ML20054K935
| ML20054K935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1982 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207060312 | |
| Download: ML20054K935 (135) | |
Text
-
'h
- ) 4' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN h
('>
In em Ma & ' cf:
DIABLO CANYON SEISMIC REVIEW C~ '
OA'"E :
June 10, 1982 PAGES:
1
+-b ru 1n AT.
Waltham, Massachusetts l
1 l
/*
REPORT 1.TG
.HDERSOX f.,
Q 400 Virginia Ave., S.W. Wast'ir.g :, C.
C.
20024 h
Ta '.aphene : (200} 554-2245 8207060312 920610 PDR ADOCK 05000275 T
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOR COMMISSION (s
2 In the matter of:
3 DIABLO CANYON SEISMIC REVIEW
- i.
- 4 Teledyne Engineering Services 5
130 Second Street
- N Waltham, Massachusetts 6
June 10, 1982 g
From the NRC:
H. Denton, Presiding Official 7
H.
Schierling A
J. Scinto 8
8 F. Miraglia q
T.
Bishop c
9 R. Vollmer i
h 10 From PG & E:
G. Maneatis j
R. Fray Q
11 B. Norton 3
R.
Locke N
I2 B.
Lew y
R.
Daven 13 J.
- Hoch,
(
g m
h 14 From Betchel:
H.
Friend C. Dick g
15 J.
Leahy z
j 16 From Teledyne:
W. Cooper d
R. Wray 6
17 M.
Revett L. Noriega
{
18 W. Carey J. Cragin 19 N-From Cloud:
R. Cloud 20 P.
Beazley E. Denison
=
21 From Reedy:
W. Gibbons From Stone & Webster:
F. Sestak 23 C.
Richardson 24
(-
25 j l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2 1
PggEgggIggg
(_
2 MR. DENTON:
I am glad to be able to meet here 3
in Teledyne's Headquarters.
We have spent a long of time with
(_
4 you people and some of your staff over the last few months.
I e
5 thought it would be advantageous to visit your facility and get h
i d
6 to know some of your Project Managers involved in the Teledyne-o G
R 7
Independent Verification Program a bit better.
M 8
8 We plan today to follow the Agenda that we pro-a d
d 9
vided.
As far as the elements in it, if we watch our time, we i
o 10 should be able to cover all five elements.
3j 11 These elements are the Phase I Program, where a
d 12 you stand with your efforts in'that area to date; an overview E
a
,j (
y.13 of the status of the Phase II Program.. We would also like to a
l 14 hear from either PG & E or Betchel where the overall Project 2
15 schedule stands.
The reason that I am particularly interested g
16 in dates is so that I can plan my manpower and workload and know w
g 17 when enough people have to be available for certain taks.
18 We would also like to hear from PG & E and 5"
19 Betchel about how they are going to consolidate the Betchel QA R
20 Program into this verification effort.
21 Then there are a number of issues that we would 22 like to raise. Some of them have been raised in letters from l \\_
4 23 Mr. Reynolds concerning timeliness of reports and other issues.
24 Toward the end of'the day we will get into some of the procedural 25 l details that deal with how well the Program is working and is i
. ALDERSON REP.ORTING COMPANY, INC.
t i
3 1
it satisfying everyone'c needs.
's_
2 The transcriber requested, at least at the 3
beginning of the meeting, that each one of us who speak give 4
our names the first few times so that she can learn who we are.
s.
o 5
I would propose that we go around the room, perhaps, and let
{
6 everyone introduce themselves, just so that we have a full under-R 7
standing of the attendees today.
Maybe the NRC Scaff would Z
j 8
like to go first.
O d
9 MR. VOLLMER:
I am Dick Vollmer, Director of b
i l
g 10 the Division of Engineering, NRR.
j 11 MR. SCHIERLING:
I am Hans Schierling, the Project B
j 12 Manager for the Verification Program.
E q-y 13 M R.' BISHOP:
I am Tom Bishop,. Chief of. Reactor m
h 14 Construction in Region V.
2 15 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Frank Miraglia, Licensing, NRR.
j 16 MR. SCINTO:
Joe Scinto, Deputy Director, Hearings W
d 17 !
Division, one of the lawyers for the NRC.
18 MR. MANEATIS:
I am George Maneatis, Senior P
, h 19 Vice-Pre s ident, Pacific Gas & Electric.
20 MR. FRIEND:
I am Howard Friend.
I am the Program 21 Completion Manager for the Joint PG & E/Betchel Project Team.
22 MR. LEAHY:
I am Jim Leahy.
I am the Cost 23 Scheduling Supervisor for the Joint Program.
24 MR. DICK:
I am Charles Dick, Betchel Project u
25 l Management.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
'4 MR. HOCK:
I'm John Hock, Project Manager, Diablo j
2 Canyon Project.
3 MR. COOPER:
Bill Cooper, Teledyne Engineering 4
Services, Project Manager for Teledyne as a Program Manager for m
5 the independent Program.
6
- i 6
MB. GIBBONS:
Bill Gibbons, RF Reedy.
7 MR. SESTAK:
Frank Sestak, Project Manager for A
8 8
the Stone & Webster effort, o
dd 9
MR. DENISON:
Ed Denison, Project Manager for 7:
k 10 Cloud Associates.
E_.
5 11 MR. FRAY:
Roy Fray, PG & E.
<3 d
12 MR. NORTON:
Bruce Norton, Pacific Gas and Ecd 13 Electric.
(
a m
E 14 MR. LOCKE:
Richard Locke, Pacific Gas and w
b!
15 Electric.
16 MR. LEW:
Barclay Lew, Pacific Gas and Electric.
E M
d 17 ;
MR. WRAY:
Ron Wray, Teledyne, Assistant Project E
18 Manager, Phase I.
?
E 19 MR. REVETT:
Mark Revett, Assistant Project 2
20 Manager, Teledyne for RF Reedy Interface.
21 MR. NORIEGA:
L.
C. Noriega, Assistant Project 22 Manager, Phase II.
L 23 ;
MR. RICHARDSON:
Carl Richardson, Stone & Webster.
24 MR. CAREY:
Bill Carey, Teledyne, Scheduling.
,L 25,
MR. CLOUD:
I am Bob Cloud from Cloud Associates, i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
5 1
MR. CRAGIN:
John Cragin, Teledyne, Project 2
Administration.
4 3
MR. BEAZLEY:
Peter Beazley, Cloud Associates.
4 MR. DAVEN:
Dick Daven, PG & E.
m 5
MR. DENTON:
Bill or George, I propose to turn
? Anj 6
the program over to you.
R
~
7 MR. MANEATIS:
We plan, Harold, as you have E
g 8
indicated in your introductory comments, to address all the items dd 9
on today's agenda as completely as we can.
io 10 Without any further adieu, I want to turn the E
g 11 program over to Bill Cooper who will give you the overview of a
j 12 the Status Report on the Phase I Program, which incidently is 5
j 13 Item No. 1 on the'agedda.
g
=
h 14 MR. COOPER:
I believe the independent program t
2 15 people have our copy of-these flimsys.
I've given Han Schierling g
16 a set for Staff and Region.
I think there is enough to go around.
W t'
17 Our intention this afternoon is to cover the M
18 status of the Phase I Program.
I will start briefly with one
=H" 19 filmsy about the TS Organzation because we have made some changes g
20 recently that we would like to bring you up to date on.
4 21 We believe the best way to report the detailed 22 status of the Phase I Program is through the error or Open Item
,L 23 File Status Report which we can present to you in a series of i
24 slides, starting first with a timer type review of the system 5
(-
l 25 and then talking about 147 of these that were in existence at ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
W 6
the time we became Program Manager, the subsequent 17, what kind y
l 2
f actions or who needs to act to resolve the remaining and then 3
a little more detail on all of those which at anytime have been deemed to be errors.
4 e
5 Turn then to the subject of Interim Technical A
N 8
6 Reports.
These reports by means of which we plan to report our e
7 conclusions and in a sense our progress, although the Semi-Monthly S
8 Reports do much of that.
n d
d 9
I turn over to Ron Wray for a brief discussion i
f ur present opinion as to how many of these will be and then 10 e
?
5 11 ask Ed Denison to report to you on the first of these which you
<3 d
12 should find in your mail when you return to your offices.
Then E
13 I will finish off with a very brief description of where we s
=m h
14 stand on an Interim Technical Report concerning the work which b!
15 Reedy's Organization did during Phase I.
16 Please interrupt us at anytime you do have M
g-j7 questions and we will try to answer them.
5 M
18 The issue of Organ:ation, the major change is P
[
19 in this block off here to the right of the slide (indicating)
A 20 but let me mention the other changes since the Program Plan.
21 This is really a set up for Phase II as well as for Phase I.
22 So we have Leandro Noriega serving as an Assistant Project Manager
'(.
23 !
following the Stone & Webster work.
We previously expected to 24 use Mark Revett in that position but two things happened.
One
'As 25 is Leandro came to work with us and the second is, is that as i
j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
7 I
we developed the Phase II Program we found that there was a 2
considerable amount of technical contact going to be required 3
in addition to a pure QA content.
The third that happened is 4
Cornell Sprangers who we planned to use in that role in the days e
5 when we hadn't really visualized how extensive a program this 6
was going to be, that we had to get him back into his usual role R
7 as QA Manager for our organization.
