ML20040E473
| ML20040E473 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1981 |
| From: | PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341B724 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-406 PR-810928, NUDOCS 8202040381 | |
| Download: ML20040E473 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. ,. ENCLOSURE 3 - ['DobEnsleton C Nucloce Regulotory Coveveloca,on (415) 943-380S
~'
b I N@>&iI f. h U8"de8'"r3*8h**
- M "'N s*ct.142-3930 (Ra.m. to 3so.m. Wrrkdersj 781-4211 (Alter 3 p.in., Micrkends cord flodiderst TOR IP7.CDINTE_ RELEASE September 28, 1981 Pacific can and Blootric Company today inforaned the Nuclear Regulatory Camraission that it had discovered a discrepancy in one of tho disgrams und,J in the stress analysis of piping hanger ayatetsa in the containinent struct.uses of, Diablo Canyon Nuciaar Pceser P1 mat. The prohloss was identified Sunday '
_ af ternoon as the result of a design review' 9ccause of thJs, fuel loading will be delayed while the problem in I being reviewed. The discrepancy involves the locstion ca the drawing rer reference t pointa need in analyzing pipe supports in the area between the Outur M11 of the ocutainment structure and an inner wall which supposta the overhead crano. The N=pany will rehiew the previous stress a.nalysis to confirm the mioquacy of the piping systeams in the area to roect deeign critoria. The extent to whi..th Ibwl luoding will ne celayed by this development has not yet been determined.
= mo
!! ~ e-CO
*H '
.i .M-ng
,$ ' .9 @'
c
%J s'
e
.. =R 8202040381 811026 * *
PDR FOIA .' A SCJWENC81-406 PDR
f* 3"*'h,t;
. , UNITED STATES .
y yn, ,j g C* NUCt. EAR'R EGU1/ATORY CdMMISSION '? D @
; .gg nl WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 N' p$ -
SEP 3 01931 MEMORAflDUM FOR: Chainnan Palladino Conmissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Bradford Comissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts FROM: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION ITEM - POTENTIAL DEFICIENCY IN THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN PIPING SYSTEMS AT DIABLO CA!' YON, UNITS 1 AND 2 (BOARD NOTIFICATION NO. 81-28) The enclosed information is being provided to you for your consideration. L'e will promptly notify you of any pertinent infonnation that may Sevelop on this matter. g
\ -
\ -
I . Darrell .E e ut, itector Division of Licensing ' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: ASLAB ' ASLB SECY - OGC OPE Service List
Enclosure:
- 1. PG&E Ltr. dtd. 9/30/81 Q ,Yi ff& .s
' ,eA -
' ~ 7 BOARD NOTIFICATION NO, 81-27 DISTRIB'JIION -IDIABLO CANYON 1 & 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Docketing and Service Section ' Docum2nt Management Branch Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg Andreg Ealdwin Richard E. Blankenburg Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Herbart H. Brown, Esq. Dr. John H. Buck, Member Philip A. Crane, Jr. , Esq. Mr. Frederick Eissler David S. Fleischaker, Esq. Mrs. Raye Fleming Arthur C. Gehr, Esq. Bryon S. Georgiou Mark Gottlieb _ Mr. Richard B. Rubbard Dr. W. Reed Johnson . Janice E. Kerr, Esq. Dr. Jerry Kline Mr. John Marts, Managing Ed. Thomas S. Moore, Member Marjorie S. Nordlinger, Attorney Bruce Norton, Esq. John R. Phillips, Esq. Simon KlevansRy, Esq. Margaret Blodgett, Es,q. Mr. James 0. Schuyler Mr. Gordon Silver Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Paul C. Velentine, Esq. Harry M. Willis ' John F. L'olf, Esq. , Chairman
- b e
i l
V' n' C* 3 ..\ . y, 4 f, y P.5.CIFIC GAS .A.N D E LE C T RIC C O MP.A.N Y P* 0. 0 0Y N < 2 e 17 B C At.t 3 rster.r,3 tSt floon, c A## ra A N Cl3 CO, C At.lf 0DNI A 14 LO6 g)g,gg i T CLCf't4 0H E ton s,) ra t.42 rt , T CLCCO PIC D (415) 64M 4 t 3
$7l*JI# 4 M.",!7,,
n o n a a r o t* t.a AC D1 , 1 .*l,"A," ".l"!.
..e. .. m o.uu anes w -
, '. ; J:"
..w.m 1.:.. .T. . w.!.ti:
. a.~
cnaaLea r.vAis oaueen %,0.*g".E.;=; ;*, 'f ."'. ' *y".". .* .
;-g jh ,, ; ;; j;,.,,_
' rnit sp A. c m ate s. J a.
nenav J.Lss e aa:e g:;*;(*;- ;;;, y;;f;f. q
- . ' ~ ~ . . . .
aoun ..<e..an a s.rnon s. nestuan.sa. - ~"O =;"i; 't: .':".'4l: .m" en ntee w.rniaeeu. .
~
. . C ." '*:rt.it3.t"
oa n # e s c. eioc.oe. y E $,;.;.l;~. s.or r.ratu n.an., E.,E.,*E;~
- ,;;; =p,, g ;;, ,
<..e er n s. is e u r r,- t;. : .. =. .e; .-:
= ~'-
?" "? "?" E" "5. iC#2IEiii.
' September 30, 1981 N . R. H. Engelken, Director .
Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region V U. S. Iluclear Regulatory Co:::::tission 1990 N. California Boulevard ' Walnut Creek Plua, Suite 202 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 .
~
Oear Mr. Enge)Ren: , This supplements our September 28, 1981 letter on a discovery of - an error found in the analyses of systems contained in the annulus area of- the Unit I containment building. This letter is intended to provide background information and the present status of our review. As'a
" result of this discovery we are reviewing the seismic design of plant .
components located in the annulus area to verify cocpliance with seismic design criteria. We have not yet detennined that changes in the physical plant are required. However, in our September 28, 1981 letter,* PGandE camiitted to delay fuel loading until items necessary for fuel -
. loading are resolved and concurrence is obtained from the MC. Because
- of the collective conservative assumptions and methodology used by -
PGandE and its consultants during the design.of the plant, PGandE is optimistic that most existing installations should be adequate for changed, and in some cases increased, spectra requirements, and that only minor modification may be required. As indicated in our, September 28, 1981 letter, the principal - problem is associated with the vertical seismic floor response (VSFR) . 8 spectra used to design piping systems in the annulus area of the
- cont'ainment. 'PGandE has determined that the diagram used to locate the .
goo ~-
, f _ _
[O L .
\,.
)-
~
~
lir. R.11. Engelken - Septernber 30, 1981
~
. VSFR spectra.in the Unit I containment annulus area above the base slab through the operating deck at Elevation 140 was in error. The diagram used lio locate the spectra was appifcable to Unit 2, but was identified for use in the Unit I seismic design. Since the arrangement of Units i and 2 are opposite hand to each other and the VSFR spectra are dependent on circumferential location, certain piping was analyzed utilizing inappropriate spectra.
PGahdE is currently -reviewing piping analyses using the correct diagram. Preliminary indications are that 14 of the 59 computer generated large diameter piping analyses for the annulus area cay be - ' affected. Fourteen of seventy-six large direter pipe support designs not included in the above computer generated piping analyses may also be affected. Small diameter piping analyses and pipe support designs are also being reviewed in a similar manner. PGandE will reanalyze al.1 af fected analyses to verify piping stress acceptability and 'all affected pipe support designs will be reviewed and recualified or redesigned to comply with the corrected loads. Investigations are also underway to'detemine what effect this
. discrepancy has on other systems in the annulus area. So far we have i determined that in addition to the error in the orientation of the dia-l gram, the final VSFR spectra was not used in the design of electrical conduit and cable tray supports. We have underway a comprehensive, review of the capability of these supports to accomodate the proper . ' " VSFR spectrai Comparable reviews are underway 'cr other components and systems. .
\ The problem was discovered by Company. engineers assigned piping l analysis responsibilities. Their work required utilization of the dia- ' I gt am which we now have-determined to be incorrect. Since the VSFR - spectra varied considerably with azimuth location and the spectra loca-tions were not spaced with constant degrees of separation, a cuestion was raised. Subsenuent investigation by Company and consultant ~ engineers confirmed the problem. This error was identified as poten-l tially affecting piping analysis and pipe support design late on Friday, 1 September 25, 1981. Over the weekend this situation was detemined to - be reportable. On Honday . September 28, )981, PGandE notified itE Region V of this matter. 1 e l L/
..y ... . c_
)
....womtwowt* amrrt:a.w;ttorr.n:r'raturt;;r > * "n * *: ~::n : "wo.wstmo:n,ww,:w
,.rt,pror.,r..r,s.
e- ; ; , . p
' '? .
. ., 3
. ~
Septembet- 30, 1981 Hr. R. H. Engolken At the present time, infomation and analyses While PGandE are being is still conpiled to detemine the significance of this problem. reviewing the cause of the problem, preliminary investigations indicate the cause of this error affects only analysis of conta.inment Thisannulus systems and has no iroact on overall seismic design edequacy. conc.lusion is made since no deficiencies have t>een identified withWe enclysis methods or plant configuration drawings. additional information regarding the above conce Ma Very truly yours, . i l
~
c
~
5, . cc: Service 1.ist - j( . 9 l . i n . . e l .. l l ' l
~
, rE MdRRR9A9 (* E J G HLG E R DB r. *.T. ', FI L JL ED 1
[ [o,apg a g.- c , h q b. 3 Q,, UtilTED STATES E' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g *- eC WASHINGTON, D. C. 20SSS
\ / 00T 5 1381 DocketYo.50-275 and 50-323 MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank J. Mriaglia, Chief Licensing Branch #3 Division of Licensing FROM: Bart C. Buckley, Project Manager Licensing Branch #3 Divisionof Licensing
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON, UNITS 1 & 2, REGARDING THE POTENTIAL DEFICIENCY IN THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF CERTAIN PIPING SYSTEMS - I - DATE & TIME: J' October 9, 1981 - 9:00 - 4:00 PM LOCATION: Room P-118 Phillips Building PURPOSE: To discuss.the adequacy of the seismic desing of certain piping systems.. - PARTICIPANTS: NRC PG&E - H. Denton J. Hoch, et al
,. .D. Eisenhut E. Jordan R. Vollmer .
J. Knight R. Tedesco F. Miraglia ' P. T. Kuo E. Sullivan B. Buckley *
/0 , c.L Eu B.C.Buckley,ProjectM[ nager Licensing Branch #3
' Division of Licensing ,
cc: See next page , g[
Enclosure:
RESCHEDULED Meeting Agenda RESCHEDULED f/ b # SCHEDULED } 7
.-: . .. t &
, .S T
l Seismic Design of Piping Systems in Diablo Canyon, Unit 1, Containment Annulus PROPOSED AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 9, 1981 MEETING WITH PG&E o Opening Remarks by NRR (H. R. Denton/D. G. Eiser. hut) o Introduction by PG&E Description of Original Design Methodologies Used
-- Responsibilities for Design '
Design Practices and Verification by PG&E o . Detection of the problem How problem was detected Chronology of suSsequent events o' PG&E's Corrective Program Identification and location of systems and equipment affected and requiring re-analysis
- Identification ar.d 1ccation of piping, equipment and cabling affected
- Program for conducting re-analysis
- Extent of modifications required, if any Schedule for completion of necessary modifications,
-including verification o Description of PG&E's reverification program for assuring that other analyses were not similarly affected: i.e., corrective actions and measures PG&E will undertake to verify that identified problem is an isolated event. . .
- Program description l
- Resources to be used, i.e., contractors Schedule -
o PG&E'-s Conclusions and Proposal for Fuel Load
'o NRC Response V
e
.l s -
~
.N ' . .
)
,s ,,- c. ..
' .h - t, n ir y DIABLO CANYON Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush -
Nice President - General Counsel Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 , cc: Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq. Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 - Janice E. Kerr, Esq. < California Public Utilities Commission ' 350 McAllister Street
- San Francisco, California 94102
- '.r. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 _ Ms. Elizabeth Apfelb' erg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 N Mr. Gordon A. Silver , Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street - San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. Willis,'Esq. Seymour & Willis , 601' California Street, Suite 2l00 .
,.. San Francisco, California 94108 -
Mr. Richard Hubbard MHB Technical Associates Suite K 1723 Hamilton Avenue j San Jose, California 95125 ' Mr. John Marrs, Managing Editor . San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 l San Luis Obispo, California 93406 , I l ? .-g . .. _a
[ , .% , e - 6 o g Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush < cc: Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon ilPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P. O. Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms. Raye Flening 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 c John R. Phillips, Esq. - Simon Klevansky, Esq.
~
Margaret Eslodgett, Esq.
. ilarion P. ' Johnston , Esq.
Joel Reynolds, Esq. . Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90067 Paul C. Valentine, Esq. 321 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94302 Mr. Byron S. Georgiov Legal Affairs Secretari Governor's Office . State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 '
~ Herbert H. Brown, Esq. - -
Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P.C. 1900 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 , Mr. Richard E. Blankenburg, Co-Publisher Mr. Wayne A. Soroyan, News Reporter South County Publishing Conpany P. O. Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 , Mr. James 0. Schuyler Vice President - Nuclear Generation Department Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 - San Francisco, California 94120 Bruce Norton, Esq. Suite 202 - 3216 North 3rd Street . Phoenix, Arizona 85012
g *. ,y c: ' ; . ,.5 , .
?, e i, y Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush - 3- .
Mr. W. C. Gangloff *
, , Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
/ Michael R. Klein, Esq.
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering . 1666 K Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20006 David F. Fleischaker, Esq. Suite 709 1735 Eye Street, N. W. Washington, 0. C. 20006 e e e
- 5 O
l
,pe e O i
I e s 5
. o l
{. e e 4 ,
NCP'U RIG 7 ATORY CD)eCSSION w. t i i 1 2 de Ma 2: cf: MEETING WITE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC j COMPANY TO DISCUSS SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEii, DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 1 I i l), m. October 9, 1981 pac;g: 1 - 124 A: Bethesda, Maryland i
- i i
i i e f I . r l , i
.LLDER.%X
!1 l
.. T. (REPORT 1.YG ,
400 Viryi..ia Ave., 5.W. Washing n, D. C. 20024 ; I () j Talaphc:a : (202) 554-2345
'-e -
r %,,, , J
, , v ,
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM"!SSICN 3 D MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CCMPANY 4 TO DISCUSS SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW, DIARLC CANYCN UNIT 1 5 6 Nuclear Beculatery Commissien 7 Roc = P-118 7920 Norfolk Avenue 8 Bethesda, Maryland 9 Friday, October 9, 1991 to The meetin; convened at 9:05 a.m. 11 NRC STAFF PRESENT. 12 H. DENTON D. EISENHUT 13 R. VOLLMER B. BUCKLEY 14 W. OLMSTEAD J. KNIGHT 15 E. JORDAN B. FAULKENBERRY 16 D. KIRSETT P. KUD 17 F. SCHAUER R. TEDESCO 18 S. BOSNAK l 13 ? RESENT FROE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CC.: ! 20 3. SHACKELFORD l N. NOBTDN l 2: D. BRAND R. BETTINGER l 22 J. HCCH M. TRESLER 23 R. CLOUD J. SCHUYLER h y J. BLOOM 24 J. ROCCA 25 E. ESSELMAN l l l ALCERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE S.W., WASHINGTCN. O C. 200:4 (202) 554-2345
m 1 2 1 EE9EIIEIESS 2 MR. DENTCN. Good morning. 3 The purpose of this meeting today is to discuss 4 the adequacy of the seismic design in certain units in 5 Diablo Canyon 1. s 6 On September 28th we were notified by TGCE of the 7 discovery of an error in the analysis of the design of 8 piping systems in the annulus area of the containment. This 9 discovery occurred before any fuel had been leaded in the 10 reactor. Fuel loading vill be delayed until this is 11 resolved to the satisfaction of the NFC staff. 12 I would like to go over the ground rules for this 13 mee ting first. A transcript is being kept and will be 14 f orwarded to the Commission. All participants who speak 15 should identif y themselves each time. 16 Representatives from the Commission staff are 17 present today. An opportunity for public comment vill be 18 provided during the course of the meeting. 19 Finally, anyone with comments above and beyond 20 those made today should provide us any such comments by next 21 F ri d a y . I will forward such comments to the Commissica airo. 22 In today's agenda ve hope to cover five areas. 23 First we vill discuss the methodology and procedures h 24 originally employed in seismic design of th e systems in l 25 q ue stion . l ALDER $oN REPORTING COMP ANY, INC. 400 VIRQ1NIA AVE. S W WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3 1 Secondly I want to cover the events leading to the 2 detection of the error. 3 Third, we vill discuss the reenalyses which have 4 been completed and the extent of acdifica tions determined :: 5 be r e q ui re d . 6 Fourth, the adequacy of PGLE's prograr ?. c 7 determine whether other errors were committed vill be 8 discussed. 9 And fifth, we vill discuss the PGEE schedule for to completing the required analysis and mcdiff. cations. 11 I will introduce the people at the front table 12 with me and then turn the =eeting over to FGEI. 13 Sitting on my right is Eart E u c k l e. y , the Project 14 Manager for Diablo Canyon. On my left is Darrell Eisenhut, 15 Director of the Division of Licensing, and Dick Vollmer, the 16 Dir ector of the Division of Engineering. 17 I understand the first speaker vill be Eart t I 18 Sha ckelf erd , President of PGEE.
- 59. SHACKE1FOPD. Thank you. Gcod morning. Ia
! 19 20 Ba rten Shackelf ord, President and Chief Cperating Cfficer of i 21 P G E E - l 22 MY associates are here today to report to you the 1 23 results of our investigations into the rece ntly disccvered 24 error in a diagram used f or the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power 25 P la n t . Briefly summarized, our findings are these. ALDERSoN REPORTING COMP ANY,INO. l 400 VIRGINLA AVE., $.W. WASHINGTON. D C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345 l
r 4 1 The error is an isolated and unusual case. It 2 aff ects only a limited area of the plant. The plant can be 3 brought to design criteria by the modification of a g 4 relatively few tamber of hangers and pipe supports. 5 Installa tion of these has already started and should be 6 com pleted within a month. 7 More importantly, I can assure you and the public 8 that even if the design discrepancy had not been discovered, 9 the plant's piping system and thus the plant would not have 10 been in danger even with a 7.5 magnitude ea rthquake on the 11 Hosgri f ault. This is because of the extremely censervative 12 design criteria that we used. 13 Immediately upon discovering and reporting the 14 existence of the probler., we assembled a team of engineers 15 and consultants to analyze the matter thoroughly. They are 16 here today to present their findings in detail. 17 At this time I would like to introduce Mr. Donald Mr. Brand 18 A. Brand, our Vice President for Engineering. 19 directed these studies and he vill open our presentation and 20 introduce our people here. 21 Don. 22 .R. 5 FRANDs Thank you, Bart. 23 First I would like to introduce the other panel 24 mem bers . On my im m e dia te right, Bichard Be tting e r , our 25 chief civil engineer. To his right, F.r. John Hoch, manager ALOERSoN REPORTING Coup ANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C 20024 (202) 554 2345
)
5 l l 1 of nuclear projects. Next, Mr. Eichael Tresler, our Diable 2 piping coordinator. To his right, Dr. Robert Cloud, 3 consulta nt. To his ri g h t , Mr. James Schuyler. our Vice 4 President of Nuclear Power Generation. To my immediate 5 lef t , Er. Bruce Norton, our licensing attorney. 6 We are here today to discuss the recent discovery 7 of a diagram error at our Diable Canyon Nuclear Pcver Plant 8 and the impact of that discovery. Last week we scr; ended 9 scheduled f uel loading operation in order *.o thCtou;hly 10 acsess the error and its consequences. 11 I wo ul d like to note, however, th a t even if this 12 error had gone undetected and the plant had been placed in 13 opera tion, the error would not have impaired the safe 14 operation of the plant even in the unlikely event of the 15 postulated earthquake on the Hoscri Fault. 16 Our review shows that none of the systems and 17 equipmen t in the plant vill require modification except for 18 a rela tively small nutber of piping supperts in the annulus 19 area of containment. Ine piping itself is unaffected by the It was correctly designed and installed. Cnly the 20 e rr or. 21 piping supports are affected. 22 We have determined fror. extensive reanalysis that 23 the error has resulted in some piping supports exceeding
- h 24 their design criteria. Those have been identified and are 25 now being modified to meet original design criteria.
