ML16340C915

Transcript of 821019 Public Meeting Re Design Verification Program in Bethesda,Md.Pp 1-62.Supporting Documentation Encl

ML16340C915
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/19/1982
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML16340C916	List: ML16340C915
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8211040059
Download: ML16340C915 (68)

Text

~ ~a pp~~ ~+

DIABLO CANYON UNIT NO-1 DESIGN VERIPICATION PROGRAM PUBLIC MEETING lM= October 19'982 'KS=

Bethesda, Marvland MBKR 6X

~~~

~

( 7Qg) 82ii040059 82iiOi PDR ADQCK 05000275 P

PDR.

0

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DIABLO CANYON UNIT NO 1

DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19'982 10 PUBLIC MEETING 12 13 14 7920 Norfolk Avenue Room P-422

Bethesda, Maryland 15 The meeting

convened, pursuant to notice, at 16 1:20 p.m, Darrell Eisenhut,

Director, NRC Licensing 17 Staff, presiding.

18 19 20 (The list of attendees is attached at the end 21 of the transcript

)

22 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 664.2345

PROCEED'IN GS 5R ~ EISENHUT:

Why don't we get started My 3 name is Darrell Eisenhut.

I am the director of 4 licensing for the Staff.

This is a continuation of a series of meetings we have been having on Diablo Canyon 6,specifically on the design verifi ation programs Even 7 more specifically, this meeting is in preparation prior 8 to a Commission meeting we will be having tomorrow 9 afternoon.

And the subject of that is the Phase II 10 program, the Phase II proposal and our recommendations 11 on that program.

12 This meeting is a recorded meeting Qe are 18 keeping a transcript of the meeting.

There is a number 14 of different parties here It was a publicly noticed 16 meeting, so if anyone knows of anyone else who wants, to 16 come to the meeting, there is always room ~

17 Shat we would like-to do today is sort of get 18 the last in the series of time, sort of the last views 19 of where we are today prior to our meeting tomorrow.

I 20 have asked both PGEE and Teledyne if they could give a

21 summary of sort of where they stand in the overall 22 status.

And I am also opening it up to any questions 23 the Staff might have relating to any aspects of the 24 program to clear up any remaining questions, to put 26 thi ngs in perspective, if need be ~

ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 654.2345

1 And maybe one of the easy vays to start off is 2 and I won't go around the room for introductions, in

'I the interest of time, since there are a lot of people, 4 so vhen people speak maybe they could identify 5 themselves -- but I would like to start it off by 6 turning it over to George Naneatis and ask him if he 7 could give a summary of vhere he thinks we stand today 6 and, if you can, characterize the findings to date.

9 HR ~

HANEATISs All right I vill start with 10 the former and on the latter I vill ask Howard Friend, 11 the Diablo Canyon project completion manager, to 12 characterize the findings to date

~

13 For the record, I am George lfaneatis, 14 executive vice president of Pacific Gas and Electric 15 Company'6 I vould like to use as a point of departure 17 what ve reported to be the status of PGGE's internal 18 technical

programs, our vhole reviev ffort And that 19 status was given at the September 1st meeting.

Since 20 that time I don't think anything substantially different 21 than ve reported has occurred We i'ndicated some 22 schedules there with regard to the completion of certain 23 work 24 We had indicated that ve had. not completed the 25 analysis of certain of the buildings, the structural ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE.. S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

analysis and seismic analysis.

Me still haven' completed that analysis in the case of the turbine building Me have some analysis to go as a result of 4 some open items that were communicated to us by the IDVP 6 on the annulus area of the containment.

M e have received a number of EOIs from the 7 Phase II program which we are undertaking at our own 8 risk, it not having been approved by the Nuclear Begulatory Commission.

Me are responding to those EOIs 10 in the sense that we are investigating them.

Me have also committed to perform a

12 construction quality audit of two of the principal 1~ contractors at Diablo Canyon-That audit is under way.

14 Again this is a -volunteered thing, not required by the 16 order.

But it is well along, and we expect that to be 1B essentially completed by the middle of November.

17 Me had indicated, I think+ at that September 18 1st meeting that we expected to have all of the PGCE 19 work completed that required to support a request for 20 having a 1ow-power license reinstated and authorization 21 to load fuel and commence low-power testing by the end 22 of November of this year.

Looking realistically at the work ahead, I 24 would estimate that we have slipped that schedule and 26 will probably not be in a position to have completed the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

work ve feel needs to be completed in response to the order and in support of fuel load and power testing requirements before the middle of December.

These are estimates.

They are driven by the findings of the program, both Phase I and Phase II and 6 our ovn internal technical programs and review.

I think that is a kind of quick thumbnail 8 sketch of vhere ve stand vith regard to PGGE progress since the September 1st meetings 10 Howard, is there anyhing you vant to add on 11 where ve stand with regard to the status since September 12 1st?

13 MR. FRIEND:

No. I think you have covered it 14 veil, G eorge

~

15 My name is Hovard Friend I am project 16 completion manager for the Diablo Canyon project.

17 I think, George, you have covered veil the 18 status since September 1st-ttould you like me nov to 19 talk on the other matter?

20 MR MANEATIS:

Yes As I understand your 21 latter question, it is to characterize the findings to 22 date, just from PGGE's perspective or because the IDVP 23 also has a perspective on characterizing the findings 24 You are avare, just by vay of preliminary comment, that 25 we have submitted in our technical report a section that ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S,WWASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

is designated 1.8, vhich discusses the causes>

significance, and impact of design errors I think that that vill be the basis at this time that we would want 4 to use for responding to that question.

MR DENTONc My name i.s Harold Denton Would 8 you repeat one more time the date you vould expect to 7 complete Phase I and what relationship that date has to 8 your projected date for completing Phase II+ as you have 9 undertaken at your ovn risk2 10 MRS MANEATIS4 Okay I vill take a stab at that When you use the term "completion," it is subject 12 to some interpretations The order, as you will recall, 18 allows for certain things not being completed, like 14 modifications subject to approval of the Staff But 15 with regard to Phase I, ve expect that Phase I work from 16 PGCE's. perspective, this does not include review by the 17 IDVP or the sign-off by the Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission.

19 We expect PGCE's vork to be completed by the 20 middle of September, vith a caveat that we don't find 21 anything unexpected in the reanalysis of the turbine 22 building, which is quite an operation, and also the 23 review of some of the concerns raised by the IDVP on the 24 annulus structure of the containment building.

25 Now, vith regard, to completing Phase II there ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S IV., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

ar several aspects to that One is the IDYP itself has to complete their investigation, their verification of I

their sample s Ystem There were three, I believe, or 4 four indicated.

They have completed several phases of 6 that, the QA audit, but without providing a report e file.

One. report was filed on that The design verification work of Phase II from 8 an IDYP standpoint will likely be completed essentially in a couple of weeks, as I understand it. Bill Cooper 10 will comment on that schedule more precisely.

We have to respond to the error in open items 12 that are referred to us.

We have received several of 13, them already' don't have the exact count I think 14 about 39.

All right.

In that area we understand in'6 total there will be about 55 of them with an additional 16 two coming from Roger Reedy 17 When we get those, we intend to provide an 18 interim report which will, in effect, address what we 19 are going to do with those findings We will not submit 20 necessarily detailed solutions, but we will say what 21 they mean to us, what is their generi" significance, as 22 an example, internally speaking, and what investigations 23 we are going to undertake internally And if we know of 24 any modifications, we will say what modifications we are 26 going to make ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.WWASHINGTON,O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346

Nov, I consider that sufficiently'omplete for purposes of giving you a hearing on what is out there in the Phase II Qomain, as it vere.

Now, we expect that 4 that can he completed also hy maybe the middle of 5,November.'

MR DENTON c You had said once<

and I 7 certainly agree, that we don't vant any surprises--

KR.

MANEATIS:

Yes.

MR DENTONs

-- once ve come to a decision.

10 What I really vanted to get to vas your feeling that come the completion of Phase I, do you think you vill 12 have in hand sufficient results from Phase II to foreclose the 4 ~

14 MR. MANEATIS: Possibility 7 MR.

DENTON: possibility of another major 16 finding 'that vould surface later in Phase 'II.

17 MB. MANEATIS: Particularly vith our having 18 volunteered to conduct this QA construction audit, which 19 will also be likely completed by the middle of November 20 and certainly by the middle of December, vhich is the 21 date I gave you vhen Phase I vould he completed So ve 22 vill have had the benefit of findings throughout the 23 whole spectrum covered by the order of November 19th to 24 knov vith some with a great deal of confidence that 25 there aren't any major surprises out there of any.

ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

,Pt $44,.4tt S ')'"t ttl'S

'q S "t tP 't >,t4~

W tm'Vt'

~ ~ P/ 'tsVA J

4 tttt'i

~ cot oft y f',,,WP

. jhow',> + t ',lt V

W W><C t: '~ tg y >rt<4<r'IPt j it

unidentified deficiency or discrepancy in the Diablo Canyon power plant situation So by the middle of December we should be in a 4 position to have put in the hands of - the Nuclear 4

5 Regulatory Commission sufficient information to give you 6 confidence that there are no surprises

~

And if we don' 7 have that information or if we, PGGE, Bechtel are not convinced that that is the case, we simply will inform you of that fact and tell you when we do have that 10 amount of information at hand to permit us to state with 11 confidence that there are no further surprises out there

~

12 HR EISENHUT:

Let me follow up on that If I 13 understand ig, that is predicated upon the IDVP on Phase 14 I being completed sometime early so that any open items 15 that, should develop could be given to PGCE so PGCE could

/

18 resolve those, address them in whatever form that would 17 take, and provide that back to the IDVP to ensure that 18 the IDVP is satisfied with that resolution.

And is that 19 cycle prior to December 15 or after'8 20 HR ~ lfANEATIS; Mith regard to the last thing 21 you said, the last part, we have already had the 22 benefit of practically all of the EOIs that will be 23 issued on Phase I 24 Am I correct on that1'5 KH.

COOP ER 4 Yes ~

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

10 HR HANEATISc So therefore, we have those, and we are responding to those.

Regarding the Phase I EIO cases, with regard to verifying the corrective 4 actions, clearly the IDYP will not be able to verify corrective action for modifications that we say we are 8 going to make'ut haven't

made, and you have agreed to 7 it.

So therefore, those cannot be verified because they 8 would not have been made But those that we have identified as actions 1o required.,

systems, structures, or components

required, 11 and supporting fuel loading and low-power testing>

those 12 activities will have been verified by the IDYP 13 And I understand gust from the remarks that 14 Dr. Cooper made at our October. 7th meeting in San 16 Francisco, which was a public-notice meeting, that he 16 indicated that he needed two weeks'otice from PGCE to 17 be able to effect that snapshot verification of our 18 actions required in support of the fuel load/low-power 19 license 20 So you would get the close of that last 21 iteration you indicated in your statement, Darrell, by 22 two weeks subsequent to when we complete our work, which 23 would put us sometime by the end of the year.

24 HR.

NANEATISc Am I correct in these 25 estimation, Howard 7 ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

MR.

FRIEND I would hope that we could improve on that.

Our drive is to improve on that.

But that is certainly the conservative

estimate, George.

MR ~

EISENHUT: I want to emphasize I am not pursuing it for the schedule Cate as much as I am for the p'rocess.

MRS MANEATIS4 Let's go to Phase II'e 8 haven't addressed Phase II, the Phase II findings and where they stand I have indicated we have received 10 roughly 39 EOIs on Phase II We may have formally 11 responded to some But I don't know why we wouldn'.t be 12 able to respond to those in the context I indicated to Harold, to indicate what our resolution plans are with 14 regard to those EOIs by the middle of November, assuming we get the remaining number up to the 55 in the next few 16 days, Dr ~ Cooper I don 't know when we can expect the 17 rest.

18 19 MR.

COOPER I will cover that in my remarks.

MR MANEATIS'ecause these are items that we 20 are reasonably familiar. with< they may take time to 21 resolve completely~

but we will certainly indicate our 22 assessment of them 23 MS.

KERRIGAN4 Can I ask a question for 24 clarification for myself'y name is Janice Kerrigan.

25 I work in the Division of Licensing.

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

12 1

In mid-December, when you would h ave completed to vork on the systems required for fuel load, vhat vould be the status of the analysis OE the other Could 4 systems, the seismic analysis of other systems?

5 you estimate how far along you would be in that seismic

'nalysis?

MR. MANEATIS: I vould expect the analysis would have been complete, and 'the only thing absent will 9 be possibly the detailed design of all of the fixes in I

10 the cases of those not required, the modifications 11 required to support fuel loading and lov-pover testing.

12 But for those that vere required to provide the 13 integrity required to support fuel loading, those 14 modifications.vould be described.

15 MS.

KERRIGAN:

But you vould be far enough

'6 along to say, yes, some sort of modification is needed 17 here, ve aren't sure whether we will put it in this 18 location or leave it over here?

19 MR. MANEATIS4 Yes, all right Can ve get to 20 Howard on characterizing the findings that we have had 21 over the past year?

24 MR EISENHUT Yes MR.

FRIEND.

All right+ George.

As you might imagine, it is no easy task to 25 try to characterize the various kinds of findings that ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

ve have encountered both since Bechtel has been on the 2 assignment and prior to that time since. last fall But 3 as George indicated in his earlier remarks+

we made an 4 attempt to d.o this in our submittal that ve submitted on 8 October 1st.

And I vould like to read or extract some 8 of the work from that submittal to try to give you an 7 idea of vhere ve think some of the factors are that 8 affected the design applications of Diablo Canyon that ve -are nov studying 10 One of the foremost problems that ve believe 11 were involved with the design activities was the very 12 extended time frame over which the design, activities 18 took place Some of the earliest decisions and criteria 14 were established in the middle to late '60s, and some of

<< the design activities that vere a result of TMZ and 18 other industry-related activities were going on in the II 17 late

'70s and into 1980 and

'81 ~

18 So ve have approximately a 15-year time frame 19 over vhich the design activities took place.

And. by 20 itself, that represents a problem:

continuity of 21 personnel+

continuity of criteria and codes, changing 22 regulatory requirements, all affecting the design 23 activities, were all impacted.

and influenced by this 24 time frame.

So ve feel that the long time involved in 28 the design activity was a very major factor in the ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.WWASHINGTON,O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 '

problems we observed. in the Diablo Canyon design activities.

Somewhat associated.

with the time, but perhaps 4 not quite as long, was the evolving technology in the area of seismic design.

Seismic design activities 8 during the 1970s have evolved significantly The more

'7 basic judgmental types of analyses that were made in the 5 late

'60s and early

'70s have now given way to very

~ 9 sophisticated computer analyses where we are currently 10 able to eliminate the need for a lot of judgment and rely in great depth on computer analyses.

Me think that the evolution of seismic analysis techniques over the 13 design time period of Diablo Canyon was an important 14 factor 15 Also associated with seismic analysis but more 16 specific to the Diablo Canyon project itself as compared 17 to the industry'hanges which were characteristic of the 18 two items I mentioned earlier was the impact of the 19 impact of the project, the change in the 20 project-specific seismic design criteria 21

'<le see a situation where in the earliest days 22 of the design activities, the plant was being designed 23 for DE and DDE, and then as time passed, the HOSGHI was 24 introduced, and finally in today's environment.

we have a

25 situation where we are looking not specifically on ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

Diablo but the industry ha changed to look at OBE and SSE and their associated criteria as the appropriate 8 methods ani techniques to analyze for earthquakes Sa the changing project-specific criteria 6 seemed to us to be another important aspect of the 8 problems that Diablo Canyon experienced during the design activities.

Again, associated with that time 8 frame we believe that personnel changes that occurred 9 over thy years may have had an impact on the design 10 activities.

In other areas other than seismic design<

12 there have also, as I have indicated, been changes in 18 various code requirements, ASHE codes, AISE codes, 14'various other types of codes that were required for the 16 5esign activities.

These have been changing over the 18 years similar to some of the observations I have made in 17 the area of seismic design in other areas of design 18 The amount of judgment that has been used has changed 19 markedly over the years wherein in the early

'70s an 20 engineer might review a design analysis or calculation 21 with some new information Based upon his judgment, 22 during that review he might elect to say the calculation 23 as originally done is valid'hat kind OE judgment is 24 not acceptable in today's environment He would today 25 have to document his evaluation; he would have to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

compare a new calculation perhaps to the original, but be much more systematic and precise in reaching a

judgment that a change did not impact his original 4 analysis.

In the earlier days, much more or much less 8 sophisticated and organizaed approaches were necessary And finally, again, associated with time period, we 8 believe that the iterative process that is required in the design of any facility, but specifically the design 10 of a nuclear power station, was impacted significantly 11 by the time frame, the long time frame that was involved 12 in the design of Diablo Canyon.

13 Again, for illustrati.ve purposes, the designer 14 of the structure initially sets down some parameters and 15 designs the structure Sometime later the other 16 designers introduce variations into the loads of the I

17 structure.

We hang pipes from. the structure, we begin 18 to introduce other new loads based upon new criteria or 19 new understandings into the structure.

And it is 20 important and necessary that we go back to the original 21 designer and make sure that he has the 'benefit of these 22 new loads.