~
E 8
8 So essentially we entered Noriega here, Revett d
9 here, Ron Wray continues with Interface with Cloud's operation zoy 10 and Rus Wilkenson on Phase I has been assisting Ron Wray, dealing 3
h 11 a lot with the detailed PG & E Technical Interfaces.
Ne plan k
N 12 to expand that to some degree during Pase II to better 5a 13 coordinate the IDVP site visits,- for examples, a few things of
(
g a
m 5
14 this nature.
E
{
15 The more significant change since we last talked
=
y 16 with all you gentlemen is to add a project administration type A
d 17 of organization under John Cragin who is here and worrying about.
N
{
18 us today, Walt Carey on Scheduling, Pam Ellis who is not here P
"g 19 today on publications reports, getting things coordinated and n
20 out.
In his role, John will also be concerned with the contract 21 administration with the sub-contractors and with PG & E, working, 22 of course, with our Controller, Bill Moonan.
q 23 MR. DENTON:
How many people would you estimate i
24 l are working full time on this Project?
s-25 MR. COOPER:
The last month for TS People, it ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8 2
j was a little over twelve man months.
By that rate if you take 2
the total number of hours and divide by the hours available, 3
162' hours available in that four week period.
The total number l
4 of individuals was more like thirty.
I 5
MR. DENTON:
Is that the level of effort that e
E 6
you see is going to be required during Phase I or Phase or do Rg 7
you see it changing?
8 MR. COOPER:
We think it will change now signifi-a 4
d a
9 cantly on Phase I and Phase II will be, I expect may not be much s
h 10 larger than Phase I.
l 3
E 11 There has been the one, getting on board problem
<3 d
12 and two, is how can effectively use people in the course of 3cd 13 resolving the original 147 open items and what happened with a
a s
e E
14 them.
In most cases we have been working directly with the Team de 2
15 Leaders.
In some case we have been working with one or two people N
16 in support.
The manpower in-house in resolving those 147 open BW d. 17 items has not been a controlling type item.
I am not saying 5
M 18 we could not use more manpower doing some other things but that 5
19 was where we were concentrating.
9 e
20 MR. DENTON:
There seems to be so many administra-21 tive activities and so much paper associated with this project 22 I was wondering how much time your ten or twelve effective full i
. s_
23 time people have for technical activities as opposed to admini-24 strative activities.
l%-
i 25 MR. COOPER:
I think with the exception of myself 1
i AL DERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.-... - -
9 j
and hopefully I now have a cure for that, and I bind we did get 2
into in our Document Control Department where we are out of that t
3 bound, that those two individuals would have been the only ones 4
that really drowned in the paper thus far.
o 5
MR. MANEATIS:
May I interrupt?
There is a pad b
?
6 going around, we would like to put your names on this for the 7
proper spelling.
Thank you.
8 MR. DENTON:
Are there people under the Assistant d
d 9
Project Managers who assist them or are they the liason, for 7:
h 10 example, with Stone & Webster and Reedy and Cloud?
E 5
11 MR. COOPER:
Let us start with Cloud where the
<3 d
12 most activity is.
Ron Wray has eighteen Leaders that report z
5 I
d 13l to him who work directly with Cloud's People on specific, assigned i
s 14 areas, usually areas assigned in the sense of a technical de 2
15 discipline type of thing, piping supports and so forth.
When 5
y 16 I say we have been working mostly through those eight people m
d 17 and Ron in resolving these initial 147 items, that is what I E
M 18 was referring to was those particular Team Leaders.
=H
[
19 They have supporting people available to them
.' N 20 as Ron and I and they feel they need them.
It has only been
~
21 in a few instances that we have felt this was effective to date.
22 In the case of, of course, Cornell Sprangers t
23,
has been primarily following Roger Reedy in his work on Phase I.
24 At the time we got into the Program, Reedy's reviews of the v
25 '
seven QA Programs and implementations thereof that you see in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
r 10 1
the report, those reviews were completed.
We've put together 2
a four man Team working with Cornell.
Mark happened to be one s
3 of the members of this Team who reviewed those reports, reviewed 4
the Program. Plan, reviewed what we had done, went out there and 5
went through the records and interviewed all of Reedy's people F
o" c.*
3 6
to see what was done.
He came back and wrote one of the parts 4
o R
.8 7
of this Interim Technical Report I am going to speak about s
8 8
referring to that.
2 n
dd 9
In the case of Stone & Webster, we do not yet
- /oy 10 have Team Leaders effectively on board, in all the areas we plan g
j 11 to have for basically paralleling the four major groups that f
a j
12 the Stone & Webster Organzation has set up, at least to get the s
y 13 thing off the ground.
=j 14 Ross does have and will have more supporting 2
15 people in some of the technical work that he is trying to do 5
16 and will also have people in support of Walt Carey's scheduling j
a d
17 i work to be located up there.
18 Not wanting to read it to you but just to point E
19 it out, there is in the handout a slightly more detailed descrip-A 20 tion of the roles of this new administrative group that we have t
21 set up.
I am sure that there are no surprises in there to you.
22 We did want to make it available to you and it also will be
-,s_
i j
23,
available in our Semi-Monthly Report that goes out this week.
i i
i 24i MR., BISHOPr
- Bill, I am Tom Bishop.
Could'
(-
25 l you tell me just briefly what change in status Mr. Spranger's i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
w-w----r,,,wyr- - -,
y - - - -
w--ei y
w-y
-r-w m^t--
--r----r-'r---
w'
"-'+~T
11 j
position is?
s, 2
MR. COOPER:
Cornell has been for some time our 3
Quality Assurance Manager.
When we first set this up as a
's.
4 Reverification Program and when on Phase I Reedy's work was almost o
5 completely quality assurance, we borrowed him part-time to fill 6
that function in addition to doing to his OA Manager function.
o R
8 7
Of course, that meant a change in working relationship for s
8 8
Melanson on that particular job.
The job has become much larger n
d c
9 than we originally anticipated.
It was taking much too much i
h 10 of Cornell's time from that QA Manager's job.
In this manner E
5 11 we would get him back into his normal function.
<k d
12 MR. BISHOP:
Who is he performing that normal Eod 13 function on?
.t g
E 14 MR. COOPER:
Everyone.
On us, on internal TES w
2 15 Organization.
16 MR. BISHOP:
Is he doing a QA overview of your
.sW d
17 subcontractors?
E 18 MR. COOPER:
In the Project itself Jim Melanson P
{
19 is the QA Engineer and as Cornell goes back in the slot Jim n
20 reports to him.
When Cornell was out of that slot, Jim reported 21 directly to the Senior Vice President in this area.
It is 22 Melanson who will being do this.
We had no formal subcontracts i
23 in place at this point.
24 MR. BISHOP:
Now you are speaking of the Reedy
(-
25 I organization, the Cloud Organization?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
12 MR. COOPER:
We have no formal subcontracts in 1
2 place at this point.
We have permission.to have subcontracts with those organization and when they are in ef fect they answer 3
4 is going to be yes, that he will be.
e 5
MR. BISHOP:
Who is doing the overview of those h
3 6
organizations at this point in time?
e 8
7 MR. MENIATES:
PG & E is.
They are presently, i
N s
8 8
Of ficially contracted with us but that is being changed, the n
d d
9 contractural arrangement.
i i
g 10 MR. COOPER:
Excuse me, correction.
As I under-o E
5 11 stand at any rate, Cloud's Contract is with PG & E at the
<a j
12 present time and Reedy's is with Cloud's.
We have permission 5
)(
13 to pick those up and we will have this done very shortly but
.g,
[
14' we just received this information.
2 15 Are there cuestions aobut this?
Then go on to l
16 the discussion of the second major item in reporting on the status 1
j e
d 17 of Phase I which is the air or open item, EOI as it was deemed i
w i
a i
18 some months ago.
We still use the term because it is convenient
=
with the status of these particular files.
19 9
n i
20 We have developed through the months many flow 21 charts, many ways of trying to portray this.
All I can say for j
j 22 the present one is that it is simpler than any of them today j
1 t.
23,
so it doesn't include any of the little wrinkles.
We thought 1
24 in making the presentation today, if we first reviewed the system
\\_
p 25,
with the benefit of this chart and then reported the status on 1
4 I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
13 y
such a chart that it would make things go a lot easier in our 2
discussions.
3 When, Cloud's operation letters say, is doing 4
an evaluation in accordance with the Program Plan and they fail e
5 to satisfy one of these special, low threshold, verification b
P d
6 criteria that are contained in the Program Plan, for example, e
7 the stress differs by more than 15 per cent in either direction s
8 8
is indicated by the PG & E calculations, whenever that low N
dd 9
threshold signal is crosses, an open item report is issued.
i h
10 The issuance of the Open Item Report is identified by a File E
11 Number.
That Number stays with this subject from here until
<3 d
12 it eventually dies.
When the Open Item Report is first filed, E
x o - 13 it is Revision 0 which simply means that that is the first issue
=
2 14 of that report.
Every time a change in status occurs, it gets w
2 15 a new Revision Number but it keeps the same File Number, s
16 The issuance of an Open Item Report simply signals 3
x d
17,
that the Verification Program acceptance criteria have been 5
M 18 violated, that further work is to be done on that situation to
=
b 19 determine one, does it not meet meet the licensing criteria, M
20 the license application for the plant.
Two, is it systematic 21 of a generic concern even though it does in itself satisfy the 22 license criteria for the plant.
So that is the purpose of doing L
23 additional verification related to the existence of an Open Item 24 Report.
