peak plant.
n
. 3. R
, Information ei: Comanche Peak supplied to the public by the *
- v
. - operating companies is'in both oral and written form. -
Handout material (fact s,heets, pamphlets),' speakers and programs on Comanche Peak are made available through the operating companies. News releases regarding current events relating to Comanche Peak are issued. In general, the printed and prepared material on Comanche Peak available to the public is a joint effort involving the operating, generating and service companies. There is not a special .
and separate Comanche Peak public relations department.
Comanche Peak matters are part of each operating company's
- overall communications function.
,, Texas Utilities Generating Company ("TUGCO"), the V principal licensee and operator of the Comanche Peak plant, l
t- t ,
e ,
e a 6
-N _ v .y- # w _v_d use =s.e - -N emee ..- - . - - _ ,
~ '
l ,
t 4
has one person who maintains an information office in Glen Rose for the purpose of communicating with the citizens in the Glen Rose /Somervell County /Granbury/ Hood County area regarding Comanche Peak. Information available to the'
.: .public from.this office is generally the same material that- '
- . .. is.used by the three operating companies. TUSI assists the
- ;.three. operating companies and TUGCO in~public communications ~
related.to Comanche Peak. The primary responsibility of TUsI in Comanche Peak communications is to keep the owner companies (who have the responsibility for communicating with the public) up-to-date and apprised of construction, licensing and operations progress, events and issues, j,,
, ' { Ouestion: -l'
- 15. .Was.there another method of documentation prior
-to use of deficiency and disposition reports (DDR's)? .
Answer:
No. .
Ouestion:
- 16. If the answer to item 15 is yes, what was the method of documentation?
Answer: .
~
Not applicable. .
Ouestion: *
- 17. If the answer to item 15 is yes, supply copies of each and every log regarding such method of documentation. '-
Answer: . O)
Not applicable. i
e
- b
- 9-ouestion: -
- 20. Are there any audio tapes or video tapes of any of the information refs red to in item 197 Answer: _ . _
Yes, one video tape was prepared. -
Question: ,
s.
, . 2. 21,. 3 If.the answer to item 20 is yes, where are such - ; '*
tapes kept so that we can review them?
Answers - -
The tape is in the Dallas offices of Texas Utilities Generating Company. Applicants ---
- will provide an opportunity to review the tape pursuant to and on the schedule pro-vided in 10 C.F.R. $2.741(d).
Question:
- g w}
.24. .Are there any audio tapes or video tapes of ;
V- '
._.any of the information referred to.in items
~ 22 and 237 -
Answer: -
See response to Interrogatory 20. ,
Cuestion:
- 25. If the answer to item 24 is yes, where are such -
tapes kept so that we can review them?
Answer: .
See response to Interrogatory 21.
B. CONTENTION 25 .
Question: *
- 27. Has Texas Utilities or any of its subsidiaries or companies signed a letter of intent to
negotiate the sale of an interest in CPSES to -
Tex-La Electric Cooperative?
Answer: ,
Yes. .
i
. ,, ,..~.,_,,,s...c... .,. ....,....,,.s,_m..
. ,_.,..,.x.,, .m,.,._ .,.m. ..,..,,.y.
. . . .m %g,.. .d Question: ')
.j
- 28. If the answer to item 27 is yes, supply complete details of such negotiations, including date of such letter of intent, copy of such letter of intent, percentage interest involved, expected date of sale, expected value of percentage to be -
sold, expected sales price of percentage to be sold, method of payment by buyer to seller, and -
... any other pertinent details. -
Answer: -
Texas Power & Light Company ("TPEL") signed.a letter of -
intent dated May 6, 1980, with Tex-La Cooperative of Texas, Inc. (" Tex-La") to enter into negotiations for the sale by "
- TP&L to Tex-La of an undivided ownership interest in ' ~
Comanche Peak and associated transmission facilities.
The letter of intent states that the proposed sale to m
Tex-La.would. involve an undivided interest as a tenant in
- - ,9,.X' common. net to exceed 4.354, at a purchase price to be - ~ ~
- - - 2'-
calculated as. set forth in the letter. The letter states the intent to complete the definitive agreement (s) (as defined in the letter) not later than by November 1,1980.
A copy of the letter of intent is attached hereto.
Questions ._. __.._.
- 29. Has Texas Utilities or any of its subsidiaries or l companies made overtures to or had discussions i with any other party or company to negotiate the sale of an interest in CPSES?
Answer: -
No.
Question
- 30. If the answer to item 29 is yes, supply complete '
details (as outlined in item 28) of such over-i tur,es or discussions. ! , .
_ _ _ _ _ o
= . _ . . . . .
.x, .: . , _ ., -- v1 i . - "
l l .
l i I t
11 -
l Answer's ,
Not applicable.
1 Respec u y submitted, Nichol S. t Reynolds i V -
D 0..e%<>
I1n 1 W1111hm A. Horin
- DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN .
1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Suits 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 * .
Counsel for Applicants .
J.D._
r.
xy Dated: July 28, 1980 .
O e
'M 9 g
_ - . . . . _ _ _ - . - . . - - - - - - + - , - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - ' ' ~ ~ ^ - ~ ' " ' ' " ' " * * ~ ~ " - - - - - ~ - ' " ~ * " ' - ~ ^ ' ' ' ' ~ ~ - - - ~
. - _ . . ._..~ _._.. .. _ - _ .
~
STATI 0F TEXAS CCCM1T OF CAL!.AS ) . ..
. . Homer C. Schridt, being duly ' worn, deposas and says:
- That he is Manager, Itaclear Sarricas Texas utilitier Sarticas. Inc., and kames the contents of the foregothg ' - -
a 4 - -
- Applicants' Answers to CASE's Ffrrt Set of Interrogatories _ u .
and Request for Clarification; that the same is true of his .
own knowledge a:capt as to matters therein stated on -
inferr.ation and belief, and as to that, he believes thes .
ta be true. -
~
3*dCRX to and subscribed .
before se on this 25th day
- of July,1982.. -
k hk E. k Notary Puauc .
My cassissfoa. Empires: Aaril 4,1981 . .
(SEAL) .
This doc'.:mant is a telecepy.
criginal by separata cover.
Applicants will f".:nish tha -)
._./
6
,-. -- --n-~ - - . , , , . - - --
,,,n . - - - - _ _ . - _ , . . , ,, ---w -- ---,a-.--, , vs ,,_ , . ,-,, -- - - - + ---nn,,,,,---,--- , , , - - , , - -
. . . .w . m I i ' ;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- In the Matter of ) !
) !
TEXAS UTILITIES' GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 !
COMPANY, ~et al. '
) 50-446- -
" -) .
- { Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for '
- Statione Units 1 and 2) ) Operating License) --
~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' ~
Answers To CASE's First Set of Interrogatories And Requests For Clarification," in the captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid this 28th day of July, 1980: '
g .