i ALDERSoN AEPoAtlNG CCMPANY. INC. 400 VLAGINIA AVC S.W., W ASHINGTo s O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6 1 These modifications are minor in nature. Within a 2 f ew days those modificatiens will be complete for systems 3 identified in the plan t 's technical specifica tions as 4 necessary for the commencement of fuel leading and cold 5 system test. When they are, we vill request your 6 concurrence to resume fuel loading o pe ra tio ns . The balance 7 of any modifications vill be complete before we ge beycnd 8 cold system test. 9 The error we discovered was a subtle one. It 10 involved a misapplication of results obtained from a 11 mat heratical model used t0 calculate vertical acceleratien 12 r es ponse spectra for the seismic analysis of piping systems i 13 a n d compenents within the containment structure. The 14 mathematical model was prepared correctly. 15 As we vill describe, the arrangement of equipment 16 within the Unit 1 containment structure is exactly opposite 17 f rom tha t in Unit 2. Due to this opposite hand arrangement, 18 th e application of the spectra was identified incorrectly in 19 a reference diagram used in the design of piping syster.s and 20 equipmen t in the annulus area of containment. 21 This morning we vill describe in detail the nature 22 o f the error, how it was discovered, and the steps taken 23 since to determine the extent of consequences. We vill also a h 24 identify those piping systems which contain piping support 25 which may require modification before fuel loading and cold ALDERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W . W ASHINGToN. o C. 20024 (2C2) 554 2345
7 1 system test can b?,in. Finally, we vill describe our 2 teverifica tion pregram which is already under way to confirr 3 our strong belief that thic is an isolated occurrence. g 4 I would now like to introduce Mr. John Hoch, our 5 Manager of Nuclear Projects, who will describe the ;1 ant and 6 containment annulus area affected by the error. 7 Jcht. 8 MB. MCCH: I am Jchn Hoch, Manager of Nuclear 9 Projects f or PG LE. I veuld like te show you scre 10 transparencies, and what I would like to do -- and if this 11 is a problem, tell me -- but I Jould like to cet up and use 12 a pointer and point to them, and trust me, I think you vill 13 all be able to hear me. 14 EP. DENTCN. All right, fine. 15 (Slide) 16 ER. HOCH: Er. Brand has described the error we 17 a re talk ing about here today in general terms. Before 1eexplaining it in detail, it is important that we are 19 f amiliar with the basic layout of Diablo Canyon containment 20 structur es , and particularly with the annulus area of the 21 con tainm en t. 22 This slide, this figure shows the layout of the 23 Diablo Canyon units. Unit 1 containment is located at the 24 left of the figure, Unit 2 containment at the right. 'ie are 25 looking down on the plant. North is at the left of the ALCERSCN REPORTING COMP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W, W ASHINGTON. O C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
1 figure and East at the top. 2 The two units are in general laid out in an 3 opposite hand configuration. This opposite hand arrangement 4 applies to the containment structures f or the two units and 5 to the equipment located in the containment structures. The 6 con tainm ent structures are c;;csite hand abcut an east-west 7 cen terline, about this centerline threcc.' each of the 8 units. That centerline, in cid e n ta ll y , coincidas with the 9 location of the spent fuel transfer tube between the react 0: 10 vessel here and the fuel handlin; area in the auxiliary 11 building for both units. 12 (Slide) 13 We are icoking now at a simplified section throu;h This figure shows the annulus 14 the containment stru ct ur e . 15 area of the containment, which is this area ri;ht here. The 16 a nn ulus area is bounded by the containment outer wall, by 17 the containment base slab, by the operating floo- at the , 18 140 -f oo t elevation. l 19 let me pause to point out eleva tions ref erred to l 20 here and later on in our presentation are referenced to mean 21 low, low water. So this is the lu0-foot el e v a tio n . 22 The other boundary of the containment annulus is 23 the crane vall. It is an interior concrete vall in the This figure also shows in very 24 containment structure. 25 simplified f orm the annulus steel located in the t ALDER $oN REPORTING COMP ANY, INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W.. W ASHINGToN. O C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
9 1 containm ent. These lines and this line are intended to shew 2 in very simplified form the annulus steel structure. This 3 structural steel is supported f rom the crane wall but is net 4 attached to the outer wall of the containment. It is 5 supported instead by columns which extend all the way to the 6 con tainment base slab at el eva tion 91. This is elevation 91 7 f ee t. 8 Let's have the next figure. 9 (Slide) 10 This figure shows a section throu;h the Unit 1 11 por tion of the plant. The figure is taken through the 12 e as t-w es t centerline through the Unit 1 containment. We are 13 looking north. ' dest is at the left of the picture, East at 14 t h e right. This is the turbine building, the containment, 15 the f uel handling area of the auxiliary building. 16 The containment annulus area is shown in this 17 picture. 18 Could you try to focus this just a little bit? 19 The containment annulus is shown in this picture 20 in somewhat more detail than in the preceding figure, and it 21 is this area right here, and again it is bounded by the 22 con tainment outer wall, by the crane wall, the containment 23 base slab and the operating deck at 14 0 -f oo t elevation. 'h 24 The reason for concentrating on the containe.ent 25 a nnulus area is the diagram error we are discussing here l ALDERSCN REPCATING COMP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. O C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
10 1 today has s potential impact on some of the systems and 2 equipment located in this area. Because cf the error -- and 3 ve vill describe i t in more detail later -- vertical seistir 4 input specified for some of the systems and equipment which 5 is supported by structural steel in the con tainr e n t annulus 6were not specified correctly. 7 It is important to note and I will repeat that the 8 error has the potential impact only on systems and, equipment 9 supported f rom the annulus steel in this small area cf the 10 containm ent and does not affect any other systems or 11 equipmen t in the plant. Items supported from the 12 con tainment base slab -- that's here -- the crane vall or 13 the outer vall of the containment are not affected. The 14 rea ons for this will be spparent as we discuss the diagram 15 error in more detail later. f. 16 The next slide. 17 (Slide) 18 This figure is a plan view of the Unit 1 19 con tainm ent showing the operating floor at elevation tu0 20 f ee t . Again, East is at the top of the figure, North is a t 21 t h e le f t . This is the a uxilia ry building and the fuel 22 handling area of the auxiliary building. 23 We can see in this figure again the containment 'h 24 outer vall and the crane rail, which is directly over the We have 25 crane v a ll t ha t we saw in the elevations earlier. i ALOERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINtA AVE S W., W ASHINGToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
11 i l 1 emphasized on this drawing the location of the con tain:ent l
~
l 2 five f an coolers, and note they are spaced around the 3 containment but not spaced equally around the containment. 4 They are not equally spaced. 5 It is also important to note for purposes of our 6 later discussion that one of these fan coolers, this one, is 7 located on the east-west centerline of the containrent, and 8 again located on that line which corresponds to the fuel 9 transfer tube, and on the line about whicn the two 10 containments are essentially rotated er essentially laid out 11 in an opposite hand configuration. 12 I would now like to introduce te you Pichard 13 Bettinger, PGCE's chief civil engineer, who vill describe 14 t he mathematical modeling methodology used for the seismic 15 analy sis of that structural steel in the containment annulus 16 a r e a . ER. DENTON: I wonder if you could tell us whether 17 this particular 18 PGEE had responsibility f or the design of 19 aspect or whether it was one of your contractors. 20 ER. HOCH4 The structural steel in th e annulus was Prior to the Hosgri 21 PGLE's design responsibility. It 22 evaluation, the design had been accomplished by PGCE. 9 23 was e xis tin g and already installed at the time of the Hosgri f'/ s_
\
24 evaluation. 25 EB. DENTON: So this was a modifica tion to the 1 4 ALOEASoN REPORTING COMP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., W ASHINGTON. D C 20024 (202) 554-2345 7*
92 1 original design as a result of the Hoscri. The pipin; 2 supports, then, were redesigned by yourself. 3 53. HCCH: Yes. I think the very first part of 4 Dick 's p resentation actually goes over the design 5 res ponsibility . 6 XR. EE~IINGER: I am Richard 5ettinger, Chief 7 Civil Engineer f or Pacific Gas and Electric Cc:pany, and my 8 opening line has already been taken because tha t is exac tly 9 what I was ocing to tell you, Er. Denton, that the annulus 10 steel structure was designed by PGCE in 1969 using the 11 original seismic criteria that had been established. 12 UPS-Bloom was retained to devel p herirettal desi;n respense 13 spectra at that time, and they developed an axis-sy: metric 14 r.od el o f the containment interior, including the annulus 15 steel s t ru ct ur e . 16 Vertical accelera tion at that time was tve-thirds 17 peak horirontal ground acceleration, and so dynamic models 18 vere not required in the determination cf vertical l l 19 accelera tio n , and censideration of different crientation was l 20 n o t involved in that model. 21 In February of 1977 the NRC approved the criteria 22 f or the Hosgri reevaluation, and PGCE a;ain re tained l 23 URS-Bloom to design vertical response spectra for the l To develop this, URS-Elec: h 24 containment annulus structure. 25 used PGCE 3 ravings to determine th e weights and properties l l ALOERSON REPcRTING COMP ANY,INC. l 400 VIRGINIA AVE.. S W.. WASHINGTcN. O C 20C24 (202) 554-2345
13 1 of the structures, and weights of equipment and piping were 2 provided to UEE-Bloom by PGCE. 3 Now, Mr. Hoch described the annulus structure, and gg 4 of course, as he says, that is the focus of interest today. 5 I could like to show a figure on the vievsereen now, if I 6 may. 7 MR. EISENHUT. Can I ask you a question to be sure 8I understand the first part you pointed out? Then was this 9 error that we a re talking about -- I guess I should say was to it made in the 1968 evaluations or was it part of the Hoscri . 11 reevalua tion of 1977? 12 MR. BETTINGER: Strictly the reevaluation. The 13 design was completed and the structures in place. It was 14 w he n w e applied the spectra -- and we are ;oing to describe 15 tha t step by step. I think it vill come out clearly. If 16 n ot , we vill certainly respond to more questions. 17 (Slide) 18 This is the vertical model of the annulus used by 19 URE-Sloom to develop vertical acceleration spectra, and note 20 tha t this is a conceptual representation of the structural 21 steel in the annulus. That is, there are five equivalen: 22 f rames which are mathematical representations of what is 23 the re. Each equivalent frame represents actual structural D 24 steel located within the representative sector of the 25 ann ulus. ALCER$oN REPoATING COMP ANY. INC, 400 vtAGINIA AVE., $ W., WASHINGTord. D C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
SL 1 Also note the five frames come to a corron point 2 in the center, and the annulus still connects to the 3 interior concrete vall. Since this vall is rigid, it is g 4 considered a common node f or all the five f rames. 5 The five equivalent frames were selected to 6 coincide with the location cf the five fan coolers located 7 at the 1LO-foot elevation. This was done because the fan 8 coolers represented the major equipment load in that area. 9 For exa m;1e , in frame one on the left there -- if you can 10 point to frame one on the left -- you ran see mass No. 41 11 tiov come down in the elevation below, mass 41 at the top cf 12 t h a t . 13 Now, this is a mass point and it includes the 14 veight of a fan cooler and all other weights that veuld be 15 contributing to that frame. They are all a ssumed to act at 16 tha t point insofar as this vertical dynamic model is 17 con ce rned. Mass Nos. 30, 19 and 8 are mass points for all 18 lea ds th at contribute to that frane at thes e elevations. 19 With this model -- 20 ME. DENTON: Perhaps you should explain this a bit 21 m o r e . It has a lot of data on it. The u1, is that merely 22 an identification number or does that represent a mass in 23 terms or -- 24 MR. BETTINGE3s It is only an identification of a 25 mass point, and it is used in the computer snalysis for l l l
~
ALDER $oN REPORT;NG CCMP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA ave. 5.W WASHINGTON. D C 20024 (202) 554 2345
95 1 deter:ining where that is applied. 2 ME. DENTON. It would help ee if you would walk 3 through wha t is up there, and there is a considerable arount g 4 of data shown and a lot of numbers. Are any of these 5 numbers real quantities or are they all merely 6 identification ? 7 ME. BETTINGEEs They are all for identification. 8 For instance, let's take the legend up there. These are the 9 elements, and the node nu:bers, for instanre, are 46 and 40 to -- those are all at the node points. Then the mass peints 11 are 41 in the round circular area, where, as I say, all the 12 weigh ts in that area were assumed to apply in deterrinin; 13 t h e vertical dynamics. 14 And as I said before, PGCE provided to Bloc = 15 dra wings of the structure, both the steel and concrete. 16 Bloom , from those drawings, determined the weights, the 17 masses of the structural steel and of the concre te. PGCE 18 also provided to UES-Bloom the vel; hts of piping loads and 19 equipment loads, and for instance, 41, as ! said before, 20 includes what Eloom computad for the weights of the 21 con tribu ting area and also added to that, then, the weight 22 o f the f an cooler and any other loads that we had given in 1 23 that area. HR. DENTON: Should I a ssume there is a catalC;ue 24 25 or list from which if you know the element you can look up l l l l l ALDER $CN AEPoRTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W, w ASHINGTCN. O C 20024 (202) 554 2345
96 1and find the associated floor response spectra in that ilocstion? 3 3 P. . EE!!INGI2: This ir 3y next point. You a re g 4 s tealing my lines. 5 (Laughter.) 6 Fror this, spectra were generated fer the five 7 equivalent frames that you see in the upper left-hand 8 dia gram. These were provided to PGCE so they could use 9 these spectra , and then coming back and determining the 10 dynamic loads on the systems at any one of those points. 11 Then the one point we do vant to make is it shocid be noted 12 t h a t the dynamic analyses that Bloom performed were with 13 weights in the proper location inscfar as the frame was 14 con ce rned. 15 All right, now. To cummarire then, the eriginal 16 structural steel design was done by FGCE in 196f. U P.S- 310 c m 17 w as retained in 1977 to perform a vertical dyna:ic analysis 18 using input inf orma tion f rom FG CE. The results of the 31c e m 19 analysis were used by FGCE to seismically qualify systems 20 and components in the annulus area. l 21 Now I am going to ask Mr. Hocn to describe hev the 22 diagra m error occurred, and that was an error in the 23 a pplica tion of the spectra that vere genera ted f rom this I 24 mod el. ER. DENTON: Let me be clear, and if the staff 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INO, 400 VI AGINiA AVE S.W.. WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
17 1 vocid liks to ask questions, it would probably be 2 a ppr priate. But this is a correct representation for Unit 31? D 4 EE. ROCH: e
. vill get to that in just a sc ent, 5Herold.
6 5E. DENTON: Go ahead and continue. 7 ME. KNIGHT: This is Jim Knight from the NFC 8 Staf f. A point of clarification: UEE-Elo0: developed a 9 hori Ontal spectra in '6B fron th e se sare medels? 10 ME. EETTINGEE: No. There was never any need fer 11 this model until the 1977 analysis. 12 33. KNIGHT: Your horizontal spectra -- 13 ME. BETTINGEE: Criginally they were developed by 14 UES-Eloo m a ccording to the original seismic criteria. In 15 ' 77 ve received a new specification for evaluation of the 16 pla nt, and in that they developed horizontal and vertical 17 spect ra , but the horizontal s;ectra did not require any 18 s en se of orientation because it was an axis method or i l 19 m od el . This model is only used for the vertical dyna:ics. 20 MR. KNIGHT: Are there in fset models for the 21 horizontal spectra ? 22 MR. BETTINGER: Yes. 23 ER. KNIGHT: A separate set of models? MR. BETTINGER: Separate models. Does thst answer h 24 25 your que stion? i l ALDER $CN REPOATING COMP ANY. INO. 400 vtRGINIA AVE., S.W. W ASMiNGTCN. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~
92 1 MR. KNGHTs Tes. These were used singularly fer 2 the develosent of horizontal spectra. 3 ME. BETTINGEF: Vertical. Purely for vertical, 4 and this then becomes the only time that planar orienta tion 5is done. 6 Now Mr. Hoch. 7 ME. HOCH: Cnce again, I as John Hoch, "anager of 8 Nuclear Frejects for PGCE, and once again I am going to get 9 up here and do some pointing. Let's just leave the fi:ure 10 u p and let's identify the figure. 11 Notice at the bottom it is labeled Figure 4-25. 12 I t is indeed that figure number and it is frot. the Hescri 13 Evaluation Eeport, th a t set of brown volumes that is a part 14 of and supports our operating license application. 15 As Mr. Bettinger poin te d out, the tettom part of 16 this figure does show the mathematical model which was used 17 f or the annulus steel to develop vertical seismic respense. 18 Dick, without stealing a line from you let me , 19 point out that each of these frames is intanded then to 20 represent structural steel frem the midpcint here, fer 21 instance f rame 4 from the midpoint here to the midpcint It is an amalgamation, if you 22 between these two frames. 23 vill, of the steel in that area and represents its 24 properties. .h 25 What we would like to do now is to describe in ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE.. S W WASHINGTON D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
19 1 socevhat more detail the error and then take any question: 2 you have so that we are really sure that you understand what 3 the error is and what its potential impact is, and then 4 describe how we discovered it; and then finally we are ;cing 5 to get into our assessment. 6 f. R . DENTON: I guess I don't see yet hcw this 7 model relates to the annulus. Does this model include the .. 8 reactor vessel links? Are these real or are they 9 mathematical? I think I need more e2;1anati0n of what this 10 is intended to model. 11 E P. . HOCH: let's nave that figure, the cut-away, 12 t h e fairly detailed elevation to the center of the reactor - 13 v essel . 14 (Slide) 15 This model is intenced only to model the annulus 1S structural steel, and only for tre purpose of determinir.; 17 vertical seismic response. 18 19 20 21 22 23 D 24 25 t x ALDERSoN REPORT NG COMP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., w ASHINGToN. O C. 200:4 (202) $$4 234$
20 1 (Slide.) 2 We are only talking about structural steel then in 3 this area, and we are talking from the containment base slat 4 to the bcttoe of the 14C-foot operating deck. This steel is 5a structural steel fraceverk, and we vill get you a picture 6 of it later. 7 I t 's a structural steel framework which is 8 supported from the crane vall, at ele va tion s in * ?. ! annulus 9 f orns plant forms for personnel access, is tsed for 10 sup;crting piping systems, cable tray and conduit, and se:e 11 equipment inside the annulus area. 12 Its outer support is previded by a set of columns 13 tha t extends all the way from the containment base slab all 14 the way up to the operating deck. The reason I keep talking 15 abo ut the operating deck, it is a reinforced concrete ficer, 16 b u t it is supported from the annulus steel structure. 17 ER. DENTON let's go back to the slide ve just 18 had f or a moment. I understand the area in questien. 19 (Slide.) 20 What I don't see is th e relationship between this 21 m od el a n d that area, because there aren't any frames such as 22 this in the structure. MR. HOCHa These are conceptual f rames. We vill 23 24 call them equivalent frames. h ! 25 MR. DENTON: And where is location 41 in the i ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INO, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S W . W ASHINGTON. O C 20024 (202) 554 2345
21 1 reactor containment itself, for example? 2 MR. HCCH: I think pa rt of the conf usion -- I 3 thought Cick described this, but let's ce back to it. 4 This point here, a very s:all circle can actually 5 he viewed as the collapsed crane vall. It's been collapsed 6 essen tially to a ;cint, ;o everything we're seeing fr0r here 7 to here represents just the annulus area. 8 This is the outer containment vall, and then this 9 is the crane vall, okay. Again, ! think it will help if we 10 look at element nutters, nede points, and zass points and 11 notice that along this side of each equivalent frame, if y:u 12 vill notice you see these node numbers. 40, okay. Yeu see 13 a n 18, a7 and a 1. You aisc see a mass point 29, okay, and 14 notice on the right side of each of these f ra mes that these 15 numbers are conmon, okay, in each case. That is because 16 this is the crane vall end of each conceptual f ra me. 17 BR. DENTON: So that's the inside of the annulus. 18 A t that location and for purposes of the model you have just 19 a point the re , and this is in the inside then, and the other 20 side of tha t frame is the outside of the annulus, and then ! 21 the points in between are intended to model the middle of 22 the annulus. 23 MR. HOCH: Each of these members shown here 24 represen ts either a platform area or the area of some 25 structural steel that supports piping and equipment in the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S W., W ASHINGToN. O C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
22 1 annulus area. And again, the mass peints are the 2 consolid ated mass of all the systems and equipment tha*t are 3 supported at that elevation. 4 MR. DENTON. So if I wanted te su pper t a piece of 5 equipment that was hala.ay between the two annulus valls and 6 it happened to be in this frame, I vculd ge te spectru 7 labeled 41 and find there the acceleration tnat I vculd need. 8 5E. HCOR: let me fill that in. Again you are 9 anticipa ting us, but let me fill that in. 10 The vertical seismic inputs for use in designing 11 and analyring any systems and equipment then supported frc 12 t h e annulas steel are taken from two places. Firet, there 13 i s a se t of vertical response spectra which ! think in Mr. 14 Tresler's presentation he vill show. There is a set of 15 vertical response spectra associated with, first, each 16 f ra me , a separa te spectrum at each elevatien for each frame, 17 ok a y . Each of the five frames at each elevatien. 18 Those vertical spectra in ec=bina tion with tnis 19 dia gram -- and I'll explain that in a minute -- form the 20 basis f or determining what vertical input to assign to a 21 piece of equipment, a piping system and so forth. And the 22 vay that is done, very basically, is this. If I have a pipe 23 - - and I'll steal some of Mike's presentation here -- which 24 is running into the containment right here, it comes in from 25 the outside, passes from the crane vall to th e re actor, and ALDERSON HEPcRTING COMP ANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S W W A.SwiNGTON. O C. 20C241202) 554 2345 4
23 1 let 's assume it's supported from the annulus steel, and it 2 passes right here. 3 The way one determines what vertical inputs to g 4 assion to it is to look at the response spectra for the 5 nearest frame at the elevatien in questien. *n this case if 6 I had drawn this a little differently so it was closer tc 7 f ra me 4, ! vculd use the set of respense spectra f: frare 8 u, and ! vould use the appropriate elevation, depending on 9 where this was supported. 10 MB. EENTON: Is this slide corrert for Unit 1? 11 MR. HDTHs Again, yeu're one para;raph ahead of 12 m e , okay. The answer is ne. The tott0m pertion t.ia t Dick 13 described n; sin shows the rathetmatical medel. That is 14 shown correctly. There is no error. 15 The top portion, this little circular diagram, is 16 intended to show the location of each of these conceptual or 17 equivale nt frames in the containment and to locate the: 18 cir cumf eren tially about the containment. 19 It is intended to show the correct location for 20 Unit 1, and these frame locations, as ?.r. Eettin;er, pointed 21 o u t , are intended to be under each of the fan eccler 22 locations. This is not the correct representation for Unit 23 1. The frames are not under the fan cooler locations. This 24 is incorrert, okay. 25 ER. DENTON: Would that be correct for Unit 2? ALOERSoN REPORTING COMP ANT. INC. l J I 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHtNGToN. O O 20C24 (202) 554 2345 a
24 1 ER. HOCH: Ycu're one line ahead of me again, but 2 the answer is this diagram, rather than correctly showing 1, 3 the frame locations and the fan cooler locations for Unit 4 in f act shows those locations as they should have been 5 specified f or Unit 2. Okay? If ycu will just bear with me 6a minute, we 'll ;c throu;h this. 7 XE. DENICN: The reason I'm pressin; the ;cint is 8 how can the bottom be correct for Unit 1 if the tcp isn 't ? H3. HOCH: Okay. All the botto: shows to 70; is 9 10 ele ment numbers, node numbers and mass points asscciated 11 with the mathematical model for the steel, Okay. This 12 indeed is a correct re presenta tion. If we were to shew 13 actual quantities, weights and so forth, it would then be 14 a pparent that in the mathematical model those quantities for 15 Unit 2 vare also used in the analysis. Sc what you have 16 then is a specification f or vertical seismic inputs at each 17 loca tion in the annulus which is intended to be supplied to 18 t h e systens, piping and equipment which would have been the 19 correct specification for that location in Unit 2 but was an s 20 incorrect specification for Unit 1. ER. EISENHUT Let me try to understand this. 21 22 You 're saying then if you look at the plants, because the 23 plants a re essentially mirror images of one another with h 24 respect to these massive components, tha t 'the bottom is a the building, and 25 mathematical model of the masses around ALDER $oN REPORTING COMP ANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., $ W . W ASHINGToN. O C. 20C24 (2C2) 554-2345
25 1 the way it would exhibit itself, whether it is Unit 1 or 2 Unit 2, is on the upper diagram, the locations of the radial 3 load lines which is changed. gg 4 Does it follow then that the procedure you said Syou used for defining the response spectra of an itet, you 6 ven t to th e nearest frame that in effect migh t mean by dcing 7a 180 degree turn around the axis what it would m e a .9 is ye: 8 would have to use a different frame? So in icoking at 9 response spectra before you may have ;one to cne Of the five 10 f rames here; now you have to go to another one of the five 11 f ra mes ? 12 ER. H3CE: Let me answer that by showing you a 13 series of figures, and if at the conclusion of the next 14 m in u t e and a half this isn't clear, we'll cc back to it 15 again. 16 ER. SE!!INGER: Can I interrupt fer just a roment 17 to say that in that diagram that is all correct for Unit 2; 18 t he whole package is correct for Unit 2. 19 ER. EISENHUT: The question I was geing to ask was 20 is the only way it would exhibit itself, going f ce the 21 bottom half, is right for Unit 1 or Unit 2 -- that the only 22 vay it would exhibit itself differently for Unit 1 would be 23 reloca te the radial dravings on the circle in the tcp? D 24 ER. BETTINGER: Exactly. 25 HB. EISENHUT4 And the little dot in the center l ALDERSoN AEPoRTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S W w ASMik.GToN. O C. 20024 (202) 55.MH
26 1 tha t you mentioned, you say you in essence collapsed 2 everything inside the crane vall. 3 MF. HDCH. This little center essentially 4 represents the crane vall, and it's shown here in a 5 collapsed form; because first of all it's not i:pertant to 6 the frame representation, and I suspect it was just easier 7 to show ancular location fror. the center point rather than 8 to draw this in an annular way, okay. 9 let's put cn the next figure, and I'll go back to 10 the plan of the containment where we have emphasized the fan 11 coolr. c loca tions, and then I'll show you sore overlay 12 f rames. I hope this will all drop out. 13 We intended this to get clearer a s it vent along, - g 14 a nd if it doesn't, why stop us and we'll back up. 15 (Slide.) 16 This figure is Unit 1, a planned view of the 17 con tainm ent at the operating deck, the 140 feet elevation. 18 I t shows the fan cooler locations fer Unit 1 er;hasized in 19 green. This time we have criented with north peinting up l 20 f o r a reason; that is, it is now in the same crientation as l 21 t h e little circular diagram that you saw in the preceding l ! 22 figure. 23 Want to put that on real quickly?
*h 24 (Slide.)
It's now in that same orientation again. North is 25 t ALDERSoN AEPoRTING CCMPANY, INC, 400 VIAGINIA AVE., S W WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 27 l 1 1 1 at the top here; north was at the top there. So take it eff 2 again and put that back on. 3 (Slide.) g 4 I now am going to overlay a figure showing fra:e 5 location s. 6 (Slide.) 7 The first overlay shows the fra:e locations in 8 green. It 's labeled f rame orientation which was used. It 9 could just as well have been labeled incorrect frame 10 orientation or f rame location improper for Unit 1 but ; roper 11 f or Unit 2. 12 It 's important to note that these frame locations, 13 equivale nt or con =eptual f rame locatf ons, do not in gen eral 14 coincide with the f an cooler locations except for frame 3 15 which does indeed coincide with that 10 cation. And re:ecter 16 again th at 's the east-west axis of the containment. That's 17 on the line of the spent fuel transfer tube, and it's on the 18 location about which the containments are essentially 19 arranged opposite hand . 20 MR. DENTON: Let's a ssume you had not used fan Why are they important? 3ecause they have mass 21 coolers. 1 22 a nd they control some of the calcula tions? 23 MR. HOCH: The number of fra:es and their 24 orienta tion was established in two ways. First, the number 25 of frames had to be sufficient to represent the steel f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIAGINIA AVE., S.W W ASHINGToN. D C 20024 (202) 554-2345
28 , 1 adequately. Secondly, they were chosen to lie under or they 2 were intended to be located under the fan rooler: because 3 they are very significant and very important centers of g 4 mass. They contribute grea tly to the response of the 5 annulus structural steel. 6 Now, let me overlay one other figure ever the to;. 7 (Slide.) 8 It shows frame locations in red, and it's labeled 9 f rame orientation which should have been used. It could 10 j us t as well have been labeled proper frare crientation for 11 Unit 1. 12 Ihose equivalent frame locations, as you can see, 13 nov do ceincide with fan cooler locations, and there is 14 commonality . In each case frame 3 lies in the saee place. 15 It lies over the east-west center line, which is the line 16 a bout which the two containt.ents are arranged opposite hands. 17 5B. EISENHUT4 Fror. the sta nd poin t of what you had 18 earlier, the chart with the five frames at the bottoe, they 19 r ea lly cctrespond to the one, two, three, four, fives on 20 the se , so it's a attter of picking the right one. 21 ER. HOCH: That's right. These are the same frame 22 numbers that we saw in the earlier diagrar. frer. Figure 4-25. 23 (Slide.)
'h 24 So what a designer does --
25 (Slide.) 4 ALDERSoN AEPoRTING COMP ANY. INC. 400 VLAG1NI A AVE, S.W, W ASHINGToN. O C. 200:4 (202) 554 2345
29 1
-- If someone was interested in determining how to 2 support a piece of equipment or whether it is properly 3 supported seismically, what he does is go to this diagram tC g
4 determine which f rame is closest to that piece of equipr.ent 5 or the piping system, and then to choose the response 6 spectrum for that frase at the appropriate locatien or 7 elevation. 8 ME. DENTON: To be sure I understand because we 9 have a let of cenfusion in this area, would you assure a 10 pipe coming into this area, tell us what frame number vculd 11 teve been selected that was done incorrectly, and what 12 dif f erence you would now make. 13 ME. HOCH: Let's take this hypothetical pipe 14 a ga in , assuming it passes directly from outside the 15 con tainm ent into the reactor vessel and that it 's supported 16 f rom annulus steel. Let's make it simple and bring it in 17 right here. Let's bring it in right here, okay? 18 Using the incorrect frare orientation, again shown 19 in green -- this is labeled orientation which was used 20 using the incorrect frame location it vould have said this 21 is close r to f rame u, and we would have used one of the , 22 response spectra for frame 2. 23 Now, however, you can note that this lies between
~
i 24 f ra me 1 and f ra m e 2 in the red orientation, the correct 25 orienta tion, and whichever one of those frames came closest i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMP ANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S W, WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
3; 1 it would now be used. 2 Now, it's also im portant to note that depending on 3 the response spectrum, the particular response spectrum, 9 4 it's entirely possible that it now should be assigned a 5 vertical acceleration or use a response spectrun that could 6 very well be higher than was used criginally, and in f act in 7 some cases that's what happened. And Mr. Tre sle r will try 8 to give you a feeling for that situation. Okay. 9 ME. IISENHUT4 If th e r e was somethin; that was not 10 hung off the structural steel and parsed t h r c u;.' the 11 containment vall and annulus, the im plica tien you ga ve , ! 12 t hink , was that this would not be affected by it. 13 MR. HOCH Tha t 's righ t. And I"11 give you se:e 14 exact reference to things like that. 15 The main f eedvater lines, all piping that 16 communicates with the reactor coolant system and passes 17 outside the containment has to go through the annulus area. 18 The feedvater lines and main stes: lines do indeed pass 19 directly through the annulus area. They are supported at 20 the outside of the containment area and off the crane vall. 21 They have no supports off the annulus steel. 22 Those big lines for one thing are simply too big 23 to support annulus steel. They are supported off the 24 concrete structure. So the response of th'e annulus steel in h 25 no way affects them. ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMP ANY. INC.