23 And, of course, this is an iterative process 24 That is what I am talking about In the long time frame 25 of the pproject it seems that the need for. the iterative ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

process was impacted perhaps in a negative manner by the long time periods between the initial design activity and the iterative activity that should feed back into it.

4 There are quite a few more words in the 8 written material we submitted, but I think in a very brief characterization these are some of the things that we observed that have had an impact on the design 8 activities of Diablo Canyon ER ~

DENTON Howard, are the design activities necessarily iterative in all major projects?

Is the 11 main difference you are drawing the length of time in 12 which the iterations took place?

What if Bechtel were 13 designing a major facility in a seismic area different 14 than a reactor, would you still iteratively design it, 16 or would you design it all up front and then go build it 18 according to those blueprints?

Is there anything unique 17 about the two-stage licensing process that results in 18 some of the problems you identify?

19 MR. FRIEND:

No.

I think it is more closely 20 akin or closely associated with the long,time.frame.

I 21 think in any major fa ilityit is necessary to have. an 22 iterative process of some sort. It may not be quite as 23 detailed as required in our industry.

But I think my 24 judgment is the long time frame when the designer in 28 1978 undertaking a

new phenomena or a new requirement ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

18 does not iterat far enough through the design process vhich maybe vas started in

'1971 to make sure that all of the proper checks vere made.

In other industries we are able to consummate the design in a much shorter time frame

'>le talk about<

8 in the refinery business, ve talk about an oil refinery 7 from concept through, construction in three to four 8 years, maybe five years.

So the design activity is 9 maybe tvo years.

The design in those kinds of 10 situations can be much closer linked The structural analyst iterating vith the pipe analyst or the 12 foundation designer may do it one time, the drawings are 13 issued, and that is the end. of it.

14 4

So I feel it is primarily the long, long time 15 frame vhich allovs for changing criteria+ changing 16 requirements, changing discipline needs that seem to, me 17 to be the most important thing rather than the industry, 18 itself.

19 MR. EISENHUT:

Hovard, another aspect of 20 this.

The joint interim technical program,has now-been 21 under vay for six or seven months It has been a pretty 22 thorough program.

Is there a way you can characterizeV'3 These are the factors you characterize have gone into 24 the problems you have seen Is there any vay you can 25 characterize -- I appreciate it is a hard question ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

the overall findings?

Have you found that the problems are all located and associated with one of these things,

\\

or are the problems uniformly distributed throughout?

4 Are the problems major in some areas, minor in other 5 areas?

Or are they major or minor as a whole?

Is there any vay, Howard?

'R.

FRIEND:

You hit the nail on the hend.

when

8. you said it's a hard question Let me do my best to 9 answer from the top of my head based upon our work to 10 date't seems t'o me reasonably clear that there vere 11 generic problems in the area of seismic design-12 activities. If there is any thread. throughout the, project, it seems to be in the area of seismic design 1'4 activities.

So I think that is clear 15 I think that we have had, the project has had+

16 some problems in their quality assurance program But 17 beyond that, I personally hav looked and we continue 18 to look, to find generic issues so ve can address

them, 19 because v~ do want to make sure ve address generic 20 issues and resolve them before ve come to you requesting 21 our license be restored.

But I haven't been able to deter2Iine any other 23 common kind of issues that seem to be generic to the

'4 design activities.

25 HR.

VOLLHER:

Mould you characterize this then ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345 h

".<<w '

" <<WAN<<YI% <<Q<<>>~>>'ZZPJg~%>

'. s<<<

<< '>>>> t.C

<<>>>'~<<>

)'<<<<

-.i < <<<<

~ '<<

20 as being a problem over the procedural aspects of the design, i.e, the control of the process rather than specific technical deficiencies in the work that was 4 done at a "ertain period during the processf I would like for you to draw a conclusion from what you have 6 said.

MR FRIEND: I would not necessarily 6 characterize it as you phrase the question

~

I think 9 there vere procedural deficiencies, yes, but I don' 10 think those were necessarily generic or the base cause.

I think there vere mi.sunderstandings in the use of 12 criteria.

There vere misunderstandings betveen groups 18 in the development and use of criteria both vithin the 14 project organization and vith some of their 15 subcontractors 16 But I can't establish other than to say 17 seismic design seemed to be a generic problem I can '

18 establish vhich part of it, to my satisfaction, vas 19 predominant 20 MR EHGELTENa I am Robert Engelten, Region 21 V ~

Howard, a few minutes ago you said in discussing the 22 generic problems you have observed, you said there vere 23 tvo A problems.

My question is, vere there QA problems 24 across the board or vere.you limiting your discussion to 25 design QA problems?

Or have you also, for instance, ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 4R VIRGINIAAVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

observed QA problems in construction?

2.

MR. FRIEND:

All of my'.remarks this afternoon 3 up to this time and including as I am speaking now have 4 been about the design activities, Bob.

As you know, we 6 believe that the "onstruction activities were not under 6 question, but in order to assure ourselves of that we 7 have commissioned the IDVP to manage an audit of the QA B activities in construction to reaffirm that point But 9

my remarks this afternoon have been toward the design 10 activities 12 HR.

ENGELTEN:

Thank you.

HS KERRIGAN:

May I ask a question?

You said 13 that there were generic seismic design problems

~

But 14 could you "hara terize for me for example, the facility 16 as it looked in pre-'81 as to how it looks now?

Did 16 those problems result in significant "hanges to what was 17 out there built?

MR -

FRIENDs Yes..

MS KERRIGAN: I would like to get a feel for 20 it>>

21 MR. FRIEND That is a good question,

Janice, 22 and I would like to address that You have heard us say 23 several times that nothing we found to date would cause 24 us to be concerned about the ability of the structure>

25 system<

or component to perform its basic sa'fety ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.WWASHINGTON,D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346

e 22

function, and we continue to believe that Me still haven't discovered anything that we would characterize as a major flaw in the design and construction of the 4 facility.

However, we do find that we don't -- we have, been finding that in some cases we don't meet the 8 committed criteria either SAR commitments or industry 7 requirements 8

So if you took a bird'-eye view of the 9 facility, say, a year ago, in October of last year, and 10 then took another bi.rd's-eye view this year, l doubt if 11 you.would see any differences Even. if.you took that 12 view into the station -- say you could get in -- your 13 bird'-eye view within the station, you would see no 14 major ch an ge s.

Me have transmitted to Hans Schierling some 18 photographs of the kinds of changes we axe making, and 17 they truly are not very significant They primarily 18 revolve around, oh, in th'e area of structures He think',

19 that we may have to put cover plates a few places on 20 some beams or columns Me think we may have to put some 21 larger bolts in certain connections Zn the area of 22 piping we may have to improve or strengthen a pipe 23 support here or, there or maybe perhaps even add a

new 24 support somewhere.

Some of our electrical raceway 25 supports may need some upgrading ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.WWASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

23 But in all of these

cases, ve are talking about whether or not a pipe hanger is meeting code-allowable stresses.

And we are saying, no, it 4

doesn 't meet code-allowable

stresses, and we are committed in our SAR or whatever that ve must meet 6 code-allovable

stresses, so ve are adding material to 7 get the stresses lown to the committed point.

8 KR.

EISENHUTc One follov-up on that.

I just 9 wanted to make sure I understand.

It is your objective and your intent with these modifications to restore the 11 plant such that you meet the criteria originally in the 12 design envelope in the SAR?

14 MR FRIEND:

Yes, that is our intent..

MR EISENHUT:

So you are not taking 16 exceptions to that where you have gone back in any cases 16 you have defined yet to change a design envelope?

17 18 MR ~ FRIEND4 That is correct MR.

MANEATIS:

. Mould it be correct, Hovard, to 19 say if ve did take an exception, we would inform them?

20 MRS FRIEND:

Yes I did want to make that 21 clarification. If ve should reach a point vhere ve felt 22 a current criteria vas more appropriate or maybe the 23 configuration of something yielded itself more simply to 24 a current reg guide or something that was not present 25 when the initial SAR commitments vere made, we might ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

20 come to you and try to persuade

'you that that would be an appropriate measure.

But vithout that kind of notice to yourselves,'

ve would intend to meet the criteria of the SAR HR ~ EISEHHUT:

. All right.

Good-If I could, vhile we are on this subject,'if I 7 could turn to Bill Cooper, who is here to speak for the 8 independent design verification program, and ask you, 9 Bill, whether you could characterize things as you see 10 them from a different posture where you start with a sampling and cross-cut2 12 ERE COOPER:

Yes Except you caught me in the 13 middle of item 5, vriting dovn vhat item 5

was And I 14 have already forgotten vhat 6 vas going to be ~

But re ognizing this, I think it vould be in order to say 18 this before I even reviev the status of our work.

