ML20138H565

Intervenor Exhibit I-CCANP-109,consisting of Minutes of Mgt Committee 810319 Meeting in Bay City,Tx & 810320 Site Visit. Quadrex Engineering Review Discussed

ML20138H565
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	08/03/1985
From:	Thrash C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
OL-I-CCANP-109, NUDOCS 8510290077
Download: ML20138H565 (8)

Text

- . - .- - - _ -

. Ja-We n oz Z-OM#M7

. SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT f( (C

(

Minutes of the Management Committee March 19, 1981 :W9 Cattlemen's Motel 1:30 p.m.

'85 c; ; 99 The following members of the Management._ Committee and al'arnates were present from 1:30 p.m. unti144i365p.m.3 .

on Thursday, March 19, at the Cattlemen's Motel"iM gs Cit'y:

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

For CPL, Mr. Range For HL&P, Messrs. Oprea and Goldberg.

Also present were: for Austin, Mr. Pokorny; for San Antonio, Mr. Hardt; for CPL, Messrs. Moore, Basile and Muench; for HL&P, Messrs. Barker, Briskin (after 3:45) and Beeth.

• The sign-in roster of those in attendance is attached as Exhibit No. 1. The agenda for both the March 19 and March 20 meetings is- attached as Exhibit No. 2. Mr. Barker's list of items for discussion is attached as Exhibit No. 3. The executed agreement between the participants and Coopers & Lybrand is attached as Exhibit No. 4 and the preliminary statement of costs

( incurred through February 28, 1981, which Mr. Oprea transmitted

to the members of the Management Committee with his letter of i March 16, 1991, is attached as Exhibit No. 5.

Mr. Barker began by discussing the incremental per-centages of completion in engineering and construction which -

had been achieved,during February (see Exhibit No. 3 attached i; to the minutes of the March 20 meeting of the Management Committee).

I Mr. Barker next discussed personnel changes which had been made I in the Brown & Root organization since the last meeting of the Management Committee. - - -

Mr. Pokorny inquired about the effect that the Quadrex work (in connection with the engineering review) would have on other work. Mr. Goldberg advised that there would be some nega- '

tive impact but he did not think it would be significant.

Mr. Goldberg discussed, in reply to questions from Mr.

{ Basile, the responses the Project Manager would have to problems which might be discovered by Quadrex. Mr. Goldberg advised that

. discussions with Quadrex had started in January, followed by pre-meetings in February, and that the actual work by Quadrex started on March 5. Mr. Goldberg described the items which had thus far been completed by Quadrex and those which remain to be done. Mr.

Goldberg reported that a preliminary oral report will be made by

(

l B510290077 850003 PDR ADOCK 05000498 4500 PDR l 0 4 (ic 6 NF /07

m d

6 i

+#

,<>~$'

• • ~

, g /*Q Al s+

U +,sl[

sg ,s 5)

/ g9

\

i (of 1

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . . = --- _ . - - - - _ . _ - - . . - _

April 13, followed by a written report on April 20. The Project Manager intends to critique the review with the contractor on g

May 4, with the final report scheduled for May 18.

Mr. Posten inquired about the extent to which engineer-ing resources are being devoted to licensing hearings and the effect on such resources. Mr. Goldberg replied that the licensing work ties up a lot of key people.

Mr." Barker explained that the 40-week cable tray support solution, which had been projected in December, has proved to have been understated by a substantial amount, it having been supposed that the supports had been designed through the exten-sive use of standards. However, upon getting intc the matter, it j has been determined that each cable tray support requires individ-j ual design and attention.

Mr. Basile inquired what percentage of engineering resources was being devoted to rework items, to which Mr. Barker replied that it could be as much as 50%.

Mr. Barker reported that the Reforecast P'.an is presently about 3 weeks behind schedule but that Brown & Root hopes to make up a substantial part of this loss of time by the end of March. A discussion followed whether the preliminary numbers, hopefully available in June, are likely to have to be

( revised when all of the risk analysis and back-up work has been completed in September.

Mr. Hardt renewed his request for any assumptions (such as those involving the number of shifts, amount of overtime, etc.)

that will be involved in the reforecast. Mr. Briskin assured Mr. Hardt that he would have this to him soon.

Mr. Poston next discussed the licensing schedule which appears at this time to be as follows:

' Tuesday, May 12, through Saturday, May 16: Holiday Inn, Bay City. This will probably involve a site visit on the morning of May 12, followed by limited appearances -

Tuesday afternoon and Tuesday evening.