#00 ViAGINIA AVE 5.W., W ASHINGTON D C. 20024 (2C2) 554-2345
31 1 M3. KNIGHT: This is Jim Knight. You were making 2a point th a t I'r. not sure came across. 3 I believe what you were shooting at was the fact g 4 tha t you may well, because of the error in crientation, you 5 may well have assi;ned to a given system, and it su;perts 6 vertical G loadin;s that are in excess of these which are 7 pro per. 8 MB. HCCH: Both things happen, yes. 9 MR. KNIGHT: So you do have syste:s vnirt ig. 10 ef f ect ncv have su pports that are strenger than veuld he 11 req uired to meet the criteria. 12 MR. HOCH: And as Mike Tresler will ; int out, and 13 th e reason I have been enphasizing the significance of frare 14 3 , as it turns out the vertical spectra associated with 15 f ra me 3 tend to be higher than the other spectra, and since 16 it didn't move, since it has the same location en the' 17 incorrect diagram that it does on the correct, there systers 18 a nd tha t equipment which are associated with it and are 19 still associated with it after the correction is made see no 20 change in terms of vertical seismic. 21 5F. EISENHUT: John, to see if I understand vhat 22 you are saying, are you saying in fact that pipin; systers 23 a nd equipment on the east side of the building and in fact
' 24 o n the vest side of the building, the refe'rence frame really 25 doesn 't change?
ALOERSoN AEPCATING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIAGINI A AVE., S W. W ASHINGTON. O C 20024 (202) 554 2345
32 1 ER. HDCH: That's not exactly correct. If I'm in 2 the area where I'm still closest to f rame 3, tha t is 3 correct. Over here, as you can see, here is a red frtre, g 4 here is a green frase. In each case they are frare 5, be 5they move. 6 5R. EISENHUT: Havever, what you're sayin;, 7 shouldn ' t anythin; between the twc fives not he affectef at 8 all ? ER. HOCH: That's right. And Mike will sh:v yo: 9 to some dia grar.s that show you specifically areas where 11 vertical -- at least from speak stand;oint -- where the 12 vertical inputs have gone up, where they have changed or 13 gone down. 14 ER. DEN!ON : And which fra e again vould be 15 controlling in terms of maxinizing design? 16 EE. H3CH: The spectra assceinted eith Erame 3, I 17 think . 18 Dick or Yike, am I correct? 19 HR. TRESlER: Yes. 20 MR. ECCH: -- Are at each location the richest.
- 53. DENTON: Since th a t one was identical if you 21 22 a re near it, which one after that is centrollin;?
ER. HOCH4 If you can wait, we will get to Mike er 23
~
nov. h 24 ve will have Mike address that MR. DENTON4 I only asked just to see 25 a ALDERSON REPOATING CCMP ANY, INC, 400 VIAGINI A AVE _ S W . W ASHiNGTON. D C 200:4(22:1 554 2345
33 1 orientation. Are they controlling in different parts of the 2 f requency spectrum? 3 MR. TRE31ERs It depends en elevation or the point 4 in the a nnulus . 5 ER. HOCH: It's not quite as simple a situation 6 because there are a whole bunch of "becauses," but for one 7 t hing , for com p u t e r -a n a lyre d piping syste:s of course the 8 whole response spectru: is the input. Fer other simpler 9 things peaks were used, so it's not as sin;1e as just 10 com paring peaks for cc:puter-analyzed systems. One really 11 has to look at the whole response spectrum in each case, and 12 Eik e vill get in to that. 13 33. TRES1ER: I think we should point cut where 14 th e peak of the spectra was highest, generally the entire 15 spectra had the same relationship with others. 16 MR. SENTON: Let me ask cne other question. In a 17 strecture as massive as this containment is, and I a ssu:e a s 18 rigid as the valls are, why does fan wei;ht have a 19 par ticular significant effect on vertical a ccelera tion ? 20 MR. 3ETTINGERs This is a structural steel frame 21 t h a t is affected. In no way was the centainment or the 22 crane vall seriously af f ected. 23 MR. DENTON: Aren't they ri; idly attached to each 24 other ? 25 EB. BETTINGEE: The annulus steel connects tc the ALDERSON AEPORTING COMP ANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S W., WAS14tNGTON. O C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
30 1 interior of the crane vall, but it's independent of the 2 outer containment shell. And we have a set cf steel celuens 3 tha t go up, 18 around the exterior of the annulus next to 4 the containment shell. The interior connection is to the 5 crane vall, and tha t is causing some confusien, se ve have a 6 structural steel f rame which did have respense spectra 7 develope d. 50 when we did that, the majcr item cf equipment 8 that sat on that structural steel frame were the fan ecclers. 9 Nev, the tcp slab, the top of the 140 deck is 10 :on cret e . So in addition to the fan ociers, the mass of 11 the concrete contributed to that frame. 12 NE. DENTON: I see. 13 EE. H3CH: In real si:ple ter r, the interier 14 section of the contain=ent -- and I think Dick has some 15 figures to show on that -- vill show you one of those. The 16 interior sec tion of th e con tainment is so massive, so stiff 17 that both it and the outer containment vall are really not 18 influenced at all by the behavior of the annulus steel. 19 Tha t's t he easiest way I can explain it. 20 I would like to discuss with you hev the diagra: 21 error was identified. . MR. DENION: Before ve go on, let's see if there 22 23 a re any cther question s f rom our staff about the methodology 24 that was employed. MR. KNIGHT: Gne other point I think might help us 25 ALCERSON AEPoRTING COMPANY, INC. 400 VIRGINtA AVE S W., WASHINGTON. D 0. 20c:4 (2C2) 554 2345
35 1 gain a little better understanding of your a;; roach, you 2 mentioned if ycu were near a frame it would be appropriate 3 to use the response spectra which was developed for that 4 cocposite f rame. 5 There must be situations where you might 6 conceiva bly have a relatively large response on ene frame 7 and a relatively small response on the other and he f: all 8 intents and purposes pre tty close to halfvay in between. 9 How would you handle a situation like that? 10 MR. TRESLER[ We enveloped the spectra if mere 11 than one f ra=e was involved, so ve used the higher spectra 12 o f a n y f rame involved with a piping analysis. In other 13 cases we enveloped the entire spectra and desi;ned to the 14 highest spectrum. 15 Is that clear? 16 ER. KNIGHT: What you're saying is this 17 hypothetical pipe we took just came cleanly in between 18 f r a m e s , and it's kind of an unlikely situation. It veuld 19 t en d to pass between two frames. 20 MR. TRESLER: The kind of thing John ex;1ained is 21 t ru e , such as major steam or feedvater lines. Cther lines In these cases we enveloped 22 do involve more than one f rame. 23 the spectra and used the highest.
%R. HOCH: Remember what Mike said, the situation 24 25 he is referring to with the clean entry for main and stea ALDER $oN REPCRTING COMP ANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W. W ASH;NGioN. D C. 20C24 (202) 55* 2345
3G i feedvater. They're clear entry, all right, but they're net 2 involved in this proble: because they 're not suppcrted off 3 the annulus steel. There are other lines which pass very 4 simply through the annulus that are supported off annulus Ssteel, so they have to be considered in relation to this 6 problem. 7 ME. VillhEE Is what you said then that up to the 8 f rr *e of the high input and the one with the lov input, that 9 eve rythin: up to the low input would be enveloped by the 10 high f rame spectra? 11 23. TEESLER: That's correct. 12 ME. DENTON: Tourhing on the e rro r, wh y didn ' t the 13 sa.T e sit ua tion exis t with regard to the horirental 14 direction? The two are sort of allied calculations, or they 15 appear to be. 16 Were they suf ficiently distinc t that -- 17 MR. BETTINGEP: The horirontal model was an 18 a xisymme tric model, which a ssumes that you have the same 19 structure all the way around. And it was simply to cet 20 horiron tal spectra, and it did not depend on this planar 21 orientation . 22 3R. DENTON: Why wouldn't fan mass special 23 location be as importart there as for vertical? ER. BETTINGER: When we get to t'he horirontal, I
.h 24 25 vould have to check to make sure that the actual mass of f an ALDERSCN REPORTING COMP ANY, INO.
400 VIRGINIA AVE.. S w., WASHINGTON. o C 20C24 (202) 554-2345
37 1 coolers in that case was included. It may not have been ti; 2 eneugh to be substantial in deterrining horizontal 3 com ponents , but I'm sure an assumption was made that 4 included their cass. Eut as I say, all tha t was dein; va 5 to develop a horirental spectrum, and you applied these in 6 the worst case with the verst confi;uratien y:n veuld need; 7 and it did not require the planar orientatier that you're 8 suggesting. 9 If you have any Tore questions, why, we can ask 10 D r . John Bloce who is right here, unless your questien is 11 answere d . Really it bcils down to there was nc need ft: 12 h aving planar orientation involved in a herirental spectru . 13 EE. HOCH: And the simplest answer is it's a 14 dif ferent model for horizontal. ER. DENTON: All right. I'll step here. 15 16 With regard to schedule for the rest of the day, I 17 envision that it will take most of the day for us to get 18 t hr ough this. I would propose that we step and take a break 19 a t about 10:30 so that our transcriber can change the tapes 20 and that some of these more detailed questic3s perhaps I 21 vill pcstpone until this af ternoon and let 3cu get en with 22 t he ma jor presenta tion . ER. HOCHs I came over to sit down and make ycu 23 h 24 people a little more comfortable than havino to lean back 25 over your shoulder. I don't need any transparencies fer ALDER $oN REPoATING COMP ANY. tNO, 400 VIRGlNI A AVE S W WASH 4NGTON. O C 20c:4 62:2) 554 2345
32 1 this portion. 2 I would like to talk about how the diagram error 3 ve are talking about was identified and discovered, and then 4 what was done abcut that, a little about th e sequence of 5 events sin:e that tine. 6 The diagram error we are discussin; here was 7 identified by pi;ing desi;n engineerr in PGEI's depart ent 8 of Mechanical and Nuclea Engineering. They were dein; verk 9 which included a review of Unit 2 pipin; in acc r d ance vit? 10 t h e requirements of your bulletin, NFC 79-1a. They had made 11 rou tine use of the circular dia; ram in questien fer 12 determinin; verti:a1 seismic inputs for seisrir design of 13 piping and supported from the annulus steel for beth Unit 1 14 and 2; so they had rade extensive use of this circular 15 dia gra m . 16 The use of the diagram raised some questions in 17 the engineers' minds concerning, first, its derivation and 18 rela tion shi p between these equivalent frames. We talked 19 s ho u t these conceptual equivalent frames in scre physical 20 reality a that is, the physical location of the annulus steel 21 itself or the other equapient in the containTent. 22 In order to satisfy their curiosi ty, the engineers 23 reviewed the UPS-Bloom report concernino th e seiseic design 'h 24 o f the s tructure, had they found a statement which indicated 25 t ha t the frames were inte3ded to be located directly under ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMP ANY, INC. 400 ,1RGINI A AVE., S W . W ASHINGToN. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
?9 1 fan coolers.
2 That statement provided an indica tion tha t there 3 might be an inconsistency in the diagram. This be;an an 4 investigation of the a;;arent inconsistency which continued 5 until Sunda y, September the 27th when we reached a 6 conclucion that it was indeed an inconsistency, that it had 7 implications and potential ir; acts which might have safety 8 significance; and we reached a conclusion that a re;criable 9 condition existed pursuant to the re po rting require:ents in 10 the technical specifications. And a report was then made te 11 Region V , ICE on Monday, September the 2Eth. 12 Since that time, since Septe.ber 25th, we '.a v e 13 bee n und erg oing an extensive review to determine the impact 14 of the ore on the plant desi;n. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 h 24 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S W., WASHINGTON. D C 20024 (202) 554 2345
uC \ 1 In a second I an going to ask Zike Tresler, whc is 2 the piping coordinator f or Diablo Canyon, and he is going t Before I do that, let 3 describe the effert and its results. 4 me sake a couple of remarks about the uniqueness cf this 5 error and the fact that we think the error is isolated. 6 As you will hear later in the presentatien, we 7 have begun an investigation to find any possible similar 8 error af fecting pipe design, specifically fccusing on the 9 mirror image and the oppo ite-hand situation where this 10 mig ht o c cu r . In every case we have examined, the desi;n 11 inf orma tion and the actual physical location of equipment 12 and systems in the plant have found to be correct and 13 consistent. 14 This is both expected and rat _cnal, as 15 demonstrated by some confusion, some misunderstanding, this 16 morning between us. The equivalent frames we have been 17 discussing here are an analytical conception. They are 18 used in the analytical model and represent the containment 19 ann ulus steel but have no physical ccenterpart in the 20 pla nt. And that is one of the things that makes this a 21 dif ficult error to correct. 22 Actual ohysical systems and equipment that are 23 shown on design drawings are installed, are constructed for 24 the plant, have the advan tage of being the're, have the h 25 advantage of field verification and inspecticn to identify ALCERSON ,,EPORTING OCMP ANY. INC. 400 VIAGINIA AVE Ew., W ASHINGToN. O C 20C24 (202) 554-2345
u1 1 and correct any errors that might have occurred in placin; 2 them, any errors that might have resulted from this 3 opposite-hand situation. D 4 In short, we have not been able to find an error 5 situation where this kind of error t #fected other plant 6 desi;n . We have concluded at this peint, and vill centinue 7 to try to confirm it, that the diagram error is an isclated 8 case applicable to a small area of the plant and is not an 9 indication of any general problem. 10 HR. DENTON: Let us pursue this er c: tefore 11 moving to the next one. I think it would be helpful when we 12 p u t a slide up if you would identify that slide at the 13 beginnin g so we vill kncv exactly what is being referred 14 t o . 15 Now, I assume there is a diagram similar to the 16 one you have shown for Unit 2 with frames aligned. And the 17 dia gram is labeled " Unit 2," but the frames are really 18 aligned for Unit 1. Is that what the engineers were working 19 wit h ? 20 ER. HOCH Let us let Mike address that in 21 d e t ail . But the figure ve referred to this morning, the one 22 which a ppeared in the Hosgri evaluation report -- 23 MR. DENTON: Which is labeled " Unit 1," but is 24 really appropriate for Unit 2. And now yo'u have said if the h 25 events vera on Unit 2, they were not usino this figure, they ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY,INO, 400 VIRGINIA AVE $ w, WASHINGTON. O C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
42 1 were using another figure that ther thought was appropriate
- 2 f or Unit 2, but was really appropriate for Unit 1.
3 ER. HOCH: Yes. Let ze explain that real
^
4 quickly. 5 MR. TRESLER: The figures we are looking at are
's figures out of the Hosgri report and out of the consultant's 7 a nalysis . Those figures were taken and con ver ted into
. 8-design documents or criteria for design. And we did create 3
- 9 an opposite-hand figure --
13 YOICE: Use the aike. 11 5R. TRESLER: We did create an opposite-hand
- 12 fig ure to tha t one we looked at identified in Unit 1 for 13 Unit 2. And these are in our design documents.
i 14 MR. HOCH: And again, since they were created 15 opposite-hand f rom the figure we have been looking at, they 18 are incorrect for Unit 2. 17 ER. DENTON: Can you show us that figure? Is it te identical to the one we just saw except fer the frame 19 orientstion ? 20 ER. BETTINGER: It was the same one. This l 21 analysis was perf ormed on actually Unit 2. They used Unit 22 2 d rawings to develop those weights, and where the fan 23 cooler loads were they used that orientation. The error l I h 24 comes then when we have a road map of where to apply the 1 25 spectra , and it says it is for Unit 1, and we incorrectly 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE.,5.W. W ASHINGToN. D C. 20c24 (202) 554 2345
U G3 1 then applied the spectra according to the road rap that 2 really fits Unit 2. 3 MF. DENTON: You were doing this during your 4 review pursuant to the balletin that we men tioned earlier. 5Why was this not found when you reviewed that bulletin for 6 Unit 1? 7 !?. HOCH: We are talking abcut 79-1u, and I think 8 it is kind of important to note what the purpose of the 9 bulletin and the intent is; you were verifying that piping 10 tha t you built is in the same configuratien as you 11 represented in the antlysis as it was analyred. 12 The work related to that bulletin does not, in 13 g en eral, require you to, nor was it done, te go back and i We are only looking at as-built 14 loo k at response spectra. 15 piping versus what was analyzed in the plant. So that is 16 t h e reason it was not identified. 17 MB. DENTON: Let me ask cur r?cional inspection 18 sta f f if they have any questions in this area. HE. FAULKENBEREY: Was the engineer using a 19 20 checklist when he picked this up on Unit 2? 21 HR. TPESLER: The engineer that picked this up was 22 act ually involved in a number of efforts that were coing on 23 sim ultan eously , one of which was the 79-10 review effort. Now, of course, when we are goin'q back over our D 24 25 compa risen of the configuration of the piping system as used ALDERSoN REPORT:NG COMP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S W., WASHINGirN. O C. 200:4 (20:1 554 2345
)
La 1 in the analysis with that p ro vi de d by as-built walkdown 2 drawings in the field, if we do find some differences that 3 have to be addressed, it may be that at certain times ar. 4 analyst would go back to an indivifual to verify that he has 5got the proper spectra. So he was working with spectra fret 6 tha t aspect in the 79-14 review. 7 At the same time, we were doing cur syste-8 interaction . And in c; der to accomplish design of these 9 changes which were necessary as a result of that prograr, we 10 also were using the spectra that we are looking at. So it 11 was a situa tion where he was working on a number of 12 dif f eren t efforts that caused him to lock into this spectra 13 f urther and identify the inconsistency of the fan eccler 14 locations with the frame locations on the diagram. 15 MR. EISENHUT: Are you then saying that the verk 16 y ou were actually looking at or the finding of this error 17 w a s really beyond the scope of 79-13, in its sense of what 18 i t was really af ter ? 19 BR. TRESlER: Yes. 20 HR. EISENHUT I have been listening to the 21 discussion here, and maybe it is a simple question, but I de 22 n ot quite understand. Are you saying then that Unit 2 was 23 don e right, or is there also an error on Unit 2? 5R. HOCH4 Both units were done ' incorrectly as a .h 24 25 result of this diagram error. The diagram error was :ade. I ALOEASoN REPORTING CCMP ANY, INC, 600 viHGINia AVE S W . WASHINGTON. O C 200:4 (202) 554-2345
1 45 1 And let me stop and sa y something ra ther im;crtan t, because 2 ve were getting questions on what I omitted from what I had 3 to say. 4 The dia;rs: error we were talking about, the 5 simple circula r diagra =, was t a ken by UES-31oot frc2 another 6 diagram which was supplied to him by PGLE and which 7 mis takenly showed the Unit 2 crientatien. BR. EISENHUT: I understand that for Unit but I 1, 8 Are you saying that Unit i dia;rars 9 as a little confused. 10 were used on Unit 2 and Unit 2 used on -- Unit 2 was used on Unit 1, and then 11 MB . ROCH : 12 th e y were reversed and put in an opposite-hand configuratien There is only one 13 to be reversed and used for Unit 2. 14 analysis and one URS-Bloom report dealing with the seismic 15 analysis of the containment for the Hosgri seismic event. 16 That analysis is labeled " Unit 1," and in all respects 17 except for the annulus area was correctly done for Unit 1 18 The model we are talking about here,the model of 19 the annulus steel, was incorrectly done, because Unit 2 was 20 rep resen te d . HR. EISENHUTs In fact, Figure u.8 of the Hesgri 21 22 r e p or t would be correct if Unit 1 was changed to Unit 2? That is correct. And then our 23 ER. RETTINGER:
'.h 24 people v ent on and, doing the opposite-hand in this, simply Sc 25 took tha t same report and said Unit 2 is opposite-hand.
( ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 40G VIRGINI A AVE.. S W., W ASHINGToN, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
45 1 they managed to make the same consistent error. 2 EE. EISENHUT: Cne of the things you said a minute 3 ago, you said since September 28 you have been checkin; for 4 any similar errors or any errors of this kind and you have 5 not found any errors of this kind. I assu e what you are 6 really saying is that you have not found any err:rs, 7 period. Cr have you found any? I just want to be perfectly 8 lear. 9 ME. HOCE: We were trying to address this kind of 10 e r r or , a t least the statements that I rade. In addition to 11 the iden tification of this kind of error, you vill note in 12 t h e letter that we sent to you -- and I will try to refer to 13 th e time -- 14 ME. EISENHUT: I believe it was about the middle 15 o f last week. 16 3E. HOCH: Later in the presentation, if you will 17 bear with me, why don't I let Dr. Cloud, who has been 18 retained by PGCE to try to address the program for 1 1 19 identif ying our reverification program, address that, if I 20 could. ME. EISENHUT: I am certainly agreeable. I just 21 22 did not know whether I should be reading too much into what 23 You had been sa ying , because they all infer to te that you 24 had found a second error or that you may h' ave found a second
.h 25 error. So I will refrain until Dr. Cloud's presentation.
i l l - l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S W , WASMNGToN D C. 20024 (2021 554 2345
u7 1 MR. H3CH: We have sort of been bouncing around 2 here. Let me reintroduce again Mike Tresler. Mike is l l 3 piping coordinator for Diablo Canyon in the Department of l 4 Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering. 5 MR. DENTON: Could we hold the initial pa rt of , 6 this f or perha;s 15 or 20 =inutes or so and plan :: take a 7 short break? 8 MR. TRES1ER: I think we can stop at any point in 9 the presentation. Could I have the first slide, please' 10 (Slide.) 11 I am here to review with you the irpact cf this 12 error in the existing Unit i design. I will proceed through 13 this assessment as described by the outline. I will be l . 14 a dd ressing electrical equipment installation, techanical 15_ e qu ;im e n t , conduit and cable tray supports, piping, and 16 finally , piping supports. 17 (Slide.) 18 For each category of design I will discuss the 19 r eview method, findings, the resultant action, and schedule I will discuss impact. But hefore I begin, 20 f or resolution. 21 I t hink it is essential for us to understand the limited 22 plant area affected by this error. If I could have the next 23 slide . 24 ( Slid e . ) lh 25 This shows a cross-section view of the area of the I ALDERSot, REPORTING COMP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W . w ASHINGToN. o C. 20c24 (202: 554 345
LB 1 containment affected. I would like to point out the 2 f ollowin g facts. The only pertion of the overall plant 3 structure in volved is the 17-foot-wide annulus portion of 4 the containment. The annulus is bounded by the crane vall 5 containment liner and base slab. 6 ME. DENTON: Could you identify the figures by 7 some designation? MR. TPESLEF: This is a special vertical 8 9 cross-section of the containment building which does depict 10 the annulus in proper perspective with the re st ,o f the 11 building . It is made strictly for this presentatien. 12 Again, the annulus is bounded by the crane vall, the 13 containm ent liner and base slab, none of which are affected 14 b y the diagram error. Within the annulus we are cencerned 15 only with the Hosgri vertical spetra between elevations 101 16 and 140. In addition to being limmited to an approxima tely the spectra 1717-f oot-wide and 40-f oot-high cross-section , 18 reorientation does not affect all areas in the plan view. 19 (S lid e . ) 20 This plan view, which shows the original frame 211ccatica drawing and the corrected frame location drawing, vertical response spectra 22 was used for selection f or the 23 selection f or Unit 1. In reviewing the vertical Hosc ri spectra
'h 24 25 associated with each f rame, we were able to show that ALDERSON REPORTING CcMP ANY,INO, 400 vtRGtNIA AVE. S.W . W ASM'NG7cN. O c. 20024 (202) 554 2345
t9 1 although frames 1, 2, u, and 5 were in co rr e ctly oriented, a 2 significant portion of the annulus area s pe ct ra associated 3 with the original orientation is equal te or greater than 4 that in the correct orienta tion and thus insta11atiens 5 associated with other sectors are unaf f ected. 6 If I could have the next figure please. 7 (Slide.) 8 Here is the fi;ure -- 9 ME. KNIGHT: Excuse me. ~4 hen we cc hack and try 10 t o relat e what we see on the record with the slides, if you 11 would each time say "This slide e n title d - ." Use it as an 12 i n d e x . 13 ER. BRAND: And I might add that we vill be 14 pro viding copies of these slides. 15 EE. TRE3 LEE: This slide depicts the areas which 16 experienced either spectra increases or no spectra change. 17 The title of this slide is " Areas f or Peak Spectral 18 Accelera tions Increased by Ees -ien tin g the Spectra." It is 19 again eleva tion 116. l 20 This figure shows in green the se ct ors for the l 21 116-foot elevation which experienced seismic spectra and 1 22 resulting load increases. 23 The unaffected area, shown in orange, covers 187.5 24 degrees of the annulus. The same type of' figure -- h l (Slide.) 25 l l 1 l l ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMP ANY. INC, 1 1 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S w. WASHINGTON. O C 20024 (202) 554-2345
SC 1 -- entitled " Elevation 105," shows similar 2 increases in green. In this case, the unaffected area 3 covers 2 22.5 degrees. Obviously, these areas not 4 experiencing spectra increases were designed to equal er 5 greater spcctra than were required. 6 ME. OENTCN: Could you give us an idea er shev ur 7 sore representative spectra that shows the difference in the 8 spectra in the two different areas? 9 55. TEESLEF: I am serry, but I do not have the 10 sli des . 11 EE. DENTON: Could you characterire the magnitude 12 o f the differences? 13 ME. TEEELEF: I veuld say generally that frames 1, 14 2 , 4, and 5 differ by very small amounts. Frame 3 is 15 sig nificantly higher. 16 ME. DENTON: As "significantly" a factor of 2 or 17 30 percent? What is significant? 18 ME. TEESLER If we can speak to differences in 19 pea k acceleration, I would say by a factor of 7-1/2. 1 1 20 Now, again, the difference is dependent upon 21 ele vation; that is the maximum difference at the elevation. 22 A t ele va tio n 140 there is a 25 percent va ria tio n . l l 23 Does that answer your question? EE. DENTON: Yes, it does. I ad surprised it is h 24 25 that large. You are saying there is a factor of 7 between -- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIAGINIA AVE, S W., W ASHiNGTCN. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
51 1 ER. TRESLEE4 You asked for the maximum deviation 2 of peak acceleration between frames? 3 MP. DENT 0h4 Yes. 4 EE. TRES1EE: And that is a factor of 7. l l 5 MR. DENTON: I see. l 6 HE. TEEE*.EE: Now, fortunately, frare 3's l 7 orientation did not change. Fo f0: the most part, the area 8 aff ected by 3 in the incorrect orientatien is the same as 9 with the correctef orientation. Se that diminished the 10 impact on the piping cor.penents in other systems. 11 MR. EISENHUTs Is it possible fer you te give te a 12 phy sical f eelin; as to why it is so uch diff erent on a 13 ver tical acceleration, physically around th e loca tion , fro: 14 this location than on the others? 15 ER. TRESLE34 I think Dr. Bicom, who actually 16 perf or:ed the analysis, would be better prepared to do 17 tha t. 18 ER. 3100E: In the first place, some cf the peak 19 spectra th a t have been referred to are on the ccncrete 20 v alls. I think they were roughly about 2.2 c. And those 21 valls vertically are so rigid that the amounts are the sa:e 22 all the way up and down the valls. So when you give the 23 ratio of the 7 that I heard, it might refer from the
'h 24 concrete vall up to the middle of the beam span.