17

First, we have to recognize that there is a

18 Phase I, there

~ is a. Phase II, and there are some 19 significant differences between them Phase I is

HOSGRI, 20 seismic

~ It con"entrates on vork done in '77-'78 time 21 frame It's very broad. in its applicability to the 22 plant, but it is very narrov in the sense of the kind of 23 engineering vork that vas being done.

Phase I is nearly 24 complete+

something we think we have a pretty good 25 understanding of ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346

25 Let me go on down to this item 5 I was 2 writing, which said, I think, Phase I has done the job 3 of identifying that there were problems developed in the 4 course of the HOSGRI work which do require corrective 6 action And I think that the Diablo Canyon project has taken this identification and is moving across this 7 broad number of structure,

systems, and components 8 impacted by HOSGRI to make sure that the plant will 9 satisfy the requirements with respect to HOSGRI ~

10 Phase II is very different.

Phase II is a 11 vertical look at some sample systems plus some QA looks 12 at some other organizations that weren't in that sample 1S systems and understanding the organizations that were 14 involved in the program that weren't represented in 16 those three sample systems.

16 The QA look at those organizations not in 17 those-sample systems and understanding what the design 18 chains were in those areas is essentially complet.e And 19 that has contributed a recognition that amongst these 20 various organizations there are two kinds of work that 21 needs further review in a very local sense.

The evaluation of the three systems and the

/

23 two kinds of analyses that are being undertaken by Stone 24 and. webster are nearing completion, and I am using 25 "n aring completion" to mean something very different ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

26 from the words "nearly complete" which I used in describing Phase I' There is a major difference primarily because 4 in its present state of work the engineering evaluation 5 is almost done.

But the development'f a decent 6 understanding of really what that means and its 7 implications has not yet,diffused through the program in 8

a manner we really feel we have a good understanding of the situation.

10 A preliminary look, though, says that here the 11 difficulties concerns is the right word for it, that we 12 have identified, our bearing of many scattered.

individual 13 events as best we can see thus far There is no 14 seemingly, at least at this point, no common ground in 15 Phase II Me can say look at five things on which we 17 have issued error reports, for example, and we can say 18 that those five s para.te( error. reports are all the t

19 results of one real problem; and if it turns out in the

'0 final analysis that that particular method. of analysis 21 is a concern, if'he corective action is taken with 22 respect to the one error report, it will automatically 23 take care 0f all five.

So there is local grouping like 24 that, but there is not the general kind of grouping that 25 existed in Phase E

ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

27 A qualification I wrote down at this stage because a question was asked, Howard, all of my remarks are design oriented.

Mhat about quality assurances?

4 Quality assurance is a

common denominator or basic cause 5 of the situation Recognizing that these remarks are 7 preliminary, that we have a

way to go, it is my present 8 impression that if today's quality assurance in the 9 design area had been applied in 1970, both we.in the 10 independent program. in 1982 and the HOSGRI reevaluation 11 people involved at Diablo Canyon in. 1977 and

'78 would 12 have had a heck of a lot of an easier job because the 18 problem is continuity, as Howard mentioned the long 14 period of time, the'hanging rules, the diffi'culty in 15 communicating what your thinking was or someone else' 16 thinking was a decade before 17 So 'if today's QA in the design area had 18 existed in 1970, it would have made the job easier But 19 I do not consider the absence of that kind of QA in

'1970 20 to be the basic cause of the difficulties. we are. finding

~.,...',.

21 even in Phase I. I say that simply because good design 22 was done in the early

'70s in the absence of the formal 23 kinds of QA 24 I don't think we can look toward QA as being 25 the cause of the situation that we have If we had had ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

28 good QA, ve would have been better off.

But not having it is not what led to the need to reevaluate so much of the structure with respect to HOSGRI.

Another problem in this general area is reporting to date clearly emphasizes what vas vrong and 6 is practically silent on vhat vas right.

The only vay 7 this vill be finally evaluated and finally obvious to 8 anyone is to look to see vhat the modifications really amount to.

In sort of the terms Hovard vas using, if 10 you took a picture before and after~

would anyone other 11 than a person vho likes, to solve the puzzle of "find the 12 three changes" find those changes 13 I don't say that today ve knov exactly vhere 14 that all will come out, but it is my impression there is 15 much more right than there is vrong.

And in the way ve, 16 set up our reporting systems, ve fail to report on that vas hoping to be able to Jot down a sentence 18 or tvo about Phase II beyond what I have said, and I vas 1S gust plain unable to do so

~

I vas trying to draw some 20 conclusions.

But to go back on Phase I primarily~ I 21 tend to agree vith Howard that the lorig time frame, the 22 fact that this vas one last hurdle to be Jumped+

the E

23 difficulty in 1978 of going back and talking to the 24 people and understanding vhat vas thought of and. being 26 done in

%970, these certainly all contribute to the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

29 issue

~

I think the important thing is I believe the independent program has achieved its objective of 4 saying, yes, there are uncertainties vith respect to the 5 HOSGRI design, they need to be corrected, and these are 6 in the course of being corrected, and then ve vill look 7 at them from the verification people's NR DENTON:

Let me ask you< Bill, do you agree vith George that the course we are on vill reduce 10 the possibility of a surprise coming up unexpectedly late in this process to a very lov valueV 12 HR.

COOPERs Yes, I do.

This is, of course, if it is appropriate, I could say a few things I vas 14 going to say about the status of the program that 15 reflect on this.

Just so I don't miss things, let me 16 suggest I am going to make this quite brief. It will 17 touch on Phase I, then Phase II, then briefly on the 18 construction QA aspect~

and then look at the schedule in 19 a very broad vay.

20 In each of Phase I and Phase II I vill say a

21 few vords about the initial sample and vhat ve started 22 out as saying ve vere going to look at, then the 23 additional work ve did because of con erns that vere 24 raised by the initial sample.

Then the verification of 25 the corrective action being undertaken by the Diablo ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

30 Canyon project, which in many cases is a result of their taking on the burden of the detailed work on some of 3 this additional verification we had identified.

The initial.work on Phase I is essentially 5 complete I would expect very few new concerns to arise

~ even from this point on, and I think that is obvious, if

'7 nothing else from the number-counting game on the few of 8 them issued recently.

MR-EISENHUT-How many EOIs did you have, 10 Bill?

MR COOPER c I am not sure.

1105 was the 12 biggest number on Phase I from Cloud, and they started 910, 920, 930, and then the numbers are continuous.

14 15 1e MR ~

EISENHUT Ro ughly, th en '?

MR COOP ER 200 ~

MR EISENHUTa How man of those were classed 17 as AB errors, do you know that roughly?

19 MR COOPER.

A dozen, roughly a dozen.

MR EISENHUTz So out of all those couple 20 hundred+ it zipped down to a: dozen?

21 MR.

COOPERS That's right.

That kind of 22 number Now, again, we have got to be careful when we 23 count the numbers.

let me come back to that when I talk 24 about Phase II versus Phase I.

25 With respect to additional verification, we ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

31 will ge t out a revision to ITR. 1 this week, we believe, if Ned accepts some of the comments we are going to be.

giving him.

What we managed to do'ere is to pretty well 5 give you the overall status of the work to identify what 6 our concerns were and to identify. whether those concerns 7 would. be addressed by additional verification within the 8 IDVP or through the corrective action program.

And as I say, I expect we will get this issued this week.

About six of these remaining UX files will 11 still be addressed by the independent programs There 12 are a couple of the additional verification gobs on piping which still 'remain to be done.

There is a little 14 work which needs to be done on electrical equipment, but 15 we would expect from all of this that there would be 16 very few, if any, new concerns raised.

17 HR ~

EISENHUT:

Bef ore we leave Phase I, you 18 are saying it is essentially complete2 AR COOPER:

I was not leaving it I was just 20 halfway through it 21 HR EISENHUT: I am sorry Go ahead NR ~

COOPER:

All right I said the initial 23 sample is essentially complete.

- The amount of 24 additional verification we will be doing in-house that 25 is an outgrowth of the initial sample is essentially ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

complete.

There is the containment annulus region where we have issued two files.

Me have issued.

a letter giving a preliminary opinion about the present Diablo 4 Canyon project analysis and. giving some preliminary 6 thoughts about the Brookhaven analysis We do not find, 6 any generic concerns of the various types we have looked 7 at related to the containment annulus area.

Me have-8 identified some concerns with respect to the Diablo Canyon project,. which Nr Haneatis has already alluded 10 to.

The other piece of additional verification not 12 represented by the initial sample is the soils work. It 18 is nearing completion Ne wouldn't expect many, if any, 14 new concerns to arise as that work is completed.

