ML16341C552

Transcript of ACRS Subcommittee on Diablo Canyon 840119 Hearing in Los Angeles,Ca.Pp 1-245.Supporting Documentation Encl

ML16341C552
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	01/19/1984
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
References
ACRS-T-1279, NUDOCS 8401250088
Download: ML16341C552 (68)

Text

UNITED STATES OF ~RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY IMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS Subcommittee on Diablo Canyon 10 Holiday Inn 1020 S. Figueroa Los Angeles, California 12

Thursday, 19 January 19 84 The Subcommittee on Diablo Canyon convened 14 15 16 17 18 19 pursuant to nagice, at 8:33 a.m.,

Ches er Siess, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

PRESENT FOR THE ACRS:

C.

S IESS, Chairman C.

MICHELSON, Member D.

OKRENT, Member J.

EBERSOLE, Member D.

4 ARD, Member F.

REMICK, Member H.

ETHERINGTON, Member 21 24

29

<~1R.

SCHIERLING:

The issues of concern to the Intervenors and also to the Covernor.

MR. OKRENT:

The Governor, I gather, is an inte venor?

MR. SCHIERLING:

Joint Zntervenors and the 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Gove nor.

There were discussed and testimony was taken on all of these issues that are of concern to these parties at the recent hearings in Laguna Beach.

Currently all parties have filed their findings and we are awaiting a

decision by the Board, but these are in essence the issues where Joint Intervenors and the Governor have expressed concern that something is outstanding.

Do vou want to add to that, Jim?

!1R.

KNIGHT:

Yes.

I think to the best of my knowledge, there are very few specific contentions that this I

I feature or that feature of the plant is has been demonstrated to be inadeauate.

The thrust of much of the Intervenors

'oncern went to the depth of the ZDVP, whether or not the

process, which wa largely based on a sample taken on judg-21 ment and followed through,

then, and the results in manv cas~:

reviewed, the extrapolation of those results based on the 24

judgment, whether or not that orocess as opposed to a proces:..

I based on some sound or well-recognized statistical

base, v

number of pipe supports and therefore a,sample of such and such

number, a confidence'evel established and some method

i

of rela 'he problems found to t confidence level would be a better process, in fact the process should be used.

6 10 12 That, to men was the crux of much of the concern.

There were'hen other questions 'raised, and, many times those questions were the result of Staff review. That is, gabe Staff identified the problem, the Intervenor would then care to perhaps carry that review of that particular aspect of the plant to "heir own expert and get his opinion.

But again, I cannot sit here and identify any particular area or item of the plant that is now a standing contention as to its inade-quacy.

13 14 15 16 17

'4R.

OKRELVT:

Let's take your answer, which was in two parts.

Is it your opinion that there are'o identified--

I will call them deficiencies or potential de"'ciencies, where the Intervenor, including the Governor, disagrees with the Staf f~

18 19 21 24 HR.

K'.lIGHT:

There is none that is outstanding in my mind. There were several things brought up, and the testimony on them got fairly complex, to the mint where a

number of these

issues, even while testimony was ongoing, were fairly well-resolved.,

I believe.

There were cuestions of containment toppling, questions on the soil-st ucture inter-action analyses that were performed.

In a nur.Der of cases the contentions arose out of a lack of information, and when

0

the infor tion was made available, ey were no longer of concern.

MR.

OKRENT: Jim, you are sort of answering the other part of the questj.on.

MR. KNIGHT: I am sorry.

MR.

OKRENT: I am trying to find out if there remain some technical issues that are not resolved by provisio of information, in your opinion, where in'act you have one opinion but they have another opinion.

10 MR. SIESS:

Let me try to understand this.

As I j

understand it, all parties to the hearing have submitted their~

12 proposed finding of facts.

13 MR. KNIGHT:

Yes.

14 MR-SIESS:

And there must be one by the Joint 15 16 Intervenors, one by the Governor, one by the Staff and one by PG&E.

18 19 21 MR. SCHIEBLING:

That is correct.

/

MR. SIESS:

I think, and Dave will correct me, but.

I think he is asking if there are any areas where the NRC '

proposed findings of fact, which I assume, although it is written by a lawyer, was proposed by engineers, any instances where the NRC's proposed findings of:.act di"fer from those of the Joint Intervenors or the Gave nor.

.sO 4

24

Sjoyl 1R.

KNIGHT-I am sure t

. are, but I think the 2

central thrust will go to the depth NR.

OKRENT:

Let's leave aside the depth of the review momentarily.

I~ talking about individual components or systems or buildings or somet:hing, you know.