(_
25 i MR. DENTON:
Who originates Open Item Reports ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
14 1
other than Cloud?
2 MR. COOPER:
Stone & Webstcc will be, we have 3
and we will continue to.
4 MR. DENTON:
So they come up through your o
5 Assistant Project Manager?
h h
6 MR. COOPER:
Well, they first come out literally G
l 7
through Document Control, of course.
When an Open Item Report sl 8
is issued by anyone of the organizations but let's say Cloud, d
0; 9
he knows that simultaneously to TES and PG & E.
Thst is a signal z
Og 10 to us to pick it up and start following, it is a signal to PG & E.
E h
11 They establish one of their Task Numbers in 70,000 Series and B
N 12 I suspect what they do is they look the information they have 5
.(
y 13 sent Cloud on this Item and they go scurrying around to find L
m 14 out if there is anything else they have available to' help resolve j
{
15 the problem and so they send it.
t x
j 16 The additional verification done to resolve that w
d 17 l Open Item Report is on that specific component for the specific wa r
18 problems that have been identified.
The result of that work e
19 g
is issuance of one of two different kinds of reports, either M
~..
l 20 a Potential Program Resolution Report or a Potential Error Report.
)
l Let us stick with Cloud's Organization.
Cloud 21 22 issues that Report only to us.
In that Report, if it is a I
) q 23 Potential Program Resolution Report, he may recommend that 24 resolution of this item be as a closed item as far as the A-25 h Independent Program is concerned, as a deviation which has a e
i I
ALUERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
15 1
very sort of special definition that is in the Program Plan.
2 It is not an error of substance.
In fact it is not an error, 3
that it is some departure from normal procedures.
The third 4
possibility under the Potential Program Resolution is a transfer e
5 to PG & E.
We have done everything we can with the information N
6 we have on hand.
We cannot resolve the issue.
We transfer that
- e 7
issue to PG & E and we tell what information is needed.
That 8
is at that point a Potential Resolution Report.
O d
9 A Potential Error Report may be anyone of the 7:
h 10 four Classes and I suggest we wait for a discussion of the E
5 11 differences between the four Classes until a subsequent slide.
<3 d
12 Cloud issues tnis report to TES.
TES reviews E
Cd 13 it.
What happens is,. is that.the Team Leader,.Ron Wray, perhaps t
9 14 assistated by George Moy who helps Ron ih-house on these things,
$=
2 15 reaches a determination as to whether or not to accept this E
B.
16 recommendation from Cloud which I have to agree it with it if M
p 17 it is an acceptance and I will review it if it is a rejection.
18 Let's take the rejection first.
Let's say for k
19 some reason we don't choose to accept the recommendation made 8
-- n 20 by Cloud.
In that case, following the no here, we, TES issue 21 a new File Report.
We are issuing that as an Open Item.
Now 22 let's go through that one time.
Here is Rev.
O, the initial L
23 Open Item Report.
When Cloud issues TES.a potential Report, it 24 is Rev.
1.
If we' disagree with Cloud we will issue a Rev. 3 L
25 with that same file number as a re-opened item.
It is still ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 16 I
an Open Item Report.
It ccmes back into the system.
Cloud goes 2
back to work.
3 MR. DENTON:
Let me ask you about one.
Now I 4
have read these, many of them and they are rather sparse e
5 occasionally in a technical content.
Would you look at File 3
~,
a 9
3 6
No. 950, the finding by-Denison was that the field inspection R
8 7
showed certain plates were 3/8 inch thick and they were shown
~ r i
j j
8 on some design drawing as 1/2 inch thick.
Then the significance d
c 9
of the error was that the Cloud. independent calculation shows i
o i
10 all stresses below allowable.
That's an assertion but you can't E
h 11 find the basis for that conclusion in this report.
In other a
i j
12 words, it does not say that using ASTM Handbook blankity--blank, 5
i y
13 the stresses.were st111 15 per cent below allowable.
I. don't m
l 14 know how to read this report and'know whether I would agree 4
2 15 with the finding or not.
E i
y 16 MR. COOPER:
You cannot.
All this report is, i
e 6
17 all any of these reports are, is a signal that the Item has 5
{
18 crossed some step in the procedure.
E 19 g
Now, our people in reviewing this and deciding
[
A i
20 whether or not we accept it at this particular level, will not 21 just rely on that but will have looked at Cloud's work, will 22 have talked with the people, will have reviewed the background 1,t 23 ;
information that PG & E supplied and so forth, at least a t
j 24 determination as to whether to accept in this case, it would j
25 i have come to us as a potential Error Report.
We'd have said,yes.
3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 17 1
MR. COOPER:
So, we.would say, yes, based upon 4
2 the review we have done, we agree that that is a Class C error.
3 Now, then, we would issue an Error Report, and I suspect if you
)
4 find--of course, we are changing systems--but I suspect that n
5 you should find that that is Revision 3 in the upper righthand O
i 3
6 corner, 012, rather.
In the upper righthand corner there is R
i 7
a revision number.
i Q
8 MR. DBNTON:
This happened to be a Revision 2.
d C[
9 Revision 1 would have been a potential report.
Now, an Error i
E o
G 10 Report is issued as a Class C error.
1 a
l h
11 Let me point out before we pursue that one, that k
1 12 one in more particular detail, that we--well, you see from the t
g 5
13 second box that there is seven.different categories that this h
14 thing can. fall into.
When we approve it--if you look down in I
$j 15 this fourth row of items--if you come accross there, there is i
e j
16 still four different classifications that the thing can fall w
l 17 into, but we have grouped them in to three different groups-t w
x f
18 because of the subsequent treatment of them is the same.
I9 g
For example, a Class C error has the same subse-
!,. n j
20 quent treatment as would a Class D error, or would a deviation.
21 That is the reason why on this particular picture we proved this l
l 22 in this particular manner.
ik 23 l MR. DENTON:
Let me just follow this one up.
1 t
j 24 This was a Class C Error Report.
\\-
25 l MR. COOPER:
That is right.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
18 I
MR. DENTON:
It shows that there was a recommenda-2 tion then that the IDVP Completion Report can be issued at PG & E 3
and inform TES that their will be no physical modifications.
4 MR. COOPER:
That is right.
That is this next 5
g step,.
6 MR. DENTON:
So, you would send this report, R
7 then, to PG & E?
n' 8
8 MR. COOPER:
That goes to PG & E and it get attached d
C 9
to our semi-monthly, yes.
b 10 MR. DENTON:
Then PG & E would look at it, and k
11 assuming it would concur in your finding that no modifications 3
y 12 were necessary, do they write you guys back something?
~oa
- (-
5 13,
MR. COOPER:
They send us back a piece of paper z
h I4 that is really quite elaborate which tells us what their~ decision zj 15 is.
In this particular case, PG & E choose to make the modifica-x g'
16 tion, even though all our analyses said that no modification e
f I7 was required, that having that different thickness plate in there z
{
18 didn't hurt anything.
PG & E made the choice, and it is strictly P
"g 19 their choice, that they would the other size plate in again; n
20 so they weren't going to make a modification, okay, so then it l
21 goes into the PG & E Technical Program at some subsequent time 22 when PG & E completes their step here (indicating) and says that
)
it is okay, we have got it.
We are ready to have it verified.
23 l
24 Subsequent to this step, then, we would reopen this Open Item L
25 i Report.
We still have a File No. 950.
It would have a Rev.
3, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t
19 1
I guess the right number is, and it would come back in here just 2
as a normal Open Item Report. (Indicating.)
3 This is Cloud's area.
(Indicating.)
Cloud would 4
review what PG & E has done; would want to make real sure that e
5 there wasn't something strange, like changing the plate back b
~
l 6
to what it was originally that they didn't make it violate a R
7 criterion, instead of, you know, strange things can happen.
sl 8
Cloud, then, would represent--presumably, then, d
9 everything comes out fine.
Cloud would then submit a Potential aoy 10 Program Resolution Report as a closed item to us.
Our people E
11 would review that.
Presume that we concur; then we would agree a
I 12 to issue a Program Resolution Report as a closed item, and the 5a
(-
5 13 final step in the Independent Program process would'be to issue'-
=
l 14 an IDVP Completion Report.
2 15 At the end of this job, presumably, any file x
j 16 number that is opened up here at the top (indicating) is going e
d 17 to have with it a Completion Report that said we looked at it.
{
18 We had something with regard to additional work, because this E
19 g
low threshold verification criteria is not satisfied.
We have
. n 20 looked at it.
Any number of thing may have happened since we 21 started looking at it, but in the long run we are satisfied that 22 whatever was done, whatever the situation is with respect to 23 that item, satisfies the licensing criteria.
24 MR. DENTON:
Now let me take it one level further.
(-
l 25 l That appears to certainly satisfy this particular thickness of I
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
20 1
the plate, but I assume that when you see one of these, you 2
ask yourself, have they just misordered all half inch plate as 3
three-eighths inch plate.
Whoever filled out the order blank 4
improperly filled it in; how do you handle the generic implica-e 5
tions of an individual finding and how do you decide to sample b
6 all of the other half inch plate in the plant or not?
5, 7
MR. COOPER:
I don't know who provided this half Nj 8
inch plate, whether it is PG & E or someone else.
O C
9 MR. DENISON:
On this pa.ticular one we are talking 7:o -
about Valve FCV 95.