Elizabeth S. Bowers,.Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and,-
~
Chairman, Atomic Safetiy and Licensing Appeal Panel -
Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ' h ission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Forrest J. Remick, Member Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 305 E. Hamilton Avenue Commis'sion State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard Cole, Member David J. Preister, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Protection
- Division Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington, D.C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and .
Licensing Board Panel Mr. Richard L. Fouke
' , ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CFUR Commission 1668B Carter Drive D Washington, D.C. 20555 Arlington, Texas 76010 t .
i i *
-.=..
. . , .;, . .... +. . n _..n . w. . . . ,. - . .
u .,s.v - a.x. n.; , ,, . .,mm.,.. _.,. :.u .c g a
- f Arch C. McColl, III, Esq. Mr. Geoffrey M. Gay :,
701 Commerce Street West Texas Legal Services Suite 302 100 Main Street (Lawye.rs Bldg.)
l Dallas, Texas 75202 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Jeffery L. Hart, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens 4021 Prescott Avenue Docketing is Service Section Dallas, Texas -75219 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory * '
Commission -
Mrs. Juanita Ellis Washington, D.C. ~20555 - - -
! President, CASE
- 1426 South Polk. Street Dallas, Texas 75224 - -
I I
- f, . .
,- William A. Horin ',3 -
i ,
ccr Ecmer C. Schmidt
. Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
I J
i 4
e o
e ee
3 ,
v, _ . .
1 t.XAS POWER & LIGH 1 COMPANY .
1511 Bryan Scret
- P.O. Box 225331
- Danas, Texas 75256
. Mcy 6,1980 .
. Tex-Lc Electric Cocperctive of Texas, Inc. ~
P. O. Box 398 Guitmen, Texcs 75783 - ; . '- -- _. "::
Gentlemen: * : :. - :. : - - ,
- This letter ef intent- will confirm recent discussions between your -
representetives end these of Texcs Power & Light Compcny cencarn.ing. settlement of vericus~centreversies, end will serve to set forth the underst=ndings recched to -
resolve these differenc=s, including the scle by Texcs Power & Light Compcny (TP&L) -to Tex-La Eleesic Cocper=tive of Tex =s, Inc. (Tex-L=) cf en undivided
's].gehshi;b inter'estin the Comanche Peck Steem Electric Station underz ,
- construction in He'od end Somervell Counties, Tex =s, including be.th-Units ! cnd 2,. . .- .:-
nuclecr fuel end essccieted 345 kv trc;nsmission feelittles (Project).. - .
Subject to the execution of a Joint Ownership Agreement end Power Supply Ageement, hereinciter celled " definitive creements," between the vcrieus effected perties, the undersigned intend thet such egeement(s) shcIl include the following terms end conditions:
1.-
.TP&L will sell en,d Tex-Lo will purchese es a tencnt in common en undivided Interest not to exceed 4.35% in the Project. The purchese price will be the s=me undivided percentage es the cwner: hip percentege of the tetel cc ts of c=nstructicn end fuel fer the Project to the dcte of closing (Censtructicn C sts), plus interest','
culcted monthly, en Construction Cests incurred from 'he Icst dcy of the month in which the pcrticuler Ccnstruction Cests were pcid to the dcte of clesing, t .
compounded ennucily, et c rete equel to TP&L's weighted cest of eccital for ecch 1%M MufQdgWw A h '- , -
- - ~
~. .
such yect (including the ecst of the Ccmpcny's mest recent long-term debt end M
')
preferred stock issues end the cetuoi rcte of return en everege ecmmen equity, ccch determined for ech celender yect, es of the prier eclender yeer), plus TP&L's cetual federcl income tex lichility essociated specifically with the gain. realized on the interest end development cost w.g.ent of the purchase price.cn the scle to .
. Tex-Lc. -Tex-La will also~ pcy TP&L ct clesing $326,250 (bcsed.upon a 4.35% ..
. undivided ownership interest), rgpresenting its shcre of costs in devel.cping the .
Project which cre preperly c!!cceble but not specifically chcrged to the Project.
4fter elesing, Tex-La shcIl pey its undivided owne ship interest percentage . ...
cf ecsts therecfter incurred for the Project, including withcut limitction, costs of l
construction, fuel, cperction end meintencnce. ._
IL .
' On and efter c=mmercial operation of Unit #1 of the Project, Tex-Lo sho!! 'rt- -
receive a percentege, equel to its undivided ownership percentege, of; the net pm.- .
cnd net energy genereted . by the Project (Generction Entitlem.ent), less -
- trcnsmissien lesses. Tex-Lc expe=ts end is expected to hcve utility respensibility
~
'for its own system, cnd recognizes its responsibility to provide instclied reserve cepecity end spinning reserves to firm up its Generation Entitlement. I or the considerctions hereinefter set forth, TP&L shc!! make evc!!chte frem its system rescurces reserve ec=ccity and backup energy to provide Tex-Lcts reserves for its Generation. Entitlement-from the Project.
- c. Tex-Lc shcIl meintcin reserve ecpecity ennuc!Ly in en c=eunt eque! ,
to Tex-Lc's RetcIned Ccpecity (cs defined in Pcrt 111 herein) times the percentcge cf reserve c::=ccity which the Tex =s Utilities System compcnies
~
meinteined en their c=llective Systems during the preceding yecr. -
. .( -
t' h .--
. .
- s. . . . .-. .
+ . . .
.\ -> .
i
.., .; b. TP&L shcIl previde end Tex-Lc shc!! pey ecch month for such cmeunts of reseive cepecity et c price bcsed en the embedded weighted everege c=st per.kw for cil TP&L . generation investment including its .
interest in generation facilities owned ' jointly with others multiplied by TP&L's cppropriate fixed cberge rate, ecch determined es of the end of the - :
pirior-colender yect,: divided tiy twelve. In additien, Tex-Le shall pay:for .:- -c cperating cests cssocicted with its spinning reserve requirement. - , -- - - ::. --
- c. - When bcckuplenergy is required by Tex-Lc to repiece less of RetcIned .
Cepecity frem the Project, the price of such beckup energy to be pcid-to ---
TP&L by Tex-Lc shcll be Tex-Lds pro rete shcre of TP&L's c=tuc! ccst incurred to repic== the cggregete of TP&L's cnd Tex-Lds simulteneous icss .
j .,.,
of generction from the Project for a given time period. .
e.~ch
~
111.
During the ecriy yecrs of commercici operation of the Project, it is -
enticipcted ther Tex-Lds Generation Entitlement will exceed its ennual bcsa loed
.pewer end energy requirements. Therefor ~e, TP&L cnd Tex-Lc intend to estchlish a schedule of ennuc! cmounts of cepecity from the Project to be retcined b'y Tex-Le
~
fcr its own use (Retained Ccpecity) cnd annuel cmounts of surplus esccity to be purchesed frem Tex-Lc's Gerieration Entitlernent from the. Project by TP&L ,
1 (Surplus Ccpecity), genercily in cecordance with Exhibit A cticched hereto end -
rnede o pcrt. hereef. }ex-Lds Rateined Ccpecity will be credited continuously
- escinst its Iced, in ecccrdence with 11 chove. TP&L shel! be cbligated to pey ,
3
- cnnucily fer such scheduled Surplus Cgccity regcrdless of the net cutput cf the
. '% ject. TP&L will c!so purchese from Tex-Le c!! energy cetucIly genereted with
<L;) .