MR. KNIGHT: I have not had the opportunity to 7

sit down and do a one-for-one comparison on the findings.

I 8

cannot give you that direct answer.

I will try during the day 9

today to get back to our attorneys in Washington who are 10

.12 involved in that process and see if I can get a list out of them.

MR.

OKRENT:

I think it would be of interest 13 NR.

SIESS:

Since this was not on tne agenda, we cannot expect t e Staff to be prepared.

I think we will have 15 to take it on that basis.

IC by later this af"ernoon you have 16 something, you will let us know.

17 18 19 21 Y.;. OKRENT:

I guess I would have thought the Staff would have in mind technical areas, if "here are any of significance, where there remain differences of opinion.

I certainly think it is relevant to have the Staff's assessment of whether there are any.

MR-SIESS:

I agree,

Dave, but it was not the 24 subject of this meeting and it vas not stated as oart of the

agenda, so they were not prepared to address "hat.

MR.

OKRENT:

All right.

Let me ask you one

questio Chet. With regard to the her aspect concerning differences, the residual difference in opinion between the Intervenors and the Staff concerning what I guess you might

!! call the methodology chosen used for the sampling and so forth, did you have in mind having that discussed by the 10 12 Staff or the Applicant or at all'P i!R. SZESS:

I had no hearing issues in mind when we set up the agenda.

The proposal was to look at the things that were found, the corrections that were made and the significance of them.

The hearing items were not even a ~art of this.

I had not even heard of it until yesterdav.

."<B.

OKRENT: Since there is an issue, which I am not 14 taking any sides on by asking the question, hxt since I know

,t there is atechn'j.cal issue concerning the -- I suppose you 15 16 18 19 might call it the validity of the chosen sampling--

NR. SIESS:

It has been suggested that we might ask the Staff to come in to the next full committee meeting and-'resent

that, and if the Commit"ee thinks they want to reopen the review, that would be

a. basis for doing it.

.'!R.

OKRENT:

Or it may be that -- this was testif..:

'1 to at length, Z have to assume, at the hearings.

<IR.

KNIGHT:

Yes, indeed.

24

<IR.

OKRENT:

And there may be a reasonably lengthy wri"".en Staff position which says why what they have done that is, what PC&E has done.

~

SIESS:

I am sure we uld find some hearing transcripts.

MR.

QKRENT:

That is not the easiest way.

10 MR. SIESS: gf Staf= could reference

those, that.

would be one way to get some background on it, and we could have another subcommittee meeting sometime ta look into that, either specifically or generically. I think it has generic implications.

KNIGHT:

Given the format of the hearing, the fact that the contentions were drawn down as narrowly as they could be so that they would be tractable, and then the use of 12 question and answer format for testimony, it does not lend 13 14 itself to the type of discussion I think you have in mind.

MR. 9KRENT:

But in your concludinc statement did 15 you provide some summary as to why you fe't in detail the 16 17 18 approach taken was adequate?

Did you just say engineering

'I judgment or something?

I MR.

KNIGHT:

There was a anod 'ea1 more than that.

19 A good deal of that argument is brought out in cross-examinati).

21 in the transcript.

I do not think there is -- there does not exist at this moment a succinct, cogent statement.

HR.

SIESS:

Dut the proposed findings of fact must address this issue in summary form.

24 MR.

KNIGHT:

S ummary form, yes.

.':R-SIESS:

It is an interes" ing issue.

I have

0-E

some corwrns about statistical sa>in@

out of a universe that. I do not think is anywhere near homogeneous, pipe support There are probably 20 categories in there of how you sample out of that kina of a ging.

I than't is an issue that might be worth exploring. I think it has some generic implications.

There are other design veri ication programs 7

going on in other olants that we will be hearing about.

10 NR.

QKRENT: Since it was a major po'nt raised at the hearing, it seems to me at some point we at least ought to hear, in what I would call an extended summarv fashion without having to read the transcript, at leas what the Stat=.(

12 thought was the appropriate dispensation of it.

That's all.

13 15

)6 NR.

KNIGHT:

I have just been handea a list by a party that has gad the opportunity to review the findings of I

fact.

hey certainly can talk at greater length, but just to put the list out for perhaps your thoughts:

containment uplift, soil structure'nteraction analysis on the auxiliary 18 building, analyses for the buried tank and CCÃ ripe from intake.

which is essentially a soil structure

attain, and the 21 criteria appl'ed for the determination of the location of pipe breaks, that is, whether it is the 200 deg=ees, 275 psis that must be--

>'tR.

SIESS:

Inside containment or outside?

!1R.

8".1IC~HT:

Inside containment.