After we issued the Open Item Rev. O of b
10 E
h 11 950, we received a response from PG & E that, yes, indeed, the 3
j 12 plate is three-eighths of an inch plate, not one-half inch as
-=
y 13 specified in the design drawing, and that PG & E had checked y_
=
4 14 the remaining nine, I believe, valves that were modified in the g
15 same Design Changeorder and they checked their configurations x
g 16 in the field, and they were all, indeed, one-half inch.
That e
d 17 is a type of consideration that we would also look at.
5 5
18 MR. DENTON:
So that information came back from 5
{
19 PG & E responding to this finding?
n 20 MR. COOPER:
That is correct.
We feel that it 21 is essentially that whatever we d'o,PG & E can send us anything 22 they want to on the subjectsfor our consideration.
In most cases L
s 23 it is helpful.
24 MR. DENTON:
That is.helpfu'l for me 'to walk throug h L.
~
it.
It seems elaborate, and it is hard from just reading just' 25 l s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.1NC.
21 i
the paper to know where things stand.
2 MR. COOPER:
Yes.
3 MR. DENTON:
Because there are so many items
[
4 and so many bends.
e 5
MR. COOPER:
And you choose an excellent one b
3 6
to ask about, you see, because it was one of the four or five e
R g
7 that has actually gone down through the process and come back Mj 8
up and been reopened for whatever reason.
d d
9 What I propose to do on the next flimsy after i
c h
10 this one is to show you the status of the 147 open items, and E
j 11 when you look around, if you had all the numbers that I have on k
j 12 this piece of paper, I am quite sure that you are going to come E
j 13 up to 147; but if you ask me a specific number, what history
,q m
l 14 that thing went through to get to that specific point, I couldn't 2
15 tell you without a fair amount of looking in the notes, so let 5
j 16 me just come back to this for a moment to fill in the description.
W 17 '
Assume that we approve of Cloud's description.
x 18 We have covered if it is a Resolution Report.
I just want to P[
19 point out, deviations in Class C or D errors, these are not items M
20 that are going to influence the safety of the plant.
We are 21 only concerned about anything in the future on these kinds of N
22 items if PG & E does make a modification.
We satisfied ourselves y
23,
that the plant meets its licensing application without modification.
4 i
~
24 And we call it to the attention of PG & E and as long as they t
25 !
tell us that they are not going to make any physical modifications
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
22 1
we issue an IDVP Completion Report.
2 Now, this doesn't have anything to do with whether 3
or not PG & E considers the matter complete.
We may or may not 4
know whether they consider it complete, but we satisfied ourselves f
e 5
that we don't have to care about that.
If it comes down as a h
~,
r A
6 transfer to PG & E, it is a situation where we just need more t
m 9
3 7
information, obviously then, eventually we are going to get it.
{
8 It is going to be a reopened item, and now, let's say, Cloud's dd 9
operation now has the information.
He goes through, and let io 10 it fare as it will.
3 E
11 MR. DENTON:
So, you on the PRR's in that box,
<a g
12 you are deferring the judgment as to their significance until 5
d 13 you obtain this information.
g MR. COOPER:
And informing PG & E that we have h
14 2
15 to do that until we get the following information.
Now, in some i
5 g'
16 cases this might be some very specific piece.
We need to know w
p 17 the weight of this valve, or documentation on this valve, would i
5 18 be a better way to say it, or in another case it may be, say, 5
19 we notice in the PG & E Program by reading your semi-monthly M
20 report that one of your tasks is to do something about a criteria, 21 let's say, that you are reviewing this criteria.
Well, we are 22 going to hold up doing any further work on our part of that until u
23 such time as you come back to us and give us the results of your 24 review of that type of thing.
~
u 25 MR. VOLLMER:
And you as Project Manager don't ALDERSON REP. ORTING COMPANY. INC.
23 I
give approval of their recommedation and reopen, do you provide 2
arguments, your analysis, and then report back to the Cloud 3
organization?
l 4
MR. COOPER:
Well, there have been a couple of e
5 cases where we presented analyses, but to date, there has been b
~~
h 6
a fairly limited number of these.
Ron, do you want to comment?
R 6
7 MR. WRAY:
Certainly less than three.
Generally M
j 8
just a matter of characterization, whether it is A, B,C, or D d
C 9
Or is that the nature of the differences?
ic 10 MR. COOPER:
That has been some of them.
II MR. FRIEND:
I would like to ask a question that 3
j 12 I think Howard was probing on a little while ago, on the example 5
a 5
13 that we just had.about the plate thickness.
Ed Denison's report m
5 14 said it could be used as is.
In the program, would there ever (2
15 be a report which gave the reader the ability to reach the same z
j 16 conclusion; that is, a report which says, you know, ASTM strength M
i i
b.
17 i materials is such and such, and blah, blah, blah; or would he 5
18 have to go into your files to reach that?
P" 19 g
MR. COOPER:
That was a valve situation.
When n
20 we come to the Interim Technical Reports in a few minutes, we 2I will see that there will be an Interim Technical Report that 22 summarizes within the limits I am going to define the work that 23 Cloud's organization did on valves.
Since that was deemed in 24l there, that spec ific item, and the response taken to it, has
(-
25 l been spelled out in considerable detail, and in that reference I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
24 kwillbemadetothedetailedcalculations.
We don't intend no 1
2 include in these reports all the calculations, but have them 3
referenced to very specific files, so that, for example, if some-l I
4 body from the Commission wanted to come in and look on this, 5
they would have enough of a reference there that they could go e
R N
8 6
into Cloud's documents and say this is it and come up with it.
e R
R 7
MR. DENTON:
Would that also tell you how the 7.
8 8
error came about, whether it was a material order in there or u
a d
9 something like that, so that we would have a different assessment, ic 10 i.e.
a non-PG & E assessment of a generic nature of the error.
E G
11 MR. COOPER:
It would, and in addition, and perhaps
<3 even more importantly, it will tell you about, in summary form, g
12 l 5
y 13 all the things that weren't bound to be wrong, because this whole
=
14 process emphasizes the negative.
2 15 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
j 16 MR. COOPER:
And obviously, that is misleading.
l
^
d 17 l MR. DENISON:
One thing on that particular item.
f 18l I don't think it will sepcify whether or not it was a material E
i l
19 l ordering problem.
l 5
l l
20 l MR. COOPER:
Definitely not.
I'm sorry.
l l
21 !
MR. CLOUD:
So we are absolutely clear, we are 22,
not spending any serious amount of time in attempting to track s_
23 '
the origin of the error, whether someone put a plate in by mistake 24 ] grabbed this or that.
If we know what it is, or if it is clear,
\\_
1 i
25 then we will state it.
\\
!I l
il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
25 1
MR. COOPER:
I think that is not true if it is 2
a true design error as compared to a procurement type of ---
3 MR.. CLOUD :
That is correct.
4 MR. COOPER:
Construction error, e
5 MR. DENISON:
There is also the PG & E Program F
4 j
6 to go back and check the other similar valves in the second item 8
7 that weighed very heavily in our minds is our analysis showed 3
j 8
that the valve as originally designed was adequate to meet the 3
d 9
z, postulated 7.5 Hosmer earthquake.
The PG & E analysis was so og 10 conservative that they opted to add the additional plates as E
j 11 stiffeners, and we found that the addition of those additional k
j 12 plates was unnecessary, so that also entered into the picture.
5 13 MR. CLOUD:
Yes, thank you for correcting me.
s_
' h I'4 I was mislead by the fact that it was a construction error, because 9
15 we are in. fact going to great lengths to understand whether it m
j 16 is in the design error.
W d
17 MR. COOPER:
Just one further thing, Class A 5
18 error or Class B errors; Class A errors or Class B errors are P
h 19 the kind that may require modific'ation.
You may be able to analyze n
20 out of the issue.
But the failure to do something in response i
21 to those indicates that either there is a violation of a licensing i
22 application or you may have to change the operating procedures.
23 You have really got to do something in response to a Class A i
24 or Class B error.
That obviously goes into the PG & E Technical 25 Program, and comes back, and through in the same way.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
26 l
l-i o
i 1 -
MR. DENTON:
In reading some of the reports, 2q I thought we had checked off a completed mods when it gone to PG i
E.
That is semantics, in other words, you may be checking l
3l&
i 4!
a box that says it is down here, but actually it is not going j.
I i
e 5
to be completed by the program until it recycles and gets ;he e.
m I
j 6
completed report.
5 7 !
MR. COOPER:
We wouldn't issue this kind of a l-1 j
8lreportpriortogoingtoPG& E and back down again.
- Remember, l
n r
i a
9' some of that shouldn't be a problem on that kind of thing between i
E 10 i the formats in old and new reports.
E L
l MR. NORTON:
Are you going to have for each file j
11 a
j 12 number a historical package; in other words---
E i
s 13 i MR. COOPER:
No.
s E
- r 14 ;
MR. NORTCN:
Where you start with the initial 0
E 15 $ Revision 0 or Revision 1, and then you go all the way through, Iw e
=
j 16 and obviously, the IVDP Completion Report, are we going to have i
b-17 $ that for each file number?
x=
18 MR. COOPER:
We are going to have the forms for we t
i i
each file number, and we got a computer program that brings them
,l, 19>j s
f[-
a out to each file number we remark, but we are not going to have 20l l.
f 21 i these mods with all the documentation supported.