Surplus Cepecity (Surplus Energy). The price cf such Surpius Cepecity end Surplus
- : . 4- :
4 e- --~cp-- , - . - - , - - - , - , . - - , . , . _ , - . , _ , , , - - - _ , , - .-- . .,.,,n-_,-_,_.--n,,,nn-,-~,.an-v.na---~
e ~yr r -*~~-sr
- y .o , . . y. q. 9 , * ,~ m _, s . . ,,,, y _g_ . ..g, ,y,r . g .s , .y..,.., _m,, ,,y. .yz, _,. Q,,_, , ,, , , _ . , , . , ., , , p. ,,,,,.,,g_,.,,
4
. .s Energy during ecch yect shcl! be ecmputed in ce==rdence with Exhibit S ctteched , . . .. ')
hireto end mcde a pcrt hereof. .
IV.
During the periods of trial operation of either generating unit of the Project,
' TP&L will purchese the energy essociated with Tex-Lc's Generction-En_titlem'ent.ct, -
~ o ;irice ' equal to the everese of TP&L's avoided energy costs and Tex.-Lc's ecsts of ..
energy essociated with its' Gener= tion Entitlement during ecch. hour of tiest operctions of the Project. . . . .
V.
It is understeed thct TP&L shcIl hcve sole discretien for the scheduling end dispctching of Tex-Lc's Genercticn Entitlement frem the Project .in c===rd=nce with the undersigned's s=heduling cnd dspctching precedures. In the event TP&L ,_.
Vroluntcrily ciecses'to oper=te or reduces the output from the Project beccuse of the , f.'
cvcilcbility of lower c=st energy from other sources, TP&L will mcke cyc!!cble to
- Tex-La the cmount of energy which the Project would recsonchly be enticipcted to ,
, provide to Tex-La hed its eutput not been reduced, et c ecst equel to the c=st thct would hcve been incurred by' Tex-Lc if the unit hcd e=ntinued to oper=te et its recson61y enticipcted cperating level. ._
W.
In order to effect the scle of an undvided interest in the 3: reject, it will be necesscry to' emend the.-3cint Ownership Ageement between Delles Power & Light Ccmpcny, Texes Electric Service Compcny, Tex =s P wer & Light Ccmpeny, Tex =s Municipc! Power Agency end Erc:cs Electric Pewer Ceeperctive, Inc. for Cemenche Peck Steem Elec ric Statien, cnd such scle is subject theretc. It will ,
clso be necessscry fer Tex-Le to join in such creement, er a similcr cgreement, to
c.
.. ..,ume its responsibilities end ebligetiens es en owner. The Project Meneger engeged in the picnning, construction end operction of the Project is Tex =s Utilities Genercting Compcny, subject to the direction of en Owners' Committee composed cf ene representative frem ecch owner of the Project. As en owner of-the Project, -
-Tex-Lcr will pay to the Project Manager a management fee equal-to .5% of its - -
portion of cll:cests of: operation and fuel reicted to Retained Cepecity.cs w. red. .- :
in the Joint Ownership Agreement. -- -
Vil.
In c!! respects not seccretely oddressed in this Letter of Intent, it is the intent of Tex-La cnd TP&L to structure cny subsequent egreement(s) reicted to the ownership, censtruction end/or cperction of the Cemenche Peck pient consistent -
. ,3...Jh the provisiens of the cierescid Joint Ownership Agreement.
~
. Vill.
The undersigned 'contemplete that definitive egreement(s) shc!! contein -.
. provisions through which TP&L will provide Tex-Le with bulk trcnsmission end
<tstribution se: vices to Tex-Lds points of delivery (or its Perticipcnts' points of delivery) from TP&L fer de!!very of Tex-Lds Retcined Ccpecity frem the Project, including bcekup power end energy frem TP&L System resources when genercting unit (s) et the Project cre out of service. Such transmissien end distribution s rvices shall be provided on terms that fully compensate TP&L. for_Its costs, including a recsenchle # return en investment, end line. lesses; such terms will reccgnize Tex-Lc's pcrtici cwnership of trensmission fccilities commen to the needs of Tex-La cnd TP&L cnd will further reccgni== Tex-Lds use end cbliscticn to
'f .v?y for use of trcnsmissien fccilities jointly owned by the other cpercting ccmpenies of the Texcs Utilities System cnd others.
h , , k;9-qWaj.7,. 3 . .. i , r :,9 s ,, . ., n ,,
m ..-.,..,._..
.m.m. .. _ . . _ . m 4-3
,)
IX. ' .
TP&L cnd Tex-La anticipate that Tex-Lds Retained Cepocity will satisfy .
only a portion of Tex-Lcs total monthly power and energy requirements. For the life,of the contemplated definitive agreement (s), at Tex-Lds request,.TP&L Intends to provide Supplemenic! Power and Energy In excess of Tex-Lds Retained Capacity . ,
./
and other generating resources in amounts necessary to satisfy the-r.emaining load. .. ,
requirements of Tex-Lds participants, subject to reasonable pr;ovisions as to . ..
advance notice and payments associated with added foc!!! ties._similar to the
- provisions in the existing agreement between Tex-Le and .TP&C Such -
Supplementel Power end Energy will be provided under a pcrtial requirements wholescle tariff to be promulgeted by TP&L subject to cpprove! by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and/or any other regulatory authority having -
Jurisdiction. In devmoping this tariff, TP&L's objective sha!! be to.c!!ocate costs .O L based on TP&L's generating resources whi'ch are to be used to_ provide Supplemental Power and Energy after crediting Tex 4.ds generating resources; against TP&L's generc'ing resources which are utilized on a comperchie basis. All additional cost c!!occtions will be consistent with the methodology most recently cpproved by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and used by TP&L in developing other wholesale and retell toriffs during the some time perind. .,
L .
TP&L and Tex-Lcr recognize that the Agreement between Tex-La and TP&L dcted October 20,1%4, cs amended, will require emendment and/or renegotiation .
pursucnt to cny definitive egreement(s) thct mcy be ex'e cuted in conjunction with joint ownership by TE.x-Le in the Project es centempleted herein. ..