It must be considerea both taken, or whether, as was the case here I

0

whether th are requ'ired before b

k nr whether one of those two conditions is sufficient.

Those seem to be SIESS:

You did not have the sampling on that list?

MR ~

KNIGHT No ~

10 12 13 MR. SIESS:

It was an issue, right' MR. KNIGHT: It certainly was an issue.

I have to go by this list of technical facts.

MR.

EBERSOLE: Jim, this seismic investigation also precipitated a reinvestigation in a good many other areas.

I think we called this the Category II reinvestigation.

MR.

KNIGHT:

The so-called Phase II.

MR.

EBERSOLE:

I would like to find a summary of 14 how that was approached in the findings, of not how easy they 15 were to fix but how significant they were if they had not been fived.

MR. SIESS:

That is part of the discussion-todzy-,

18 Jesse.

19 MR.

EBERSOLE:

I think we will not have time to get 21 into many of these today.

MR. SIESS:

We will get into the major ones.

We will get into those covered bv the projec" anc the Stone a

Webster aspects.

24 MR.

KNIGHT: Yes.

MR. SIESS:

Any other questions, then?

Before we

0

go on to e next item, I would lik

~

o make a brief announcement-Ne do have an attendance list.

There may be 3

some people who have come in since it was oassed out.

Xf they have and they wou3d like to sign raise their hand, we will pass it out it, if they will just to you.

Xt is not 6

mandatory but we would like to have a list of those oresent if they wish to sign.

Thank vou.

Okay, we will oroceed now with the presentation from Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany, and we will start off with Mr. John Hoch, Diablo Canyon Project Manager.

NR.

HOCH:

Thank you, Dr. Siess.

12 13 14 i<y introductory remarks are very brief.

I am John I

I Hoch, Project Manager for the Diablo Canyon Project for l

Pacific Gas and,, Electric Company.

t~ith me today are other members of the project and representatives

".rom the indepen-16 17 18 19 21 dent design verification program.

B.dditionall.y I will note that Howard Friend of

Bechtel, the Diablo Canvon Project Completion."anager, and George Maneatis, the Executive trice President o

Utilities Resources Development for PGGE, are also here c'.ue to their interest in this matter.

Ne are pleased to be here todav to hear the Staf.

briefing on the NPC actions regarding the IMP and to 24 discuss the safety significance of plant..odifi ations at Diablo Canyon resulting from the extensive design verificati~

~20 arl 223 HR. SIESS:

The meeting will reconvene.

I think we will take up first a report from PG&E and some of the things they found in their seismic systems interaction study.

As I recall, that was done at our suggestion, was it not?

VR.

HOCH:

Tnat is correct; Dr. Siess.

HR. SIESS:

Is "suggestion" "he right word'

~B.

HOCH:

In response to the committee 's 10 concern.

12

~1R. SIESS:

Okay.

LR.

HOCH:

The seismically-induced svstems 13 14 interaction program at Diablo Canyon was implemented in late 1979 to respond to a concern by the committee.

The 15 16 17 18 program was formulated to consider seismically--'nduced events only. It was formulated with the advice of an independent review board, which we employed,

used, to help formulate the program, give us sugges"ions.

19 That board was composed of a number of people.

21 Let me just mention two.

Dr. Spencer

Bush, who was formerlv with the committee, was on that board; as we'1 as Dr. Victor:leingarten from USC.

24

're had, I think, five'otal peop'e on the board.

he program was.formulated, was discussed, I bel'eve, on two occasions with the committee.

The NRC Staff formed at

that

'me a brand new branch, i

~

ou will, which they y

called the Systems Interaction Branch, to review the program, give us comments and suggestions and work with us during its for.-..ulationp and that indeed was done.

The S"aff reported on the program, in I believe SuppLement 9 "o 's Safety Evaluation Report for Diablo Canyon.

I ".".'..:. I i:ave the number correct.

10 12 4

I w'l try to keep this very ceneral.

Diablo Canyon seismically-induced systems interaction program identified pote."."ial seismically-inauced interactions between non-design Class 1 or Category 1 items which we called sources, and targets, and tarcets in the program 13 14 were structur:-.,

syst ms and components that had an imoortant ro Le or a role in achievinc "old shutdown, or 15 were involved in acciaent mitigation 16 17

here were some accident mitigating systems and componen"-

"hat vere considered i.. -;ie program.

In 18 some instances, design Class 1 or Catec "ry 'tems were 19 also potenti.1 sources.

That kind of thine happens when even tnough

=::

presign C'ass 1, Ca"ecc":

1 'ern will not 21 fail, because

" i" ha-an event,

-...i-"ht ~isplace or move or swim or so.-e.".ow interac" w-th a.".othe" Ca-egory 1 item.