Rather than e,
22 '
doing it that way, we are doing it through the Interim Technical u
23 Reports.
For example, a given Cloud piping analysis may generate, i
24 1 more than one file number, and it would be sort of ridiculous l
\\_
i 25 to have an Interim Report with each file number when it would 1
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
=.. _ _ -
l 27 i
1 just be given this analysis 102.
However, the Interim Technical 2
Report is going to say, this Interim Technical Report does do 3
this for file numbers so on and so on.
4 MR. NORTON:
That gives you analysis, but I am e
5 asking about simply the open item reports and each of the subse-h 6
quent revisions, all the way through the IVDP Completion Report.
R 7
Not with a technical analysis, necessarily, but the history of 3l 8
each file number from opening to close, you will eventually have d
d 9
that for each file.
z~
C l
10 MR. COOPER:
It's in Ron Wray's drawer, and it 1
3
)
f 11 is marked QA, and yes.
9 j
12 MR. MIRAGLIA:
With respect to what you say, j
3 q
13 ;
would it be fair to say that, let's assu.me there are 20 IDVP h
14 Completion Reports right now, that it would be difficult for Y
E 15 the staff to audit any one of those until such time as it is N
j 16 summarized and an Interim Technical Report which you are going a
p 17 to discuss a little latter in the program?
Y M
18 MR. COOPER:
It would be more difficult to do
=
N 19 g
it now than it would to wait for the ITR to come out.
M 20 MR. MIRAGLIA:
But it could be done.
21 MR. COOPER:
It could be done.
Now, what happened 22 when some of your folks were here a couple weeks ago, is in trying
,s_
23 !
to get it done, we have done most of our work in California, 24 and we were lagging in getting the paperwork transferred from
\\
25 Cloud and from PG & E to us, so at the time they were here, we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
r 28 i
i did not have a complete file of either PG & E information sent 2
to Cloud or Cloud information sent to PG & E.
We are building 3
up that file, and hopefully in the "near future" if somebody 4
from the Commission were to come in and say we would like to e
5 look at everything with respect to file so and so, that we would 6
6 have that here inhouse, but it take a little while to find all R
7 the paper compared to the kind of organization of that paper 3l 8
we would have latter.
d d
9 MR. WRAY:
You also mentioned that we have a io 10 computer listing that will track this rather than the chronology E
g 11 of each file number.
's j
12 MR. COOPER:
This is one of the most recent, aj 13 new, latest developments out of having, John Cragin's operation 14 back.
It doesn't quite do all the editing ' functions that we 2
15 want, but we can play these things out if semebody wants to know l
w=
i j
16 where one of them stands.
If someone wants it, we can play it l
w 1
l b
17 i out on the back system and get an answer to you very quickly w=
18 with the whole history and so forth.
i P
h 19 MR. DENTON:
This helps me understand the system.
n l
20 Why don't you do the rest of the presentation?
1 l
21 MR. COOPER:
Why don't I tell you what we do 22 with the system.
The next one reflects the intial 147 error i
23 and open item reports that were developed when we became Program j
l 24l Manager.
(Indicating.)
l%-
t b
25 ;
Of this 147, there are still 22 which are in i
l l
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
29 1
Open Item Report form, that is, they have been opened and nothing 2
more ha-rogressed on them.
They have never started down through 3
the system.
4 Now, the reason I went 13 plus 9, instead of e
5 simply just writing 22, is that my best estimate yesterday was b
6 that the publication of this new Cloud Interim Technical Report G
7 will eliminate 9 of those.
It's a right kind of number.
I am s
8 not sure that it is exactly the right number.
So, there is some-d q
9 thing like 20 of the 147 have not proceeded.
zo 10 Take the other extreme, 71 of the 147 have proceeded 3
11 all the way through.
3 N
I2 At the present time in our house for action are
=
13 reports [that Cloud has made as Potenti-al Reports,3 closed items, m
5 I4 1 deviation, 2 transferred'to PG & E and 5 Error C's, and at 9
15 the present time we have approved and issued 6 deviations, and z
j 16 9 Class C or D's; that is 15 items, then.
I say we have--remember s
I7 that there is paper flowing all the time on this job, and this x
h I8 is a snapshot as of sometime yesterday.
P W
I9 g
PG & E has on that basis 15 deviations, or Class M
20 C Error Reports, where we need a determination from them as to 21 whether or not there are going to be physical modifications.
22 If there are not, we can close them out.
If there are, why,
.t 23 obviously, they stay in the system.
24 PG & E has 20 files where more information is l
25 needed.
That is in their Technical Program.
When we get the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
30
)
i information, we wiE. reopen the item and gurgitate. it through again.
2 They have 3 Class A Error Reports, and 1 Class 3
B Error Report.
Frankly, we feel that any question about the initial work at Cloud, Cloud's previous work, that this is substan 4
5 tially completed, even though the're is some 22 Open Item Reports e
2 3
6 on which a gr' eat deal of work has not been done.
We know what e
j
(
e j
7 that is.
We know what the Open Item Reports say, and we have s
1.
i 9,
8 essentially, in the words of the Program' Plan that said we were c
d d
9 supposed to review and accept the work which preceeded to date.
Ng 10 over the program.
We believe that that is completely done, and
[
HL E
11 we have resolved any differences between us, and we are off and l
3 g
12 moving in terms of the As Approved Program Plan to resolve the E
q
-.13 r.emaining 7,6 of these items.
{
14 MR. DENT'ON:
Of the 71 where you have Completion i
2 15 Reports, could you ? stimate how many of those require a physical 5
J 16 modifica tion ?
2 b'
17 MR. COOPER:
I could, but I would rather do that 18 with the aid of another slide, because that will show it to you
=H
{
19 even better, i
M 20 MR. DENTON:
We'll wait until then.
21 MR. VOLLMER:
How does this snapshot characterize 22 the Phase I Program as originally constituted; in other words, L
23 I these 147 to date pretty well cover the scope of Phase I without 1
l i
24 additional sampling and so on?
A-25 j MR. COOPER:
Well, those 147, plus the next flimsy, i
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~.
l 31 1
which is 17 more open items since March 25th, summarize our present 2
status, and I think on schedule issues that is in a detailed 3
conversation latter, but as far as schedule is concerned, we 4
are nearing completion on all items where we have the information 5
to do so.
The remaining 17, by the way, are very simple.
Of e
E t y 6
the 17, EOI opened subsequent to March 24th, 13 are still open 4
R R
7 items.
The other extreme, one is completed.
We have a potential 3
8 closed item inhouse, a Potential Error A.
We have approved a 4
d d
9 single deviation, and that is as far as those have gone to date.
io 10 MR. VOLLMER:
I am sorry.
Where did these 17 E
m[
11 represent?
B y
12 MR. COOPER:
These are Open Item Reports issued E
13 subsequent the time we became Program Manager, March 24th.
=
14 MR. SCHIERLING:
Was it issued by Cloud or by 2
15 Teledyne?
E j
16 MR. COOPER:
They were issued by Cloud in every W
d 17 case here, because there haven't been any that have been reopened.
5
, 5 18 MR. VOLLMER:
The question I asked before that.
=
19 What I was looking for was do these constitute, do any of these g
- e 20 Open Item Error Reports constitute a broadening of the Phase 21 I Program?
22 MR. COOPER:
No.
.t 23 MR. VOLLMER:
They do not.
They are all within 24 the original scope?
- L 25 MR. COOPER:
Correct.
They are all within the i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 32 i
1 original sample.
I 2
MR. DENISON:
The original Phase I Program has 1
3 been expanded, as I understand.
All of this falls within that t
l 4
expansion.
4 e
5 MR. COOPER:
When I was reading original, I meant b
s l
3 6
the as approved by the NRC_within that definition of original, I
I R
C S
7 not, you know, last year.
N k
8 MR. DENISON:
Not that falls within the present r)
O 9
Expansion Program.
i
- Ro y
10 E
j 11 is d
12 Ec
'13 14 w
l Y
I 2
15 1
a
=
ij 16 W
j 17 i
w
=
Di 18 i
P" 19 R
E r
20 i
i 21 22 t
23 i'
24 w
i 25 j i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. - - =
33 1
MR. COOPER:
Just a summary based upon these 2
two previous flimsys of the actions required to resolve the 3
first 147 and the last 17 as of the snapshot in our house 4
yesterday and just totalling the numbers of the previous flimsys,
=
5 this gives an indication of where action is required in the first E
c.*
6 147 or in the last,17.
As I pointed out, about 15 of this 39 e7 6
7 are not very involved at all.
The few that involve errors of sl 8
that 39 are partly more involved.
It is a useful piece of paper d
c 9
for those of you that like to add up and count numbers, it is i
og 10 done there fore you.
E h
11 I think the more important thing, by far, is a
j 12 the status of the Error Reports.
Now as you have seen in the 5
13 instance that we have discussed, that Harold brought up, that q
g m
14 950, that at one time was an error and it went back to the 2
15 Program and got resolved and a Completion Report is existent.
16 MR. DENISON:
That is not the case.
j W
d 17 MR. COOPER:
Excuse me.
That one has not gone Y
{
18 back through the system yet.
E 19 What I tried to compile here is anything that g
n 20 at anytime was an error.
We have had things that were errors 21 and corrective action has been taken, we have reviewed the 22 corrective action, we have accepted it and closed it up.
So b.
23 if you look at the particular File Number today, you would see 24 that an IDVP Completion Report has been issued but at one time 25 '
it was an error.