XL TP&L will not discenneci from, refuse to connect with, or prevent Tex-Lo or ,
': , 7
.n
_./ entity with which it m=intcins e connection from estchlishing or maint=ining a i
c:nnection with, fccilities used for the trcnsmission of electric energy in interstete commerce, by recson of the interstcte chcrecter of such fccilities, unless it dUermines ther any such connection or the intended use thereof. .is. net fecsibie .
under sound engineering prcetice or that TP&L's costs in connection . therewith will . .-
exceed its benefits -therefrom, or such connection or the intended use-thereof would - . ---
-impair TP&L's system relichility or emergency trcnsmission c=pecity. This is not ..
to imply thct TP&L must benefit from o c=nne= tion; a refuse! is vclid, however, .
where TP&L's net c=sts exceed its net benefit. In the event ther Tex-Lc or eny -
entity with which it is connected desires to estchlish, meinicin or modify a 4
c nnection with fccilities used for the trcnsmission of electric energy in interstcte gmeres, it shcIl first obtcin a non-jurisdictional order, cpplic=ble-to TP&L cnd -- .
o _
sther members of the Texc Utilities Company System, under Section 204 of the- -
Public Utiitty Reguictory Policies Act of 1978. '
XIL '
Tex-Lc expects to meet its public utility responsibilities by the c=nsm.iction of generction end trcnsmission fccilities including Joint ownership cf future -
facilities with TP&L cnd other electric utilities, or by the purchese of power end l
~
energy. In view of be agreement (s) contempleted herein, and pessible cgreements batween Tex-Lc and others, it is intended thct both Tex-Lc cnd TP&L she!! be free, I
subject ta p'ravisions of R1 herein, ta picn, construct, end own such gener= tion end !
j trcnsmission fccilities es it mcy elect. TP&L cnd Tex-Lo will censult end cdvise es
- i to prepesed fee!!! ties cnd jointly plen such fc=ilities es seems c
- pr:pricte to I
.m ' l hhieve ec=nomies end evoid unnecess ry duplic= tion of fccilities end in keeping
! with ecch Pcrty's plans end responsretlities, i
i I
-i;9:.s. n e e w . w 7.s w . w m . p.w ._.c a...+ .. ,.;_ .x, . .._. _ _
- . _ . . . . . . . . _..,,_......n_, ~
. n . . . . . . . . - .. .. . . . . . . _..
,, o. .
e I
It is intended thct Tex-Lc's ' requests for pcrticipction in cny project to be i
.)
constructed by TPM shall be made prior to cny significent development of the project. Where such a " timely request for participation is mode, cnd.where jcint ownership in sueh project is determined to be mutually advantageous,. Text-4.c's.
participation shcIl be on a mutually W...ile bcsis that fully c.e.@ des TP&L i
fcr its costs. In connection with such participction, TP&L will also interconne=t - -- -
with and offer firm i.s ..ission service es may be required for delivery of such -- . -
, power to Tex-Le et points on TP&L's system on a besis that will fully-compensate TP&L--fer its costs, including a recsonchie return on its inve..ss;t.' _ -
XI!L The understandings herein set forth were rec =hed with the intention of sett!!ng the controversies between the undersigned end Tex-La before the Nuclear- _.
i- -Regulatory Commission Oceket'Nes. 50-445A cnd 50 ^':'A) and the Faderal-Energy- d Reguictory Cornmission Cocket No'E-9578). In this connection Tex-La desires to-cnd will coopercte with and use its best efforts to essist TP&L-in securing an cpercting' license for the Comenche Peck nuclecr units et the ecrliest pessible dcte
, end the cvoidence of en entitrust hecring before the Nuclect Reguictory 7 Commission ~ in beEet Nes. 50445A cnd 50446A, such efforts to include, vilthout limitetien, prompt- hrhendment of its petition to intervene before the Nuclear
- ~
ReguIctiry Gimmissien end appecrences in full support of TP&L cnd other-members of the Texcs Utilities Company System cnd such other essistance as TP&L mcy recsencbly request. Further, Tex-La will cecpercte with end use its best , '
efferts to essist TP&L in securing dismissel, en terms sctisfcctory to TP&L, of the proceeding in t =rtC Docket No. E-9578. In cdditien, Tex-Le will fully suppert the issocnce of en order by FFRC, in form cnd substence satisfcctory to TP&L, under Sections 210 or 211 cf the Federdi Power Act requiring constraction-cf two direct
. - . - - . v..,-,-,_.___,. , _ _ , , . ~ . . - _ . - . , . , _ - . . . . . . - _ _ - _ - , . . . ,r.,-,----.,,-.._..______,.y , . . . . w-,-
......- m.m_
current interconnections es propcsed by the fcur cpercting subsideries of Centre!
) South West Ccrpcration, provided Tex-Lc is efferded c rancble cppcrtunity to purchese o three-yect eption to perticipcte in the ownership of such fccility frcm the owner (s) upon recsonchie terms cnd conditions. TP&L.will agree to end Tex-Lc will fully suppert condtiens in the operating license of Comenchie Peck in farm cnd substence etteched hereto es Exhibit C. : :. . ..._;...- . ..
XIV. -
( Notwithstendng cny prevision of this Letter of Intent or otherwise, the -
i Confidenticlity Ageementd=ted Oct-ter 5;1979, she!! govern the dse!csure of cny - - -
discu:siens between the perties cf the subject metter. ; -- ---
~
XV. .
It is further understeed thct the provisions cf this egreement end of the -
. Jinitive egeement(s) cnd the obligations.cf the perties thereto mcy be subject to 92 .
Distinuing or further reguiction by reguictory bedes having jurisdiction.- -- -
w .
If the foregeing correctly sets for$ our understendr:gs, piecse sign end rsturn e ecpy of this letter. Upon receipt thereof, the undersigned will be prepered to enter negotictions so es to ccmplete the definitive egeement(s) cnd c!cse es seen es prceticcble with the view of completing the seme not Icter then Ncvember .
I,1980. By the executien cf this creement, you egree to use your best efforts to secure (i) cpprovci of this egeement by your member systems en er before Mcy 8,
~
1980, (.11) interim fincncing on or before October 30,1980, (iii) permcnent fincncing by the Rure! Electrificcticn Agency, (iv) certifi'ection end/cr recertifie=tien by the ,
Public Utility Commission cf Texcs end (v) such other meters es mcy be nec- m t.o c .y cut the intent of the pcrties es expressed herein.
l O'
8 k '^),gVh 6 M h m '
- - - - ~ - - -
-~~ ,-. . .
w .,
ic.XAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY -
-/
By. .- " .
, , ./1 esident . ,
~
ACCEPTED THIS day of . ? _ .- n - -
. - , , 1980:
. TEX-LA A *t.,a rtlC COOPERATIVE OF TdXAS, INC. r._ ' : ~~ . .. -~.-
__Sy f
Oks/
- 4 :
~
Fer end en Behelf of: ' -
. . . ~. : :
Deep $ cst Tex =s Electric Cooperctive, Inc. : .
Jesper-Newton Electric Cocperctive, Inc. .: .
Rusk County Electric Cooperctive, Inc. :
.:. . .' g-Sem-Rouston Electric Cooperetive, Inc. -
- rf -
Cherckee County Electric Cooperctive Association e. # ..
Wood Ccunty Electric Cooperctive, Inc. --- '
Housten County Electric Cooperctive, Inc. -
.. . emn. e=e e .* W 8B O
e.. suum I -
ems.