.i".e o ogram made se o= walk"own teams.

24 rlalkdown tea.-".-

we e interd'c'pli.".ary teams composea of people from K n s" ruwen tation,

="lee ".-ica1, 9 ioinq, and

ar20-3 interdisciplinary groups who identify potential system 225 interactions to write up, if you will, those interactions and present them to Engineering prior to the establishment

-..e aQLQ Ca.;) on p 3 Jec Et wa PGaE's engineering department during the course of the project.

Et has been the Diablo Canyon project that has responded to those system interaction or potential system interactions.

10 12 The walzdown team, in the conduct of the

program, has been accomplished by, if you will, a group P

somewhat in"ependent from project engineering, a group out of a little spec'al project department at PG&E.

Those potential interactions as given to 14 15 Engineering are responded to and resolved in a number of

'L possible ways:

16 Zn some instances, an analysis is performed 17 18 19 21 to establish whether the item identified can really affect a safety an item important to safety.

Zn other instances, tne modification has been identified, design-issued and performed to prevent a

potential adverse interaction.

22 To give you a few examples, some observable at 24 the site, some simple examples:

fluorescent lignting fixtures that are

';>ung from chaings were identified as potential sources of interaction when they were above

fragil r potentially fragile sa y-related items.

por example, fluorescent lights over safety-related batteries.

Engineering's resolu ion for that particular item was to issue a design which installed a

redundant neavier chain on the light to assure that it indeed would no" fall on tne batteries.

Othe" examples are monorail hoists installed 10 over safety-related pumps and motors.

Ne have installed stops so that the hoist section.,

the hoist on the monorail, is not normally stowed over the ouzo or the motor.

Other examples -- lots of examples involve he fire system.

The reason for that, of cou=se, is 14 originally fi=e system components at Diablo Canyon were not Category 1, were not seismically designed, and so the J

15 16 two over one, if you will, criteria was not aoplicable.

'ot of our modifications have been to modify 18 19 21 24 non-Category l items which were over portions of the fire system which now are se'smically aualified

~

'I Another example might be displacement swinging items joining lines that were suspend d on rod nangers that where it was determined that they could, in a seismic

event, possibly sw'ng and imoact some "afety-re'ated item.

The seismic-induced system interaction proaram has been considerably nore extensive than originally anticipated.

The walkdown teams have been at work

',c>.",

ar20-5

,2 227 number of years, since

'79

~

E think probably the main reason the program has been more extensive is we have continued to make modifications to the plant.

As modifications are made, the program is a

continuing one, and the walkdowa team goes back and looks at the modifications again, and repeats the process.

The system interaction program was complete, including modi=ications 'n the containment, prior to fuel loading, which was our commitment.

Et will be complete 10 12 in the remainder of the plant, in the remainder of Unit 1, prior to full power operation, prior to exceeding 5 percent I

power.

Ne are somewhat anead of that schedule right now 13 14 in terms of completing the program and implementing all of l

the modificat'ops.

15

':1e nave submitted preliminary reports to the LB 17 Staf =.,

Z believe in November, late 'november or early

December, describing the system interaction program and 18 its esults in a summary form.

19 A more detailed complete report will be provided 21 to tne Staff.

Tha" is presently schedu'ed for submittal some time in February.

22 Dr. Siess, I think that is really all I have to summarize wha" we have done w-'th that system.

24 HR.

SIESS:

The kinds of interactions you describe are mostly sort of mechanical.

Did you find any

0

interactjgns, say, electrical interactions, between

systems, nonseismic and safety systens, or hydraulic?

MR.

HOCH:

The answer is yes, although the i-..-. = ac- '.= that we e ~ooked at be-

'.". all cases witn some kind of a postulation of a nechanical l

interaction; some thing hitting something; sone thing failing on something;.

something spilling on sonething, if you will.

The reason the interaction was postulated in t

many instances was because that mechanical in"eraction 10 might. have conceivably resulted in some kind of an adverse effect on an electrical conponent or 12 13 MR. SIESS:

Nhat I was "hink'ng of, sometimes we simply assume tha" if a system or piece of equipment is 14 15 not seismic Category 1, it simply disappears from view when we have the earthquake and this obviously is not true, 16 but there is some probabi1ity that it will fail due to the 17 earthquake, and then the loss of that system could 18 19 conceivably have some effect on a seismically qualified system needed for safe shutdown.

Nere those things looked at?

That would not 21 necessarily be a walkdown type "hing.

-hat can be a "-aper 22 type thing.