Here I have compiled all that are or ever were ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I
- 4 4
1 t
i erros.
I have broken them into two groups.
First, the c.rouc.
j 2
.were design criteria or operating.,1=1ts in, our opinion,. as 1
S 3 +I been exceeded.
The second croup, where no criteria limits have I
! been exceeded.
These are first accroxi=ations to the definitions 4
i.
i 5
f these errors as they appear in a Program Plan and are not 1
e 4
e N
t e
6 intended to do anything other than make a cuick cicture.
The e.
! =ajor concerns 7
are errors that are Class A and 3.
There are I
E 8j no Errors Class D established yet.
Frankly, things that we h
1
.s E
9 are calling in this Program, Error Class C, I think in 99 per cent:
1 z.
10 f the engineering you will ever see they would not be considered j
_zy jj to be an Error.
They are very innocuous kinds of things.
<3
.4.. 3-.o.e a.."e s.=.".s o#.
.. = =.
n' e.
12
.r a
"^
.2 y
z=
1
\\.
13 Class A Error means that we believe.godificati~cn will be required.!
2 i
g i
I 14 l PG & E has two of those into their system n:w.
There ir one 5
15 of those that we have identified, referred to PG & E, TG & E 1
A=
16 cenpleted the work, gave it back to us, we reviewed in and have s
1.
c 17 issued a Cc=pletion Report.
u.
.=
5 18 There is one error that at one week day in Cloud's-t 19 Shop some =cnths ago, he could not decide whether it was an A n
A 20 ) or 3 Error so he called it a Class A or 3 Error, and he has s
21 promised never to do that again.
That one is awaiting PG & E i
22 action.
1 kw a
23 Class 3 Errors are Errrs where we do not believe 4
-.a.e.c
,a.4. 0.,. a-..33.xe e-u.
ea wm.
we.2 4 e ". e * ".a. "": a.. i. r v^ ". e d 2a
~
n t
25 analysis you can shew that you are okay.
There is one of these 1
I h
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
'35 1
in PG & E's House for action and there is one of them in ours.
2 So of the 147 plus 17, rile Numbers that have 3
been identified to date, there have been a total of 6 identified 4
as Class A or Class B Errors.
There have been in addition, a e
5 total of 14 identified as Class C, 9 of these are in PG & E's b
8 6
House.
These are the ones where if they are not going to make m
R
. 8 7
any modifications, we can close out.
We have one of them for a
8 8
our action and there is 4 of them that we have had a Completion a
d c
9 Report on.
So that is where we stand on Errors to date.
'd 10 It was now our intmnt to talk about the Interim 3
5 11 Technical Reports.
I am going to shut up for a few minutes and
<W d
12 let Ron Wray introduce this and then Ned will take over for a 3=
d 13 bit.
Then I will come back with one on th'e Reedy work.
g s-
]
14 MR. WRAY:
As Bill Cooper mentioned before, an 2
15 Interim Technical Report gets prepared by one of the IDVP j
16 Participants when a certain aspect or I will call it subphase w
g 17 i or pcrtion of the work has been completed, and some results and E
, M 18 conclusions can be presented.
Because the Interim Technical 5
{
19 Report does contain conclusions in it, it is subject to the l
M 20 Program Manager's review and approval.
With each Interim 21 Technical Report there will be a preface page which in'a fact 22 says that we have reviewed it and approved the contents therein, s_
23 along with an appendix at the end that explains a little bit i
24 about the methodology or the technical procedure or process that k-1 25 l Teledyne used in its review and approval.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
36 i
MR. DENTON:
Who writes these Technical Reports?
2 MR. WRAY:
They are prepared by, in the case 3
of the Cloud work, they are prepared by Cloud Associates.
4
'MR. DENTON:
But issued by Teledyne?
e 5
MR. WRAY:
Issued by Teledyne.
3 a
3 6
MR. COOPER:
No.
Reviewed by us, approved by e
g 7
us, and issued by Cloud.
A a
8 MR. SCINTO:
Why was that distinction important, n
dc 9
Bill?
Iog 10 MR. COOPER:
I do not want somebody to make a Ej 11 false statement.
3 g
12 MR. SCINTO:
It sounded like a very important 5
d 13 thing but are you talking anything different than who puts the
[
S y
14 front cover on it and who puts it in the mail.
Teledyne will i
2 15 have reviewed and reached its technical conclusion?
The I
l g'
16 Teledyne certification will represent Teledyne's technical W
g 17 conclusion about that?
18 MR. COOPER:
Yes, sir.
=
H
{
19 MR. SCINTO:
Fine.
I was just trying to get n
20 clear if there was something special about the word issue.
21 MR. WRAY:
Yes.
It was in that context that 22 I said we would be issuing.
Really it would be issued out of u
E 23,
who's ever shop, in this case Cloud's Shop that puts the report f
24 together and submits it.
(-
}
25 l MR. DENTON:
One other question.
Why are they I
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
37
)
interim?
What does that imply?
2 MR. WRAY:
It is important I think---
3 MR. COOPER:
(Interrupting.)
May I answer that 4
one?
The contract required that we write a single, final report.
5 Back when we were in tne Reverification Program, the question e
A e
6 came up in the February 3rd Meeting as to how you folks were Rg 7
suppose to know how we were doing prior to the time everything s
8 8
got completed.
So I said, we will issue Interim Technical Reports n
d d
9 and that is the way birth comes about sometimes.
i o
10 MR. DENTON:
Does this mean that there will be 3
5 11 still another report that will be called a final one that will B
d 12 come out sometime later?
3md 13 MR. COOPER:
- Yes, w g 14 MR. WRAY:
The features in this Interim Technical 2
15 Report, I have listed here.
5 y
16 There will be certainly a definition, for instance,
w d
17 the first Technical Report deals with the Cloud work that has M
18 been done to date on many, many different types of equipment
=H
{
19 systems, and components.
It is an Iterim Technical Report that n
20 presents in the need or requirements for additional verification 21 and additional sampling.
It does not in and of itself present 22 analytical results.
It presents generic findings and generic 23 concerns along with the recommendations for further verification 24 and sampli ng.
This report will be followed by a series of others,
(.
25 ; which I will show in some subsequent slides, that deal with l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 3
-38
)
particular results of particular evaluations and analyses.
Within 2
each one of those reports, the sample being discussed will be i
i 3
identified.
The generic concerns that have been found in that 4
sample will be defined.
e 5
MR. DENTON:
Would you envision that these reports g
N 6
might initiate new open file items or is it more a summary of m
Rg 7
completed technical work on the file items?
s i
8 8
MR. WRAY:
It is more a summary of what has been
[
t n
0 e
9 done and an understanding of the files, errors, or deviations t
E.
10 that came about within that sample analysis.
It would be more E
E 11 than just an issuance of facts, results and comparisons.
It
<W d
12 would go into an interpretation of what those findings are.
}
E i
c
~
jq j
13,
MR. DENTON:
So it is possible that doing that
?
=
14 work might lead you to recycle an item back if when you look I
2 15 at the totality of a situation you want to check some additional a
=
g 16 facts?
i
'A l
17 l MR. WRAY:
It is possible, yes.
a
=
i 5
18 MR. VOLLMER:
You said that these reports would H
{
19 l not provide the technical basis, the detailed basis I guess of 5
20 !
the resolution of any individual file.
You want have to go back 21 to those files to get that or are they covered in other Technical 1
22 Reports?
lC 23 MR. WRAY:
All of the analytical backup will 24 h be referenced to auditable records or files within individual
'\\_
25 l shops.
It will not necessarily present all of the detailed i
l 15 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
39 j
analyses but certainly it will cover the results, each one of 2
the generic concerns and everyone of the files that was opened 3
n that particular item, whether it be piping, supports, or a 4
piece of equipment.
MR. DENTON:
I don't where the right place to 5
m!
d 6
put a little technical summary is in all this,but it seems to e
7l generate an awful lot of paper with findings and assertions 8
without having that little bit of technical input in there d
that someone reading it could come to his own judgement about.
g 9
i
$.10 If nce again you are going to be devoid of any yield stress E
calculation number, I will read another piece of paper and I s
jj
's d
12 won't know how to judge it independently.
E E
13 MR. WRAY:
Well, there will be a presentation
.(_
g E
14 of the results and conclusions in that report.
For instance, w
b!
15 the calculations won't be there but there will be summary of 5
16 results and comparisons to the 15 per cent criteria or to se g
17 allowable.
That type of thing would be in the Interim Technical 5
, g jg Report.
5 19 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Will there be a description and 8
i e
20 a methodology used to obtain those results?
~
21 MR. WRAY:
I would think there would be, yes.
22,
For instance, in a piping analysis there is not going to be all l \\-
23 l the computer output, etc., etc.
There would be a description 24l of the model.
\\_
l 25 MR. BISHOP:
How many of these reports do you l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
=
I 40 i
j anticipate issuing for.the 171 items that are issued at this 2
p int?
i l
MR. WRAY:
Right now we stand at a number like 3
25 but I am sure that there are probably one or two that I have 4
missed.
There are individual Interim Reports that deal with, e
5 8
6 f r instance, the initial sample, the generic sample that Cloud e
ag 7
has used.
8 There are other reports that perhaps will cover N
the additional. verification in those certain areas.
9
- /
h 10 MR. DENISON:
Let me clarify something.
Until z
11 about three days ago we hadn't intended to issue an Interim
(
<3 d
12 Technical Reports dealing with piping, small bore, heat exchangers, z=
~
d 13 etc.