In the 15 area of the corrective action relativ to Phase I, we 16 issued a while back an interim technical report Number 8

17 on how we were going to do this verification of the 18 corrective action.

That is being followed. It is 19 working very well on the piping area The particular 20 mechanism we spelled out with respect to structures is 21 not working very well, not from a technical viewpoint 22 but from a, mechanistic viewpoint, and we are looking to 23 see if there are ways we can improve the interaction 24 between the two programs and the structures there That is all I was going to say about Phase I, ALOERSON REPORTING CohtPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

33 Darrell.

HR. EISENHUT:

All right.

Only one question You had something on the order of 25 or 30 interim 4 technical reports to be issued.

HR ~

COOPER:

That is correct HR.

EISENHUTs Something on the order of eight 7 of them. have been issued.

HR.

COOPERS That's correct.

HR EISENHUT You are projecting a Phase I, 10 if I looked at it correctly, something in the time frame of November to be wrapping up the work'oes. that mean

<2 that all of these reports you are projecting are nearing completion where-we will see multiple numbers each week?

k 14 HR COOPER There will be interim technical 15 reports issued with respect to the initial work, the 16 additional verification, and the corrective action

~

We 17 may on a given item, say a gizmo in the plant, we may 18 issue three separate interim technical reports:

19 initial, additional, and verification.

Or we may issue 20 subsequent-revisions of just-a single number-

~ It 21 depends upon which is the easiest for us and for the 22 reviewers 23 Let me give you dates as they appear on my 24 schedule, which was developed as of yesterday.

These 25 are the dates for the last of the interim technical ALOERSO'( REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, D.C, 20024 (202) 554.2346

v 'wvk~vat4m~~wK<<uWiY2~~<<'<< '4~4&41 ~<<<<" A"<<<<N~~~ ~ '~<<A~~A~M<<Cs"M~V~~<<<<'<<A.~~+'34 reports in each of these three areas in Phase I.

And t

before I give the dates, let me just say in general the te hnical work would have been completed about two weeks 4 ahead of these dates but for the initial program as

~ originally d.efined

~

The latest

one, mid-Novemberz 11/17 6 is the date I have here Related to additional verification still to be 8 undertaken, 12/15.

And for completion of the corrective 9 action including the verification that the corrective 10 action has been

taken, except for those cases where 11 there is agreement that it will be postponed until 12 sometime during next year, we said January. 11.

13 MR ~

EISENHUT So if I understand.

that~

14 between now and November 17 there are something on the 16 order of 20 interim technical reports coming out?

16 MR ~

COOPER:

Something on the order. of 10 or 17

%2, and then another bunch following with additional or 18 corrective.

19 HR EISENHUT All right Good.

Fine 20.

MRS VOLLHERs The revision to ITR 1, which was 21 addition to sampling, does that complete that category 22 and give justification for the adequacy of the sampling?

MR COOPER:

No sir All it does is identify 24 what our concerns are and how those concerns are going 26 ko be addresesed either through the additional work on ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 p:,',,'; g -y; +<<<<, gr,>>

.~>,';

'<<<<,',! o. "<< -,

~.'.<<;,

'<<<<<<<<<<<<;<<~",

~ ',

'",<<y!sf+'~lag'>yp>a'y<<g~h<<<<'

g<<>w '<<<<~!y<<~~<<<<<<

0+<<<<4+ +'P" "+4+ cpM ~

35 our part or through the corrective action program MS.

KERRIGAN:

And when did you say the overview report, like Phase I report, would be done?

4 MB. COOPER:

I would presently predict January 25.

MR. EISENHUT That is the after-modification report?

MR.

COOPERs That is doing everything that is not agreed to that is, as I see it now, everything 10 except for verification that modifications have been 11 made in those instances where it is agreed that 12 modifications do not need to be done, say, this year.

Phase II, as I mentioned. earlier, there is. a QA step 14 which is essentially complete.

The engineering work 15 being conducted by Stone and Webster for the initial 1e sample is also essentially complete

~

17 There is an ITR Number 9, which is the design 18 chain prior to June

'78, which was issued yesterday

~

19 Stone and Webster will have a design chain report It 20 is nearing completion The first draft of -the first 21 Stone and Webster interim technical report was received 22 by us Friday, and both we and Stone and Webster expect

.23 that these drafts will start flowing very, very quickly 24 over the next couple of weeks My note here says, "A

26 barrage is coming ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE ~ 5 W WASHINGTON>> D C 20024 (202) 554 2345

36 Thus far> there have been 39 EOI files opened by Stone and Mebster+

two opened by Reedy Me would anticipat a total Phase II EOI someplace in the mid to 4 high 50s.

Now, that is a

much smaller number than the 200, Darrell, you got in answer a little bit ago.

But e also< I think you will find that a

much higher percentage of these are significant than the large 8 number on Phase I where, for various reasons, they were being issued almost on a speculative basis because there 10 was so much pressure on making sure nothing was hidden in the program.

12 So I would expect a bigger percentage of these would be as significant as. those dozen or so we said 14 were significant for Phase I.

My present guess is that 15 something like the same

number, perhaps even a little 16 larger, perhaps even 15, of these would be of 17 significance 18 So what we are saying is in the very broad 19 look on Phase II we are coming up with about the same 20 number of significant items as on Phase I, but it is a

21 very different beast.

22 There is a vertical study in detail of the 23 systems with respect to additional verification and 24 adiitional sampling The Reedy work indicates a

need to 25 perform an additional sample in the sense of some ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S,W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

0 37 computations done by one of the vendors, one of the contractors, who did not implement a

QA program.

'>le also, between what Reedy has done and what 4 Stone and Rebster have

done, we have identified 6 preliminarily about six different ways in which some 8 additional verification work needs to be done.

Je 7 expect-to move towards a better definition of those as 8

we convert the-various open-item reports to error 9 reports and as we, working within the new communications 10 systems outlined in Hr. Denton's recent letter, we 11 communicate as to what these concerns are and what the 12 responses may be 13 For example,.the first of. those type of 14 meetings is this Thursday having to do with the first 16 series of error reports that have been submitted to the 16 Diablo Canyon project 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

38 With respect to corrective a tion in phase

two, we don't have any corrective action program yet established'e would anticipate that in many of these 4 areas -- well, yes, in fact we do have a letter from 6

PGGE in the one area saying that they plan to move in 8 and review this and will give us the benefit of their 7 findings.

But we fo plan in other areas that the Diablo 9 Canyon project will move in on the corrective action, as 10 they;have in phase one+

and we will start to distinguish 11 between our plans for additional verification and our 12 plans for the verification of the plans undertaken by 18 the new progect.

We are not there yet.

14 With respect to phase two. schedule, on this 16 initial sample we would expect a huge majority of the 16 interim technical reports to be issued in mid-November 17 We would expect that some of them would. be early

.18 December

~

We presently and very preliminarily believe 19 that the additional verification that may be required in 20 response to these could be completed this year.

21 We haven't identified a date for corrective 22 action, verification of corrective action, because we 23 don't know of any yet

Again, my best date for a final 24 report on phase two would be January 25th.

25 The other thing E

was going to cover briefly ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.WWASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

~t 39 is the quality assurance program.

PGCE volunteered on

this, September 1st, vhich ve call an adjunct program to 3 our phase tvo because it is covered by all of the same 4 management procedures and so forth It is just that it 5 is volunteered, not specifically called out by the 6 letter, by the RRC's letter The plan has been issued.

It is in 8 operation Procedures and checklists are essentially 9 completely developed.

The field forces are in place.

10 The findings review committee is being formed.

Our present best guess on an interim report on 12 this vork would be the week of November 22nd, vhich is 13 about a little over a week it's about a

week later 14 than ve thought maybe originally.

But ve so far at 15 least see no reason to extend the final report date on 16 that adjunct program, which is December 15 17.

Excuse me Ned gave me a note.

I don't vant 18 to mislead

anyone, and I am afraid that if he sends me a

19 note like this I had better say vhat it says, because I 20 may have inadvertently said something to mislead.

-I 21 will read his notes "You may vant to stess that these EOI 23 estimates are indeed estimates.

This does not in any 24 way restrict the number of EOI's 25 I'm sorry, someone had.

a question ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W. ~ WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

00 MR ~

HAASS: Bill, what correlation did you find, between EOI's and the lack of a QA program or a

poor QA program?

MR. COOPER:

Almost none, and that is a very 5 broad and loose statement Of course, one reason for 6 that may have been that the initial sample

program, the 7 whole concept of the verification and program in 8 general, did not assume that there was going to be effective QA to start with.