HOCH:

Ne did not assume in general that 24 non-Category 1 things disappeared or arbi"ra ily failed.

Nhen a potential interaction was identi=ied= between a

r20-7 229 non-Ca"egory thi..g and a safety-related target, if you

relate, an evaluation was made whicn could include an analysis of that nonqualified source to show that it indeed :quid no= =ail.. It could have considered an t

evalua"ion that snowed if it would fail, it would not affect the tar=et, and finally could simply fix the source, either "o co;.t aetely do something, from completely bringing it up to Cla-=

L or Categorv l stardards, to simply restraining it

=

om an unacceptable range of motion.

10 So, in general, we did not do sometning as simple as si;..ply ssuming that the thing disappeared or 12 arbit"a=ily failed because it wa" not explicitly seismically 13 qualified.

14

.'!?.

<.'A2D:

What do you think about the program 15 now that it is essentially finished?

Has it turned up LB 17 things that a:

useful?

Has it been anything like cost-effective?

iiave you burned up a lo" of engineering

time, I

identifving a Lot of '-'ickey 1".ouse stuff?

What is vou bottom line opinion?

.?.

!iOCH:

I think all of us think the 24 program has Lee.". rather expensive, partially because it has lasted so

'r.".a. It nas had to las through all of this modification period.

If you look at the results of the nrogram,,'ou will find examples ranging from, yes, that is something that should have been identified, I'm glad r

we found hat, although there may n have been an'dverse effect.

Zt is significant enough that I an glad we fixed to, to some things that appear I will not use the sword "tlickey Mouse'< but appear to be on their

face, at least, rather unnecessary when you look at them.

For example, as you go around the plant, you will find certainly evervwhere in the containment and I think the res" of the plant is nearly done fire extinguishers, for example, were identi ied as potential missiles whereve" they occurred, and some rather I guess I will call ti.em some rather absurd postulations were made about the extent to which a fir extinguisher could hurl itself sideways in a seisnic event and im-act something.

And, rather than deal with t!1e dif 'cult task of making quan"itative analysis of that, the solution was simply to use a rather extensive system of res=raining fire extinguishers in their storage locations.

I know this is a s'mplistic arswer, but everythirg you have said we found, we fourd the program to be p I think I think in retrospect it was useful, I 'm glad we did i". It gives us additional assu ance that

..one of these interactions, seismically-induce inter-

actions, were beyond acceptable.

In retrospect, however, it was expensive.

I think if we had to begin again from the beginnirg, we would

gr20-9 231 perhaps do it in a better fashion in terms of less lost mot'on.

It was the first of its kind.

One of the reasons the Staff wanted sucn an extensive repor=, I believe, is I think the Staff is looking toward some of tne material in our report to use as a basis for formulation of its policv in thi" area.

NR. SIESS:

Are there questions, gentlemen?

HR.

EBERSOLE:

I nave just a few of these, and I believe it is called Category 2 area.

10 I notice in reference to the topic of jet 12 13 impingement, tL at all of the statements in here are qual'fied by saying that they pertain to jet impingement effects inside of containment.

14 Nere,jet effects accommodated outside of I

15 containment on critical equipment?

16 llR.

~MOORE:

Yes.

The reason the reference is only with regard to inside of containment was that as 1S 19 21 24

-art of the IDVP's program, specifically that program that addressed quality assurance

area, the Roger Reedv effort, they were unable to identify any what they call objective evidence witn regard to a jet impingement analysis being done inside of containment.

It was based on that finding out of the IDEP that we then undertook a state-of-the-art, if you will,

\\

current day r-gorous analysis for jet impingement, and that

is why i s identified.

MR.

EBERSOLE:

And you'o have such an analysis outside of containment that was considered?

HR.

MOORE:

~Yes.

MR.

EBERSOLE-I have a few otner items here, the sources of which, besides being my own, they come from various direc"ions, and I am going to mention these, not in a context that I think we have to rely on them today, but we will sooner or later, I am sure.

One of tnese pertains to the actual real experience of the board operations that you intend to use.

I do not mean the supervisory staff; I mean the people who are going to be on the board.

Not the bosses, but tne other fellows.

Could you comment on whether o" not you believe these

people, who are really going to run the boards, have adequate experience and give us some idea what sort of real operating experience on reactors they have got?

NR.

MOORE:

I do not think I am qual'ied to speak to tha" subject.

N1R.

EBERSOLE; Maybe nobody here is.

Ne can take that uo la+er on.

I am only advising you 'n advance that these may be matters that will be brougnt

. p later.

MR. SIESS:

I 'm not sure what you me=n by "3.ster,"

Jesse.

233

.'!R.