25 Let us forget the concrete valls for the moment ALCERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC. 400 vtRGINtA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345 j
52 1 and think only of the beam spans. As : recall it, elevatien 2 140, there is cot a great variation, ! vecid say, fror. one 3 f rame to another. As I recall, it is on the order of 4 perhaps 20 percent all the way around. 5 As we get down into some of the icver elevations, 6 one or two of th> f rames shev peak values geine rather hi;h, 7 at hi;h frequencies. 8 The reasen f or this is ep;arently in the process 9 of matching the time histcry to a s:cet.' desi;n respense 10 spectrum , there are so:e spikes that fall ateve the srceth 11 spectrum when you redo it. And I think at ene frare, in 12 par ticular, where we had as much as 12 to 1c c in midspan, 13 ve were operating right on the tip of one of these spikes, 14 which means it is really a fallacicus value. 15 It is really too high, because it was well above 16 the smoo th spectrum. Eut since it came out cf the analysis 17 and the analysis was based upon very fine digitalization, it 18 was ulti:ately designed to it. The range of values in the 19 steel f rame I would say would be much less than 7; perhaps 3 20 o r 4 21 MR. DENTON: Co uld you charatte ri re the accuracy 22 of this type of model, or has it been applied in other 23 designs ? Could you sa y a bit about the process and what
'h 24 confidence you have in the results of it?
25 MR. B100M Yes, I would be glad to. ALCERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, .NC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D C. 20C:4 (202) 554 2345
53 1 The modeling system used was the s -called stick 2 model or lump mass with weights of springs connecting the 3 sasses, which is done constantly for buildings and aise for 4 nuclear plants. 5 The selection of the = ass peint at th e center cf 6 the spans was made after great consideration, first of all, 7 to get underneath the fans directly and to take care of the 8 :oncentrations of weight, but abcVe all to have in mind the 9 f act that it was slightly conservative because it f :ced 10 higher periods or longer periods er shorter f requencies, 11 thus f or cing the results up on the left-hand side cf the 12 response spectrum when it was plotted against a period. 13 If we leaned the other way, we would be on the a 14 unsaf e side. So by using the one-mass system per each beam 15 spa n -- actually , there are many masses in a rodel, but for 16 each beam span there is one in the niddle -- this tends to 17 give slightly longer periods and gives higher results than 18 if we had used a uniform system, or if we had used many i j 19 m a s se s . l l 20 ER. DENTCNa Questiens? 21 (No response.) l 22 MR. DENTCNa Thank you. 23 Perhaps this would be ag good time to take'a very Let us plan on resuning in ten minutes. l th 24 sho rt break. l l 25 (Recess.) I l l l ALOEMoN REPcATING COMP ANY, INC. 400 VIRGINIA A%1., S W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20C24 (2r 2) 554 2345
54 1 MR. BEAND: Mr. Tresler, may we resume, please. 2 (Slide.) 3 ME. TEESLEE: The slide on the overhead right nov D 4 is a list of the various cateceries of installations vnich 5 wer e potentially affe:ted by the diagram error. Eeview of 6 electrical equipment shows there are no Class 1I electrical 7 panels in the annulus area which a re af f ected by the change 8 in floor response spectra. 9 We have perforned a drawing reviev and cnsite 10 ins pection a nd have determined the electrical penetration 11 boxes are the only Class 1E panels in the annulus area. 12 The y are mounted on the vall and not affected by the change 13 in the floor response spectrum. 14 The instrumentation in the annulus area consists 15 o f individual instruments, their enclosures, commonly 16 ref erred to as local panels, and the associated 17 instrument 3 tion tubing supports. 18 The seismic qualification was based on plant verst 19 case envelope of the spectrum, which is unaffected by the 20 reorientation of the Hoscri spectrum. The local panels were 21 d esigned to be rigid and have been shown by tests to have no 22 resonant frequencies below 33 hertz. These panels were 23 a nalyzed for worst case loadings using enveloping Hosgri 1FA
!h 24 inputs f or all plant locations. Therefore'these panels are 25 also unaff ected by the error.
ALDERSoN REPCRTING CCMPANY. INC. 400 vtRGINt A AVE, S.W., W ASHINGTON, D C 20024 (202) 554 2345
55 1 The instrume nta tion tubing suppcrts, which utilire 2 unistrut and superstrut are a series of typical 3 standarddesigns which assure a minimum f requency cf 20 4 hertr. Subsequent field verification of the desi;ns within 5 the annulus area has shown a miniaum resonant frequency of 6 30 hert: f:r tubing supports. A review of the designs har 7 shown the supports' load-bearing capability is well above 8 any Hosgri vertical acceleration at the c0 hert: frequency 9 r ange, a nd thus the designs are unaffected by the error. 10 The only design Class 1 mechanical equipment above 11 and not af fixed to ele va tion 91 in the contain:ent annulus 12 a r e the contain=ent fan ecclers, hydrogen recombiners, and 13 the valves. The fan coolers, recombiners and attachments -- 1 and this is attachments to the pieces of equipment as well 15 a s their fixation or fixity to the 140 elevation -- have 16 been qualified to envelope response spectra which are more 17 conserva tive than the vertical response spectra for all five 18 f ra mes and a re therefore not affected by the errer. 19 Valves in th e piping system requirin; reanalysis 20 were evaluated by comparison of calcula ted valve 21 acceleration to arceptable valve acceleration. All valve 22 accelera tions were f ound to be within design criteria , which 23 assures the ca pability of valves to perfor= their intended 24 design f unction. h I 25 Only two designed Class 1 ven tila tion ALOERScN REPcRTING CoMDANY,INC. 400 VIRGIN:A AVE., S W , W ASHINGToN. O C 20C24 (200 554 2345
56 1 installations are potentially aff ected by the error. They l 2 are the hydrogen purge valves and the asscciated debris 3 screens. Neither of these items are attached to or 4 supported f ree annulus steel. A flexible connection 5 isola tes the valve and the screens from input received fr:m l l 6 the ass o ci a t e d durt systems. Therefere the ventilatier 7 systems are unaffected. 8 Cond uit and cable tra y supports. The 9 saf ety-related conduit and cable tray supperts have been to reviewed . The analysis shows that these su pports a re 11 satisf actory. In addition, cable loading was reverified for 12 the most highly loaded supports and installation details 13 were reverified by field inspection. 14 HE. DENTON: What about fire protection systems in 15 this a re a ? 16 MR. TRE5LER: The fire protection systems were 17 covered as a part of the pipe hange r ef f ort, and that's 18 rig ht where I am now. 19 But specifically, to the best of my knowledge 20 there are no fire systems impacted by the recrientation. 21 To assess the impact of the diagram error en 22 pip ing systems, a thorough review was performed. The 1 23 evaluation procedure utilired f or the piping consisted cf 24 first identifying all piping systems a!fected by the error.
.h 25 (Slide.)
l ALDERSON REPCRTING CCMP ANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE $ w . w ASHINGTON. O C 20024 (202) 554 2345
e, , 1 This slide, entitled " Piping E v al ua ti c.- 2 Procedures," essentially identifies the steps we vent 3 through for this review. 4 The second step is to identify the proper Ecsgri 5 vertical spectra for each piping system. The third ste; was 6 to identify the original Hos;ri vertical spectra used in the 7 original analysis. The fourth ste; was te cc: pare th e 8 respective spectra determined in steps two and three. EE. CENTON: Let me stop here. Where do you find 9 to items tvc and three? When you say " identify," is there a 11 boo k , a publication, a report? 12 MR. TRESLER: Actually, we identified the spectra, 13 t he proper spectra, by using of course the corrected 14 dia gra= . And we talked before about the effective area of 15 the conceptual franes. And so we very simply performed two 16 sep arat e r ev iew s . 17 MR. DENTON: I guess what I'm asking is, can we 18 f in d the spectra in printed for ? ME. TRESLEF: The spectra is in the Hcsgri 19 20 amendment to the FSAR for every frame, for every elevation. l 21 I ' m sorry, I misunderstood the question. l l 22 The fourth step was to compare the respective If the original 23 spectra determined in steps two and three. 24 spectra was equal to or greater than th e properly criented lh 25 spectra, analysis and support designs are unaffected. Fer l l ALCERSCN REPcRTING COMP ANY, tNC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S w., WASHINGTON. O C 20c24 12:21 554 2345
58 1 those pi pin g systens with correctly oriented spectra greater 2 than spectra originally used, the piping evaluation was 3 repeated. 4 A total of 123 pipelines required evaluaticn. 5 MR. KNIGHTS This is Jim Knight from the staff. 6 Tou say 123 pipelines. Is tha t the sa me a s 1 22 7 problems or are there a number of problems in each line that 8 the analysts checked as the cause of the problem? 9 MR. TRESLER: There were 123 lines which were to iden tified to have the potential f or sup;crts f rom annulus 11 field with a corrected spectra greater than the spectra used 12 f or original analysis. 13 MR. KNIGHTS I understand tha t , but sometimes a 14 given pipeline might be divided into -- 15 MR. TRESLERs There are a number of pipelines on 16each piping analysis. 17 MR. KNIGHTS I'm trying to get an overall crasp of 18 the sire of the analytical effort. When you say 123 19 pip eline s, that could turn out to be 360 problens er -- 20 MR. TBESLERs As I go through this, I will 21 ide ntif y the number of analyses which had to be rerun, the 22 number of findings to date, and so on. Tha t may answer your 23 question . 25 computer reanalyses were per5ormed. The h 24 25 remainder were designed by using spacing tables. These were l
~
ALCERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY. INC, r I l 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASH'NGToN. O C. 20C24 (202) !$4 2345
l l 59 l 1 l l l 1 evaluated using the peak acceleration from the response 2 spectra. The methods and criteria used in the piping 3 evaluation vere identical to those used in th e previous 4 Hosgri analysis. The piping stresses from these evaluations 5 were all within the piping system Hosgri allowables. 6 Support loads were also determined and e va lua ted 7 f urther . 8 If we could have the next overhead, please. 9 (Slide.) 10 This overhead, entitled Pi p e Support Evaluation 11 Procedures," again simply lists the steps we went through 12 f or the support evaluations. The pipe support review 13 program provides for identification, review and 14 qualification or redesign f or each support to provide 15 compliance with the new loads determined by the piping 16 re-evaluation. 17 This effort was accomplished by using our standard 18 procedures f or support review or redesign f ollowing 19 analysis. These are identical to those used in the previous 20 Hosgri evaluation. Analyses are issued to a design section, 21 which has sole responsibility f or preparation of new hanger 221oad data sheets which contain all previous and new loads 23 a nd displacements. These load data sheets are rhen' coupled with the h 24 25 a s-built drawings and issued to the hanger review and design ALCERSoN REPORT;NG COMP ANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE, S.W W ASHINGTCN. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
60 1 drawing groups. All increased loads and displacements a re 2 reviewed and a redesi;n of the support issued, if 3 necessary. All su pports experiencing load increases which 4 require civil review to ensure annulus steel structural 5 integrity are reviewed by the civil designers for 6 acceptability prior to 'he issue of the support modificatien 7 to construction. 8 Design verification is applied to our design 9 ef f orts. Both analyses review and support review to locate 10 installa tions poten tially a ff ected by the diagram error were 11 perf ormed twice and by separate sets of personnel to ensure 12 acc uracy . Analyses receive two separate checks prior to 13 issue and are reviewed and checked in detail by other 14 personnel preparing support load data sheets. Support 15 designs are checked by sepa rate individuals, accepted by the 16 design supervisor, and then reviewed and approved by a 17 separate group of engineers. 18 Similar verifi:stion is acco:plished for 19 construction work and changes depicted by as-built 20 d ra win gs . All of these activities are required and 21 con trolled by procedures. I 22 The tabulation of supports -- if I could have the 23 nex t overhead, please. s h 24 (Slide.) 25 This overhead, entitled " Pipe Support Reviev ALDERSoN REPCRTING CCMP ANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., W ASHINGTCN. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
61 1 Status and Findings," simply portrays the number of supports 2 involved in the various stages of review in that review 3 process. The tabulation of supports by status shows the 4 total number of supports identified as having a potential 5 f or increased lead. That's the 691 fi;ure. 6 Of those supports which are identified as having a 7 potential for an increased load, many showed smaller, no 8 change or minimal increase in load. Of those supports which 9 experienced a higher load, many will not require 10 modifica tion because of the margin inherent in the design 11 supports . 12 To date we have completed the review of 104 large 13 bore supports and 254 small bore supports. This review has 14 ide ntified 19 large bore and 8 small bore supports requiring 15 modifica tion to obtain compliance with the FSAR Hosgri 16 support design criteria. These represent relatively minor 17 ch a nge s , such as increasing an individual member sire in a 18 f rame su pport. 19 All preliminary indications are that support 20 modifica tions will be easily identified, installed and 21 verified . To provide you with a further understanding of 22 the status of pipe analysis and review, qualification or 23 redesign, I have prepared the achedule shown on the next h 24 overhead. 25 (Slide.) ALDER $oM REPORTING COMP ANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
62 1 This overhead, entitled " Piping Support Analysis," 2 depicts cur status as we sit here today, as well as the 3 schedule f or completing the reviews and work which is 4 out standing . 5 MR. DENTCN: Maybe you should stop here and walk 6 us through this one a bit. 7 MR. TRESLER: Okay. We have completed the 8 analysis. We have completed reanalysis of piping systems. 9 We have completed th e review of supports to identify 10 specifically those impacted by the diagram error. And we 11 are in the process of support design review for 12 qualification or, a s necessary, redesicn. 13 MR. DENTON: You were saying you have completed 14 all the reanalysis necessary to iden tif y those piping areas 15 and supports which have a spectrum exceeding the original 16 design , and now you're looking at the supports themselves 17 one by one. 18 MB. TRESLER: We have completed the re vie w by 19 identifying all piping systems analyses and supports 20 impacted by the error. We have completed the reanalysis of 21 the piping systems and now are simply in the stage of 22 reviewing those hangers which have load changes to determine l 23 whether modifications are necessary or not. We have
.g 24 completed our reanalysis on the problem of pipe stress.
l 25 As you can see, we expect to complete cur support l ALCERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE , S.W., W ASHINGToN, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
63 1 design review -- and this is again threugh changes in leads 2 -- by October 23rd, and any resultant construction we expect 3 to be completed by the end of this mon th. 4 ER. DENTON. Could you say a bit about the type of 5 changes? When you've got a number such as 27 that requires 6 a change in a support, I envision you could change the 7 support in a number of ways. You could change the loca tion 8 or make it a better support or make the attachments to the 9 pipe or the valls stronger. 10 What types of changes? 11 MR. TRE5LER: I think generally we are talking 12 about simply increasing the weight of stru:tural members 13 which are attached to the annulus steel. Generally these 5 are simply frames serving as guides or restraints, and we 15 would increase, as an example, from a two and a half by a 16 quarter angle to maybe a two and a half by two and a half to 17 a quarter angle. 18 In some cases anchor bolts may be involved, and 1 19 those might have a few mo difica tions. But I expect that 20 kind of change to be very seldom. Usually it's just going 2? to be increasing member site. 1 22 3R. DENTON: You have a number of e ther technical 23 restraints in piping designa thermal expansion, pipe whip.
'h 24 How do you assure yourself that when you make a change in a 25 support that you're not impacting some other design l
\ I ALDERSoN REPCRTING CCMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l l
Su ! l l 1 1 criteria? 2 MR. TREELER: First off, we have to understand 3 that we are only talking about vertical spectrum and only i h 4 ir. creased vertical loads and displacements. And we are 5 reviewing only increased loads to the increased 6 displacements as they would impact a spring hanger, as an 7 example, which is not part of a seistic analysis. 8 So ve are addressing all those issues which relate 9 to incressed vertical locd and potential for a changed 10 vertical displacemen t. I think the clearances generally -- 11 not generally -- on ru pture restraints and things like that 12 are no t a factor here. Thermal movement is certainly much 13 greater. 14 HR. VOLLMER: Would this have any impact on the 15 horizon tal analysis? 16 MR. TRE3LER No. 17 MR. YOLLMERs It would be stric tl y limited to th e 18 vertical? 19 MR. TRESLER: Yes. 20 HR. KNIGHT: Earlier in your statement you caid 21 there were a number of supports whirh did net require any 22 remedial action because of the inherent mar;in in support 23 design. I could interpret that to mean either you discern 24 margin or you wish to mobilize, if you will, margin beyond h 1 25 the criteria for design. ALDERSCN REPCRTING COMP ANY, INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S W.. W ASHINGToN. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
65 1 MR. TRESLER: No, sir. 2 MR. XNIGHT: Cr I could interpret it that the 3 original capacity of the support was such that even with ar 4 increased load you were still within the design criteria? 5 MR. TRESLER: The latter is true. 6 ER. XNIGHT: In all cases? 7 MR. TFE31ER: You have to remecter, I said we were 8 using our original design criteria and design methed s, and 9 ve are talking about increased loads and the suppor t still 10 having the capacity to withstand that increased lead. There 11 are many reasons for that. I think I get into that later in 12 this discussion. 13 ER. KNIGHT: Your schedule here shows construction 14 complete on 10/30. Is that construction f or all supports 15 requiring remedtal action? Ea rlier today you had made a 4 16 sta tement that related to the systems necessary for 17 essen tially low power. 18 MR. TRESLER: 10/30 is when we expect to complete 19 all modifications resulting from this review. 20 MR. KNIGHT: Thank you. 21 MR. TRESLER: Let's go to the next overhead. 22 (Slide.) 23 This overhead, entitled " Piping With Supperts and D 24 Design Review or Construction Frocess," simply is a listing 25 of those lines associated with either fuel loading er cold ALCERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
66 1 system test which have supports which are either in the 2 design review prozess or in the construction process. You 3 can see tha t we only have one line outstanding which impacts 4 f uel loa ding, and we only have ten lines outstanding which 5 impact ecid system test. 6 ME. EISENHU!: How did you decide the number of 7 systems up there? Are those out of the tech specs? 8 EE. TRESLEE: Yes, sir. 9 3. IISENH"T: So the tech specs state that the 10 ones below need not be operable for fuel loading? 11 ME. TEESLEE: Correct. Fuel loading and cold 12 systems test. 13 EE. EISENHUT: That's right. ( 14 MB. TRESLER: Does that answer your question? 15 MR. EISENHUT4 Yes, I think so. 16 MR. TREELER: These lines and associated supports 17 have been given a higher priority than other work associated 18 with this problem, and so we are certain that we will 19 :om plete these lines before October 30. 20 ER. EISENHUT Right. I guess the other piece I 21 v a n ted to make sure , the definition in the tech specs is for 22 operability . Are you following the nomenclature here that, 23 because you determined that there r.ay be some supports that ( 24 need to be modified on these systems or analysis has to be 25 completed yet on these systems, you have in essence declared ( ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
67 1 them inoperable? 2 ME. TRESLES: That's correct. 3 MR. EISENEUT Okay, thank you. 4 HE. TEESLEE: I believe we have demonstrated that 5 the diagram error has only impacted pipe support designs, 6 and even then only to a very minical extent. The results cf 7 the evaluation which we have performed clearly indicate that 8 the plant would have safely withstood the occurrence of a 9 Hoscri earthquake. 10 The evaluation of piping systems and equipment has 11 shown that everything is fully acceptable with the exception 12 o f a small number of piping supports. The methods and 13 criteria which have been used are the same as those o 14 previously used and documented f or the Hosgri evaluation. 15 The supports which are being modified are being modified not 16 because they 're expected to fail, but because an increase in 17 loads has raused the stress criteria to be exceeded. 18 MR. DENTON: I am still trying to get a feel for 19 h ow much things have changed. When you say " stress levels 20 exceeded ," could you cha racterize that? 21 MR. TRESLER: Dr. Tom Esselman of Westinghouse has 22 been working closely with us on this, and I think he has 23 better information to address us on that. ( 24 MR. DENTON: I hope you have looked at it ! 25 suf ficiently in detail to design the change, and maybe that lk 1 i ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGlNIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6E 1 will be representative of the others. 2 MR. ISSIlMAN: The review and design process is 3 under way at this time. Cf the supports which we have 4 identified as requiring review, the increase in stresses is 5 such that you typically could be 10 to 20 percent nominally 6 abc se a stress limit. 7 The point which Mr. Tresler was making is that we 8 a re refitting the suppcrts in order to assure that the 9 oricinal desi;n criteria is met, net with the expectation 10 t h a t the supports would fail, but that we are using the same 11 criteria and methods that were used originally. The changes 12 clearly are still being reviewed, but normally they are not 13 w h a t we would call great or very large changes in stress ( 14 limits. 15 ER. DENTON: Could you pick one support that's 16 going to be changed more than most and sort of characterire 17 the size of the change for me? I need a feel for the size 18 of membe rs. Are you going from a half-inch plate to a 19 one-inch plate, or what kind cf changes are occurring? 20 MR. TRESlER: I think one of the problems we are 21 having in responding is tha t we have reviewed the new loads 22 versus the old. We have reviewed the design margins that l 23 exist between present load and the maximum load, which would 24 heep us within our design allowable limits. 25 But we have not gotten to the point where we have I k ALDER $oN REPORTING COMP ANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (2C2) 554 2345 i
69 l l ( 1 new hanger installation design cor.pleted, with the exception 2 of possibly one or two at field locations at a small bore 3 hanger. So that's why we're struggling to respond to your 4 question . I just don't think we have that kind of detail a t 5 this time. 6 MR. DENTON: Going back to this chart that showed 7 27 hangers as requiring reworking so f ar , could you 8 extrapolate based on the report you have reviewed what range 9 you expect the final number to be ? i to MR. TRESLFi: I think we are expecting probably a i 11 maximum of somewhere between 70 to 75. 12 (Slide.) 13 The trend may actually be down. We may end up ( 14 wit h f ever . But presently it a ppears tha t approximately 72 15 supports would require modifica tion. 16 MR. DENTON: Why is it that more of the larger 17 pipes require modification than the smaller? 18 MR. TRESLER: The smaller pipes, of course, have 19 smaller loads, and it's very easy to design a su ppor t which 201ea ves a lot of ma rgin . Plus of tentimes na turnl f requency 21 dictates th e design of supports , which leaves us with a 22 great deal of margin as f ar as load-carrying capability. 23 MR. DENTON: Do you expect you vill have t6 change i 24 hanger attachments? 25 MR. TRESLER I don't think so. ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. _ - ~
n 70 , 1 ER. DENTON: Would there be any problem if you had
~
2 to increase the strength of the attachment to either the 3 pipe er the vall? 4 ER. TRESLER: Of course, until we 're dene 5 reviewing the last hanger, we don't know certainly, but I 6 would be surprised if we have any pipe attachments or 7 modifications. 8 Tom, do you agree with that? 9 ME. ESSELEANs I agree. 10 ER. EISENHUT A minute ago you said of the 27 11 that have been identified to date that have got to be 12 modified , you haven 't really completed the design on very 13 m a n y of those. But as I recall your schedule, a minute ago I~ 14 rou said you were going to start actually putting 15 modifications in the plant on Cetober 12, which is Monday. 16 Is that still a real schedule? MR. TRESLER: Yes, I believe it is. You see, 17 18 ve've been locat,ed up in the general office and there are a 19 f ew small bore supports which there is an onsite 20 organization which has responsibility for it, and they are 21 working to the same criteria ve are. And they've got the 22 field in stalla tions. They can valk right out and look at 23 them, and they are getting redesigned more quickly and ( 24 m aking a greater rate of progress than we are in the general 25 office. ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 55d 2345 l
71
- 1 Ee are 250 miles apart and we haven't got the 2 level of communications to know exactly what is on their 3 design table right now. Rut yes, I think that our schedule 4 is good.
S ER. EISENHUT4 One more question. Do you know, 6 what you 're looking at on this boron injection tank outlet 7 piping , wha t kind of schedule? 8 ER. TRESLER: The way I understand it, there were 9 20-some odd supports involved on that line. Of those 25, 10 whatever the number is, I believe 80 percent of them did not 11 experience a load increase. And so that wo uld leave us with 12 six supports or something we're dealing with, and I would 13 ima gine we're going to be done by next Tuesday on redesign ( 14 if necessary. 15 HB. EISENHUT: Okay. Thank you. 16 ER. TRESLER: We have reviewed the supports in 17 detail and concluded the supports we modified would not have 18 f ailed and would not have impaired the safe operation of the 19 p la n t . In summary, we have concluded tha t if the diagram 20 err or ha d remained undiscovered no adverse impact on plant 21 saf ety would have existed. 22 I will now turn our presentatien over -- 23 HR. DENTON: I understand the point you're' I 24 making. You don't think th e y would have failed, because you 25 think the criteria that have been agreed to are unduly ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMP ANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W W ASHINGToN. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
72 1 conserva tive, I take it? .( 2 MP. TRESLEPs No. 3 E3. DENTONs You're saying you're redesigning it 4 to the ' original criteria, but at the same time you're saying 5 you don 't think they would have failed anyway. 6 EE. TRESLEEs That's true. 7 BE. ESSELEAN: Cur conclusion that failure of the 8 supports is not expected is based upon the generally very 9 conservative design processes and design criteria and 10 analysis methods. This is the other area of margin which we 11 are not in design taking credit for here. 12 We're restoring the supports to the original 13 design criteria. There is a margin which is available prior ( 14 to f ailure and compromise of the plant. We do not feel, 15 based on our review, that we have breached the margin that 16 is available. 17 ER. DENTON: I don't think we need to dwell on it, 18 but I've been asking for quantification of the size of the 19 ch a nge , and I don't see how you reach that conclusion 20 unless , you know, if you had the change from a very massive 21 rod to a thin I-beam. Unless you can quantify the size of 22 the changes, what's the basis for your conclusion that they 23 would not have f ailed? ( 24 25 k ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345 O
73 1 1 MR. ESSELP.AN4 The tabulation of size changes is 2 not yet completed. What we are basing our conclusion on is 3 a review of the piping analyses, a review of the load 4 changes, a review of load input changes to the piping. The 5 review of specific supports is under way. 6 Based upon the review of piping and the review of 7 changes, we feel confident that the amount of change which 8 we are seeing is riearly within wha t we f eel is existing 9 within the design margin of the supports. Clearly, as we 10 nove along and look in more detail at every support, we will 11 be able to develop further confidence and quantification in 12 tha t area. 13 We have seen nothing at this time to make us feel ( 14 like a f ailure is what would be expected. 15 ER. DENTON: Could you characterize the margin of 16 f ailure using the original design criteria? Are they 17 designed originally to accept this stress withcut yielding? 18 Is that the criteria? 19 MR. ESSELMAN: The criteria that is used in the 20 evaluation is based upon stresses slightly above yield 21 stress, 1.2 times the yield stress in the support. I 22 We are basing our conclusion upon several things. 23 First of all, the ability of the materials that we are using 24 to withstand large deformations. We are basing it upon the 25 observations which we have made of power plant piping which I. ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
74 ( 1 has seen and withstood stress in the field. 2 There was a study which was performed and 3 presented at the hearing a year ago at which we went into a 4 plant that had experienced a large earthquake in El Centre 5 and compared the metheds which we would have used in 6 designing that pipe to the results which we saw -- to the 7 def ormations we saw in that plant. There was a great deal 8 of ma rgin. 9 It is ba sed on this observation which we have made to of power plant piping in the field, it is based upon the 11 design practices which we understand were used in this 12 plant , and it is also based upon the design criteria which 13 were used to evaluate it. It is those things that allow us, ( 14 based upon the review we have done, to d ra w this 15 conclusion.