We were following the February 3rd transcript or Dr. Cloud S
l 14 had a discussion with Mr. Eisenhut and our product was going w
b!
15 to be a group of Open Item Reports and a final Technical Report.
w=
16 The whole concept of Interim Technical Reports to discuss the M*
1 g
17 technical basis of these issues is new to us.
We have not written 6
E 18 one yet and I frankly do not know what it is going to contain H
E 19 when it leaves our shop to go to Teledyne for their approval.
5 n
20 I think Dr. Cloud and I have to sit down and 21 get our ideas on paper.
When we talk about methodology presented 22 and a description of model presented, I am not sure that is the L
23,
type of detail that we were going to go into.
24 l MR. MANEATIS:
I would like to make a comment
(-
25 j on this.
One of the other purposes of giving a Technical Report, i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
41 1
while we are on the subject, is to give the Nuclear Regulatory 2
Commission advanced opportunity to react to these closed items 3
so that you are not presented, Harold, with this enormous technical 4
report at the end which will take a significant amount cf time e.
S to react to, if you will even be able to react to it.
M n
3 6
I would hope that when you write the final m
R
. g 7
Technical Report, that it will reference these Interim Technical s
8 8
Reports and permit you some good point of reference to get through i
0 I
o 9
it and come to your own closure on that.
i h
10 MR. DENTON:
I think if it contains a sufficient B
E 11 description of the methodology used, some of the fundamental
<k d
12 asssumptions and a summary of the results, that would enable Eo d
13 us to pick.the ones that we might want to look into so that we s-y E
14 could our evaluations as they flow out rather than having to sx 2
15 wait until they were all out and start at that time.
j 16 MR. MANEATIS:
To the extent that we have latitude e
p 17 we will want to talk about just how much of that is going to E
18 be in those reports.
I see it as kind of two signs offs.
It 5
E 19 is the sign off of the items for the Independent Design Verifica-N i
20 tion Program and I would like to see a sign off come back from 21 the NRC.
This is not to say we are not going to write the final 22 Technical Report but at least we will have some basis of u
23 anticipating how far along we are in the review.
24 MR. DENTON:
I think that is a very good L
25 l suggestion and we will give you feedback on them.
We will try i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
j
t j
42 i
j to set up a mechanism inhouse that reacts to them as they are 2
generated because it is important, if you have a major difference i
3 of opinion on a topic, to get it back to Teledyne as soon as 4
possible so that we can attempt reach closure.
i i
l 5
MR. MANEATIS:
Well, it puts the work in the c
A n
6 category of work packages.
I f
I E
8 7
MR. DENTON:
We will await with interest your
}
sg g
first Interim Technical Report.
n d
i c
9 MR. WRAY:
Proceeding down the list, as I say i
i i
l 0
10 these are a minimum of things that you would expect to see in e
E i
s
))
the Interim Technical Report.
An identification of the EOI Files w
d 12 to which the report applies, in other words, in the piping area
~
E=d.
13 l that is going to be probably a very voluminous because.there
- s.
_E E
14 are many file numbers that are associated with it.
Each and w
i b
15 every one would be identified as well as to what its resolution w
=
16 and what its implications-are.
3 4
M 17 l MR. DENTON:
Let me ask Dr. Cloud who I guess x
M 18 is getting stuck with this job, if that is the right question.
__e 4
i E
19 I had the feeling early on that you were so busy running calcula-4 5
n i
20 tions and codes, that you did not want to spend a lot of time i
21 documenting in detail and summarizing and writing reports but z
22 obviously to embark on this technical report production scheme 23 '
is quite an undertaking.
If you have any views on the extent 24 to which you can include in these reports enough so that a peer i s_
25 in the field could read it and have a reasonable understanding, i
1
,:t i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
43 i
just from that information alone, how you came to the conclusions 2
that you did.
3 DR. CLOUD:
We can put enough information in 4
these reports to let you grasp or develop an understanding of e
5 the work that has been done and the findings that have been found b
3 6
and their significance.
o R
. 8 7
To truly understand in depth, it is going to n
j 8
be necessary obviously for those calculations.
Certainly we d
d 9
can, I think without undue difficulty, meet the requirements l
c 10 that we have discussed here today.
3j 11 MR. DENTON:
My feeling is that it should be B
g 12 something a little bit longer than a technical abstract.
A 5j 13 technical abstract is probably a little too brief but-it doesn't s-l 14 need to be all the interim steps that go into determination.
2 15 DR. CLOUD:
I definitely understood that you j
16 need more than a couple of paragraphs say well, we found this.
e d
17 What I am surprise about going back in March, February and 5
18 January, your people were spending a lot of time in our shop 5
l
{
19 going through our calculations.
When they start to work on that l
- n 20 I compliment you on thoroughness because our work has been l
21 examined to the third and fourth decimal place.
I am curious l
22 why we haven't seen anyone up here.
I am not complaining.
! (-
I l
23 MR. DENTON:
Maybe they have confidence in l
24 l your work.
> s.
I 25 l MR. DENISON:
Is the purpose of the Interim l
f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
44 I
1 Technical Report merely to reference our calculations and to make i
2 it easier for people to come in and review them or is to service 3
the vehicle for review.
I i
4 DR. CLOUD:
It is neither.
It is in between that.
}
e 5
As I understood you to say to understand it well enough to choose 3
n 3
6 intelligently a sample for in depth review.
We can meet that 4
R 1
s
.7 requirement.
A l
9 8
MR. DENTON:
It will serve as the record in this 4
G i
j d
9 case because there are other parties who will want to scrutinize i
cy 10 the results just besides you and Iin this case.
So I think it m
.i
=
g 11 is important that the adequacy of the review be documented B
p 12 somewhere and one reason I am not sending more people out is I
=
5 13, ' felt we established a process which would result in documentation.
s-g l
14 We will continue to document it at the right checkpoints that
$j 15 we consider necessary but I did not want to undertake by having a
=
g' 16 the Staff document the adequacy of reviews and records and so i
~
f 17,
forth.
I thought that should just flow from the process.
w
{
18 l
=
MR. NORTON:
Harold, you are not suggesting that t
P
{
[
19 the Semi-Monthly Reports be beefed up in terms of methodology M
l 20 analysis and so on because they come out every two weeks and 1
21 if we start bringing that stuff into that, people are just writing 22 paper al1 the time.
} N-23l MR. DENTON:
No.
We are talking about the Interim i
j 24 l Technical Reports'because there is a feeling that the Monthly v
25,
Reports do not allow some of the specialists to quite dig under i
i i-i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
__ _. _. ~ _
f 45 1
it and I was just going to be sure that there was a report that 2
would satisfy that need that they could audit with a reasonable 3
extent and decide if they wanted to ask anymore questions.
I 4
think this is the vehicle, it seems to me, that we have ider.:_
e 5
identified.
E n
h 6
MR. FRIEND:
It might be, Bob, that a generic
~n 7
report describing the method of analysis of piping say, which n'j 8
would cover the 10 or 15 samples, would be appropriate to 0
i d
9 supplement so that you could in one place give the methodology ioy 10 and that sort of thing that would cover all of that type of E
j 11 analysis.
3 j
12 DR. CLOUD:
We have a lot of methodology and
~c
),%-
y, 13 that kind of stuf f written down already.
h 14 MR. WRAY:
The fourth item, the Summary of Results E
2 15 Obtained, I think we have discussed that a little bit.
I j
16 The last item is Identification and Evaluation w
d 17 in accordinace with the Section 9.2 of the Phase I Program i
M 18 Management Plan.
What that means is that not only will results
=
(
C 19 be presented and compared to criteria to allowables but where g
n 20 there is deviation from the say the criteria to determine what 21l the reasons for that deviation are.
It may be as simple as 22 a different piping program being used.
I think in a case like 23 that we may not go any further than to say differences are 24l well within sort of the static of two different programs being l
(.
25 used.
There are two different analytical techniques being used l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8 46 1
1 in calculation vs. a detailed computer evaluation.
2 MR. DENTON:
I would guess our focus in looking
[
[
3 at these Interim Reports would be shaped in large measure by j
l 4
whether they were represented Class A Errors or Class B Errors l
e 5
and to the extent that you did not find a lot of errors in some 1
3 6
particular area, the program would not have to be in the kind R
g 7
of depth that it would be if you are dealing with a Class A Error.-
I l
8 MR. NORTON:
As a matter of clarification, I n
.t' 5
9 thought I heard you say, 25 Interim Technical Reports?
~!-
M f
i 10 MR. WRAY:
That is correct.
E l
5 11 Some of them will be, as I say, more voluminous
<5 a
1 d
12 than others.
Some of these could be perhaps two or three page z
i' i
E y
13,
reports.
Others may be forty or fifty page reports,,I don't
} '-
=
14 know.
1
=
I E
15 MR. NORTON:
Do you have a schedule in mind for w
=
16 these reports?
4 E^
i d
17 MR. WRAY:
We have got to talk about schedule-l
\\
x
=
M 18 for these reports, yes.
,j
=
C i
19 MR. NORTON :
Twenty-five one page reports sounds 9
M 20 l like a lot of reports to me.
You are talking about some of 9
21 them being forty and fifty pages.
~
4 j
l 22 l MR. WRAY:
The thing is that most of the analyti-N-
l I
23 cal backup to these Interim Technical Reports has already been 24 completed.