So we weren't going down 10 the route of using the QA route to identify where to 11 look for techni"al things 12 Re were doing that, but in support of the 13 other acti'vities that were already running And so, 14 even though I gave you an answer, I am not sure that 16 this program is the right way to get the answer to your

'16 question

'nd I'm not. saying there isn 't necessarily 17 any relationship.

18 MR MIRAGLIA:

But you found the converse to 19 be true, did you not, Bill?

Rhere you had looked, you 20 discovered discrepancies and'idn't seh a

nee'd to go 21 beyond the initial sample as a result of the QA?

22 MR.

COOPERS Where we found problems with the 23 QA area, we had found discrepancies in the design work

/

24 But we also found some discrepancies in the design f

25 process, but we haven't found any in the QA effort And ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

so it is difficult.

One of the biggest reasons for wanting to look at the implementation of the QA pxogram in the project's 4 corrective action work going on today is so we can gain 5 confidence that wa are reviewing a planned program in that sense and can approach it more like we would a

7 review of today's work, as opposed to a review of the 8 seventies works HR DENTON:

Let me ask both parties here, 10 gust -to be clear We of course have already made our 11 recommendation to the Commission on phase two, since in 12 order to give the. Commission adequate time to review it 13 we have sent that down some time ago.

1 14 What I wanted to be sure of today is nothing 15 has turned up in the last few weeks or is about to turn 16 up in written correspondence that will be considered a

17 bombshell that would affect our judgment From what you 18 have said

.E don'0 hear things are much different than 19 have been iis uss d in a lot of prior meetings, and I 20 want to be clear that there. isn'..t something about. the 21 service that we should be aware of so we can inform the 22 Commission of it tomorrow.

23 We have had so many meetings, l think we are 24 well in touch.

HR ~

ENGELKEN:

That is what E was after, the ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.2346

42 same question MR.

DENTON4 I gust want to be sure there is not something imminent about this program MR. EISENHUT We spent a couple of days in 5 the first of September going through in great detail the 8 status.

I wanted to be sure there were no changes since that time MR.

COOPER:

I think there 's one.

I think we are finding more items of concern in the phase two 10 review than the utility's remarks on September 1st would have anticipated

~

12 MR. MANEATIS:

Can I Just make a

comment thereV We did say in our remarks that we had no basis, 14 because we had no findings in phase,two, to anticipate 15 any kind of findings.

But I think it is critical to

)

16 note that we do have the 39 EOI's, which is, different 17 again than the situation 'that existed on September 1

I 18 don't know that we would characterize them as 19 bombshells, but they are nonetheless areas of concern 20 that we have to investigate, and I think that would.. have 21 to be communicated as a difference.

22 MR HIRAGLIA4 Are these 39 EOI's still EOI's<

23 or have any of them become an error classification?

24 MR.

COOPER:

At the present time five are 25 classified as errors A or B, and these happen to be the ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346

43 first five issues, and, they are the ones where I mentioned if the decision is made by the project to solve the first one by doing a reanalysis the other foui 4 will automatically be taken care of.

MR ~

DENTON:

Could you expand, just for my 8 benefit, what those five encompass'RS COOPER:

I could, but I think we would all 8 benefit from having Prank Sestak or one of his folks 9 respond 10 MRS SESTAK: I would like to have John

Oddo, who did the analysis description, respond 12 HR ~

ODDO:

The five have to do with the 18 pressure, temperature, and, in one case the submergence 14 environments that were generated for equipment 16 qualification of safety-related equipment.

HR.

DENTON:

And that is one that involved the-17 CONTEMPT code?

18 HR ODDOc.

EOI 8,001 'was issued involving the 19 CONTEMPT code.

The next four in sequence, if my memory 20 serves me correctly, are-inputs to the CONTEMPT code-"

'1 So as Dr Cooper has explained, if the recommendation of 22 the first EOI, or as it is now error report, is 23 followed, we would expect, although there may be 24 disagreement with us in the IDYP end with PGGE on each 26 of these things, we would'xpect the error would be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.VK.,WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

44 accommodated by the reanalysis.

MR EXSENHUT:

And:that was the subject of the Stone C Webster first report that came out?

MR COOPER:

Not the first interim technical

report, no.

The first interim technical report that we 6 got a draft of Friday was radiation calculations MRS EISENHUT: I thought we hadn't got that 8 report in MRS COOPERS I know what you are talking 10 about MR. EISENHUT:

The first month< those were the 12 first EOI's reported 13 14

/

MR.

COOPER Yes To go on with the answer, there are presently 16 seven recommendations from Stone C Webster for potential 16 errors A or B

We still have these under review.

Our 17 present estimate is that most of those we will accept as 18 error reports and issue them accordingly 19 MR ~

DENTON:

Let me ask, then~

PGGE or 20 Bechtel:

Are you able to respond to what these first 21 five may mean?

Have you had a chance to look at it in 22 sufficient depth to have a view about it?

23 MR FRIEND:

Yes I coul% speak to that If

\\

24 I may, I would like to ask Bill a question at the 25 outset ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

45 Bill, is the classification of these into errors following the same rules of your program?

MR COOPER:

Yes MR. FRIEND:

The reason for that is, we have 6 reviewed these five -- five is it, five or six -- and we 8 believe that some of the items at this point in our 7 investigation are trivial and would. not have resulted in 8

a significant problem for the station That is why I 9 wonder about the classification 10 MR ~

COOPER:

There is no implication the error A or B means, an error A is one where we believe 12 you probably need.

a modification; B is where we believe 18 you gust need to clean up some calculations to get out 14 of it.

So they are both in this group 15 MR. FRIEND:

Our analysis to date has shown 18 that< although the CONTEMPT code may have been an 17 appropriate code to use, the application was perhaps 18 incorrect So we are going to address that Qe have a

19 meeting set up with Stone G Webster for Thursday of this 20 week to discuss with them our method and approach for 21 addressing that problem 22 In essence, what we intend to do is to 23 reanalyze the effects of a steam line break in the 24 affected areas, as indicated.

by the Stone G Webster 26 initial finding This will probably result in an ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 654 2345

06 ambient temperature in certain areas about 100 degrees higher than the original calculations~

or in the neighborhood of 300 degrees Fahrenheit.

There are in the area that is described as GW, 6 and that is an area within the plant ve believe there 6 are a couple of pieces of safety-related equipmentg valves specifically< that we'l have to check the 8 qualifications to see if they are qualified to that new 9 temperature, and if not ve vill have to either take 10 steps to remove the valves from that location, protect 11 the valves, or some other corrective action 12 We have not yet gotten through all of these 13 steps, but ve have'otten far enough to believe that ve 14 need to meet with Stone G Webster and discuss vith them 16 the method of analysis ve vill use for our corrective 16 action 17 MR DENTONc One of Mr. Reedy's findings, as 1

18 recall, where he vas concerned.

about lack of QA control 19 vas in equipment provided by GE and Wyle, E take it.

20 Was-there any connection betveen that Reedy finding and 21 the Stone 6 Webster finding, or are they different 22 pieces of equipment?

23 MRS COOPER:

There vere tvo Reedy findings.

24 One had to do with a ompany that we call GEZ, vhich is 25 Garretson-Elmendorf-Zinov, and it used to have another ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

47 name back when the plant was being designed.

These 2 people among other things, did pressure drop 3 calculations in the HVAC systems, and that is the 4 additional sample we have recommended be picked up-The other open item that has come out of 6 Beady's work is a question of, he ouldn't find any 7 evidence of some containment jet effects having been 8 evaluated that the FSAR said had been evaluated, inside 9 containment, jet impingement effects inside 10 con tainmen t.

HR DENTON:

So you don 't see this related to 12 the concern that Reedy raised about the,GE program on 13 the equipment that had been procured from GE and tested 14 by Pyle'P lfR FRIEND4 I don't remember that particular 16 concern.

18 5R COOPER No 5R. lfIRAGI.IA: That.was a result of.PGGE's.

19 look-back reports In PGCE's look-back reports, where 20 they have gone back and looked -at certain QA, there were 21 findings in PGGE's program that certain equipment, 22 switch gears and things of that nature provided by GE, 23 didn 't have the right test parameters But when Myle 24 tested it, as it turns'ut, it was adequately qualified 26 and that was out of PGGE's

program, as opposed to ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

08 1

Reedy s.

MR.

COOPER:

Yes, we verified the Pyle vork on them.

MR. MIRAGLIA: That's correct MRS DENTONs Could you maybe give a very brief 6 characterization of these other items, then, nov that ve 7 understand these five2 MR MIRAGLIA:

Seven potential MRS FRIENDs Perhaps I can speak to that 10 These are very preliminary evaluations I vant to add 11 Some of these EOI's ve didn 't receive until last 12 Saturday Re haven't had a chance to do an in-depth 13 job, hut anticipating your interest ve have tried to 14 break them, the 39 that ve have received to date, into 15 some kind of categories that might help your thinking.