EBERSOLE:

I 'm not, either, AR. SIESS:

Are you proposing that we reopen the review?

tR. EBERSO~:

I suspect we will see these I

fellows again.

And they can tuin up some answers that will be very short and simple.

?IR.

SIZSS:

Before you go on any Carther, I think maybe we ought to think a little bit about what we are going to report to the Cull committee.

The committee has asked us to come in next month and report on our subcommittee meeting.

I will be prepared, of cou=se, to summarize our findings regarding the design verification program, what we were told and the questions we asked, whicn,were, what was done, why was it done, what was the consequence if it were not done, and then any other =ecommendations we have to ma.'.-e.

Now one possible recommendation is that we "copen our review of Diablo Canyon.

h'e have written a letter on the operating license and it has gone to hearing.

They are awaiting the decision of the Hearing Board, and the Commission has two more stages before full power, and there i

is a question then as to whether the ACRS wants to provide furthe rev'ew and advice to the Commission on what would be step 2, which is criticality and 5 percent paver; and step 3, whicn is full gower.

If the committee decides

~

the subcommittee recommends to reopen that, we are into a new era of review 10 matters, really reviewing issues, I would say, that have come up since our previpus review; not things that the Staff has not =eviewed, but ?et's see.

When did we do the operatinc

i. cense review for Diablo?

'78.

That is five years aco.

Since t.'zen the committee has gotten interested in,

=-mong other things, the question that i~1r.

Ebersole just ra sed about operator qualificat'ons.

In fact, everybody has become interested in operator qualifica-tions follow ng THI.

12 13 tv'e

.".ave been looking at that on plants which we probably d'd nc-at the time of Di'bio.

There are a'umber 14 15 of other things, that come up on other plants and licensing I

actions that we get into.

16 17 There is a ques-ion as to whether the ACRS wants "o reopen its review and provide the Commission some 18 advice on ti:eir actions.

If we so decide, then the 19 Commission will probably hold up any action until they have got ano='.".e letter from us.

21

e tell them we tnink they shou' wait until we get a let"e, then that is a decis'on,

'I t.'".ink, that the full cor;.~

@tee needs to make.

24 I

ould suggest to the subcommittee that wd not initiate such z:eview until the full commit t ee ha s

0

ar20-13 235 told us to.

l4R.

EBERSOLE:

How will the full committee make such a decision in the absence of identifying a set of

.'!R.

SXESS:

4 would uggest, if we have a list of items, either developed by individual members, that those be presented to the committee at the next meeting, and let the committee decide.

NR.

-BERSOLE:

'Ahat if they can be resolved right here on t.".e floor?

10 NR.

SXESS:

I'rfell, they cannot be.

Ef they are n..

12

issues, the committee has got to resolve them.

The subcommittee cannot really resolve these things.

13 14 NR.

EBERSOLE:

Let me give you an example.

E got notice, or I got wind of a little problem in the RHR 15 16 17 1S system.

I learned that there was found a single pump I

failure in tne RHR system with a fuse failing, on open II circuit that would lead to closure of valves on the section

lines, and the problems that re ult from a Dump continuing 19 2l to operate without any suction and probable damage to pumps operating under that condition.

Xt sounds like it might really be a generic matter.

'he absence of suction protection is the general topic his may be something, Chet, that can be answered 24 right off here.

Do you have suction protection?

!4R.

c(NZGHTON:

Let me make.a statement--

S ZESS:

I am not sure we are asking questions that we are not we a e asking questions not on our agenda.

The Applicant might have the right people here not.

MR.

EBERSOLE:

I understand.

HR.

SIESS.:

I just do not know how far to go.

If we really reopen this thing, there are a number of areas that we want to go into, and always find tnem.

I do not know whether tnis is the approoriate time to do it.. I hate to spring questions on the Applicant that he has not seen on the agenda.

MR.

EBEHSOLE:

My impression is the Applicant may probably want questions to be raised now that he might see later on, akd he does not want to be surprised by them coming in late".

MR. SIESS:

If he is going to see them later on, because we reopen the review, we will inform him of what they are, and we will have at least one subcommittee

meeting, and probably more, to ecplore them thoroughly.

MR.

NARD:

Jesse, I might suggest even if the Applicant or tne Licensee is

.'1R.

SIESS:

Littie bit of bot.h.

MR. NARD: is in a position to answer some of the questions, I doubt tnat he is all of them.

So there does not seem to me any particular merit in "oing into them.

a ar20-l5 0

237 I

I tnink that list of questions, or whatever questions we might have, might be something suitable to, as Chet suggested, review with the full committee as part of a basis for whether +re want to open up NR.