- eum ,
1 e
~- - - -_ __- - - - - _ - _ _ . ._ , - , - - , - . _ _ , ._ , . , - , . . - , . , , _ . , - - , - . . - - ~ - - _ , . - , , , _
_._ y . . . .
. . e. , .
- h.. i.
. - __ ~-
TZZ-LA W i>s " CA?ACUT AC SU?.?LUS Ca? ACCT y .
AS Pd'"~ CAGE OF us *d 6 u :.1TICH DC.:..r wir
~
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
. Taz-La Su=p1=s capacicy Tax-La Su=plus capac
..- Read ted Canacitrr - to DC Retai=ed Ca=acit-r to Un
- 0 % 100.0%
0 '100.0 ,
- 0- 100.0* O % 100.0%
12.5 87.5
. 12.5 ,,
87.5 12.5 87.5 12.5 87.5 i
~
25.0 75.0 25.0 75.0 i .. , . ,
- 37.5 62.5 37.5 , 62.5 r .' .%: , . ') , .
O 62.5 37.5 62.5
~
37.5 ,
50.0 '
k, 50.0 50.0 v 50.0 37.5 62.5 37.5
- 3 62.5 ,
75.0. *25.0 75.0 25.0 l - - - '
75.0 25.0 75.0 -
25.0 2- .
100 0 'O r
3 'ahd afta: 100.0 O e
- as 2as ed. upc= e- ' cpers.:i== d.atas cf Aug=s: 1981 fer F 't 1 and -
a:-- y 1983 f== C=i: 2.
- "cmme.-cici cperction detes cre projectiens eniy cnd cre su' = ject to chcnge for verlety cf recsens, including, but not limited ic, cctiens t= ken by the Nuclect
- ieguletery Ccmmissien in c=nnecticn with TUCCO's cpplicctien for en cper= ting license, delcys essccieted with censtn.rctien, etc. The detes en the - -
foregeing tchle cre subject to chenge ce==rdingly. ' 1 -
6M Mh .DL M 614. e . N MS-M N C7'>1ofh.3 %ppggmyggrjagg s6 --
..d
x.. . . .. . _ . .
3.-. . .,~. - > e- . ,.. n -.._..-., ,.,. .
.,.w. ,. . . . . . e ,.+ .n. : .
. . s,
.).
~
.x-.*IT 3 T?E ' S ..su.H"TMT To u t-I.A Ci?ACITT 4.ND au.GY .- ..
._..._. __=
0.1 T? E; s~r * ' ' pu= hase Taz-La's Si les Camacicy i= cha.
- aa n . .a n .se .a-.s- a
---u a s -- a^_~-' a '~. 'w'-* % '._~,. L_ ~.'. ' tha _ .
fc11ct. ~.=g 'casis of cha= gas : .
T?&I. shall. cay Tez-I.a. fe
~~
~
1;l Cz=aci=r Cha=ra; -
-ha
- czpaciev._ .. :
=~
- - --d - --'.= - ~- . s e u=.- _ *_ < ad a - . ; cs- e .ci-, c'- *-s=.r * ' _ -' - = A as ._ ..
y--.-' A e? 4 .ca "-- ' .-5 b a.'-~ . 'w'~ '-'-; r"~e--=s,"a, a- . .
~
- 'ca ca'c-'a
.=d ,
-- . b43_3a.c a=c --
us-- -
- *-3 g4 vad c.-ar as caca:-- ac. a.s .c:
=a er.d w :. ;
- - ,a :a --~- yea- . . . ..
The =c=-5 'y ~capaFi y e5
- ga shall be a "-ad charga payabla ._ .
=s-z=dless of -la svailab'i4:> cf ca:aciT- .
s .. . .
,-.1 cva a.-.e - es. -
--.s. -
n.=
- - .-.u
... ,- g , .a; _. ; ,o s a cga a a s-ce acccu== c:
,,,a=
s 7 a. ~- * : pc: .,c= c
.e=
s -i a, s shz= a A.ccc == =c=
4
-As=.
of ha Co. e=a-' g Cos s of Cc=z=cha ?nak C=i s 1 a=d. 2, c ha: . .
feal a==- ' -*:ic=, allocabla to the ana-u e= i:1ane== associated _
with tha. Sc=plus Capacity bei=g beugh back by T?&L ~ ;e=-La. ___
If a=7 e5
- gas i=cluded i= Cpe=a-4 g Cests, cche: .
' y :f al
<-.----,_a<. als '_- .'.u-.=.A A as ~ => e* *-,= s _
i=~ .c ec ' .. s ' 3.
Te-r - ,--.. .:. , - , ,e
~.;. ,_ 4 3si ,
- <.-, s a .:
- c... ,,_e_ ----, e - ...c- e- .- .
-:,, o- n a
-- ., gc~ 1.. --,y as cye --
a g c s s. -
- v. -.. a, - - -
---..a.
~q
. e
..=sida:ad a fixad charga. ,
,a . Q.9Q*99 ?M '"CO"*; ' ' * " " ' * * *
~**J _,.._,._.,,-..,.M.,MM.[
,,h_,. I._,. e,,._...,, . ,
n-----
mm-
. _ _ _ . .. -.,..u-3 TT?5L's .A---='
- 1. 7 '_ = a d C h z = r_ a ** a fd c.ur.ees as ef -F-d s ,-
- 4_: sha_3:. oa:
~
- r. =
DG + ?G + IG + AVIG + COTG G.:.G 1.4 Taz-La's A-- =7 7'.zad Chz=ba 3a:a fc
. c. i so s as c f +d =
h5'hi: shall be: .
3 = DC + TC'+ ICGI.C + AVTC + ITC -
1.5 -Te =' a for Cale-i n-J e= c f Mc=+ 7 7 Cha7_ a: .-. -- . .
Mc=-5 7 y Chz=ga = 124+ 3 (C) (GIC) + ST . .
1.6 Tc pu= pes as of tha e =' c..la:ic=s ==dar See: ices 1.3, ,
l . I+ , a=d1.5 ef Ad= exhibi:: . -
gn .. ,,)
~
vs '
' 71 =l'UCs f =' Tizad Chz=ge Ezra, f== t'ia ?:cj ec:, .
'5 calculated- as .._#_ dad i See: ids 1.3 of -5 # = exhi~=. .i. .= . .
3 = Ta=-La's *-- =' Timad Charga Za a. fe he ?:=j ect, cale..la:ad as p:=vidad i Sac:ic: 1. le cf +'= eshibi:.
C = ?arce== cf 5 % cs 1 Capaci:J ba' g be- 9: back bJ I?&L per ?*'~ it A d==i=g tha c=_h, fc -/dch he cale:lacic is -Ma .
-s a,, e
.G , n_ G. 3, cok n.ap . _ a,_.a.. _a c ._c . --
- -w e a,_. __ _=ac-__ as G .
r - -inb snch 3 m-- e' g e--ic d ,
- D .
_.c. CE s - . 1. . _. - . ._. .e.,i C d w J-5J epe. . d.34 g -.