. 16 Clearly, we will be reviewing the supports in 17 great detail and have not identified to date and do not 18 expect to identify anything that would exceed this margin 19 th a t we feel is there.
20 MR. DENTON: Ceuld you compare your approach to 21 hanger design in this plant to what you would do in a 22 f ossil-fired plant, for example? Do you use the same margin 23 of f ailure in these hangers as you would in a normal' plant ( 24 design? 25 MR. ESSELMAN: The fossil comparison we made was ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554C45 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______J
75 l ( 1 using the methods, applying the methods tha t we would use in 2 a plant like this to a fossil plant and analyzing the 3 structure, developing response spectra and analyzing the 4 piping, getting piping stresses, displacements and piping 5 loads. 6 Based upon our prediction of what a particular 7 pipe would do for those supports, for those supports that 8 vere in the f ossil plan t, using methods tha t are a;plicable 9 to Diablo Canyon, we have calculated what we would have to expected to see in that plant with respect to piping 11 displacemen t , as an example. What we calculated far 12 exceeded what was seen and sensured in the plant. 13 MR. DENTON4 Let me say it in my words. You are ( 14 sa ying based on what you have seen in fossil plants like El 15 Cen tro, and understanding the criteria by which those plants 16 were designed, there was more margin in those hangers than 17 you would have expected; and theref ore, knowing what 18 criteria vent into Diablo, you would expect the same sorts 19 of margins to be available there. 20 Is that oversimplifying it? l 21 HR. ESSELE AN: I think that is not quite what we 22 are saying. The evaluations we have done at El Centro are 23 based upon the supports and hangers that were at the*El i 24 Centro steam plant. We have used our methods with their l 25 structures to predict what we would have calculated would l ( l ALOERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIHGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
76
~
1 have happened there, and what actually happened was far less 2 than wha t we predicted. 3 MR. DENTCNs I see. 4 ER. ESSELE AN : The seismic capability of the El 5 Centro stese plant was f a r belov wha t has been designed in 6 Diablo. The Diablo Canyon hangers have a much greater 7 capacity and the design which has gone into them is much 8 more stringent than applied to a fossil plant. 9 MR. CLOUD Mr. Denton, I am Bob Cloud and I'm not 10 really involved in this presentation, but I would call your 11 attention to some work I did a couple of years ago which I 12 think is well known to your people where I studied the 13 respense of piping in several earthquakes in conventional -( 14 f ossil plants. The record shows tha t there were no 15 significant piping failures even for plants subject to very 16 severe ground motion, even when the piping wasn't designed 17 a t all for seismic loading. I mention this just to keep 18 things in perspective. 19 MR. DENTON: All righ t. 20 ER. TRESLER: I will now turn our presentation 21 over to Dr. Cloud, who will discuss our reverification 22 program.
~
23 ER. CLOUDS Thank you. t 24 I am Bob Cloud and I was asked to develop a 25 program to study the possibility of additional errors in the ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
77 ( 1 engineering f or the Diablo Canyon power plant. 2 Now, the approach that I have taken has been to 3 ask the question: 'dhat does the work which was found to be 4 in error have in common with the o th er engineering work 5 perf ormed at the plant? Or stated different: Does this work 6 f orm a subset of a larger class or category of seisnic 7 design work? Then I reasoned that if the answer is yes, a 8 reasonable approach for our strategy to determine the 9 existence of adfitional errers if they were to exist would 10 be to st udy these larger categories of effort in more 11 de tail. 12 After some consideratien it can be seen that the
^
13 dia gram error does fit into certain categories of ( First, it involved the application of 14 engineering activity. 15 seismic spectra used f or equipment evaluation, which is one 16 s t e p in the seismic design process which stresses from the . 17 ground motion through the building into the equipment. 18 Second, it involved the use of a diagram that was 19 intended to be used for both Units 1 and 2 by means of the 20 opposite hand application. And third, it involved a 21 subcontractor with the design interfaces that are associated 22 with such arrangements. These are the categories of work to ! 23 which the diagram error belongs, and it is obvious that 24 there is a great deal of safety-related seismic design that 25 fits inte each of these categories. t l ALDERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INO, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., W ASHINGToN. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
78
)
- 1 l
1 However, to appreciate the program that I will be l 2 describing, I believe it will help to understand seme of the 3 cateocries to which the diagram error does not belong, and 4 in par'ticular two keys ones are a first, that it does not 5 involve a calculational error, there are no ma thema tical 6 mistakes nor arithmetic mistakes, no corruter code mistakes; 7 and second, it does not involve incorrect mathematical 8modeling. The models were prepared from a mathematical 9 point of view correctly. In fact, these straightforward 10 considerations have been checked, tested and audited over 11 the years and really never have been in question. 12 With these thoughts in mind, I have formulated a 13 program to search f or additional sources of errer in seismic ( 14 design applied to the safety-related systems, which is 15 outlined on the slide. 16 (Slide) 17 The title of the slide is " Independent Assessment 18 of Saf ety-related Design Issues." First it consists of 19 three major tasks, and the first task is the opposite hand 20 issue. What we want to do here is find all of that work 21 which was done but once but applied to both plants by taking 22 advantage of opposite hand design or other symmetry. 23 Dur approach is to collect and identif y all that ( 24 work, establish criteria for review, which we will review in 25 detail, which we vill screen through and then go to work, ( ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY,1NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
79 1 review it and find out what was applied right and what was
.(
2 applied wrong. 3 The second issue is the issue of the seis=ic 4 design chain. For those of us in the trade, you can see 5 that seismic qualification of nuclear equipment involves 6 several steps, from the ground motion, as I mentioned 7 earlier, to the buildings to the equipment, and there are 8 sometimes steps in between. 9 We want to look, we want to lay out this roadmap, 10 iden tif y this chain step by step by laborious step, and see, 11 stu dy , check, make sure tha t each time information transfers 12 from one step to the next, it is done correctly. Once again 13 I emphasize our main focus is one of applicability. ( -- i t is hard 14 The third is the interf ace issue 15 for me to understand that nobody is hearing me. 16 (Laughter.) 17 The third is the interface issue, entitled 18 inf orma tion transfer, and here we would want to compile all 19 t h e major interf aces that existed in the final peformance or f 20 in the totality of the performance of the seismic 21 qualification of the saf e ty-related equipment. We are going i 22 to list all the . transmittals, establisn specific criteria 23 for screening them and for reviewing them, and then se vill 24 do this and we vill write the final report. 25 Dur schedule is shown on the right side of the ( i - I ALDER 5oN REPORTING COMP ANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 200:4 (202) 554 2345 l l
80
, 1 slide with bars for each of the steps, and our target for 2 com pletion -- by the way, we started last week -- our target 3 f or completion is December 18.
4 Thank you. 5 ER. HOCH: Before we start asking questions, I ar. 6 told tha t in answering the question about discussion of the 7 diagram error, I made the statement that because these 8 f rames were conceptual in nature, that is exactly what made 9 this error dif ficult to -- I am told I said " correct," and I 10 mea nt to say " detect." Let me just get tha t on the record 11 that I was saying the conceptual nature of the frames is a 12 f ac t tha t makes it difficult to detect that kind of error. 13 ER. DENTON: Wha t you have outlined sounds like a ( 14 logical approach to the problem. I guess I can't tell from 15 the presentation the depth to which you will actually audit 16 these va rious phases or interf aces. Could you characterize 17 a bit more, once you have identified all areas where 18 cor monality was employed, how you will check to see if it 19 was done properly? 20 ER. CLOUD: One of the reasons the prog ra m wa s 21 formulated in the way it was is that we intended to have the 22 detailed establishment of exactly how we are going to do 23 this as part of the program itself beca use it requires a (. 24 certain amount of legic to rela te which of the 25 saf ety-related equipment -- even though it is all equal, ( ALDER $cN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE.,3.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20C24 g202) 554 2345
61 1 some is more equal than oth ers. 2 And secondly, it would be possible also to get 3 completely aired down in the study of some particular aspect 4 of the design which htd relatively little payoff in 5 improvement of assurance. So to answer your question, what 6 I would like to do is get all this information up and out on 7 the table and get it clearly identified, and then work out a 8 systematic set of criteria which will permit us to feel 9 confident that we have not misapplied something someplace 10 e ls e . 11 ER. DENTON: Let's assume for talking purposes 12 t h a t there are 100 other places in the design where a simple 13 dra wing for one unit was transposed and used again. You ( 14 would audit a selected number of those cases. Is that -- 15 HR. CLOUD: Yes, we would audit a certain number, 16 and once a dog gets on the trail, hopefully if we found 17 som e , we picked them all up. 18 ER. DENTON: I am trying to get a feel of the 19 scope of -- I guess it is hard to identify how big the 20 ef f ort is. 21 ER. CLOUDS The effort will encompass all of the 22 saf ety-rela ted equipment and all of the seismic modifica tion
~
23 of that safety-related equipment and buildings. 24 ER. VOLLEER Does that mean that you will look a t 25 each of those where you have the chance of any problem or 1 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
82
~
g 1 you will audit some of the safety systees? 2 EE. CLOUD: If you divide the categories there is 3 hea ting, ventilating and air conditioning e quipment, there 4 is electrical equipment installation, mechanical, piping, 5 and there is building. So we vill study first each by 6 category and then we will study them by classes, and 7 ultimately get to the point where at some stage the work 8 applies to a certain class of things. 9 For example, all gauges are probably done the same to vay , and so I wouldn't say I would look at every gauge 11 except by that class. That's the reason, by the way, that 12 a t this stage it can't be said exactly, but we would hope to 13 b e able to say that from a logical point of view all ( 14 saf ety-related equipment is done. I do not envision a 15 sho tgun approach where we pick one here, one here and one 16 h ere. We want to develop a logically interrelated and 17 comprehensive approach. 18 ER. FAULKENBERRY. When do you think you will have 19 these numbers established, the numbers you will look at, and 20 also as far as your criteria in the event you find problems, 21 how you will handle it? 22 HR. CLOUD Our sched ule is on th e slide. Do you 23 va n t to turn it on? ' (Slide) 24 25 I think we are looking to have most of the ( ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
83 1 criteria complete by the end of October, the end cf October, 2 first part of November, and in the bottom case in the middle 3 of November. 4 ER. VOLL3ERs Will this assessment by you -- or is 5 there ancther assessment plan -- to look at the -- 6 cha racte rire the design review process itself? Or the 7 process of design review required by Appendix 9, Part 507 8 MR. CLOUDS It is my understanding, and perhaps 9 others should answer, but I guess it was my understanding 10 tha t this work is a completely separate, independent effort 11 addressed to the question of additional errers f ound as a 12 result of this glitch. 13 MR. VOLLEER: Let me restate the question to PGEE l 14 as to the design review process itself. 15 ER. BRAND: If I correctly understand your 16 question , Mr. Vollmer, my answer is that we have a 17 continuing design review process both within our engineering 18 quality control program that resides within the Engineering 19 Dep artme nt . Together sepa rately we have an ongeing quality 20 assurance program. Both of thcse vill continue and they 21 would be looking for these things as well, but independently 22 of Dr. Cloud. 23 ER. VOLLMER: Vould that lock be back te see at 24 the time that -- well, at the time these designs and 25 analyses were made, that indeed the design review process ( ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINtA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
84 1 was adequate, or will it be current and foregoin;? 2 ER. BRAND: It is really current and foregoing. 3 MR. EISENHUT: Let me ask it another way. Are you 4 saying you have a normal ongoing review process in 5 connection with Unit 2, et cetera where you are doing work? 6 Is that what you are referring to or do you have a closed-in 7 re-revie w progran to look at other things beyond th e scope 8 of Dr. Cloud's progran in which he looked at the similarity, 9 the commonality of this kind of error and looked at the 10 similar sets. 11 It is an interface question involving two units 12 with a response spectrum. Obviously there are lots of other 13 pieces to it. Is there any other program in closed form 14 other than just an ongoing review to check out things to see 15 whether there are any other questions about the overall 16 quality of the seismic design? 17 HR. DENTCN: Let me ask it another way. Are there 18 any efforts to take one system and check it all the way is through, for example? 20 HR. BRAND: That will probahly follow. 21 MR. EISENHUT: But other than just as an addition 22 to limitations. 23 ER. VOLLMER: In my original question I was 24 focusing on , it seemed to me the underlying cause was 25 perhaps something that might have been caught by the design ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE, S.W., WASHtNGToN. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
65 1 review precess as envisioned by Appendix B in quality 2 assurance. I think Mr. Tresler outlined it in a fairly 3 detailed way in which the work that you are doing now is 4 checked. He said two engineers check this and it gets 5 handed over and so on. 6 I was going to ask him at the time -- He also said 7 it var covered by a procedure, and I was going to ask him is 6 that procedure your normal C A or you have perhaps heightened 9 it for this particular ef f o rt? 10 HR. EISENHUTs You can answer one or more of the 11 abo ve. 12 MR. BRAND: Let us have Mr. Tresler answer your 13 m o s t recent question. k 14 ER. VOLLMER: In specific, was the design review 15 process th a t you have discussed as part of an ongoing 16 program -- you said it was covered by your procedures. Are 17 these your normal QA procedures or is thic something that 18 7ou developed sperifically for this review? 19 ER. TRESLER: The answer is both. In the case of . 2C reviewing analysis, piping, hangers and tha t sort of thing, 21 ve developed a special set of procedures and instructions to 22 accomplish that review. As far as the process of reviewing 23 analysis , reviewing pipe support design or rerunning
- 24 analysis, the procedures I went through on a number of 25 checkpoints and so on, those are procedures vnich are
( ALDER $oN nEPoRTING COMPANY,INc. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WA3HINGToN. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
86 1 established and have been e stablished f or a long time. But 2 in dealing with this problen we had to develop additional 3 procedures for the purposes of review relative to diagram ( . 4 error.' 5 ER. JORDAN: This is Ed Jordan -- 6 MR. EISENSUT: We asked about three questions. I 7 think we said it three different ways, but you started to 8 answer it and we interrupted and we apolocire. 9 MR. V3LLMER: I think you were answering it. 10 MR. BRANDa Eould you restate it again one tim e 11 and I will answer all three. 12 MR. VOLLMER: Let me try it, then. It seems to me 13 th a t an error of this type would have or shculd have been 14 caught by the application of the design review process as 15 envisaged by Appendix B, Pa rt 50, which should have been 16 amplified in your own QA procedures and those of your 17 contractors. I guess if that is the case, which I think it 18 is , have you gone back and tried to determine whether or not 19 there wa s a defiriency somehow in this process as used in 20 the design of the plant? 21 , 22 23 24 25 ( ALDERSoN REFORTING COMP ANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., W ASHINGToN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
87 1 EE. EPAND: Excuse me. We're trying to decide who 2 besides se ought to be answering this question. Let me turn 3 the ball over to Mr. James Rocca, currently our chief 4 sechanical and nuclear engineer, who previously served in 5 the capa city of our chief of the engineering quality 6 control. 7 ER. ROCCA: Jim Rocca is my name. 8 Let's see if I understand your question. You're 9 asking what was the error we made or the one we detected at to that time, I believe. Our review of that area showed us 11 tha t the problem was caused by a person who did not follow 12 our C A procedures that were in existence at the time. 13 Upon discovering this, we explored the area very ( 14 thoroughly and determined that it was -- the contractor 15 performed his own verification on the programs that were 16 there, and they were given back. We have now looked into 17 other areas and we have gone through our audits of that time 18 and have assured ourselves at this time -- we are still 19 looking to find other areas that are there -- but we are 20 looking through that now on the program of review. 21 MR. DENTON: Could you give us a time frame for 22 when the original sislabeling, if you could characterize it 23 a s t h a t , was done? 24 ER. ROCCA: It was in the time frame of the 25 beginning of the Hosgri reanalysis in early 1977, in March ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INO. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHsNGioN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
--. m . - -- --,, e
EE 1 of '77. 2 MR. FAULKENBERRY: Could you explain in a little 3 bit of detail with regard to which QA procedures you did not 4 f ollo and what artually wa s involved? 5 HR. ROCCA: The procedure that was not followed in 6 the particular case was tha t a check cf the calculations 7 that were made in forwarding this diagram to the consultant 8 was not made, and that was the -- 9 MR. FAULKENRERRYa Was this on PGLE's side? 10 ER. ROCCAs Yes, it was. 11 ER. FAULKENBERRY: Did you find this was only an 12 individual case or did you find that it was typical of that 13 par ticular individual, or -- 14 ER. ROCCAs We have not found any other cases to 15 indica te that it was more than this particular case. As I 16 s a y , we are still re vie wing our rather lengthy files going 17 back in time. The individual is no longer employed by us. 18 MR. DENTON4 Thank you. 19 ER. JORDANS This is Ed Jordan. 20 In pursuing that area, when the material came back 21 f rom Bloom with the special data on it for the vertical 22 componen t, was there to have been a quality assurance 23 verification of that data being correct once again? *Was 24 there also a step in the return that should have picked up 25 the error? ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA A%E., S.W., WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~~
E9 g 1 ER. RDCCA: In our procedures at that time there 2 was not a step that would have verified tha t. Verifications 3 f or this area -- any verification that was dene was within 4 the Bloom contract. 5 ER. JORDAN: Okay, thank you. 6 ER. FAUlKENBEREY: In re vie w of your design review 7 procedures in the case of the particular ones in which it 8 was not followed, did you verify tha t these procedures were 9 adequate if they had been followed? 10 ER. ROCCA: Very definitely, yes. 11 ER. BRAND: This was to have been the conclusion 12 of our for:al presentation to you for today. And we were at 13 this time going to entertain question's that we have been ( 14 ent ertaining all morning. And we would entertain more at 15 this time. 16 I would li ke to first get into a question that was 17 raised earlier and probably was not fully, or at least 18 completely, responded to and tha t was a question regarding l 19 error, where we had seen other errors or the like. And I am l l l 20 n ot sure of the point of that question specifically, but let i 21 m e give you what we have disclosed after we found this first 22 error. 23 The error that we found was one of an incorrect l (l 1 24 d ra wing , an incorrect diagram that caused us to misapply 25 seismic spectrum in the design of piping and components in l l l( l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, W ASHINGToN. D C. 20024 (202) $54 2345 l
90
~
1 the containment annulus. When we became aware of this, we 2 began to review how and where else we might have used this 3 spectrum. 4 We uncovered in our design of conduit and cable 5 tray supports in the same annulus area, we had used an 6 earlier spectrum for that design effort and we included 7 notice cf that in our letter to you of Septer.ber 30. With 8 that discovery we have gone back and have looked at the 9 installed supports and conpared the installed supports 10 against that design that would be necessary using the 11 revised spectrum, and we have concluded that there is no 12 support design modification to cable tray a nd conduit 13 supports needed. ( But there may have been a question about that 14 15 because of the reference made in our letter. 16 ER. KNIGHTa High t I ask , you use the term "an 17 earlier spectrum." Would you put that in some time for me? 18 I d on 't really understand. Earlier versus -- ER. REAND: Basically the same time period. Early 19 20 '77 was when the original Hosgri spectra were presented to 21 u s , and upon review of the model a refinement was made in 22 the model and revised spectra were presented to us shortly
~
23 thereaf ter. 24 ER. JORDAN: Did this error apply to the vertical 25 component only or to the horizontal? t ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
91
, 1 ER. BRAND 4 This applies only to the vertical 2 component.
3 MR. JORDAN 4 In the annulus area, I mean. 4 MB. BRANDS Yes. 5 MB. JORDAN: Let me ask another one there. In 6 terms of the quality assurance efforts in that particular 7 error, ran you explain the relationship between that error 8 and the other error in the quality assurance program? 9 MR. BRAND Let me redirect that question to Mr. 10 Rocca. 11 MR. ROCCAs They were different errors. This was 12 ene of distribution anomaly, if you want to call it that, in 13 t h a t a person on the distribution list did net receive his ( 14 copy of the latest spectrum. 15 ER. JORDAN But that's not expressing how quality 16 assurance f ailed to catch it. That 's the a rea -- the 17 quality assurance, quality control is supposed to catch the 18 err or. 19 ER. ROCCA The procedures that were in place that 20 should have caught the error -- as we understand, the 21 quality program itself von't catch that, that pa rticula r I l
- 22 type of thing, unless they are checking a particular date.