EBERSOLE:

An alternative is to give them to the Staf f and get resolution through the correspondence line.

10 a

~ll 12

-1R.

SIESS -

Incidentally tne Staf f does not have all of the people here they need.

The project manager is not here.

Although George is branch chief, I suspect "here are things that Hans knows that George does not, that have been reviewed by the Staff.

So even the Staff cannot 14 15 respond to these.

I amanot trying to say we should not do it, but I think t;-.is is the wrong forum to go into those issues.

16 17 'f we want to have another subcommittee meeting to decide wh'ether we are going to reopen the review, I am not sure 18 19 how tnat differs from reopening tne review.

I think we can I

get enough time at the full committee meeting to bring up a

list of items that concern you or anybody else.

21 Okrent had a question about something that we passed off this morning and he could not be here, and let I

the committee decide whether these should be reviewed as a

I part of the licensing operation, which we always had the privilege of reopening.

The time elapsed has been I

ar20-16 considera e.

Or whether there is ething that the 10 committee thinks could be reviewed in a generic fashion or with the Licensee after, irrespective of the licensing operation.

I do not know.

I do think that the oroper procedure, in fairness to everybody, would say let's take this to the full committee at the next meeting.

It will be on the agenda.

And see what develops.

And the Staff will be there.

Clearly we want the Staf" there.

If we are going to do that, I think tne Licensee 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 24 Applic at-Licensee should be invited.

I do not know that his presence is necessary, because again you cannot get into answer'ng those questions in a couple of hours that we will I

nave

.-.are.

l1R.

EBERSOLE:

I cannot characterize any of these s being an impediment to the continued startup.

bIR. SIESS:

Ne have made reviews where we listed num'-er of items that we wanted considered and said that these are not an impediment.

Ne have written letters to that effec".

We could do it in that context, but '

seems to me is

~ lmost 5:00 o'lock now, and I suspect

-he list is a little more than we could get into as thoroughly as I woul= 'ke at this time.

We could easily do it I think if yc 'eel they are no impediment to license, ee can simp'.y dec -;..hat when we report it (o the commit=ee and tel3 them

dI

239

that, and they will tell us,

okay, go ahead and explore it an'e will do it.

Ne may not even write a letter.

r 4

FF 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 1S 19

Do you think there is an eason to write a letter on it'P MR. EBERSOLE:

No-MR. SIESS:

.That brings me to che mann question.

The main purpose of this meeting was to get information, get insight into what had happened at the plant.

We are all swamped with long lists of errors and open items.

We had seen lists of hundreds of changes to pipe supports without really understanding why all of these changes had

~ to be made.

It was not completely clear to some of us, and not to me, to what extent seismic original margins had

'een infringed on, et cete a, et cetera.

I tpink this has been a very enlightening k'

meeting in all of those respects, The other plants there are some other plants doing'.design verification.

This gives a lot of insight --

into how one was done, I think, in a very exc llent manner.

What kinds of things were found.

I tnink we have go" a

feeling for the significance of them.

Now we can report this to the full committee, and I would intend to report rather briefly to tha"

effect, and ask other people to add comments.

Jesse feels that although there are some things he would like to expln e about this plant, probably

ar21-2 241 2

both individually and prototypically, he does not think that they represent any impediment to steos 2 and 3 of the licensing process, subject to the Staff 's clearing up tne items they have.

Doe" anybody else feel that the ACRS should 10 13 14 propose any actions.or take any actions at this point regarding steps 2 and 3 of the licensing process?

That is essentially going to l00 oercent full power within the next few weeks, months'?

MR.

EBERSOLE:

Months, I am sure.

MR.

SXESS:

Carl, how do you feel' MR. MlCHELSON:

I think the Applicant or Licensee has made a very fine presentation and has answered all of the questions I had.

I think I have seen a

15 16 17 few things that raised what I would call generic questions, but certainly not to be pursued in Diablo Canyon as

such, but rather in an aoorooriate arena where such generic 18 questions are ra'sed.

19 At this time I nave no reservation with proceedin,.

21 to we issue the license or take it out as a susoension, or whatever you call the term.

24 MR. EBERSOLE:

I take no issue with that.

I am almost certain ve can easily resolve some of these thincs I

that just appear to be a bit muddy, only orobably to me.

MR. SZESS:

For a plant of this vintage, it is

ar21>>3 242 in pretty od shape.

The word "vint e" got in there a

few times.

10 MR. EBERSQLE:

In a relative sense I don' think I have seen any gjLant that has been subject, to such intensive examination as this one.

NR.

NARD:

I think we should report to the full committee and get the opinion of all the members.