- ~ . -
,a J . .-
l
. . g , o :--Ce
- , . . (. . . :--
w - ,z._wge,_ a :-e.:se_ .g a :._ $
w
\
s-y -
--=1 p a-icc. .
- a T
. . _ m . s , . . _ . . ., . _, c ., u; _,,m . .. . ;;; .w;, ; _ .;, , ,. . ,a , . . , ,
, s.. , 4, , ., . ; ; q., ,,, ., g - _
- - t 4
. a
..y .-.ag = a.:" c .m t.C V hC E: E=C * :2=" **
- a acas E=C C C.,,,., ar .
-.s,
=c. arty- =' *:ad --~as allecabla to -la ?=cJ ec:
./
fged ' J_ Oig3 d,_, ,* = g 3-- - a s---a e I p gd= d ,
Co?G = I?E.'s To-4 Ces: of Fu=ds i= perie=0, cale '= cad
- as p idad, i= Sac:i== 1.7 belew C-dy (1.3)], ,
- g- =. +. ,E. , s wa . . g=
-- :ad ava a.ga =a: cap =ac._, aCac - -
iS:TaSN: #. . de ?:cj act f*r#' 4 :iaS Wlll*g s"a*a ---
=---"*21 ?a: icd. . _ . _ . . .
~ GIG = T?E's averaga G::ss ?la== I:res----: i: tha ?:cjec:
fae'_ ' "
- as .-
a- =,- -us =- o3as-
- a n.a -a sg w~
. -., - a s ..c c.< 3. a n-,n s
d=='_=g s" r" a==*=' paried. ..
' a ic: ^ " =g s- . . - .
- ' ?C = Taz-la 's 3
N"r'==- Icel A== -
p;,7 a==-- e i pariod. . _ .
a IC = Taz i a's -' % ca fc: -da ? ej ec : 1ac cias A- ' g s=d - 4
=' c.aried.
4
[7TC = Ta=-La's Ad Valers= Ta=as a=d a=7 c d a p cp e- y -
i ralaced ms paid by Tez-La a=d reasc= ably ,allocabla to da ?:ej ac: fac'licias fc: s=ch - =7 pa icd.
ITC = Taz-La's t=-4 ces: c: le=g-ce== c.ac .
-- =g s=ch
- =1 c. er:.cc . .
a E
- k .5 - G. unn. Im .=
.,: -g' s n. - :- - - '<-4=s.
ST = Mc=-'iy Sales Ta=as paid *:7 T e=-LE- as a ras =l: cf t
. , s:
de sala ef. capaci:7 and a=argy ec !?E, if a=7
- t.
t e
, , mm m . % m.m _,,,s.m.
-- - . ........,.....,.... . m.,,
..- -4_
u .
Ic pw ,csas of -e sac:ic: "G: css ?l2== Invas--:" cf T?E C Ia=-i.a i= tha ? cjac: fa ' ' i:ias s' = " 1 -= =- its ::e e'
..__.ya - . _-- <
a, g-m -us -a , e: e: . . - _ _a , , ~.a_,_
y _a -
sv n -. . .a.nc__a _a .s _
('--' add g i. .= _' esic:. facilicias , ==claa: :'=al secek , ca:ar' =' = ,
q' #==7 e d die , c,9' g capi al) plus i:s :L.n_s=_:s== dara ._. ._ . . ._
af ar i=-da-c=s: 'of c==p1-ai:ic=s , n=awals , addi '. . s , raplac-=- s
~
a=d'e=dicaric s te W
~
, ?:ojac: fa^d'd=ias. "Noe Dep=.aciz ad.
'I=vas--:" ef T?E cr Taz-I.a. i= the. ?:ej ec: facili _ . . . _
'as.shall - - . . . . .__. . .
i mas = i-iG: css ?' =- : I=vas-=~: i= s=ch ~2ed ' ' :iss.-- _ lass. acc . -'*:ad .' . _ ,
bcc'd deprecia:i==.c: a=== izazic=, as app :::izza .. , ,
1.7 T?E's -C=s cf ?-Es uit ras =ac: to s._ s s " + as --: .
i= da Proj ec:'facili:ims as of da dz:n cf c- - -
-r'
- T cperati==
. .r.,
~
.d" -b a cale=lzud. N ac.a== to da f=11cw .=g l fc--'_= bas ed c=_ _ . . .. ._ ... ..
?E's act -=' vaighead averaga ces: of da czpi:21., specif_ical17_ . . .
l
~
' - ~ a d i= "d - =--rd g da ?:=j ac facili:ias . -*__e_ .Ces o f 7"- 3 = . - . .-
vi:h :sspec: em a, ess i=vas-- ts i= de ?:cj ec: .f=r#73:ias af,a= '
s ' data of c.- .
-a c' =' cpe=a ic= shall be. cale--i *:ad purs=a= :: ,
. s'--r5 f: = ' = based c= T?E.'s ac::al weigh:ad capital ces s i=c.= rad i= -=W g s x.h i=vas--='-Os . _
i Rata ?eres== Waidead. Ces: Tetz1 Cest. ef Fu=ds T ==g-T =--? Dab: (].) (4-) (D = (1) = (4) (13) * (D ,,
?:af a=- ad. 5 0'=ck - (2) (5) (8) = (2) z (5) .(11) = (5) > (1 ' C I ti:7 (3) (6) (9) = (3) z (6) C'_21 = (9) + (1 - C
.. m M
_ 00y ,.
.y S
i .
t-l l
, - , - - - - - ,..m.---w, e,-y----.- , . . - - - ,v-,--,,---v-,--y _ - , , . - - , , , - - - - - , - - - , - - - . , - - - , - - , - - ,
e ,
- emera: (1) a=d (2) <eigh:ad. :--ei avaraga parcan: ra:as c,_ ____ . = .- ,__
s ( 3 ) . _. . s . _. . _,____ . _ __._ __ , c: __ e c_--
equitr all: cad in. -in .ces: reca= ra:a' ca.sa
- p-ic ':s -da data cf C - = cial Cyat a:ic= e=, ,
as v c .. ara', tha da:a e' the sa~csequan:
. j
.s
. i=vas a==. . - .
- -- -- - (4.) ,~-(5)- atui (6) = c , ens = s 6f capi:al. s -_ - a
~ ~ ~ ~
us'=g T?r. -1 capi =1 s -.:c-- a c Dec #"e= 31 _
of the p-ic: year.
c " '_ - 4_-s '*'a--=-.
(7_0) a. ('__') '. .(7 2) = (13) co - * ' cos _ -_
-
- a==: .
u = Cc pezz e Tedarzi a=d Sczca T-acce .Tix. F.a.ca, as -
.t.m 2
a 2..e C _
. _ w . &me =g i & me . .,,D.,,
e
..e
. e e
e
' e w
O e
O l
o.*
1 0
$4 e
9
- womarg wesowegg pyom.,e ,e, _
- - - - . - - - -, . ,, - . . - - - - - ,,, s.., r-- --.*- --,--.-------------.e-m--- - - - - , , ,
.m._ ... . . . ...y. .,_. .