l 23 The reviews were made, and I guess the only thing I can say i 24 is it is not one of the samples audited and therefore it got 25 pa s t the program. ( ALDERSoN kEPoRTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASF:NGToN, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 w
92 1 ER. EISENHUT4 I don't want to belabor this, but I 2 have a simple question, to make sure I understand this 1 3 second error. The first error you referred to as the l i 4 d ia gr a's error. There was a flip-flop, and that 's good to ! 5 keep us, so we're communicatinc. 6 The second error was you used an earlier version 7 of the response spectra and that spectra was in error, or awas it a flip-flop problem there or -- please understand, 9 I'm using the terminology " error" in the sense that the 10 wrong spectra was used. I appreciste that you've now gone 11 back and looked at it and determined that the design was 12 adequate , that is no modifications were required. 13 ER. BRAND 4 I think we will call on Dick Bettinger 14 to respond to that one. 15 ER. BETTINGER4 When URS-Bloom first developed the . 16 spectra for the annulus area, the vertical spectra, they 17 f ound that the spectra they produced were af like enough 18 shape and magnitude that they then provided cne uniform 19 spectra or one envelope spectra that was used throughout the 20 w hole building . At that point there was no need to knov 21 where you were in applying these spectra. 22 La ter, a f ter we had received those, there was some 23 discussion about the modeling technique. And es Mr.'Erand 24 said, there was then a modification made, a refinement made 25 in the way that the steel was modeled. In fact, it had been ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W W ASHINGToN, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
9? 1 a fixed connection at one point. We decided we cculdn't 2 guarantee that fixity, so they went to the other extreme, 3 which was a connection. 4 When they did tha t some franes turned up to have 5 greater spectra than others, and it did not seem reasonable 6 at that point then to use that high acceleration all the way 7 around. So i.ndividual spectra were generated for each frame 8 at each elevation. 9 Now, it 's tha t la te r se t of spectra tha t did not 10 get to the specific people involved in the design cf those 11 supports. 12 ME. EISENEUTs Okay, I understand. 13 EE. BRAND: Excuse me one moment. I 14 (Mr. Brand and Mr. Norton conf errir.g.) 15 5E. BRAND: We were asked during the break, I 16 believe, a question, or at least there was some confusion in 17 someone 's sind having to do with the application of 18 horizontal spectra having to do with the mass of the fan 19 coolers in relation to the structural steel in the 20 :on tain= en t support vall -- the crane support vall itself. 21 And we glossed over that, it was this person's 22 impression, and I f elt we ought to give it a better direct 23 answer at this time. And I would like to have Dick 24 Bettinger do that. 25 ER. BETTINGERs Well, actually, Harold, you asked ( ALDER $oN REPoRTlhG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVL S.W. WASHINGTON O C. 20C24 (202) 854 2345
Su
\
1a question about the application of horizontal stress, and I 2 would say again the spectra that were developed for 3 horizontal accelerations were developed on the baris of an 4 axis s'y mretric model which assumes you have a cer tain 5 hypothetical model of steel and concrete rotating around the 6 vertical axis. From that you determine horizontal 7 accelera tions, so that if you were on any point in this 8 frame you simply use that spectra for determining what your 9 horizontal accelera tion is. 10 It's independent of where you are in the plan. 11 Now , we can ask Dr. Bloom to explain that in more detail if 12 you want , but I think tha t's the essence of what the 13 question was. And as I said, the mass of the concrete, the ( 14 steel, the equipment were f actored into tha t analysis. 15 ER. DENTON: That answers the questions I had in 16 ain d at this time. Did you have more prepared 17 present ation ? 18 EE. BRAND: No, we have no more prepared 19 presenta tion. We would entertain more questions at this 20 tim e , unless, given the hour, you would like to break for 21 lunch and come ba:k. 22 ER. DENION: Let me ask a bit more about 23 schedules. You showed the schedules on which you expected 24 to complete various actions. I don't remember a date which 25 You intended to complete modifications to the systems i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INO, 400 VIRGINI A AE $.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
95 1 required. Do you have a date in sind? 2 MR. TRESLER: Mike Tresler again. 3 I believe that within seven to ten days we vill 4 have completed those modifications necessary to quality all 5 systems and supports associated with the fuel loading. 6 That 's f or modes 5 and 6. 7 ME. DENTONs Maybe you should say that one more 8 time, so we are clear. 9 ER. TRESLER4 In seven to ten days we expect to 10 complete all the pipe support modifications which are 11 associa ted with the piping that is required by the tech 12 specs for modes 5 and 6. , 13 MR. FAULKENBERRY: I believe on your schedule you ( 14 put on the board you said the end of October. 15 MR. TRESLER4 The end of October is for all 15 sup port review and modifications, regardless of mode. 17 ER. DENTON: So to be sure we are communicating, 18 then, mode 5 is a mode defined in the tech specs which 19 permits fuel loading but not criticality? 20 MR. TRE5LER: 6 is fuel loading mode of operation 21 a nd 5 is cold system test, but not heatup. ER. DENTON: And you would propose that not -- you 22 23 don't propose to go critical until all modifications"are 24 made, is that the inference? 25 HR. TRESLER: Definitely. ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
96 1 ER. DENTON: Rut you would propose to request to 2 be allowed to load fuel and to do cold testing when the 3 systems required by the present license are modified and are 4 operable, as defined in the license? 5 ER. TRE5LER: I understand that to te our intent, 6 y es , si r . 7 HB. RRAND Yes, it is our intent. 8 ER. DENTON: Now, how many modifications are 9 needed to get to this mode 5 and 67 10 ER. TRESLER: Let me get on my crystal batl 11 again. 12 (Laughter.) 13 ER. TRESLER4 We have very few lines involved. We ( 14 have one line described the best I could a situation of that 15 in the large bore category. We ha ve I think ten lines 16 out standing now for cold system test. I'm certain that not 17 all of those lines have been reviewed and I would expect 18 som e of those lines to disappear based on review; in other 19 words, no hangers really attached to the steel. 20 ER. DENTON: If you take the 27 you've identified, 21 are all those on systems required for mode 5 and 67 22 ER. TRESLER: No, sir. I don't know as I sit here 23 how many supports are identified to be modified tha t 'ar e I think a v ery small 24 associated with modes 5 and 6. 25 percentage of the 27. We have a large number of people i ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE S.W., W ASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
97 1 working on this problem and they are all working on modes 5 2 and 6 pi pin g because there just isn't that much piping. 3 ER. DENTON: I think in view of the ground we've 4 co v e r e'd and it's almost noon, I would propose that we recess 5 and come back from lunch and allow more detailed questions. 6 But bef ore we break, I do want to ask if any member of the 7 public has any comment they would like to direct to the 8 sta ff. We could consider asking now or consider after 9 lunch . 10 Anyone? 11 YOICE; We have one comment. We would like to 12 reserve all our questions until later. 13 But the 16th -- ( 14 MR. DENTON: Could you identify yourself? 15 MR. BROWN My name is Herbert Brown. I'm a 16 lawyer f or the Governor of Calif ornia. 17 The date of the 16th I don't think would be is adequate for us to digest all ef this and comment 19 mea ningf ully . So if you can extend that. Maybe if you 20 could th ink about it over the lunch hour, we would 21 appreciate some extension, at least a week beyond that. 22 Maybe I'll chat with Dick at lunch about that. 23 MR. DENTON: We'll certainly consider that. 24 Any other comments? 25 (No response.) ( ALCERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~
1 ER. DENTON: Seeing none, why don't we resume at 2 1:30. 3 ER. BEAND: That would be fine. Thank you. ( . 4 (Whereupon , a t -114 55 a .m. , the meeting was 5 recessed , to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. the same day.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 . l 21 l 22 l 23 24 i 25 h ( ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i
- 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
99 1 AFTERNOON SESSICN 2 (1: 40 p.m.) 3 MR. DENTCN4 Could we get back to the meeting? 4 Can I ha ve your attention, and we will resume the meeting. 5 Let's start by giving the various assembled staff 6 members who are specialists in various areas we have 7 discussed today a chance to raise whatever questions they 8 mi;ht have based on what they have heard so far. 9 Jim, do you want to start? 10 HR. KNIGHT One of the items tha t needs f urther 11 cla rification still goes to the extent of the problem, if 12 you will, in terms of this chart, in terms of the number of 13 systems that have actually been reviewed. I asked the I 14 question this morning whether we were talking of the number 15 of systems or the number of problems. 16 I don't want to put you in the mode of sitting 1;there trying to list them by title f or each system, but 18 could you give me a rundown ? Perhaps you could do it by 19 sec tor, th e sectors you have designated as areas where you 20 do require modifiration. 21 MR. TRESLEE We have a list back in the general 22 office of every line that is suspect and the status of its 23 review , and if I am going to try to give you an indication i 24 of which systems are involved, it is going to have to be 25 from memory. ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 vtRGlHIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
100 1 MR. KNIGHT As I said, I didn't want to put you 2 in that mode. But you mentioned there were cifferent 3 numbers. One was 123 piping systems. 4 HR. TRESLER: No, 123 lines, 123 services. Now, 515 of those may be in the component cooling water system, 10 6 of them may be in CVCS, if that helps you understand that. 7 ER. KNIGHT: That is fine, but I couldn 't seem to 8 put the two together. In talking about your -- 9 MR. TRESLER4 Well, wait a minute. We have 10 overheads of those lines which were suspect and in the 11 process of review. No w, a number of these lines have been 12 eliminated by that review. In other words, we ray not have 13 found a hanger attached to the annulus still to provide the ( 14 in p ut , or we may have rerun the analysis and found no load 15 increases or whatever the case may be. But I think I can 16 with some assistance give them all. 17 HB. KNIGHT: The point is we are trying to get a 18 better handle on the scope of the problem that existed as l 19 f ar as actual analysis. 20 HR. TRESLER: Twenty-five piping analyses had to 21be rerun and are rerun. 22 MR. HOCHs I think the problem is definition of 23 lines, systems analysis, pipes and so forth, and why'I 24 ske tched this simple little diagram on the board was to show 25 you . Th at could be a section of a piping diagram, and it l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
109 1 shows piping perhaps all cennected with one system, but on 2 the diagras it is given a separate line number, as I have 3 shown up there. They conceivably quite properly eculd have 4 fiva line numbers on just that little section of pipe. 5 So when Bike uses the term " lines," that number 6 vill be a big number. 7 MR. KNI;HT: But it is analogous, I would assume, 8 or directly comparable of the problems I wa s talking about 9 this morning. 10 3R. TRESLE3 Twenty-five problems. 11 HR. H3CH: Can you go ahead and define problems? 12 I t hink you mean the same thing an analyses. It is 13 everything put into one computer analysis. k 14 BR. KNIGHT 4 Essentially from an anchor point to 15 an anchor point. 16 BR. TRESLER4 Exactly. 17 ER. KNIGHT: In doing these re-analyses were there 18 situations where loads, for instance on equipment no ries, 19 or penetrations were increased, and is that included in the 20 -- 21 MR. TRESLER. Yes, and Westinghouse has reviewed 22 those new loads and maybe they can address the magnitude of 23 change if needed. t 24 3R. ESSELEAN: Ey name is Tom Esselman. 25 We have taken the lines which have been affected ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
102 1 and have been re-analyzed and have taken the end points when 2 they have ended in equipment, we have taken those no :le 3 loads and compared it to the equipment in the ori;inal loads 4 and showed that they are acceptable. 5 ER. KNIGHTS When you say acceptable, do you mean 6 met the original criteria? 7 EE. ESSELMANs Het the orig 3nal cri te ri a . 8 MR. XNIGHTa And in dcing the se d e te rmina tions , 9 ycu say original criteria, did this include any applicable 10 load combination or is it the whole package of criteria? 11 NE. ESSELEAN: Yes. We take the new seismic loads 12 a n d combine them with the other loads that are appropriate 13 coming from other events and show that all those loads and ( 14 their combination meet the requirements in the original 15 criteria for the piece of equipment. The work we have done 16 on the equipment is identical to the work that we did in the 17 original evaluation. 18 ER. KEIGHT: That is all I have for the moment. 19 There is more inf ormation to be garnered, but I think at a 20 technical meeting would be more appropriate. l 21 MB. DENTON: Any other comments? 22 Well, we have caucused to discuss your proposal, ( 23 a nd I think before we can talk about schedules we nesd to 24 talk about some information that we need from you, and it is 25 the kind of inf orma tion tha t you a re gathering but I think !( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INo, 400 VIRGINLA AVE. S.W. W ASHINGTcN. D C. 20024 (202) 55+2345 l
\
103 1 ve would like to see it expanded in some areas. 2 First off, I think we need to have, before we cote 3 to a decision, s summary of the technical mcdifications tha t 4 y ou have Lade as a result of both errors which have been 5 detected. I recognize that one of the errors didn't requirs 6 a change , but I v uld like to see a summary cf the stresses 7 and your technical basis for determining that change wasn't 8made. 9 Now, it sounds like you would be in a position te 10 f urnish th a t kind of report fairly quickly. MR. BRAND: Shortly, yes. 11 12 EE. DENION: And I will comrit tc have cur staff 13 available out on the coast next week to review the I 14 inf orma tion which has already been developed so that we 15 v on ' t be in a posture of waiting until you submit and then 16 30 days later getting started on the review, so we vill try on the review. But before 17 to be more or less current is reaching a decision on this I would like to have at least a 19 summary of the technical ba ses for the modifications that i 20 you either decided had to be made or didn't have to be made I 21 in the plan t . 22 And this is something that we vill be reviewing 23 your ef f ort in this area, using our own staff as well as 24 some consultants thtt are here today from Brookhaven 25 National Laboratory who are specialists in piping design. i l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., w ASHiNGToN. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 rt
10c g 1 I think we would also like to see and have fro: 2 you the program plan for the reverification that was 3 described this morning by Dr. Cloud. I think the plan as we 4 understocd it this morning only addressed the first error 5 and it seemed to be addressing those commonality issues and 6 those interf aces that were based on wha t I call the first 7 err or. We need to name these two occurrences sc we car 8 ref er to them. 9 I think that type of approach needs te te expanded 10 in two a reas . One is it should cover with some sort of 11 logical basis whatever the implications of the second error 12 a re , and I am not yet clear enough on where the breakdown 13 occur"ed with this so-called second line to know what it ( 14 would do to the srope of the ef f ort. Maybe we should talk 15 about that a moment to clarify it. 16 Dick, this morning you described the nature of the 17 second error , and I guess it's not clear to me yet whether 18 tha t is encompassed within the existing program or whether 19 t he existing program will have to be modified. l 20 ER. BRAND: We believe that the reverification 21 progr am that Dr. Cloud outlined would encompass the second 22 occurrence or second error and tha t it would be covered in 23 that program. If you would like some additional information 24 on that occurrence, in 1977 -- and I believe we discussed I 25 this this morning -- we received from URS-Bloom Hosgri i 1 l ALDER $oN REPORTING COMP ANY. INC, I 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., W ASHINGToN, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 I
105 1 acceleration spectra. 2 Upon reextinstion of that model, there was a 3 revision in that spectra that was f orwarded to us. 4 E3. DENTON: Which apparently was not ecmmunicated 5 within PGCE to all the necessary parties. 6 ER. EEAND: Well, that is right. It was 7 concunicated to those responsible for containment de si;n , 8 with this one exception, and it was because of this one 9 exception that we were applying the original spectra in cur to conduit and cable through support design efforts. Could I elaborate very briefly? In my 11 ME. CLOUD: 12 min d the error just being discussed was an incorrect 13 a pplica tion of spectra, pure and simple; and as part of the I 14 review of the seismic desien change , we would make sure that 15 the correct spectra were applied to all safety-related 16 equipment. ER. DENTON: That is one aspect where I think ycur 17 18 reverification program should be expanded if it had not 19 already covered it. There is a second aspect in which I 20 think it may need to be expanded. It seems from what I have 21 hea rd that these errors occurred at an interface as a result 22 of not providing your consultant quite the right in f o rm a ti o n 23 for him to do cal ulations, or when you got calculations 24 back, for not im pl e r.en tin g those recommenda tions across the 25 board. I guess people have used different names for that, I. e ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S W., W ASHINGToN. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
106 1 verification and so f orth. 2 I would like to see your verification progran 3 include in it an audit of all of the types of seisnic der.igr 4 inf ormation that occurred in this time frace with that 5 cocsultant. 6 ME. EEAN:s May we ask Dr. C1 cud to respond to 7 tha t as well? ME. CLO"Da Certainly it was the intention of Task 8 9 3 in .the pre;ran I presented , which addressed itself to the 10 transf er of informa tion across interf a ces, to review and 11 mak e sur e that the correct information was transmitted and 12 t h e correct information was received and that it was used 13 pro perly . ( MB. DENTON: I think the two areas that we see, at 14 15 lea st addressing these two errors that we focused on, one 16 error seems to be associated with a transfer to an associate 17 of improper information, and the second one was associated I 18 with lack of complete use o f inf orma tion that came back. 19 w ou ld like to see that area audited, not just in this j 20 annulus region of the containment area but across the board 21for any areas which occurred in that time frame. Are we communicating? Are you saying that is what 22 23 you are going to do? MB. CLOUD: The scope of the program is for all 24 25 saf ety-related equipment regardless of its location in the ( ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S W., W ASHINGToN. D C 20024 (202) 554 2345
107 1 plant. 2 EE. DENTON: Let me ask Ed Jordan if he would like 3 to be sure we understand this a rea . 4 3R. J3E0ANs Eight. I think we understand it. 5 Now the only question is the time frame for completion of 6 this portion of the audit. In the staff discussion we felt 7 that particular area deserved early emphasis and a findin; 8 f rom it was necessary before the staff veuld be in a 9 position to make a decisien. 10 ME. CLOUD. Your suggestion, then, would be a 11 rea rrangement of the schedule that I presented in order to 12 f ocus on that task first. 13 3E. JORDANS That is correct. ( 14 MR. DENTON: I think we need some basis for 15 con fiden ce that these two breakdowns which occurred in this 16 tim e f rame and in these areas which we are discussing are 17 n ot symptomatic of some wider-spread breakdown at the time, 18 a n d if you could $1 rect your program to audit in f airly nea r 19 terms some other aspects of this transfer to and use fror so 20 tha t we would have those results to us at the time a 21 decicion most be made for resuming fuel load. So I think in summary, Mr. Shackelford, we are 22 One is a report 23 asking for three things from you. 24 summa rizing the topical basis for the modifications which 25 either have or have not been made based on the tvc errors ALDERSoN REPORTING COMP ANY. lNC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE. 5 W., W ASHINGToN. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
10E 1 that we have addressed; a program plan for reverification 2 tha t describes your entire plan for reverification, which I 3 understand will likely stretch out into December before it 4 4 comes to complete f ruition; and thirdly then what I have 5 described as a partial report on the results of yeur 6 verification audit in this area of the input and output use 7 in the 1977 tire frame of information that was used with 8 your consultant, Dr. Bloom. MR. SHACKELTORD: I think I understand what ye 9 10 a re saying, 3r. Denton. May I ask Don Brand if he wants tc 11 f eedback on tha t? 12 MR. BRAND: Yes, I believe I understand as well. 13 Let se assure myself that the rest of our panel recbers ( 14 understand it. 15 MR. DENTON: Maybe we could take it one at a time 16 and make sure that we have an understanding. If you want to 17 talk abo ut the simplest one, the summary topical report on 18 modifica tion s, if you would like to deal with that one 19 first. It is all straightforward. MR. BRAND: I am hearing f rom our peo ple that we 20 21 understa nd it. MR. HOCH: We may ask for details of format as we 22
~
23 prepare it, but we understand what you are saying. MB. DENTON: I think that with those three reports 24 25 and with my staff doing its own independent review of these M.DERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VLRGINI A AVE, S W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
109 1 areas, we would be in a position to come to a conclusien 2 very shortly after receipt of these reports. The schedule 3 will be then somewhat controlled by your ability to complete 4 your side and at least document in surmary fashion. 5 We will work with you to the extent it is 6 pr actical in reviewing information as you develop it, but I 7 would like to have these three before us. 8 Now, it sounds to me as though the partial repcrt 9 of the type you are having Dr. Cloud do is probably ocing to 10 he the control. ling one. 11 ME. BRAND: Yes, it will be our controlling 12 d or umen t . ER. DENTON : I don't know if you can -- I doubt if 13 ( 14 you can accomplish that in the seven to te n -d a y time frame 15 y ou were talking about. It is possible you could accomplish 16it in an October time frame, it seems, depending on how much 17 you have a:complished already. 18 ER. BRAND: Bob, would you care to comment on hew 19 quickly , or are we just speculating at this particular point 20 on how long that will take? 21 ER. Cl0UDs Io a certain extent we are 22 specula ting . We can, of course, with the new motivation 23 t h a t has been received focus our attention on that and 24 improve the schedule on that end of it if we let the other 25 things slip. t ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S w WASHINGTON. O C. 200:4 (202) 554 2345
11C 1 ER. DENTON: I see this as bein; an interim report 2 in that it would not represent the product you would 3 normally have generated by the end of December, but I think 4 we need to know enough by that tim e tha t you really have 5 looked hard at this particular area, and I want to be sure 6 you and we are communicating as to what this area is.
,7 ER. CLOUD: If I can repeat this bark to you, you V 8 vere talking about the transfer of seismic design 9 inf ormation.
10 ER. DENTON: In the '77 time frame. 11 ER. CLOUD: In the correct time frame, in the time 12 f ra me of th e Hosgri analysis from PGCE to Bloor, and from 13 Bloom t o PG C E. I 14 ER. DENTON: And I am talking about the 15 verifica tion audit; was the correct information transferred 16 t o your consultant , and was the information that you got 17 back fully utilized, and an audit of whether that 18 inf ormation really was correctly utilized from thereon. 19 MR. CLOUD: Yes, I understand that. ER. DENTON: Would anyone like to restate that so 20 21 v e a r e clear ? 22 MR. HOCH: Could I ask how the time frame of the 23 reports, and particularly this one, relates to your staff I 24 people? Are you thinking of a sequential thing or are you 25 thinking of sending your staff people in a committee effort? ( ALDER $oN REPORTING COMP ANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S W., w ASHiNGToN O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
119 1 MB. DENTON: I thought that in the ICE look at the 2 installa tions that you are doing, that can be going on while 3 you are making installations. They will also be looking at 4 the results of your look into this breakdown that occurred 5 in '77 and your audit while you are doing it, and our 6 technical staff can be looking at the results of your 7 analyses of the pipe supports while you are doing it. 8 I would envision that our staff would be availahle 9 at the plant or at your design office next week to review 10 the information that you have developed. I think we would 11 lose a lot of time if we were passively awaiting your 12 reports and then only began a seriouc inquiry when they 13 a rrived . I 14 ER. BRANDa Fine. I think we understand the three 15 items that you have outlined, and we do appreciate your 16 expression of cooperation and responsiveness in verking to a 17 tim e f r a me. 18 MR. DENTON: There is one other c.uestien that care 19 u p this morning. Herb Brown -- is he still here? 20 MR. BROWN: Yes. MR. DENTON: You said you thought one week was too 21 22 short . The sooner you could get any comments you have in to 23 the staff, the better use we could make of them. I would be 24 happy to allow you ten days or two weeks, but you should 25 recognize that our review will be moving along a track ( ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMP ANY, fNO. 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S W., W ASHtNGioN. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
112 1 consistent with what information gets developed, and 2 whenever your comments coce in, we would certainly forward 3 them to the Commission, but the scener the better fcr us tc 4 incorporate them into what we do. 5 It seems to se it is possible that your reports 6 could get in and the staff could co=plete its review of the-7 som etime in October, and as you say, it is difficult to 8 speculate on any particular date between new and the end of 9 October when this might come together. Maybe after you have to had a chance to think about what might be in them and what 11 you have got to do. I think about all I can coccit to is 12 not to take very many days after the receipt of the last one 13 to complete our independent audit of that process. 14 ER. BRANT4 That would be fine wi th us. ER. DENTON Herb, any other comments? 15 ER. BROWN: Yes, I have a few points, but just 16 17 responding directly to what you said, our interest is really 18 to play a much more meaningful role than simply seeing the 19 transcripts and commenting. We don't want to be in an 20 adversarial position with the staff. We would like to work i 21 w it h the staff, which requires that we have the same raw l l 22 data tha t the staf f has so we can make an input to the l 23 staf f, and our intention would be to participate thoroughly i 24 and intensively in a review with the staff prior to being 25 put in a position of acting after the staff itself has taken ( ALDER $oN REPORTING COMP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINT A AVE., S W W ASHINGToN. O C. 20C24 (2021554 2345
193 l t a position. 2 So to the extent to which we could have things to 3 you by n ex t Thursday, for example, we would like to. What 4 we could get to you three or four days later, we would like 5 to do. But in order to provide a useful role here, we have 6 got to seize the opportunity of an interchange with the 7 staff and the opportunity to pursue questions we ha ve with 8PGCE. We will help the staff too in any way that we can. 9 So I very much would like you, before I go to any 10 of my other cor.ments, to perhaps work with us here at this 11 time and determine how our technical consultants can work 12 wit h you and your technical staff wi th respect to as kin g 13 this a m eaningf ul, non-adversarial eff ort on our part. I 14 I will throw out two quick ideas. One is we would 15 like all the inf ormation that comes in to the staff 16 con temporaneous1y with when the staff receives it. 17 Secondly , we would like, of course, to be present at any 18 mee ting the staff holds with PGEE, or at least to be invited 19 to them. ME. DENTON. I think it is certainly our pclicy to 20 21 keep you currently and f ully inf ormed and let you 22 participate to the degree you would like. We would be happy 23 to meet with you and your consultants when you would 'like. 24 It sounds to me as though it is going to be a fairly rapid 25 series of meetings ahead of us, and all I think I am ( ALDERSoN REPoATING COMPANY. INO, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE. S.W, W ASHINGToN. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
114 1 suggesting, Herb, is you need to be prepared to move in the 2 same time frame. 3 ER. BEOWN: Well, the person -- you ought to have 4 whomever is appointed at your level of the staff to be the 5 contact person deal directly with Dick Covert, who will be 6 headinc up the technical side of it, since Dick will, ef 7 course , be responsive in any way he can. We do want tc Rake 8this, as I said, non-adversarial f rom the outset. 9 3R. DESTON: Any other comments? ER. EBOWN: Yes. I really wanted to say that the 10 11 characteriration of what is occurring is fror our standpoint 12 a serious matter and it is not routine. We want to make 13 sur e tha t the vital interest of the State of California and ( 14 i t s citizenry, the Governor's participation, are impressed 15 on this proceeding. As I said, we want to be participating 16 in a non-adversarial way at this point. 17 What has gone wrong here is really very modest in 18 the f orm of humiliation because it was just a ecuple of 19 weeks ago that the Fuclesr Ee;ulatory Commission found that 20 the plant satisfied the public health and safety standard 21 a nd it could operate. Revelations shortly thereaf ter cast a l i 22 m os t serious doubt in the public's confidence in this 23 proceeding , and it is not the first time. ' 24 The plant, as everyone knows, was put in a place i 25 where it wasn't intended, in a place very close to an I ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 \1RGINIA AVE., S W W ASHiNGToN. O C. 20024 (202) 554 1345 f
995 1 earthquake fault, and now the very work tha t has been done 2 to correct that error has been found itself to be an error. 3 So we do want to underscore the seriousness of this, the 4 unprecedented quality of it, and the necessity that no 5 corners be cut during the review by the staff because we 6 very much are looking to the staff here, and I assure you 7 the public is looking to the staff as a piller on which to 8 res t its confidence. And if the staff were to give the 9 ir.pression that it is soving ahead with the schedule to keep 10 some arbitrary deadline instead of ser.e methodological and 11 sys tema tic analysis, I think the confidence would even be 12 shattere d f urther . 13 What we would like to have, getting away from that k 14 general observation, as I mentioned before, is all the rav 15 data that supports the conclusions that have been stated so 16 f a r . I suspect those are the things you were asking for, 17 and particularly Dick Vollmer as he asked questions about 18 QA. We think that is the heart of the problem here. 19 I will ask a rhetorical question because I was 20 involved, as you may remember, in the de veleprent of 21 Appendix B back in 1973. I cannot believe that the 22 Commission would have intended its Appendix B te overlook this case. Tha t is, I do not 23 what has been overlooked in when it sent 24 believe the Commission would have said in 1974 25 teams all across the United States to talk to the utilities, ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGlNI A AVE S W., W ASHINGToN. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
196 1 to the states and to the regional offices that quality 2 assurance in Appendix E means A throu;h Z but it excludes 3 wha t has happened in this case. 4 To the contrary, I think what has happened here is 5 truly a monumental breakdown of quality assurance, and I 6 think that ought to be the startin; point fer the staff's 7 analysis. It isn't an issue to be contained cr confined to 8 some suhset; it is an issue tha t goes to th e heart of the 9 quality control and quality assurance that has been applied 10 to this f acility. 11 Dur next question is what will the staff do. We 12 v a n t the staff to regulate here. We want the staff net to 13 be an umpire saying whether a ball or a strike has been 14 thr own. We want the staff to be an aggressive participant 15 in th e review. We look to the staff and we know that the 16 public looks to the staff. We want the sta ff to do an 17 independent review that is above question. 18 We don't want to suggest ourselves that the staff 19 is just relying upon what PGEE has said and the staff is 20 a uditing that. We want the staf f to be an aggressive f 21 par ticip ant . For exa:ple, we want the staff specifical*~.y te 22 address the issue of whether an amendment to the FSAR should ( 23 be issued, and we want the staff to address specifically the 24 question of what regulatory action rhould we take, given our 25 regulatory obligations to regulate. It is not simply, as we l l l i l [ l ' ALDERSON REPORTING CCMP ANY,INO, 400 VIRGINI A AVE . S W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
117 1 see it, Harold, a posture for this staff to be a reviewer. 2 And then I ask one question that I hope you will 3 actually answer for r.e now, and it is my last, and that iss 4 Would you as Direrter of NFE and the staff have recorrended 5 to the Commission that an operating license have been 6 cranted to PGCE had you known one conth ago that the errorr 7 discussed today were in fact made? ER. DENTON: I can answer that one. The answer is 8 9 no. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING CoWP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S W. WASHtNGToN. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
992 1 But we did not know that last conth. 2 MB. BROWN We vill endeavor to get it to you next 3 week , as I said, as such as I can. You have my phone 4 num ber , and feel free to put any burdens on me that you 5 vish. Dick is to be contacted by your contact, as I said. 6 It is our intention that we be in a nonadversarial , 7 posture . Much of the case has been adversa rial, and it is 8 our intention to approach it in a nonadversarial way, and we 9 hope that can be worked out. 10 ER. EENTON4 Any other comnents f rem the assembled 11 public? Yes. 12 MR. FLEISCHAKEE: David Fleischak er, attorney fer 13 the Intervenors. We have participated in the proceedings ( 14 seven years now. I have been on the case for four years, 15 s ainly with litigating the seismic issue. And I would like 16 to put this discussion into a context a little dif f erent 17 from the one that PGLE has established. 18 There has been a lot of discussion today about 19 conserva tism in the seismic design and the safety of margins 20 tha t exist in t!ie plant. But I think it is important to 21 remember tha t the margins of safety that are normally found 22 in the seismic design of nuclear power plants have been cut 23 out of this plant. l 24 For exaeple, the seise.ic design criteria have been l 25 reduced in the high-frequency range on the basis of some l< l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE S W., W ASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
119 1 controversial assumptions relatin; to the ability of the 2 base of the foundation to average out the high-frequency 3 earthqua ke energy. Thus, assumptions have been so 4 contrhversial that the ACBS' own consultants departed fre: 5 the Staff position and criticized that position in testimony
? before the Licensing Board.