About. a third of them ve think vill he easily 17 resolveahle Either we need to submit to Stone G

18 Webster some additional information or they may have 19 misunderstood a draving or something-But we think that

=20 they are readily resolveable vithout any major activity 21 involved.

22 The other third ve think are items of a 23 similar nature to the ones that Dr ~ Cooper was 24 describing

~

That is, vhere several -- how can I say it, 28 several common phenomena in a calculation or an analysis ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

09 are cited, such that, rather than one EOI, it results in five or six EOI s, but a single solution< like in the one we just talked about, will resolve all of them 4 satisfactorily.

About one-third of them are of that nature, locally grouped problems And finally, the final third are those which 7 we believe will take some in-depth evaluation on our 8 part, perhaps new calculations, as in the case we just 9 spoke of, to effect a resolution So that is generally 10 the very preliminary way we see these that we have 11 received to date.

12 MR BISHOP Bill> this is Tom Bishop of 13 Region V.

14 Do you have any results or findings from the 15 construction QA to date2 16 MR COOPER:

We have no findings from the 17 construction QA to date.

The potential findings I18 committee isn't yet. in operation, for.example.

19 KR ~

BISHOP'S All right.

20 MR ~

EISENHUT:

.. Bill, let me go back. to your 21 phase one and phase two discussion you had before, where 22 you were projecting a "final report" on January 25th 23 And I guess if you are sending in interim technical 24 reports all along, I guess I -am wondering how much will 25 be in a final report that we won't have seen before AU)ERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 4M VIRGINIAAVE S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

50 And. I am a little selfish about it, because ve vill have 2 to figure out what to do vith all of these reports vhen ve get them.

And when vill we can you characterize, will 5

we have seen basically all of the information a month 6 before that, or is there any way to handle that?

KR. COOPER:

Let me suggest that section 2.3 8 of our fourth veek semi-monthly report tries to cover this for phase one<

and similarly numbered one for phase 10 two.

What ve 'plan to do here is basically reference 11'verything ve can to the existing ITR's as far as 12 details are concerned and to have certain appendices 13 explaining them 14 And through tha first three sections of this I 15 think it vill be things that you have seen before and 16 you have reviewed, and it is just a reminder for the 17 reader.

I think the fourth section of the report will 18 contain material you haven't revieved previously.

The 19 present title at least to that fourth section is 20 "Significant Findings"

~

21 There are five subsections.

One of them will 22 address specific errors What vere the specific errors 23 identified and classified as errors2 Error A or B in 24 the procedure; vhat specifically vere these2 25 The second one vill address physical ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.WWASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 gprgg~g<<<<~g.<<

~ g~<<glop]7pgp<<'<<<<pw~

-. <<'<<<<<<.<<. ~a. p<<<<<<~<<), VP<<:+~/> N~, <<T+(%+~~<<'~c. p<. J>~w".

Z<<

modificationsc What physical modifications vere 2 undertaken, and hov vere they undertaken Hov, you will have knovn all of the basic 4 information that goes into those first tvo prior to 6 publishing the reoort.

But ve hope we can categorize 6 them and package them in a more intelligent way than the 7 shotgun approach we have had to date.'he third subsection.is generic concerns.

!4e 9 are trying to identify vhat potential generic concerns 10 arose that ve identified, why we identified them<

perhaps some text on why we didn't think some other 12 things vera generic concerns that others may have 18 postulated to have been generic concerns; a discussion 14 on, an attempt at a discussion on root causes, where 16 there are such; and finally, a discussion on corrective 16 action and hov it vas undertaken 17 So that section four would be based upon old 18 information, but it is an attempt at a nev, different, 19 and more meaningful packaging of the old information 20 HR EISENHUT:

So to make that a shorter

~ ".

21 answer the vast majority of that information we vill 22 have

seen, or the majority of that ve will have seen, 23 let's say a month before January 26th 24 25 HR.

COOPER:

You should get no surprises.

L'!8 ~

EISENHUT:

The great vast majority?

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.WWASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

52 MR.

FRIEND:

I thought that might have been a

better word (Laughter

)

4 MR. EISENHUTa So in other vords, on December 5 25th you will want us to go to vork MR MANEATISc That will be your Christmas 7 present.

MR. MIRAGLIA4 Bill, could. you give us a feel 9 for those seven.potential A and B's?

ghat areas would they involve?

11 MR EISENHUT:

Those are the ones Hovard just 12 ven t th rough

~

13 MR MIRAGLIA:

Howard chara terized all 39 14 EOI's, and there are 7 potential A and B's, in addition 16 to the.five they have talked. about vhich dealt with the 16 CONTEMPT code And I was vondering if ve could get.a 17 feel for what those seven involved.

18 MR. SESTAK:

The CONTEMPT code?

19 MR ~ MIRAGLIA:

No, the seven outside them

~

So 20 that is a total of 12 12 out of the 39 vill be in the" 21 A and B area MR. FRIENDa I'm not sure vhether it's 12 out 23 of 39 or 12 out of 55, but it is in there.

24 (Pause.)

25 MR ~

COOPER4 There is an error A-B vhich is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

53 our number 8014 It has to do vith adequate protection 2 for certain valves to prevent a moderate energy line break spray from impacting on those valves.

That is one 4 of the five error reports that have been issued to 5 date.

Now ve can get into the potentials, and 17 is 7 the first, CRVP system control pover for safety-related 8 equipment It is a question of mechanical=or electrical 9 failure of a single transverse svitch causing loss'of 10 power< separation Yes, tell me if I do something vrong here.

12

8022, engineered.

saf eguards, 4

16 KV 13 metal-clad switchgear.

It is a question of 14 short-circuiting capability.

15 23 is another in that electrical system It 18 is in a 480-volt system, concerned with overheating 17 motors due to low voltages, lov amperages, following a 18 LOCA 19 20 The next one is 8024 It is a potential HR SESTAK:

Potentially the same thing" Xov."

21 voltage on another bus 22 HR.

COOPER:

25 is this one, another 23 electrical system.

24 L4R SESTAK:

That is another lov voltage 25 concern.

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

MR.

COOPER:

26 is another electrical system item, plus lov voltage

~

Yes, the same thing.

And 32 HR ~ HIRAGLIA:

So the seven are in the 4 electrical area and they deal basically vith separation, 8 short-circuit capability, and low voltage protection MR SESTAK:

Concern vith lov voltage on the 7 bus 8

HR. FRIEND:

tthat is 32, BillV HR COOPER:

Aux feedwater level control 10 valves, a question of the independence of control 11 wiring 12 13 14 HR..MIRAGLIA-Thank you HR ~

NOVAK Tom Novak on the Staff.

Bill, I vanted to ask one question that goes 15 back too probably part of the phase one and your 18 reference to systems, components and structures that you 17 look at, and also recognizing that one of the reasons 18 certain problems came up was the long design period~ the 19 fact that it took ten years 20 I vas interested in seeing if there was a

vay 21 you could categorize the area that the problem is, that 22 is, was it an inadequate structural

problem, vas it a 23 component that didn' measure up2 I could eliminate 24 system

~ I am trying to Just get a feeling for the 25 assurance that the components today, for example, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

55 measure up to vhat you vant.

It vould suggest that what I think you found is potential stru"tural structural deficiencies to code 4 allovable or something of that nature.

MR.

COOPER:

I would say the biggest one was the difficulty in controlling the development and 7 promulgation of the seismic criteria to the individual 8 suppliers of the components; and the fact that the 9 corrective action program starts with a review of all of 10 the building structures, goes into a determination of 11 how the Hosgri spectra should be defined and controlled, 12 and it is nov controlled. for each of the components and then is reviewed for its applicability to that 14

omponent, says in essence that the starting point of 16 the technical difficulty vas associated vith the 16 building ~

17 Since there is a question there, nothing else 18 can be assumed to be okay Me don't knov that that 19 doesn't mean that everything else will be wrong or 20 anything else

. It doesn't mean anything about theme 21 except that they must be looked at ~

22 But I think it is critical to the confidence 23 of the whole system that it is the buildings vhere the 24 work is being conducted and the corrective action 26 program, and then it vill flow from there through the ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D,C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

56 whole Hosgri system by necessity.

MR.

NOVAK4 Okay.

MR; EISENHUT: I have one other question, and 4 then I will ask the Staff You can be thinking if there 6 are any other questions you have The phase one program as you characterized it 7 was really an IDVP for all seismic, interpreted to be 8 Hosgri seismic-related contracts prior to 6/78'nd there's another item which is the identical item for the 10 non-Hosgri Can you characterize what it is that you ar proposing to do for the IDVP for all, seismic, 12 non-Hosgri work prior to June

'782 13 MR.