, - CRAF'i' OF I4/28/80 :-~7 . EXHIBIT C
. . License Conditions 'For
. Comenche Peck 5tecm Electric Stetion ,
Nuclear Units Nos. I and 2 -
1
.. . l D:finitions .- .
~ . ;!. "Ce.@i/' mecns severe!!y and jointly Texcs Utilities Ce.% ing:. - -
Compcny, Oc!!cs Power & Light Corg-.y, Texas Electric Service:C-rw.y, Texes .. .
Power & Light Company, Texes. Utilities Compcny end ecch other subsidicry, - :-
~
'cffilicte or successer compcny engeged in the generction, trensrnission cnd/or .the. . - - - r en distribution of electric power in the Stcte of Texes. :.; - -
- 2. "Nerth Texes Arec" mecns the following Texes counties: Andersen, ,
Andrews, Angeline, Arefier, Bestrep, Scylor, Bell, Bo.rden, Bosque, Brown, Burnet, .
okee, Cicy, Cok'e, -Collin, Cemenche, Cecke, Coryell, Crcne, Culberson, -
Oc!!cs, Dawson, Dette, Denten, Ecstiend, Ector, Ellis, &cth, F_c!!s,:Fennin, Fisher, . .
Freestene, Geines, G!mca6, Greyson, Hendersen, Hill, Heed, Hepkins, Houston, Howcrd, Hunt, Jcck, Johnsen, Kcufmen, Kent, Lemer, Lempcscs, Leon, Limestene, Leving, Lynn, Mcrtin, McLennen, Midlend, Milcm, Mitche!!, Montague, Nec=gdeches, Neverro, Noten, Pelo Pinte, Pcrker, Peces, Rains,:.Recgen, Red l River, Reeves, Reckwell, Rusk, Scurry, Schockelford, Smith, Sornervell, Stephens, i
Sterling, Terrent, Terry, Tom Green, Trevis, Upten, Vcn Zendt, ,Werd, Wichite, Wilberi;er, Willicmson, Winkler, Wise, Wood and Yeung. -
- 3. " Entity" meens e persen, a privete or public corporction, c -
- 'r.
l gevernmentel egency er cuthcrity, a municipclity, e cceperctive, or en esscciction r Sing or epercting er prepesing in good fcith to own or cpercte fccilities for G
generction of electric power in the North Texcs Area for rescle. -
- 4. " Bulk Power" meen. die electric power cnd ettendent energy supplied or ,
MM ggio. -- ___ .o
. .- . ,. t ;
cde evcilcble c; tr=smissien er subtr=smission velicge. I-l
- 5. "Cests" mecn di cpprcpricte opercting end mdntencnce expenses end cil cwnership ecsts where cppliccble.
Policy Cemmitments
- 1. The Cs.+-f she!!, subject to existing rights of first refuse! of entities not effiliated with the Co.,s.y, J.bd en cpportunity to perticipcte in the
~
Comenche Peck nuclect units, thrcugh ownership in such unit (s)-en recsonchle' I/
tcrms cnd c=nditions, for the term of the instcnt license, er cny -Jesien or rencwc! thereof,,'te cny Entity (ies) new withcut gener=tien, who mcde c request therefer prict to Decenber 1,197*, to the extent of en eggregete tete! of 100 Mw, en a bcsis thet will fully c=mpewe the Compcny fer its c=sta cnd reflect the clue of units in en cdw.ced stcte of c=nstructien Any joint ownership cb r.ent 3.1
- s. y implementing the foregeing must be c=neluded by November 1,1980. In'e=nne= tion with such perticipctien, the Cs..g.y clso will (1) c=nnect with end effer tr=smissien service es mcy be required for delivery of such power to such Entity (ies) et a point er peints en the Ccmpcny's system cnd (2) in the c=se of Ccmpcny wholescle custemers ccquiring ownership under these c=nditions, previde (c) pcrtici requirements wholescle service for the difference between the c=pecity ccquired in Cemenche Peck cnd the Iced of thet Entity which the Ccmpcny would o_therwise hcve se.hed et,wholescle end (b) emergency cnd scheduled meintencnce power cnd energy to firm up the eccccity c= quired in Cemc=che Pec'x, pending -
l l deveicpment by the ccquiring Entity of insidled reserves er diernete pGesed reserves, di en c bcsis ther will fully c:mpensete the Ccmocny fer its c=sts, .
x!udng c recsoncble return en investment.
- 2. The Compcny will sudpcrt requests by Entities for membership in the L ~~ - ~~~~_:___-- , _ L_.
g g..<..c:.o.er y .,. g x
~
~ ; . .s Intercennec:ed Systems (TIS), including rec;uests by cny such Entity hcving a s nciler peck leed then cny of the present T15 members, so lcng es'such Entity hcs sufficient gener:tien c=ccity to mcke a recsencble centributien to the relichility
~
- cf $61k power-supply. The Compcny will propose, cnd cetively suppert, the crecticn
-- cf,cne er ~mereTfSdici cicssifie=tions of tis membership (which mcy include non-voting membership) bcsed on retienc! criteric to efford ce=ess to d=te, studies end recommendctiens to c!! Entitles who desire it, including --these heving ne genercticn er insufficient gene.etien -
to mcke such c recsenchle c=ntributien to relichility. The Cem=cny will clso suppert requests by quclified Entities for member: hip in- cny other electric utility picnning erg =ni:cticn er pcwer peci of J
m which the Ccmpcny is a member (other then ene involving enly the Ca..,~.y). The
- @%.bv'peny-shcIl siicre infermetien with other Entities with rwg to, cnd shcIl
- :rticipcte~ with-etMer such Entities through T15, ERCOT cr other elegtric utility ,
picnning orgcni:=tiens ift, Jcint studies end picnning of future gener=iten, trc=smissien end :rereted fccilities; previded, bewever, this c=nditien shcil not i chiig=te the Ccmpens to pcrticipcte in such Jcint studies or joint ;:Jenning (1) unless l _. requested end ;c=ndceted in good fcith end bcsed en recsenchiy rec!!stic cnd recsencbly c=mpicte dcto end proje=tions, (2) unless involving cii ether electric.
_ utility _. systems wBesem:: ticipction in such jcint sivdies end joint picnning is recsenchly required fer vclid c=nclusiens thereef, (3) unless recsonchly justified en the bcsis ci scend e-iliineering principles, (4) unless cpprepricte pr=tecticn is l cec:rded pecpriet::ry er other c:nfidentici business cnd fincncici infer nctien, cnd -
l t
j
@ unless the c=sts fer such studies cre elloc=ted en c fcir end equitchie hesis.
. ., l b 3. (c). The Ccmpcny will c:nnect with end c=cedincte reserves thrcugh t the scle end purchese of emergency cnd/cr scheduled.mcintencnce bulk pcwer with l
~r -- - - - - -
.-a , w-,, - , - - - -. , - - , , - - --,a- . - , -,-er---n-a.- .. -n.- . , - ---- --- , , - -
. _ . . . . . . . . . ~ . . .