7 Ihe da: ping that has been used in the development 8 of seismic criteria has been elevated to 7 percent. It is 9 normally 4 or 5 percent for nuclear power plant design. 10 Harold, I va r.t e d to go back to the 1976 letter 11 tha t the ACES vrote. 12 MR. DENION: I do not think this is the forue to 13 relitiga te this. We will be happy to have your comments on I 14 tod ay 's issue. 15 HR. FLEISCHAKER: I am coming to that, if you will 16 let se put into context. In 1976, when the ACRS signed off 17 o n this design, it said, "It is evident from the foregcing sthat th e design basis and criteria used in the seismic 19 reevalua tion of Diablo Canyon station by the postulated 20 Hoscri event are in certain esses less conservative than 21 those that have been used in an original design." 22 Then the ACRS went on and listed three reasons why 23 it was going to approve this plant resnalysis nevertheless.
. 24 One of them was this: "Because of the extent and depth of 25 the Staff review and the Applicar.t 's seismic reevalua tion ,
( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMP ANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S W., W ASHINGToN. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
920 1 the likelihood of an undetected error in the seistic 2 analysis or design is greatly reduced." 3 What we find today is that despite perhaps the 4 Sta f f 's best efforts, we had sone very substantial
~
5 undetected errors that came up after an operating license 6 was issued. 7 And for that reason, on behalf of t h <. peo;1e tha 8 live areund the plant, I would like te ur;e the Staff to 9 take a very careful look at the work FGCI is doing, at the 10 quality assurance program. And I would like to request that 11 the Staff recommecd an independent audit of the seismic 12 rea nalysis. 13 EE. DENTON: I think we are getting an independent ( 14 a u d it . I assume we are getting an independent audit through 15 the verk tha t Dr. Cloud is doing. Thet is one reason I 16 wanted the reverification program plan submitted, so we can 17 look at it in advance to see if we think it is really 18 ade qua te . And I would certainly welcome any comr.ents you 19 might have on that plan after we have had a chance to see it 20 f rom the company. And we will have our own look at these 21 sa m e areas, of course. Harold, let me follow up on that. I 22 MB. EROWNs l 23 am not sure if maybe David is sa tisfied . But to the' extent 24 that an independent audit ought to be pursued, it really 25 ought to be what we would consider independ ent, at least to I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMP ANY. INO. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C 200:4 (202) 554 2345
121 1 the extent to whirh the governor would be comfortable. It 2 would be an audit that is not being done by PGEE or throu;h 3 PGE E's funding.
~
4 And I say this not casting any doubts en Dr. 5 Cloud 's integrity or his capability. I stipulate those frc: 6 the beginning. It is just that the natural inclination of 7 people who have studies and audits done by those whc have 8 been found to have committed an error is not to take 9 necessa rily with the same enthusiast an audit the way they 10 would if done by an independent party not being f unded by 11 tha t individual or party that committed the errer. 12 And that is about as gently and as truncated a 13 sentence as I could use to try to show as uuch respect as I '( 14 can to Dr. Cloud , because, as I said, I am not in any way 15 chsliencing his qualifica tions or his integrity, and I 16 stipulate those to begin with. 17 But I think a party that does not have either an is interest or a source of funding f rom the pa rties interested 19 in the q uestion -- 20 ER. DENTON: I think I understand the point you 21 a re making, and we will certainly take it under advisement. ER. FLEISCHAKERa I want to make it perfectly 22 23 cle a r that we are not accusing PGEE of dissembling here, and 24 ve are not accusing the Staff either. It is really a 25 question that we have got everybody here that shares the ( ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D C. 20C24 (202) $$4 2345
122 1 problem , you have got a plant that was located on an 2 earthquake f ault that was belatedly discovered. 3 It seems to me it is in everybody's interest and 4 PGCE's interest and the Staf f 's interest and certainly in ry 5 clients ' interests who live near the plant that we reduce to 6 an absolute minizum the possibility cf there being an 7 undetected error. And if we are going to de that, I think 8 we Deed a really tough audit on that plant, and that is the 9 basis -- an independent audit -- and that is the basis for 10 this request. 11 I think PGCE and the Staff are doing the best th e y 12 c a n . The Staff is overworked. PGCE has an interest in 13 seeing that $2.3 billion project go on line. We would like '( 14 t o s e e somebody who has no impression, who has no interest, 15 to come in and audit this plant, to reduce the possibility 16 of human error and undetected error. ER. DENTON: I do not propose to try to decide 17 18 th a t issue today, Dave. And I think I will postpone it l l 19 until things become a little bit clearer about what the 20 program will contain and what it will not. But I will 21 certainly consider it and get back to y ou a nd r e'. ort on what 22 ve are going to do in that area. ER. SHACKELFORD: I would like to comment , '".r . 23 ( 24 Denton, that I happen to be a director of PGCE, and our "r. 25 board of directors has the same kind of concerns ( ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINI A AVE 5.w., w ASHINGToN. D C. 20024 (2024 554 2345
923 l 1 Fleischaker has expressed. We are as interested in having a 2 clear and thorough audit of this as anyone. 3 ER. F1EISCHAKER: And we think Dr. Cloud's audit 4 is an ' independent audit and would add to that. The record 5 in this case is very long a nd very thorough, and the record 6 ve have heard today shows -- 7 ER. DENTON: I think we have done well to keep the 8 adversarial nature of this proceeding down to the level it 9 has occurred. I think it has been an effective meeting for 10 tra nsmittin g inf o rm a tion . There is a lot of follow-up we 11 have to do to understand what is behind and underneath the 12 inf orma tion you presented today. 13 We vill keep all parties informed of subsequent 14 see tings . I envision they will start occurring next week as 15 soon as we can get our people together and get out there. 16 We will, hopefully, hear from you at some later time what 17 sorts of dates these three requests might be fulfilled, so 18 we can plan our own workload accordingly. , 19 If there are no other comments, I propose to close 20 the m e e t in g . HB. BRAND: On behalf of PGCE, I would just like 21 22 to say we believe we had a good meeting and full 23 communication with the Staf f here today , and we look' forward 24 to our meetings next week. HR. DENTON: Fine. Thank you. 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 V1RGINTA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (2C2) 554 2345
124 1 ( Whereupen, at 2:20 p.r.., the meeting was 2 adjourne d. ) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l 19 20 21 i l 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 v1RGINIA AVE., S W . .V AswiNGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
NUC 2.AR REGUMTORY CO!Cd.I*SION This is : certify that the attached preceecings before the in the :::atter ofi Meeting with Pacific Gas and Electric Ccrpany to Dis =ss Seis-i; Design Periew, Diable Canyen t. hit 1 Date of Preceeding: october 9, 1951 Decket Nu=ber: Place of Preceeding: Bethesia, Parfland were held as herein appears, and that this is the criginal transcr-;; therecf fe:- the file cf the Cer.=issten. ,
. Ann Piley Offic.ial Reperter (Typed'
\
.w .$11) y Official Reporter (Signature)
O O t l ( )
PRESENTATION
- FIGURES
$ #1 FS AR FIGURE 1.2-2 JBHoch .
#2 VERTICAL ANNULUS CUTAWAY
#3 FSAR FIGURE 1.2-24
#4 EQUIPMENT LOCATION DRA*'INO AT 140'
# 21' HCSCRI FIC"RE 4-28 RVEettinge:
#5 HOSGRI FIGURE 4-28 JBHoch
#6 EQUIPMENT LOCATION A 140'
#7 FRAME ORIENTATION "'=*RDNO"
#8 FRAME ORIENTATION "RIGHT" 09 LIST OF SYSTEMS MRTresle
#10 VERTICAL ANNULUS CUTAWAY
#11 ORIGINAL VS. CORRECTED FRAME LOCATION DRAWINC
#12 AREAS OF AFFECTED SPECTRA AT 116'
#13 AREAS OF AFFECTED SPECTRA AT 106'
#14 EFFECT OF DIAGRAM ERROR ON SYSTEMS
#15 PIPING EVALUATION PROCEDURES
#16 PIPING SUPPORT EVALUATION PROCEDURES
#17 PIPING SUPPORT REVIEW
#18 MODIFICATION SCHEDULE
#19 PIPES NEEDED FUEL LOADING AND COLD SYSTEM TESTS
#20 SCHEDULE FOR INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT RCloud l(
-. s a
. " h. s**. , .
- w.. , .,. -- .* . .
. :. ,.~.
* . * ** ..* ,. ,, ' . , . '.,= *
. . . - * . ' .' . *n .. , f * = *.= 4,.*. . .; ,.2
. . ,..,* . m;;..'.'=(F',,*= . , = ~ . -
,s ,
*
- r *e
-*:.;..,>p.
. e. . .,.,. .. .. ..... . . ,
, _,_. . h * ,_..** l h ,* , q (, '
r;.
.y.. .- ,. . . . , . .. - .
,.a
.r ..
'. - = = - , ,u .. . .
, .y 1 - e -
. e 4p. *
.s ,,
._ o .s.. .. - -a=~* ,,, ,
a *
. = .*',. . .w T 3..; -
,' - *. : .-:o. -;.. V.s.:-
.T.:**
.t.. . cTo--. '
_-. .; i .A U - *
} .# , -
. .... ?
- 2.. ,,.n .. <
n,_ a ny i
. . . .y. . . .~g .
01
.c-zo
.g
- m. C;>
.' . .r.jg.a, .. .. 4. . .* 4
;. .a .
4 _r .
** 4z -3 es xQ IE es u .=
a :s .,,;'e&e .,. i f.e Q ~' .l .
=
i UC :=3 E z
'4 . E c.
- s. ^-> s -'J.q..
.p:.
~.%
-a. .> N.w<. - d '.*i s.
. } .= -4 * -
[0E:36 z; 3c
<e Lf.'
z as
%. . .w . w* ,M . *.,.H, . . . ~. .
.. 4 L., L. r
.,J,.,
t
. o '. i. .
i
,-: , ,',* , r..y-..
g.< -. .
..- [] .n"
- s;.* .; . ,, /
-- . g..e i II %
"{
.g46 l .
et. p. . .
>l g r,t
. . . ;., s , r s .
-I
,I e
x t. 3 i , . . m I \ t o E .s .; - e e s
'\ ,
I l i F[* 3
'Q.-
\'
h
\
-,e
- l 1
. T, sr 6 1
..3. lD -+ T#) .l g
/ ... ~
l .. - 1
~d4 t . , a.
f ,
\
l Il \. k ' 4.*D D '. , 1( l! l -hEl f
. N.,
fb;* j. .- ' n 1 I {a t.a
. I .- .
e.- k . m s *I i , .a,li,' .,d . j .. .u .. - . i
-l . ,. ,. . ..
6,.g [=:s Q) p r I l; a t.- l$ e ;i .- - 6
- g[- . l' .
-+4 %: 9 g
. T.
v .s f', Oi -
*t[ s ,
iJ ,d;. y i e. g r ...
..g4... .
p t--'1 I +, p+ '
. "I s
..J.e ,-
(@ i J - e r i ,,,,
~ --'
l' ' ' - . e..
- t_)I _ .... .:
i .
] .
je ' . p ..- s. .--'-r . - t..,.. 1 'l . hm n o ; o !.7 - . .: .
-Y. '
. i 8
. . . . . 4~ ', (- -
wg 1 i : P I .t*= u
'[lg v j.T..
\ ..
- 1. .~i.. .--:. . . . -
]
f a ,g*t , 7'* ,v-. . s
-'/ . = .... . .
s% s i I /. tM"%
. O'. ,
a.
**-- i 7"-""J.'
\-[ ...
jI _. . . , . _* . . . -.
* -*r - -
. _- a .: 'I
_r . .
.~,.'.,..:
,.i . s . m i .e I
,- a ,
-e. 4 *
'HT gbf g
I
- i. L g
- 2,j sI.:d.
*. .S 3
. . . .. .. ..f *. - 9
,1 -. ! h 8
/ a y- /. . . '.
I C . .\,
> ~ -4 z*-*S +: /
'.s *p:
.;,.>.c....,..,.',..
i ' 4- -
@., - t ".;
[ m. ..
...... -m, . . _ ,
- e. a f.r.. . a . . .. , , , . -. - ..
2- . . . V.-
~
..w - &. .,2.~.' s .*.::. . ..... . .' .* . - . .=s' 1.',.. .c.,'.'.
. .- ' + .n. a E .
. g. .-
..,,%. _ , , . .+-
3, . . . . . .. . . .
... ., . < . -e ~. e , ;e.
- 11. . -m .
.v : e.<*.re. -
I,
*, ?. - ',w- .i s; .og.7Q - : 2 ,.:..;- z;.f., y.,.; .- .~...-a. g .. ,'- '
".5 :-%.' - J. .-M -- -
.f,? , ;f. b jP.. s.- s ;i .-
' --; .-...,? ;. .**
.'. g*u. " , e.CQ
-a-Q. a.
.i %. j=+
t
- 6- #-
-C'C.'.*
t
. . . . . . . t..;... 2. e . % ; ; - . . , ., . . . .x.
I ~ cw .. ...* .
- 7. .' . .
L.-.,G .. -
,,r.>.
...s.
. , . , . 9 .-. .-
*1' -** . ~~.'
- .* .e .
.. - ..' - ;,a,. . -- * -7;.'. :f' . '.j r.g .F J c.. *. *Q.s7'. # a.T ~ .- .
'. ;l.3l 3 1.,.,.d
.,a;, Q A~
- f .,T ,.,,-* +; ".
.> . J. ,*. - (.* -% . /. ,, .9 * . - e i. s r,
-a .e ./ m. ,k *.a't. .7.-
. .k. i..-t< .-r.- r.??
. . , .*. .-, f ,. . ,. .: .-.- (. 7. .; .;.- j .- .:- .
.. . . . ... . .e .y.- ..,,t..,: .
.3 '. ; ,4 .- ..:
~ , %. .r p y.
. .. w **
.y.q ~., * ..,.i....
a ,. ;qj"
'q . lt =$. - ,\.,lc 'V, .. . . . .}. L . , ,;.... .. *s.&*J %=- >. .@..
c..m .. .L:...=. .
! . ,.' .: v.K.u .:0%'-:. pr .
v.4
. . u v:.. '..
* [Lw! m .--h ...- 4 D-=.- :*. . o ..-
'.b :c. *E-*] [ *N N w. p ~$d.,
- n. w. .. .. r.*y w:s..r.*,n.
- u. 4> * . . , .
s . ..t ...s=. p4 s., . w.v ,.; n> -
. . . *tw, .,. .
.n:. - v~. h'
* < .w
., v(., .'d J .* .
w*f.4 q f.m.r-;y.e 2.*p -- * {'i*; ; *.'*/*.p *.r-. . 3 e h. . g. h.[ .. y .g . .,* /y ~ * , es.-==.*.*.
..s..* '.,g".as.. . ._,., . .w,..v w.~.. .r.s .,;,e..,
e* .,* *.- -- *J .A w .*
.
- g's, 7.da ,
,.,.;-**.T. M ..g k k ,,j. wn.4
~ .. . . - ...
; 4 -^.'. . . . .i , s.> y "..,,, .
', . ~. -.- , m%, 8.? . ;-: 4 c+.,.y. .* n 1.:. .'*,' . s . , , '-*t w ,.,Y.s;h.>. -f --4,>,.. n% --p .. .:.
.+.
e . .,,. A. . . .m .w .--; . c /. ~. . p. .4.. %
.e e an .v-.. . . s. .4 . .
.., .. r- t .. ..- , . .,.w.,...a. -
m,.,. c ,_ :m . ..e
*-..-'., .. c . . . . -
.'r % .w. ','d* **, ,2 *h""<. ' - -
" #e-,"91 3.,e.a. -h-C
-t %-r :i. - - -
b -[; ; * .* e ')[. - G
.o ...o.
.-.k --
* "' . ./ 3E,M*** #' - - " --'
p e
l t l 1
]
P TC : ._ w W 140 00 7 r, R 53 (esoe crane wa wm g% 114.8C . 106 67 l 101.33 _ ( ANNULUS @ECTION THROUGH CONT AINMENT BUILD (.
*eM M
W
G E b e e s. E v O h. 3 Nc~ t
- y /
Q 48. % } ! l.
- si I g 4E- *- C
=*** ,
- ~ s
**9~"
' g.
L
~v 1 t ri a a!!a o :ne- - e w ,ee-62 e .
I - l eili,m g t
= .=
1., _w** y! I. t, g
" h s w.Y.Akn.f f 3
.sz i i
,f ,r o,
-I g
? 4-2 i
-';jl j s .,8 13, ;
o q t
' IC # _
.- ' .51 ng
,s - 2
..?
w w _. l i
%.=_ kl Z($ *t % - : W -f
%i i, i
lie- - ' *
-9 **f - ~
E jlp J; s-tkallkNG--M5 %. i .1 ; r .: ;p _=._.iL..-23 -- - 2j 5 i
'-- r q:-cA=Lp wk_b.m :,r
; : wi
.1
-3
- l. ew.
CC .r1-:. ,:ge 2 . o at a q2----e t i. r" - is I l d{ * * ~ -p.,,,, c ._ 8J ..9) -
*i p
-n k f ;; +. 17 7 t
- =4 w ' ,)a b. . .~ mlt. .+ I f. U.).J'
[/;i '_ 'R pa i
~ }
]. I % ,O -
- e..g%7 ,. p
. - ' i w.1 i ,p- r-_ I,'
- e
- 3' 2 "'~ . ; .i 4 : ..W._. ;,y=
{
.(. !*
t " .q . r.;.
;$_*- y
)l.
p (..
~
J5 li
- i
.e (.p?(d.1&al:n r e
_,.:. . _.2.; U , 5 l i s 4& Ni2 we,a @ ili G,*0 i-i E ! ?1 e
.i r
.. ; l s ,i I
*(-
,sl '
j .i t=% k, w.Q _. i[1' - M,1_I s 4 v.W i, l
--I %
Qa
,.s
[ j (,
/
gi J- , _m
!s
_. i
..' ,l L
I L / f j , 4 4
~ __
s i I.@D' w~] OI.I$iMi_jl ! 0 ( 1
- t l.0 m.,a:r e e ij
-e I f4,! )!L e. <
'1;, 3 ft w, : 1 15
(
,g e . -
e- :
- ) . . :n 3 , L; .3 , 3
(
- - ~ _ _ _ _ . . .
;-)
--' ~ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
, . _ -/* 7. W.M..v.':+- 'h 7- m *, -:2. ;. a , . s,,,%.:,a ,._.. ,... .....
e c +
.._ .~
*:D,G W F_;
e-x .. :.-: : , ! c. .:.. . . :. - c, l m4--{ u- . ?M.. . J .~~, c.:.~.g. .,~. " .- 3. .'=. .~. +v. ..,. .E. .m.
., .;.. *j . 2.S
;j
;L.i ;.:: N. .% .". :" t, - #g., _%.,
2-
.:n E'.*:t..;,r 3/.b :*.r,-
M,;; w;.--=. .Qm%:: - % t*L, e,,i. . . i.). :.: v~m).w . h y.s.5.&:'.y. 3 #*.> .syW ';;ni lw,:-Clf -
- r. ., m.. . w: -e n-
- a.;- . 1 g g1 r gw N y.?.
< m.m: w.w m.. a 7 ,.3: p.. . .,
w.
-. e.. .w,. ..
- m r
- m ,, w A - 4,a _,_.. .
.s,.
ts .
- q. r..r G. r. .Tg<.yg ,+: ,_.,',j,,u
.. g _
2, _2. . .nv.im.W- rdq i. a .,..
..., . .. .s.,-.
. u, . . .
m :a..nw,. .:. .,,.4 t e.
.I v.
= ,l.
g) - Q- :-n'
=-#-s
. .# 1
..,'. : : . . .c.JI
..- ..-i-. .
,e v, . ..,
.g hi_H @@_= ,
m P :sh.'l u
~
p 4I -
.T.-
. .;.. w en-#.,
4 q e,p g e w_ ., n; w pW,p I p
~.k;
, 9g
. e - .
_ Jd . i; . 5 ne4 ' w_
, . ,AWi 9 3 1 2ji, =Ta Q,.,i- &- n:-J~=
nM= n: [.". ).. u. _:- . . m. . - - n_ a pm.@lg q ,_ %A lf v
;; g. e.-m?.y. p;..%..*@L) r
%. 7,:q.a. j.T.Ry@n . m qs. ,jg g .:y 4.__' E i '1-[ti.?.
-c" -
. d.,TB h,j 9.,m .
.m._,.n ._n.~.n, . .i
.. ., n.
q L,.;. e... m :. m,,, ~. u. , e.
....~%.,,,...y: ,,.,,, - r.
la' : n i< rg;, - ;,, '
- 7 ),f -
vg
- 7. >
e, { %> / _.._),g h?
- l ,, I* ,-
=.
,h.u...o .c.
e,
,; e ,o ,. -
.qmy;,4, s , iy/ % i i 4.; , '
1 j L. ,*M i -l l l
- i i, '
, c[t ~;rl : -pe *' ~ "
- ir. ;[ U, 2 -
r &.,f?!t ,t n.c i
,g
( a := r
; P J 9. e i e
L-q D.' > e43 '-f'%u !
. i;. s ,i i .d .k
- !ii 4) jp~T. ' -
~n L, _
j g gQ-wpI ' M-- ----dIm 24i ;thp.f.": 0--lH: ,6 I '1 g "".'%g.,- J.-4. i i
,i p.!l _! i 3:1,??a:C 41 pd, i - '
- j, I Qr aim -
1l - : . 9 -l a*.g d [.1 gb . m.w $m '. ptij g).y;. T ~-
. 1 [*. b'.-s'- r ,r.:<4 ='r, L-
;j -j ;
i._. 6n -- - o !!: . '1:. ~ -it p g - 5i T[ 2. ,;;i l 9 j : l p' , rp.i .. i K-.i,F3Dp,g;J@p pJg^ 1 .)-h)..'. sr .-*- iba ., n .y ilu - l I:n ua6 l
'i.
w A i. ama.. .=-
+ !" _:4_ u*-
it . + Gn m alL y... , P B __r.u i'. '.9 - .!'*
'2_;p. '
, - ' ' i .:9 h -
~
b '
= . * , * *j-
.- ,e n.
w: k.- m,1,i:=$#s) li
' % 6 -4# +T-.5-c=r, w -
5,,;I v
.@ d.j- w! g i_
- s. - - --
,a n
." ::i: , ~V_. _. pT.!, .I s , a %-1,ts
..I.5.,
.t:$-
e
-.iP a
e, c
- 9
+ is 917.7 ...
Il
}; a .-... u --
. 6. ~'. p, L
, t
.I gi
.i
_ , ~3_ .... E. ;t-?. Lt. p- ,, - _ . .
; 3 q, . . .
. t, .s s;
,-t. Ap = -L _. - .r- + _ - _.e , . J .4 .f-.r.
- s 7, __
~ c m
{ ,
- g. .
,,,gei
. . s 18 j }
31 } w ,
' 33 4 I . *.,
m"'p ,] .j .{
.1. . .I,y, E sc . i
.e. = .: . . .
=,
.Ti. ;Eu.e . 3.a . .
- y. ..
.. 2 .:- 4 ..
s
.e >
- ..:...<.. , ~.
e .. L-g; i . .
~
1.q '. : 2. ' - }, . .,$. 3 . *, . ?.'?. .-l.i. * : - : ... . , . 1'. :' ... . 22f. n.~ . . . - a .o . ( . .
~. v .. J. .
.!h-@,<Q'-("a!.! .,'U .N 1 T 1 ' ' l-r .
~
"2 .
'h F.1 g, , , - .
.. . f.. .l- = I- -
~
../.-;.- f
( . . ' - '2 . . _'hj C4 T e
.g : a sglfg*l. -
-f
!- . -l- '. ' .
. ))Jr ,
p 7 ,g] s .,.- .
.~ .y- .{ . e,,, .
c s i
]l.;i i
j . - [a 3 c . j-m:Fi. -
- ? s .
5Yr ii) e r - .
+
. m ,_L.,
- s- , ,, ~-__ -~ . ". :_
-.. s.
-;- ,ii g ..
- -_;-.. - -- ... ~-
t. t ( CON ~A INM GN T 4 .s N L E G 5 N t3 : 2, %,, s f T'-5t,5M3NT N u M .1 3 3
/ ,$,
f NOD 3 HUM S E R f/ l {fh FQ E 3, l' \ \ 2 (" 1 - N. A Z J P O .' M 7
.Uy, . , , ,
/ ;
f 4:& s
'u - NOT3 C=
I NO,353 I, T . 16 , '? o A .v.*;:
\ -
.:7'c'.:h.
ew ., ARS A '. O N G t C=JT?.: L;.??
\,&',p-Ki4:
* /
\'Y S hin A l? E C O M M ON 70 A ' L
~
% ' FIV 5 ? RAM 53
~$ __
C' PLAN q-- I-4 0 _C OS 4 4 0 a#. 40 40 4' I c 45 II ' G' S' . ;* . 40 il 4 - - . _4 5
& ~. i l I $$ .-
. I r-- - _ -
Si ., $1 -65 i { l' Cu t i i i I i t - ( i .- l#- *Y .'" j :.' f II J.* e l.Ii , l:~ i
.)# I 1
~ , 5 ~ *.' G I 50 ?33 49 5' 33 5: ~
V 1 - i e 43 31 47 : 3.,
~
4;, 3a 45 s,' e~ ,. ~ 079 -- C .9
~
t .m of
~
( y. ' -( N'--IT 1:$ -
- - - 5
~ ~ I) ;-
C.44 I IG - li ' .- - Il
'fg I
' ' ' .I[ g-13 13 4~ U
4 , -- _ !$ j fg 'OJ! M .__.jfg; gi- . 38 y 3' _
'J '< Ij 3.3 ' g
, ~
j
- a _ <
*I , 25'1 !: !..
1 , g _10
, _ il ' -
- 9. 4 --~ ~ . . l g" .*'
- a '
10 ' T 'I
-- 11
- - , s ~'
~ - s- c'
'1
~
l3 _7 A - r-2*
'3 3; .
g 7 -- - as, ft - 13' ;T so 7 . l. ...- -
< 27 ; . . . I ts G
-76 25 I
4 i $ I l'. L. : 2 1.
, L L(.-
..JL C - -
- . ..) L.3 .