COOPER:

Yes.

First, we really consider 14 it to be part of phase two, because of the load 16 combinations involved.

And. it happens that a number of 16 the systems from which we chose samples for phase one 17 are also present in the phase two sample, the aux 18 feedwater system, for example 19 And it also happens that all of these -- let 20 me word that differently. It happens that.in the 21 corrective action program that PGGE has outlined they 22 have considered the Hosgri, and in addition DE and DBE.

23 So although their corrective action program is primarily 24 add.ressed to phase one< it picks up a number of things 26 we call phase two.

ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

(

s 'A'ac '"(o "

v "~'m

" '< +j +>> s~>> MMP>>>>I>A~~<P<<~k"'yPv'~'<~he':, >>>>('v I((t"M+$ <<~>>> ~0vgl\\er. ~(7I >>KM~'~~la+

So basically, those people are reviewing these 2 non-Hosgri aspects of samples contained in the three 3 Stone G Webster systems, and going about those in a 4 design review process, and in addition, as the 5 corrective action program give us their results we will 8 be verifying that corrective action program work.

So we 7 pick it up sort of halfway between phases one and two as 8 it's turning out.

9 MR. EISENHUT:

Do I interpret that to mean 10 that all of the effort in that non-Hosgri evaluations 11 pre-6/78 is related to those three systems?

12 13 MR COOPER:

Ask it again, please

?

MR EISENHUT:

The scope of that item -- maybe 14 this is just an unintelligible question that doesn' 15 make sense

~

That's possible+

too ~

16 17 MR DENNISON: Bill, why don't I answer

~

MR. EISENHUT:

Do you understand it?

18 MR.

DENNISON:

Ned Dennison from Cloud C

19 Associa tes 20 The non-Hosgri seismic activities are being 21 picked up in two ways.

First of all, there is an 22 initial sample in our phase two program There's also a

23 verification of corrective action.

Those are the two 24 ways those will be picked up 25 MR. EISENHUT:

And the initial sample being ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVES.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

58 picked up on phase two consists of?

MR. DENNISON:

The Stone G Nebster sample MR EISENHUT4 It's all vithin those three?

MR DENNISON:

Yes There is an exception, I 6 believe That's the high energy line break MR EISENHUT:

An exception not picked up?

MR

'DENNISON-An exception not within the Ston'e G Webster sample.

MS.

KERRIGAN =

And you said in addition you.

10 vi11 be auditing other systems before auditing PGCE 's 11 corrective action program.

12 13 MR.

DENNISON4 That's correct.

MR.

EISENHUTs Then let's see.

On the PGGE 14 facilities+ under the ITP it encompasses both Hosgri and 16 non-Hosgri, or more correctly, the Hosgri, the DE and 16 the DBE, whichever is most limiting and whichever falls 17 out 18 19 MR. FRIEND:

That 's correct, MR EISENHUT:

One other question.

Mhat 20 fraction of all of the things ends up being Hosgri and 21 ends up not being Hosgri?

22 23 MR. MANEATIS:

You mean from day one?

MR. EISENHUT:

No There's only one design of 24 the plant.

As designed, Hosgri is limiting on most of 25 the plant or ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554.2346

BR FRIEND:

Yes Another easy question.

lfR. EISENHUT: I said I vould ask only the easy ones.

(Laughter. )

NR.

FRIEND: I would say most of the plant.

8 And please bear vith me 7 head, with no reference.

I'm talking from the top of my I think most of the plant is 8 governed by Hosgri.

10 5R ~ EISENHUT:

- All right HR.

COOPER:

Can I say, the problem in your question, Darrell 'is for a secure structure the 12 question is ansverable, because the allowable stresses 13 with Hosgri. are'similar to some with the other seismic 14 But when you get into the fluid-containing components, 15 vhere you get the various load combinations and

the, 16 various allovables, you cannot judge it a priori-You 17 have got to go through most of the work, and that is the 18 difficulty 19 From a seismic vievpoint, I vould agree with 20 what Hovard said.

But when we design and evaluate. these 21 plants, we can't consider seismic all by itself.

22 HR.

EISENHUT: I knov I understand that 23 You have to look at all of the different combinations of 24 loads 25 But if you couldn',

how could you decide?

ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.WWASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.2345

60 What you said on the first item under phase

one, you said:

"The IDVP encompasses all seismic service-related contracts (interpreted to be Hosgri) prior to 6/78."

So 4 from just a seismic standpoint, you have to know where 5 Hosgri is limiting or else you have to do a calculation 5 on everything to see whether Hosgri.might not have been 7 limiting before and now becomes limiting HR.

DENNISON:

There are a couple of things here, Bill First of all if you go back to this time 10 last year when we were developing the program, the questions at that time were related to the Hosgri 12 re-evaluation of the plant ~

13 14 HR ~

EISENHUT That's right.

AR ~

DENNISON!

That's the reason the plan.was 15 set up dealing with the Hosgri only 16 KR EISENHUTc. I'm not questioning the 17 reasoning.

I'm just trying to understand it NR. DENNISON:

For our'work, we have been 19 doing an evaluation using the load combinations in the 20 Hosgri report.

For the re-evaluation of -the plant in 21 the '77-'78 time frame>

PGCE also had to do an 22 evaluation of the equipment using the load calculations 23 in the report, because they didn't know which of the 24 seismic cases was limiting So we are getting a one to 25 one comparison ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

61 MR.

COOPER:

And as to wha t systems or components or structures are to be looked at> those are 3 iiantified in the Hosgri report as to what was done 4 And in phase one we were addressing those that are 5 listed therein.

ZR.

EISENHUT:

All right-Are there any 7 questions, any other questions from the Staff?

(No response.)

MR EISENHUT: If not, I want to -- I notice 10 Herb came back I would like to -- Herb Brown is here+

representing the Governor of California.

And Herb, I 12 would like to give you a chance if there are any 13 comments you would like to make.

14 MR.

BROWN:

I don't have any now, Darrell.

MR. EISENHUT:

And you are aware you'l be 16 given another opportunity later down the line.

17 18 MR BROWN:

Early November, I understand.

MRS EISENHUT'ny other comments, questions?

19 (No response.)

20 MR. EISENHUT: If not, I want to state, I'1 appreciate the opportunity you have given us to go 22 through some of these items, to get the latest 23 understanding, to be sure there haven't been some 24 significant recent developments that we weren't aware 25 of.

And I want to tell everyone again>

thanks a lot ~

ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE S.W., WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

62 (Mhereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the meeting

@as 2 adjourned

)

10 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIAAVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

HQCLZAR RZQULAZOBY CO4MZSSZCH wet

%c 4 c cer-:.'

y taat the at" ac.".e+

prcceec

~ ~ "s ae= ore G

the atatte.

cf:

Diah'1'o.canyon Unit No.

1 Design Uerification Program Oa e

c~

Prcc eC-~i:

October 19 1982 Docket Number:

Place cf PrQceed

.ig o

"e.

he d

as he.

'.". ap."ear s, md. tha~

th'-s t'rte.'e f far the f~'f ".he Ccmm'ss~ar..

s tone cr <<+ ~A a>>

'~a Klsci << py Sharon Pilipour Qffic='a'eaar-("r~e~ }

Qff'c' React te.

("'+.-.a"ur

)

W. W'<'U i~C g K qeJ~

g, I4. g<cY~

3. l'.

~. ~AVIPl

'P. 3 P~4c Zu~!w /usriw g /. ~,L,4owd Z. 36SoV I.l. A4~.~

/ '// Aoowz~

~

4e 'rj

~nz

~5 Co ego~

V. - 5 e,rgl~

E, Qe Q,4,

<-. h'v~ ~g+,~~

/~v<</C.4/ ~>

~~ oi~< Ã. Q Qauv

/rPz / le~rr pi c~r R~

F.

l nck'E F~s Qm

l I

h.~4 i'3P.

(ga u ( Z r'V~=r 6 ~ r= (

l.,j C'"4~s~g=~

. /g, p~p~O'J pj

& M7~)z

,~,duo

,!I),

/ /~

p g

@~Mph

/ N.B!s~~M 08m'S

)i, E)~~~

~

(

g/ 8 +c~Q-

~

JVW OP~D

~~~IF~P ~CQ Cm~z rVRc 4fc/g, z g)/ 8-pl/

l~~ - f-v'ig

~

I

'B

S