. _ . .m,. m ....s.._....._...__m . . . . . . , . . , ,
. . . . ..m.._. ,
- a. t :
s
- c,y Entity (ies) if end when rewe.- is evcildie en terms that will fully c=mpensete i-
- .ne Comp =ny for its c=sts, including a recsenchie return en investment to the extent it c=n do so without impeiring the service relichility of the, Ccmpcny cnd other electric systems to which it hcs firm commitments. . ~ . . _ . - . - .-
~
(b). The-C ..g.cy end any other Entity (ies) who cre parties .to m ...;-
crrengement described in (c) chave shcIl frem time to time joir.tly.-estchlish the . . . ,
minimum' reserves to be insteiled end/or previded by ecch pcrty under.centrcctuci -
crrengements to meintcin c r'eserve mergin sufficient to ;m: wide..cdequate relichility of pcwer supply in c===rdence with geed industry prc=tice.cs develeped in the c ec. Unless otherwise c; eed upen, minimum re' serve requirements s'hc!! be c=lculcted es e percentege cf ec=h such Entity's(ies') estimeted net pech locd -
1 idemend (teking into ce=munt firm scles end, firm purcheses). In no._ event she!! the . , f : ..;~. .
-lcrripeny be required to riicintcin grecter reserves then the pp4Ne which .
- results frem the cierescid c=lculction. -
.u...
(e). Ecch Entity who is a pcrty to en err =ngement described in (c) cheve shcil previde such crneunts cf spinning reserves es mcy be equitcbie end ,
, . cdequcte to cvoid the impcsition of unrecsondie demends en the other pcrty(ies) in meeting the ncrmcl c=ntingencies of opercting its (their) system (s)._However, in no ,
circunutences 'shcIl such reserve requirement exceed the . inst.clied reserve _
requirement. .
- 4. (c). The Cer6peny shcIl werk with other Er.tities to fcciiitete the ex=hcnge of bulk power by transmissien ever its transmissien fccilities between er cmeng two er mere Entities with which it is cennected; cnd between cny s.xh
,S .
Entity (ies) cnd cny entity (ies) engcging in bulk pcwer supply cutside the Ncrth , ,,)
Texcs Are: between whese fccilities, the Compeny's tr=nsmissien !_ines end cther
.+ _.
g- -
- s. -
r
-- issien lines ferm e c=ntinueus electric =! pcth, provided thet (c) permissien te
.ilize such other tr=smiss ien lines hcs been cbtcined by the prcpenent of the cr cngement end (b) the' crrengements recsenchly c=n be ce=cmmodcted frem a functienc! cnd t&ic=1 stendpoint. Such tr== mission shcIl be en terms thet fully- ;-
-c=mpe .sete t eh Compcny for its c=srs, including a recsenchie retum-on.irivestment.. - .-
s Any~ Entity (ies) requesting:such trcnsmissica crrengements shcil, give-recsenchie --- . - .r cdve'n ce notice'ef its (their) schedule encf requirements. The .C .g_7y;shcil net be . .
required-te enter into cny crrengement which wculd impair systerr! re!.ichility cr -
crnergancy tr=smissien c=ccity, it being reccgnized thct while seme-L w.aission mcy be cpercted fully lecded, other tr=smissien mcy be fer emergency use end .
eparcted eifher uniccded er pcrticil'y lecded. (The feregeing..caplies to cny
.E.Qies)~to
_y 'which the Co. wy mcy be connected in the future. es well. es these. .
which it is new connected.) . - ,
(b). The: L..+c7y she!! include in its picnning cnd - 4 action -. -
pregrcms sufficient thensmissien ecpecity es required for the trcnsc=tions referred to-in (c) cheve, previded cny Entity (ies) gives the Compcny sufficient cdvence notice es mcy be nec=s.7 to ce=cmmedete its (their) requirements frem e
.functienci cnd tWicci stendpoint end thet such Entity (ies) fully compo. :es the..
.Compcny fer its c=sts, including a recsoncble return en investment The Ca.ecny shcIl not be required to c=nstruct trcnsmission fccilities if it findsg cmLaction of .
such fee!!ities infecsiblercr if its ecsts in connecticn therewith wculd exceed its ,
ber.cfhs therefrom, er if it finds such wculd impcir system relichility er emergency tr.cnsmissien e=pecity. .
D (c). in c=nnection with the perfermen=3 cf its cblisctiens in (b) c=cve, the Ccmpcny shc!! net be fereciesed frcm requiring a centribution in cid of
{% .* 4 d. Jg* [ e e.. b rb - ,,y,g,g 4,, ,. e y g- , g , , , , , , , , , , , . . , _ _ , _
~
. t : .
s
'*:nst ucticn er frem mcking crrcngements for cocrdincted c=nstructicn of future .
.../
- .r=smissien lines such ther ec=h of the perties to the trcnsc=tien would cwn en interest in er c segment of.the trcnsmissien cdditien in prepertien.tc its shcre of tha c=st cf the cdditien. If the Ccmpcny in the future enseges in Jcint:cwnership of trensmissien lines with cny other Entity, it shcil not refuse tc e.,ggejn similcr -
, trcnsc=tiens in c=mper=ble circumstences with other Entities r -subjm::t-te the- c = : -
previsiens limiting the Ccmpcny's chlig=tiens in peregrcph 4(b). ::.---- .- . _ - - -
5., in c=nnecticn with the performence of its eblisctions in peregrcphs 3 - -
.cnd 4, the Ccmpcny will net dis ==ne=t frem, refuse to c nne=tewith, er prevent cny entity with which it mcintcins c=nnecticns frem estslishing.-cr meintcining a c=nnecticn with, fc=ilities fer the tr==missien cf electric energy .in interstete .
c=mmerce, by recsen cf the interstcte chcrecter of such fc=ilities-unless cny such - ,
t:
'^
annEtien er the intended use therecf is not fecsible er its c=sts-irCc=nnectien ._:
2/
therewith will excee.i its benefits therefrem er such c:nnectioneer the intended -
usa therecf wculd impeir system relichility er emergency tr=smissien c:me=Ity. It is previded, hewever, thct cny Entity seeking te estslish, meintcin er mcdify a cennect!= with fc=ilities for the tr=smissien of electric energy in interstete c=mmere; shcIl neve first cbtcined a ncn-jurisdictienci crder, -cpplic=ble te the' O .., w, qder Secticn 204 cf the Public Utility Regulctery .o clicies Act of 1978,
-c. -such.cther exemptien es mcy be c=ntcined in the ire dercl Power Act, . _
- 6. The feregeing'e=nditiens shc!! be implemented in a menner c=nsistent with the c=clic=ble federci, stcte end lece! st= utes, rules, reguicticns end Judgments end crde.s premulg=ted there.:nder. Nerhing herein sh=!! pree!ude the
'empcny ficm seeking en exemptien er other relief te which it mcy be entitled .,
undct cppliccble Icw. ,
m . - -
~ ..