Monday, May 18, through Friday, May 22: Rice University, Houston.

. Monday, June 1, through Thursday, June 4: location uncertain.

Monday, June 22, through Thursday, July 2: location uncertait.

( Mr. Hardt next presented San Antonio's nuclear fuel report as follows:

4501

_ _ _ . _ - _ _ . . . . _ , . . . . , _.._._,._,_..r,., . . - _ . . . - . . - . _ - _ . , , , _ . . . - , . _ . . . - _ . , , . . . , . , _ . . . - , . . , _ . _,y_., . m

i Mr. Hardt reported that the STP participants had I been notified by Westinghouse of the price of uranium under Exhibit N of the Agreement of Settlement. The price, quoted in French francs, is approximately

$31.00/ pound (less 10%). The STP owners must notify Westinghouse on or befn=e April 3, 1981 as to the quantity desired, pricing mechanism (market minus 10% -

or French franc price minus 10%), and date of delivery.

Mr. Hardt reported that the STP Finance Committee had been briefed on this matter. Mr. Hardt assured the Management Committee that it would have the necessary evaluations and recommendations in time to exercise the option under Exhibit N, if it should choose to do so, within the required time.

l? ext, Mr. Hardt reported that a bill had been entered in the Texas Legislature providing for a severance tax on uranium produced in Texas at a rate of 10% of sales price. Mr. Hardt pointed out that such tax, if enacted, would affect the price of uranium

. purchased from Chevron.

Finally, Mr. Hardt reported that negotiations with Gulf were continuing for a supply of uranium in substi-tution of uranium to be delivered by Westinghouse under Exhibit M of the Agreement of Settlement. Mr. Hardt

.(

1 noted that, because of the short time remaining for

, conclusion of negotiations if successful (July 15, 1981),

! the services of a consultant are required immediately.

Mr. Hardt reported that two firms were being evaluated on a scope developed by CPS. (San Antonio requested and received approval to retain the consultant selected by San Antonio). .

The Management Committee decided to defer discussion of the January and February draft minutes until its April meeting (which was subsequently scheduled to be held in San Antonio on Monday, April 27, 1981).

At 4:50 p.m. the Management Committee meeting was adjourned.

i Prepared this 21st day of March, 1981.

Charles G. Thrash, Jr f/ Secretary gj

(

l 4502

, - . _ _ , . . _ . . . . . . . _ . _ . , , . . . _ , . . _ _ . . , . _ _ _ _ _ . _ , ~ _ . , , _ , . _ _ _ . _ , . _ _ . , _ _ . _ . , . , - . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _

5 4

- SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Minutes of the Management Committee March 20, 1981

! Plant Site 9:00 a.m.

The follcwing members of the Management Committee and alternates were present from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m.

on Friday, March 20, at the Plant Site:

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

For CPL, Messrs. Borchelt and Range For HL&P, Messrs. Oprea and Goldberg.

Also present were: for Austin, Messrs. Davidson and Pokorny; for San Antonio, Messrs. Spruce and Hardt; for CPL, Messrs.

Ford. Read, Moore, Basile and Muench; for HL&P, Messrs. Jordan, Barker, Briskin, English, Blau and Beeth.

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

( Mr. Barker begar; his report by displaying a slide of Exhibit No. 3, " Status Overview", and explained why the incre-mental percentage of work in any one month will not necessarily be additive to the cumulative percentage for the previous month because the cumulative figure will contain retroactive adjust-

ments and corrections. In response to a question from Mr. Jordan, Mr. Barker advised that a " scheduled" line will be added on future engineering progress reports. Mr. Hawks estimated that the normal percentage of engineering work scheduled for 1981 will be about 2.1% for a four-week month and about 2.7% for a five-week month.

5 Mr. Barker then displayed slides of Exhibits 4, 5 and 6.

When Mr. Barker began his explanation of the slide designated as Exhibit No. 7, " Major Activities", he called upon Mr. Guerts to elaborate on the first item shown thereon, " Personnel Changes". Mr. Guerts thereupon produced a slide which displayed an organizational chart (attached as Exhibit No. 8) . Mr. Guerts discussed Mr. Martin's elevation to the job of construction

- manager and reported that a new man had accepted an offer of employment to take Mr. Crane's place as deputy general manager and site manager. Mr. Guerts reported that the new man to take Mr.

Crane's place will report April 13.