Ny personal opinion is that the plant is ready to go.

I think the review has certainly been thorough, and I do not think the questions that remain are substantial.

NR. SIESS:

Porrest?

13 NR.

RENICc(:

Although I think an ACRS letter, which I feel would probably be in a positive tone, might be 14 15 helpful, I do n9t propose that the ACRS needs o

should write a letter.

I do not think it needs to do =hat.

If 1B the ACRS full committee were to decide that it wanted to 18 19 21 reopen the review, I would have some questions, but I am also convinced that those would be satisfactorily answered.

It would be more to satisfy my curiosity on sta fing and shifts and STAs, the number of SROs and things like that, And I know the Applicant is going to be required to meet the current regulations by the Staf f, so I think that would jus be satisfying my curiosity.

24 I do not feel that the ACRS needs to write a

letter, and I am sati sfied that the p] ant: i s

~ easy tu

243 j

I proc ed ahead.

i4IR.

SIESS:

Harold?

HR.

ETHERINGTON: If the full committee meets on =-.'s, i= wali proaaQq feel it should write a letter.

I do not think a letter should be written unless one is 10 12 requested by the Commission.

i41R. SIESS:

No letter has been requested by the Comm'ssion.

They sort of indicated that if we found anything wrong, to please tell tnem.

That reflects well on the Staff.

The unanimous opinion of the subcommittee is we do not really see any objections to the plant going ahead on the schedule with the Staff review as it completes 13 14 its open items, to criticality, and eventually to full gower.

I guess we could put it as far as writing a 15 letter, I would not recommend to the committee to write a letter.

I do not think it is quite right to say we still 17 think this plant is okay.

Ne said it once.

There are a

18 19 21 lot of plants we could say that about.

It would seem a

little bit of a strange letter.

But we will get to the Commission by appropriate means other than a letter and we have those means that 24 tne committee does not have any and our metnods are summaries.

passing that information along.

objection.

That is done There are clear-cut ways of I know what kinds of recommendations we can make

to the ll committee.

Ne will s dule I would like to schedule a couple of hours, at least, at the full committee meeting to talk about this.

There will be some auestions from the other members.

Ne can bring up this.list of things and get their approval to go ahead on the sort of post-licensing generic type review of some current issues as to how they apply to Diablo.

I think that would be a very appropriate thing.

I think this is a good plan, to look at some of those things on, because the depth in which they have gone into some of tnis stuff.

A e there any other comments?

NR.

EBERSOIE:

One other thing.

I got a substantial cue)ment which I took the trouble oslo'oking into.

1 I guess I could call it the Stokes allegation.

HR. SIESS:

You got an even more substantial one with 103 allegations in it.

I do not know if you have looked at it.

AR.

EBERSOLE:

This is a very recent date.

NR.

SIESS:

It's in

-BERSOLE:

How are they being resolved?

.'IR.

SIESS:

They are too recent.

hey are in SSER 21 anc those are all in the category of being too recent for the Staff to have gotten into them.

That is what George was talking about.

ar21-6 245 I

~1R.

KVIGHT:

r rom the standpoint-of the process of being resolved, we have had a team of people at the site for -- close to two weeks 'looking at the specific areas.

';le will be meeq~ng -- we met Hr. Stokes was interviewed at some length at the plant.

Vow that we have had a chance to develop our own views and gather some info~ation and digest it, we will meet with b1r. Stokes

again, probably next week, to be certain that we have understood his concerns, and make him aware of where we are today in 10 looking at them.

12 NR.

SXESS:

Anything else?

(Vio response.

)

14 AR.

S lESS:

The meeting is adjourned.

hank you very much.

15 16 17 18 X would like to say personally, and I speak, E

think, for most of the committee, we have had some very fine presen tations from PG&E today.

I thought you did an excel'nt job of understanding what we were looking for 19 and giving us a good picture of it.

E appreciate it ve y 21 much.

Thank you.

And the meeting is adjourned.

(Nhereupon, at 5:00 o'lock p.m.,

the meeting was adjourned.

)

This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the NRC COL'1i~11SSZQN

~ CL I

~ IW SWAN Date of Proceeding:

At:-'~ S.~n.i.ttee on Diablo Canyon

Thursday, January 19, 1984 Place of proceeding"I Los Angeles, California were held as herein

appears, and that this is the original transcript for the ile of the Commission.

10 12 Barbara Whitlock Official Reporte" Typed

'13 Official Reporter - Signature 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 24 2S TAYLOE ASSOCIATES RECISTFREO PROFKSSIQNAL Rf'I 0i~'TI;'IS NQRf'QLX, VIRG INIA

t f

$