Ft AM S 3 P.t A M 3 4 L i = *^ E E FRAME / FRAM E '2 E L E V A T J O NS S 7 R '.' C T '! .? E CO.y 7A lN,V 5 N T _ IN 7 E RlO R V 5 R 7) C A L A .\ A '. '.t'J.'3- .. g M O.3 E L F O R N A T H EM ~ 7.* C A l -( c i.: = '. O C.d N YCN NU C L E A IC FIGUR E N:4-28 i= O w s h; P L A .M 7 UNI T N O. I _
^^
----__j
I t.
% ( CON TA IN// GN 7 t "i w-
-t ~~s LEG 3NO:
)
,, Q, %
s N UM !i., .', k / 2r, [! - 5 f 5 M 5 N 7 ( . #fY, 5 Y h \ 2 No.23 NVM S E R
$l u I M." E 3 'i
\ m Q - N.A ZJ P C ,' M T
~u, .
,, \
\. 41 e ,//s* uo s :
\ ic' .w.V a:.:\;~r, . y' I .
NOID E J I. T. 16 , 2 c A N.= : ;.;. A :. O N G % C = J i? x*,&,*
- Mi
~ '
.' ARS TI $' AND ARE C C M M ON T O A :. :
FIV G .c RA M & J
% h __ s '
,C L A, N D
.f' g _
ec 5 4: c: 4 *- :: n #I c ? E, ti a: :* 4 7 J' - r- - 4.' a .- 64 l M G. I r C C, si . I 55 57. , 8 I l, i i _ 3
- i l !
( , l _- _l 1 I,_ _
.._ 1 *. ' ?: :,
':: 9
._ .?i .I .*. ' ii i
- 5!
Si 3, 5 S:_I 2- S:_. ._4 a c3 at si u ,.3 2 49 _,
- c. 3.0 LS
.o c. , ,,- -
C 29 Ca _C N ' ._, _C a ' . _ - :i C.d _ u IT . - si . 1:s . m 15 . si ' sc - i c ".! : g _ 15 - c.cy I* j,3 4I It C :fg
' ~2', , 13 tr j., SS y 5-
,3
_,7- _ c '. -
- , u _: '
~
2+, ~< .. .- *
!! "I ' ,,
7 I ,~' 4 s 7' 10 -- 1, . l ' l'S e - fo e ' 1.l7
-'#* .il->
'7 s'
/J- f. 7 I*,
,__ O
- s
. _ -7 27 85 30 'Q*
'3r
~
3; ,
.74 25
'T T /
i' T.
, .1 Li 'T
,! 'T _
. ! 5.-
' 7 lL q.T
.* i A .'^
- E l=.7 A M 3 4 FR A M & 'l FRAM E 3 FRAM2 /
E L E V A T I O NS CON 7A IN,%A S N T IN T E RIO R STRUCTURE g A10?) 5 L FO R V E R 7/ C A L A .\A .'MJ.' -- . _ . ' - M A 7 H EM A T: C A L. _- ( O' 13 !. .'3 CA N '/ON NU C L E4 lC /~/G UE E N :. C ~ ?S P D a':?h; lDL A N 7 UNI 7 N O. /
-:..-e. , N.cro u p.,.. m.7 :. .. - - :-
T- 7%'W"Mt"M-Wh , . aw . C ...-
- 7. O4.- v_n.- #- W - '-u -* ~.
e,! i M..".$.:-N. $-- I P~- f
-h. n. '-iO.6 h l'*f
-- m; ".'is'...
h' M.:'.f'If~"*Pf p.:: m . v. .~. . . .
.= .
O~jlirt'd: . .; .
..;T4.M. '*t*.' 6JL'!? ' +*?* 1 I".s.:y
,U -Y. J... ~.*4 . - . - - ":
.~
1 j ~45,'f./t J 7;.
? -;
W-
~
1, . [S4 '.h -Y~T' L. ..' I s .m c.cl-'
.s .
>f.T. . ,. =j;.D,M$h.g.vi
- Nt: .s< :h .745 t
.6-g-gf Y,E5?kf..e.'Ja
,$." g-M-I*.6*Y k>W.;nW*' -' 'm 4,;cM h.s. v: -* 73 J-4 :%'--
( a: g'*;.. r't., p , %..._T 3 =el V* (. s
;j J. .
$-\ Ob'~~i: , T.h. $ j _}*e -
] 11:"' A 5 5 J.'.,=.-
v4 I JJ Y;tf,.-S A r r r.,. *M:s i'*
-T % - ,_
--g. ,D'. -e h-$.A.
**a.81
- .g5
~1 2*# g .,. ;
. " - r,
'..*J_' t b--
m.,is 7;'"_"2,._.;,.1. e ; m...<'w,-c,.,...,...... - . , p,.' s *;,t; 8 . p 4g ,%,;, ** -J. <, p ."
.-.C . . e. ,,I
- v. ,r :
e v. .a. .sA..w. .. sp:.r.wr 3..,.
;- c. .. ,,;. =-
,.,I, es, . . .4 4
(J'.-=1.4,! pm_W-
- n. ,g.-u 3e-s . 3;;,.7 : e # - y; , ., .cc. - .
,' :: ...;.: . . Tr .. M :';.m,. ; -g . . - .
5
'N -
~
so h f. d . , - 1, l . ..l g. c.a :5p,o t s.; a. .17./, e ., ' 3: .:. f, ;-%. 4. f -O. .~- ,'.I a t .. p. v,*4 (., . m 1 - =%y
.r. ,
g - 3- g .* '/f.gp,p7.i%n.-'
.,-..c > .r y. * .g w
- :-5
$ .hs.w q
- r. .
g
, F: .g. . -,W } f f.C %? kz ' s.fj .,r_x- -o. .'>a-: .= , - y -2 e, n
.-m . n :.- ; u,i.y - p. w<
.=.y. ,.. ~ rm u p,_.4... O -v4 N, -
rm n.,-- > e .7. -
~n.. ::n.
, e-
. . LJ._ ..qWm: '
m- .5 t
- 4. . 's, n Y.r c.: p y. 1w.q,--nM, c.
.u m 2,.. ,e91. ..
- r. - e .,;.- 4.f. ,s. - ,- lr~w .:r
.w . . - .
-.4.L
-] W,p
._U h- u % F U N
.s. . _
-E I. i... . , f. ' ;M . Mn.. .mE,& n , M. U.
- v. ~--.;. -
. h n- s .. .- 1
;= s.a
.. ) , ,
p, e .a, , a., s i,r. gy8,,.< tI ,
- s.
meT. : ._ -a 2
'm,t.
re.w ,.e .. s -glig*;
. _e, _.d.
gs . i ,
-n . I
- m. ..n.;):. t,. sm %2(_ F ' , y: -7 U ~'o_7"_
-; w._w wgv ..,y m,! ~n %y) k -
,I t f;4/dc ;,m, . G. 'C.
m 1..
- 4. Q k N r. % v N s.,,,,...
,e ,n. ,3 . .w . . iss . f. . .
.. , . ii,
'Q. ( ',G,.. y,] . !:c..,h ,;t m'M' x - l -l i T g- -- T ' ajpi' .1 y: b,.-ei' G <e,. '" '
6-=. ! .s ... W A ' .- !i
?,
p, % g i, ~ *(* ,;. --i,3s. g s-=m- _;;q lj ( s :- i. ,4t 7.p . iOc'r- ' . .. - - . . - . .de u3 . ., w= . ra -- ,- .
'.k~l i.il- n-mldd.- ,nt - :- _r ;. .
3 g . ui e-c' t .-- @;. . s. .is.. . - .I
-..i -a . .
l3 i J,a b. 7**:wiy-* "-SMl t. Jn -:a v
-l j- jrY g C . v%'
-- o _. ., A .- h i
; ]Q' @I
- k. _
t i _1 - : < -
-et;/ "r: .g d -::- $'h..e:=Mi-p H:- .:p8 L-o. -
f 'J . I , a, e. -' - y g. .% ' .~ i
.sq , .: h,;$.ra@' r, -1
. "-'- t -
- w: di! M. ;y N y.
a N .3, a.. c .; :1 . i
- - l i 1,.,
p -y %r' ' ~~ ~ _ .t.b, li .=r-. W gjp
..G : /. 5t -t .
iM .- --
...a.Ty;?. M@ -
- h. i "; {l5., 0: j 1
- l f 5 ., %. Ni &@l j %rI.@% ,nd.- : y% d l$ .. -_ $ 1, _.. '- .
-e qi ej yh 3, r',i, ~
- -' - n!
- p'QC. .ltM:b h: Ib a: , M ': f,#,n c3 ;4 -E. g - .i .
^.O >. -'Q3 ;. '? y',E 'l'~J4(.m ~.:L' '-
, .e
-iinmcw .1 - -.-
~Arir:r1.p4Ltig: .
k ' ?d ..n . . . . t _..q : . - : . ; ..... w g1
. . sl .a H. -
- 0i% ;.:. q,:q% c.
. . -- -D, F .2 . .,. : .
y>. c.s.v.. 9..-
.- h: ;.s,. 'i,.,. 1.. s- * .
m '.r(.--n.w.. , - , . .7 l . .f, ld;, 1. .*q a....n --4 . e 5-g
. ~ =e .ir_e. * -
c
~ b !p .[- j . [ . c I -
m fd 9,*.e'J -- u 1,I d 3 m3 LO.*; ,g i 4 :j---1 N~ 'a/.rnq ] ,,r[m,hn Syd.b .b ae ;
;a. -
- .- b.m
.a r.t z.i.. 1 -
g.
- s. .-
- (:,;.m% q-z.= , m ..-. . , ,
a i., . - gw - I '
<." o=~_m, j f.1.C":g ,. l .4c ,
.. .J q's. 'ltgjtm.-r '. - -r .u= wr.
ly,,f%-J. f% '_')*j,a
-- U
- .m/ !
- $!ifM-.'
__m pp. R y - .
.N . ; ,'- L. . ., < . .- i '
- g g. %1 .gN - .
d
' , ' . . d' . , ..
c- y :"... sj e I .. . m y
. j :- } } '. - , a . 1, c. NQ,c; :.
6i.4 :p h(i ~ f . ,
- i3,:. , f A'1. IV
,,- [w. Mi l ;,;(- .::_ :- e.
- d. [.. :. ,'
-h ', M. : . .,D2,1 .E
. _. . . . . .s
' " . _. ~ . ,P". - ::: .~ - . . ,
. .h . . . . y * =,
r ,5 '- d.
' :.J**.g.
'.C'. 'P' ,-:' ".: . '.1...~ -2 :gg-+ :~ =r~, }Q. - .. .. .*. ..
. J
. r.4.s~. --
- 1. ::. *..
- .. ,n. .
' p= - . .e
...tU...---.,. .n ./ p y :*
g
.g .. 2 ,., * -w .
y . 3,r* P3 .~7 .- e n.p <w ;... &:.;g. A.~, * :
- C, e a # j. .-m'i hc:. .:. ':%u ..i 'J-
- 3'!, ,. t,J = ct. g. _@w'. s. -.
. l n1.. ,:;u. c. wd;U. n.
( s' .. .~.
, .r .-;--.D',-' '8. m.
,.,- .t
~ys e v t .s. -s . *
. =s a 'f . :;;, -' .
E ' . 4 f.d'-i - D F:WVT ;T er-@:.wsW:
'~ '
M. Th
).~,'[V
~'
b '.[ I hn
. J .
- e :.' r.'."
-s . m, .. .a ;ag u.,,. ast$l. g,, , m m]3. -.g. S. w . ,
. = s ,. _. .
. @lT ._s U N1
= =w. .v.a 19 ~_.~:,
..l -:. .T
!.M.e...
.. ,.y i ? . :. . g r./: :
~ . ?.:. --
g
- n. : ; . s.; .'m.
e,.,
- =i Q r .1,
. w
~r ..,.-.. -
..t ,-
+.e q ,-:
,,. , , . .r
-..~
4y...- s M.
~- ,,
t s.
-...s.v.. . . a- p.,
s . .M.Jl- & <- . ;-
. .[ . 9 .- *. ,. . .z : .>- . <-
,,.'.:..,e
..,*w *c h. ,. :r~ p,.m;; . q. y : r..~ ; ?.~'A t..
--.,- g ., .. <
. , ~ . - &.. < ?. ; . .
- s. . ...~,.:
.J ~. . n. I
. .. M .'; *- :* ' -
.-e .. s-. . . - ., _. _
, . . ,5,,,c. . . , .
. J. , r
- 4 ;m: - ~av.. 3}3 4
; ,s . ..i,. . . .
., w
. '*. *. :s . .., '
; : - :;; - a. 'F. . . . . .:"
g.J.': , fe . s . . ~. s _ f . ;C
. . c v
4 -; 3
,..g
~-
3 -1;n} T.. e : ~;_.. < 9 (. . e. ' -. 4 - . . . . .
. g,. . .- ..-:
.- - r ? ' - ' . r. ' y'z.; V.:.
. e - -.:s ~
C
.L. w. . _ :: _*s;. __.
s .a:- . . -~., , -.
=*~~'----L=-
1
I l l
]
1'. 4
\
- ma j
/
i
/
/
5 2 U , A k ( M F R Atst ORIENT ATION WHICH W AS USED
i ( s 1 2 fx s
\
\9 i
3 MBgd ( /
\, '
/
/
I l
/
4 5 A . 45-7-1 F R A M E O R I E N T A T I O N W HI C H S H O U L D H A V E B E E ( l l 1
~
t ( P,_ /.!,' O_ V C_ '_ t_ Rvt.Tr_"t. .rd ,r. F_ O'_!] P'i:_ MT R _ qU ] E l. f 'c l ELECTF.1 CAL Ecule.ENT m
} t:.5T RUMEf;T AT I ON }NETALLATIONS I'lECHANICAL Ece: PnENT VENTILATION JNsTALLATIONs O
CONDUIT A!JD CA5LE I..AY $UPPDF.75 t P1FING Pjp}rc.Sg::3:,73
R 70 0 _ O 14000 m r R 53 (ov*w :<are e i
%m (%
Pw 1s a.e 1Cw5 67 101.33 _ f pECTION THROUGH CONT AINMENT BU ( 1 . t
00 345c i FRAME 4 1 . FRAME 3
.. . 9:e N l
' \ }
FRAME 5 p
\ /
' R # E 2 23c c .
140 0 FRAME 1 : UNIT 1 ORIGIN AL FR AME LOCATION DRAWING I FRAME 1 40 0 FRAME 2 310 C . FRAMES r
/
ff ....
. FRAME 3
. '0
. 90 i
( FRAME 4 195 UNIT 1 ( CORRECTED FRAME LOCATION DRAWING
y INCREASE ARE AS OF NO CH ANG[ Oc OR DECRE ASE g n....~-.......
~ .. .. ..............
....,~... ..
~....... . ~ . ~ . ~ , ~ . . .,.. ~.....,,,
. ~.. . ~~
~ ~. ,.~ .~~........
~ . . .
. ~.. ~,,~ ~ ~,..~
~ ~, ~..~,~
..~..~..,,.~.,.,.
~.. ~ .,.,.... ..... ..
. .... . , . . . . , . . . . . . ..~.
. . ~ . ~ , ~ ., . ,. ... . ~~...,.. . ~o~.. ... . ..., .. ,, .~, .. ,. ,. ... .. .
. ~ ~ . ~.. ~.. ~. , ~ ,y.s
. , ~.. .. .. .~. . . . ~ . . . .. . ... . ....... ~.. .. ~..~....
..~. ,..................
. ~... ........., ~.... ,...........
... . . ~ .. . ~ . . ~ , . ~ . . ~ ~
1 . . .
. ~ . ....
~......
. ~
.. . . ~ . .... ~ . ~ .
. ., , , ~ , .. . .. .. ,..... .. .. . . . ~ . ..,..
~ . , . , .~ ..
~, ,. ,, .......-~.
, . . . . . ~ . .
-. . .~ ,.. . . .~ ~.. ,..
~ , ~ ~ .~~ ., . ...... ~
,,,.,.,... ~ ,,~ .... ~ ~ .
, , , . ,, .. . ..~
.. ~ ....,,,..
~. . .
. ..,....~ ...
,4~#.#.#.#.#.#,....
h.s.. # x.~...,....~...
~. . . , ~ , , . . .
.. ~~
, ,.. ,. . ,, ,.~.. .. . . . . . .
c.,...~.....
. . ~ .,.,,~,,,~,.,.n
.. \,
. ~ . .. .. . ~ . . ~ . . . , .
t
., .~. .. ..~. .,. .. .~ . .
~ ..
~ ~........ ,~ . ~, ~ . . -
.. ~
.~
-.,.~,.,....
.,~
~. .
~ , . , . . . ~ . ., . . , . , , . , , ~ , ~ , ,
,,,.,..., ~,,.. ~ , ~
>2.. C.' C , . ,,. ., . , .
. . ,.,. .. .. ... ~ ~...
, ,~
,~.,.,..~.~.~..
\, .. .. ..~.......
. .. . .. ... .. ... .. . . . . ~ . .
. \,
~
%.w. . . .s. . . w. ..
..j.... .... .,
m.. 9.. . .. . . .. ,-.- s.. 6; .
. . . 34.'50
. i m. :.0.,,.
. . .,s
.. w.-m.+.
~...a y, 6L.- .> . , .. . . . . .
xx i
.?
UNIT 1 ELEVATION 116' h, I N AREAS WHERE PEAK SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS ARE INCREASED BY REORIENTING THE SPECTRA 1 e
( AREAS C5 c !!i,l INCRE ASE F ARE AS OF 0* NO CH ANGE l . OR DECRE ASE
.f .
.~ . . . .
333.5o . , 2 p ,.;:- --
=
Q.S .)- *
.-c..
~
{ .
.g%.**
m 5;i:ii=ir == 2 - m\ina @ _ nit"i!Hi!Mi!
'* ! !Hii Eid.!!
n::
- .i:::' ,
- !!!=
- = g
?.5* , 'ij i i:, d L t':4 C
;): ., 11 E
' :1*h j?':$'l.'S s;!
g: ::
; f UNIT 1 ELEV ATION 106' g
i {
f ( . ( . t.+dCT OF DMO.t". EP-@ re,. . r, 6*. -_i5A W c m., L.w ,. 3. . %. .ei.- . r Ies.eL 1 fh5 . Il 9 r :,,. .- sed.*L lt,. % 94 d, e- ph.,, b .. el 1 *
'b';E VE*. l'JT1Or; }f;5TA U ~I0*;E
- y. s~s:-
w. i % %, W Tres, $,.i:2-: . .. g S'%2 PI::N3 Su=P::.75 l (
(
~
PIFING EVALUATI0f.' P 0CEDUPES IDENTIFY IfCIVIDUAL PIPIT'G Af ALYSES FOP. ALL PIFII ;- 1 It!. OR P ASSIt:C- THROUCH. THE Af# ' LUS AP.E A. F0.r. EACE. Ai,.,Yq,d. -20r f. ; r i i n:. C cv. - :. v i V :.r . : ..n. r .- -
- 2. . ..
H-sdCr.. S..C.. r: in.A. r h.: --
.: . F C n E Ar. c Afin YS-t ai
- 2. . ICti.i:2ri .r. .: \r.nia.n ..
SPECTRA WHICH WAS ACTUA.LY AFFLIED.
- ,..e 4....-..-
c-
- u. . e. 0>...:. r.n : ui..:. c . . e. i n A c.rv . ->s . . . . .
- ,* e '..: i .:. c- ..: 's ' . . . . :. '
r .- Cu,.-- ra : r.T S-- ur k., . :. r.. ..- L :. .-nn:2- - . . 0,.: T n. . A, .i .:.h. g e. - . r. . . v. . . . -
- e. -
. n. c. r ,. -
- - a n'. . -- n.e r.>n. i
-'.v: ..- ...
r 3 .r. :.-v.
. C n,. . L>. :. ?
w . .,: r .r-- . . r. . -. ]
- ,: T .::>. - .G~=.r.c. . i. c.c. :. . s G
e
- .v . e e v. IV..:.u.. . - . : r. :. $.r:
.16.o.,. 4 Ar- ..r.
.r . . loq. he--
. !? n. .: .. i r.:. 3. . . . . oF :. . I n - f.s. - -...F rve.: :.- .
- r. ai n.
v- TT - e . .:nL . .r wl.u.. F . r. I.' L. r L.: Th.
, .. u...---
va.... . n. A .. .
. . . * '- Lv.- * - t. . e' -
- t. r.:. T. :. N.T Ap...- C 0f. wpv, iH,., pir:. t, a r.r. t. e. :.0. .
- o
,m .t. p.:. >..f , t.i i t. t. e. ws...: e> >. . .ti..n ane. ...
\..r. .e.. r A .v n. :.nr r. .- . .s e
. -- . - - . . . ee r u- v. .. u r n: - ' .8 3. ... ;--
-- v. .
. .. .,,q. P....
11s.- . k1. - Yq:: .
!. r .ir l T. a .
O. r n:. v^ ~r.t. r * . f \. e.eii.i
- n' T.,, A I ig C...T.: - co 'uI P t F sr. T. C. .
(
a PlR SifoIT E\?49T11 MO~enE g . 1, IENilFY A: L PIPE S'#PCRTS ASSOCI ATE WITn Pl?!!< REEVAu%T1 TRU' ATE TrE NEa LOCS . i
- 2. (MME TrE Ta LOC 5 WITH TK ORIGIR SUSDF ESIM LOC 5.
- 3. For Sipo:FT5 *EDE LOCS WT E@EASC, DOC tE*.7 THE FACT NC E_]wJ ATE FR7 :$TrE: CONSIDEDAT !Or. .
sE:E LCCI rW.I l'CDEASC, PS3JA !~v D: ROES:G'. AI A::43:R:'"E
-(
l l { l k ( e
~Y ~
~ - - -
a- - - - -__ _ -
~
f_ _ 1 ElfLAMLB1m I STAIUS30_Elt0lliGS 10/8/81
. SUPNRTS ClASSI SUPPORTS SUPPORTS Wilm E0 VIE SUPPORTS Wil01 Wil01 MODIFICATION IN E001E IIAVEBEEN AS A ESULT OF PIE SUPNRIS__ (Q{[Alf[M Pfyl@_ BJBEI)_ ,
. IUJB lARGE DINEER lili5 l 336 1 011 19 STYLLDilfEER 1300 355 25'i 8
( < 29 TOTAL . 27'i5 691 358 27 a l l 1 J k
n n - , PIPING SUPPORT ANALYSIS & MODIFICATION SCHEDULE 1 e 9/28/81 10/3/81 C , o i l ANAL.YSES { REVIEW 10/S/81 i U . O 9/29/81 RE AN ALYSIS ' 9/28/81 {10/3/51 10/23/81 ~~. l c SUPPORT e SUPPORT DESIGN REVIEW FOR o i REVtEW ' 9
} OtlALIFICATION On REDESIGN 10/30/81 .' IT. **.
c CONSTRUCTION o 10/12/81 SCHEDULE *
- 30 S 10 15 20 2S 30 1
- OCTOBER- ; -.
l
'49 6 l
f l SUOJeCI nO.
;. . 1 - - .
P1, PIN,G W1,Ili, S,UPPORTS, IM DESIGN > d . R,W1,EW
, 0,R, CO.NSTRUCTION PROCESS FUEL LOADING (MODE 6) .
SYSTEM SERVICE (LINE NUMBER). SIS Boron Inj ection Tank Outlet to Loop 2 Cold leg (1992) COLD SYSTEM TESTS (MooE 5) SYSTEM SERVICE (LINE paER) RCS Loop 1 Spray Line (13) RCS Pressurizer Spray Line (15) CVCS Cr.arging Line Aux Spra'y (51) CCW RC P?S Barrier CCW Ret Header (1357) CCW RCD 2 Thermal Barrier CCW Ret (2313) CCW RCP 1 Thermat Barrier CCW Ret (2314) CCW RCP 3 Thermal Barrier CCb' Ret (2343) CVCS Reactor Coolant Pump 3 seat Water In (56) CVCS Reactor Coolant Pump 2 Water Seat 1 Bypass (1496) CVCS Reactor Coolant Pump 3 Water Seat 1 Bypass (1497) ( ( km C %64 _ , ___A
INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF RELATED DESIGN ISSUES DEC, SEPT. OCT. NOV. COMMONALITY OF DESIGN LISTING OF AREAS OF
- COMMON DESIGN ;
e CRITERIA FOR REVIEW REVIEW OF APPLICATION OF
, COMMON DESIGN AREAS .
REVIEW OF _ SEISMIC DESIGN CHAlN COMPILATION OF STEPS IN
- SEISMIC DESIGN CH AlNS - INITIAL INPUTS TO FINAL APPLICATIONS ummmmmmmme I , CRITERIA FOR TYPE AND EXTENT OF REVIEW OF SEISMIC DESIGN STEPS sumus
, REVIEW AND CHECKING FOR CORRECT INPUTS AND APPLICATIONS OF SEISMIC DESIGN INFO.
INFORMATION TRANSFER REVIEW iammmme e COMPILATION OF MAJOR INTERFACES
, LISTING OF MAJOR DESIGN INFO.
TRANSMITTALS e FORMULATION OF SCREENING RULES
- COMPLETION OF REVIEW FIN AL REPORT l 4 1 _
=,. - .
% . A l
!-lEETI!!r. SUM'MitY D:STit!UUilC:
Uockct Filc G. Lcar I;R; PDi: - Local TDit S. Pavilicki . NSIC V. licnarcya TERA Z. Hosztoczy LD& 3 ReadinD W. Haass
- 11. Der. ton D. I: aller E. Ccsc R. Ballard b D. Eisenhut W. Regan P.. Purple R. Mattson B. J. Ycun;51 cod P. Check A. Scirtencer I-1. Srinivasan F. l'iraclia . G. Parr J. ftiller F. Rosc G. Laines W. Cutler R. Volle.er W. Kreger J. P. Kni D ht R. Ilouston R. Bosnak T. 14urphy F. Schauer L. Rubenstein R. E. Jackson T. Speis Projectfianager BBuckley W. Johnston Attorney, OELD J. Lee S. llanauer DIE (3) W. GLnr.ill ACRS (16) T. Murley R. Tedesco F. St.hroeder D. Skovholt M. Ernst NRC
Participants:
- 8. Buckley K. Kniel
. J. Knight G. Knig!ston B. Faulkenberry A. Thadani D. F. Kirsch D. Toneh.
P. T. Kuo - J. Kramer J. Fair F. Miraglia D. Vassallo M. Hartzman . P. Collins
- D. Ziemann E. Adensam bec: Applicant & Service List ..
?
O t e 1 - I .
, I L j}}