Mr. Barker returned to Exhibit 7 and explained the

( restart activities on concrete and welding. He reported that i

lg l ;* 4516

-.._.--..-_.~__.._. . - . . . . , _ _ . _ . . , _ . . . - . - - _ , . . _ _ . . - . . _ _ _ _ . _ , . _ . _ . _ . _ - _ _ _

9

(

95% of the work was complete on the 10-week work plan to restart walding activities. Mr. Barker also reported that of the 276 commitments that had been made last year to the NRC, 201 had been closed out and 75 remained open (40 of. the 75 are awaiting NRC etaluation).

Mr. Moore inquired about the present rejection rate on aluminum-bronze welds. Mr. Barker advised that the rate had been 22% during the previous week but was improving.

Mr. Barker again reported that the Reforecast Plan was behind schedule but that Brown & Root hoped to recover some of the lost time by the end of March.

Mr. Barker reported that the engineering review by Quadrex was proceeding well. Mr. Goldberg estimated that this review was about one-half complete and reiterated the schedule which he had furnished on March 19.

Mr. Barker also repeated, for the benefit of those who had not been present on March 19, the operating license hearing schedule (which begins on May 12 and ends on July 2).

Mr. Barker next displayed a slide for Exhibit No. 9,

" Major Problems", and made the following comments regarding the numbered items shown thereon:

( *

1. Pipe Hangers, Supports, Restraints. Mr. Barker reported that this is a major problem at South Texas, just as it is for all nuclear power plants.

2. Conduit Separation. Mr. Guerts reported on this item, explaining that it is positioned in the engineering work plan so that it could be phased into late this year, with heavy activity in 1982, some of the work being farmed out to other architect-engineers or specialist firms.

3.

Resolution with NRC on SSI (Impact Analysis).

Mr. Barker reported that Woodward-Clyde, the consultants employed on this matter, are at work and that Brown & Root is re-reviewing the previous analysis that was made.

4. Engineering Plan-Design Assurance & Control.

Mr. Barker made reported on this task. that substantial progress was being

5. Cable Tray Supports. Mr. Barker reiterated how this problem, discovered in December, had resulted in the Project's embarking upon a 40-week work plan.

He reported, however, that the work done so far has g i

4517

w indicated that the installed cable trays were not

( designed in accordance with standards and that more manhours than previously thought would be required to )

analyze the designs. Mr. Guerts explained how all of the engineering work on this problem had been trans-ferred from the site to Houston and expressed the opinion that the schedule for completion of this analysis work could be met. Mr. Hawks expressed the opinion that there would not be a significant part of the installation work thus far completed that would have to be changed but that the engineering analysis hours will be greater than expected.

6. American Bridge. Mr. Barker explained the negotiations that are being carried on with American Bridge concerning that company's responsibility for either engineering analysis or repair work.

7. Painting and Coating / Fire Protection. Mr.

Barker described the efforts that are being made to modify the specifications to reduce sandblasting re-quirements. He enphasized the critical schedule position of the painting and coating work if other work is to proceed on schedule. Mr. Goldberg requested that Brown & Root prepare a report on the painting and coating problem, from the time of its first appearance

( to the present. Mr. Guerts reported that some of the painting and coating specifications should be completed within a week and Mr. Hawks reported that the level II and III specifications should be ready during the first week in April. Mr. Guerts estimated that all specifica-tions and procedures should be in place by May 1 but cautioned that the training of workmen and inspectors would take some time thereafter.

8. Reactor Cavity Ventilation. Messrs. Barker and Hawks reported that the i11ution to this problem should be known by June.

9. TMI Activities. In response to a question from Mr. Basile, Mr. Barker reported that the Refo' recast Plan will include the known effects of post-TMI requirements.

50. Vendor Control Program. Mr. Barker reported that 100 men are working on documentation in this area and that they are making good progress.

At 10:45 a.m. Mr. Barker concluded his report.

Mr. Guerts began what he described as a " wrap-up" and presented slides displaying Exhibits 10 through 16, inclusive.

(

Mr. Guerts discussed the critical problem areas, such as painting 4518 i

'. and coating, cable tray supports and conduit supports and

( discussed the possibilities of making up some of the time which has thus far been lost. Mr. Guerts felt that the delay on conduit would likely be the one most determinative of ulti-mate schedule.

At 11:00 a.m. the Management Committee meeting was adjourned.

Prepared this 21st day of March, 1981.

charles G.

Thrash, Jr., ,cretary l

l

(

4519

._. - . . . - - - -