It sounds like a lot but the preparation of these j s-y 25j reports is not like putting together a full technical report on i
i 3
ALDERS ON REPORTING COMP ANY. lNC.
f 47 i
something.
The analysis has already been complete and is in i
file in Cloud's sh'op presently.
2 3
MR. NORTON:
Are they presently being worked on, 1
4 the Interim Technical Reports?
y 5
MR. DENISON:
The requirement for Interim Technical 8
i 1
3 6
Reports was introduced yesterday.
7.
8 7
MR. WRAY:
One of them is already in the mail.
T.
8 8
I know there is another one which is in our shop probably has e
'i dd 9
already been drafted.
io g
10 I am not going to spend much time going over these i
E E
11 twenty-five because I do not think it warrants the time but this
}
j 12 would give you an idea of how we have broken these Interim g.
1
. g; g -13 Techni' cal Reports down.
=
' h 14 This is a summary of the Plan, Phase I Interim E
2 15 Technical Report.
The first one---
i s'
Let us come back 16 MR. DENTON:
(Interrupting.)
]
e d
17 to this concept that prior to being done and your committment S
3 E
18 to do them and we think they'are a very good idea but I just b
4
}
19 checked and we do not seem to recall that this was in the Order f
n j
20 itself.
21 MR. COOPER:
It is in the Program Plan.
22 MR. DENTON:
You proposed it, we thought it was
> \\-
i 23,
a good idea so it was not something that we just said several 1
i I
24 l
~
days ago.
I just wanted to be clear.
It was not something that
(_
l l
25 l we just suddenly laid on you, t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
s p
s N
,~
48 1
MR. MANEA$IS:
As such, Harold, we are going to 2
decide what the format is going to be, how voluminous.
We do 3
not want to get the Program bogged down into what we have 4
called very comprehensive voluminous reports that the world 5
is going to react to every time we issue one.
e A
~
u 6
The report that we feel,will.be reacted to will
~
7 be the final Technical Report which the Order calls for.
g s
[
8 MR. DENTON:
I thliik my own sedse of when I read
~
d o
9 the Program Plan was that In 6 rim Reports were a good idea.
They y
1 m
G 10 would facilitate you just like you said^ b:it. 'I had not envisioned -
z 6' -
t thattheywouldbenecessarilysystenDbh,qy,sstem and there Yould-j 11 u
~
5 j
12 be so many of them.
I-thought there nlight bea'more comprehen-
-=
13 sive document called an ' Interim' Repo'rt.
I was a,bi'tfsurprised
.v s
Cf) gj 14 to find that it is almost thirtp individuals slices. VI think'
.i x
{
15 the way you have cut is somewhat uo tc you"or'T'e16 dyne as the
.l [ '
J
=
4 16 Program Manager.
j cas MR. MANEATIS:
'fhere are twenty-five numbera new
{
17
=
M 18 to us.
' y -
s' g
x e-19 MR. NIiAY :
There will,be some grouping, of course.
g s
s 20 For instance, No. 7 which is the Evaluaticn of the Component
\\
That could be lumped with, for,ino
- nce, 21 Cooling Heat Exchanger.
22 the Tank Sampling, No.
6.
That'might be a logical groupinig.t C
23 Piping Supports might-go along_with hiping'although---
3, 24 MR. COOPER:
(Iriterrupting. )
Let me just remind C
25 ;
everybody, it was a surprise to a l'ot of people that two wedks ALDERSON REPOR ING COMPANY, INC.
/
I 49 1
when folks from the Staff were here that I said thirty to fifty.
2 At that time I had envisioned Item No. 3 up there as being that i
j 3
one report in detail.
Cloud's people rightfully pointed out 4
1 4
that a lot of the introductory material and all the text material e
S is common to each of the System Analysis, so let us group them.
'b d-6 MR. NORTON:
Uh hum.
m 4
R
S 7
MR. COOPER:
We will continue to refine this in s
y 8
this particular way.
I do not think we ought to speculate d
d 9
too much---
N 1-oy 10 MR. NORTON:
(Interrupting.)
Bill---
E y
11 MR. COOPER:
(Interrupting.)
Let me just say g
12 one more thing.
I think a large number of reports might be b.
13 easier for all-of us than a small number of reports because h
14 it would mean that we could get them out more often.
E 2
15 w=
j 16 e
d 17
.M 18 i
=
19
- s l
20 21 22 C
23 24
(-
lj 25 L l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
E.-
i.
L
50' 1
MR. NORTON:
That was no,t my understanding of 2
these Interim Reports.
These Interim Reports, frankly, sound 3
very much like Final Report Chapters, if you will, which is the 4
flavor that I am getting.
I thought the Interim Reports were g
5 more of a status, you know, instead of taking the semi-monthly 0
6 and kind of putting them together, and talking about methods R
'7 of analysis and so on, but from a training standpoint, this just E
j 8
looks to me like it has got to take months, and that is what d
0; 9
it looks like, ao 10 MR. COOPER:
Read your definition of Interim II Technical Report.
Whenever the program reaches a conclusion 3
N I2 an Interim Technical Report should be written on that subject.
E A
(,
5 13 MR. LEAHY:
Bill, do you think we might be able x
5 I4 to narrow that to the more significant' conclusions, such as, E
{
15 Reports for Class A and B Errors only?
=
d I6 MR. COOPER:
No, because then you fail to report W
17 the fact that for every Class A error you find a thousand things
=
I0 that were perfectly all right.
P I9 8
MR. DENTON:
From our standpoint, we are willing 20 to tolerate almost any way you want to report.
I was surprised 21 a little bit by the large number of reports, too, but perhaps 22 in a Salami style technique we can narrow the area down so that u
23 we can come to agreement is easier than putting them in big---
24 MR. FRIEND:
It sounds more like Bratwurst.
25 i
MR. MANCATIS:
Haro'ld, on that basis, that we H
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I 1
51 not make a commitment on numbers or type, as I said.
We want j
to talk about it among ourselves and arrive at something that 2
we are all comfortable with, but we will still follow the order 3
4 on the final Technical Report.
m 5
MR. COOPER:
And if you need a revision of the M
e e
3 6
program plan, or to accomodate that, we will ask for it.
e R
[
7 MR.
LEW:
George, could I make a point?
About n
Q 8
two or three weeks ago, we were here at an NRC audit, and there dd 9
was a big issue and a lot of discussion oriented to this issue 7:cy 10 of independence, and I think at that point there was a discussion E
5 11 that at the point of the issuance of the Interim Technical Reports
<M y$
12 is when that conclusionary step was taken and PG & E and the y
13 independent reviewers could get into some detail about that.*
,s-a y
14 It was another advantage of having these Interim Technical Reports.
2 15 MR. DENTON :
It's not just an advantage, but E
j 16_
what Barkely said, it's what the given definition of independence, e
d 17 it's almost a necessity.
If that report isn't issued, we are M
18 refrained, as we now understand it, from having any dialog about 5
{
19 it.
We don't know about it, so we can't discuss it, first of 6
20 all.
~
21 MR. HO.CH: Excuse me, John, I have to disagree 22 with what you said in this sense.
If we called a meeting and s
23 I was asked to give my interpretation of Paragraph 10.3 of the 24 I Program Plans, which I did in our 13th semi-monthly report, and I
s_
25 I specified that there were certain things that could be done f
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
52 1
in my opinion, and until somebody disagrees with me, that is 2
the way we are following it, certain things that could be done 3
on n part issues on the Interim Technical Report, but certainly 4
there are barriers that do exist until that report is finished.
m 5
MR.. COOPER: I just propose that we not go through E
a s
N 6
all 28 items.
e Rg 7
MR. WRAY:
What I was going to do for further s
8 8
review would be just to mention that the first one is in the n
Uc 9
mail and it is the one that Ned Denison from Cloud is going to aog 10 be touching upon in the next presentation.
Nos. 2 through basical ly 3
5 11 14 or 15 deal with the initial generic ~ sample in work that has
<a d
12 been undertaken by Cloud Associates.
No. 16 is a Quality Assuranc a Eo d
13 Program and* Implementation Review Program that Teledyne has done A-E y
14 of Reedy Reports.
]r 15
.Nou, from there on in we are talking about, I
=
16 think, less voluminous types of reports because they deal'with js
{
17 much smaller scopes of work.
For example, No. 17 would be a
=
18 report on our additionalsverfications in terms of Design Review
=
~
H
{. 19 of a number of piping systems.
No. 18 through 25, the remaining, n
20 deal with evaluations that are focused on the additional verifi-21 cation work and additional sampling work that is being done in 22 the Phase I Program.
And these will be, you know, as I say,
- ' (-
23 much more a briefer type of report.
So, that the number 25 are 24 deceiving, but I don't see the last perhaps eight or nine reports
\\_
25 p being very big reports at all.
d i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i I
53 I
MR. DENTON:
Do you have any timeframe in mind 2
at all or do you defer that.
3 MR. MANCEATIS :
We should defer that.
1 4
MR. WRAY:
One question on one thing that I think e
5 is a key one, and that is No. 16.
You mentioned that it would 3
a mj 6
be Teledyne's evaluation of the Reedy Report?
9 7
MR. DENTON:
I will return to that one in a few a
Q 8
minutes, after the next item.
O d
9 MR. COOPER:
Our intention on the next item was ioy 10 to have Ned talk about this Interim Technical Report that is E
h 11 out that is in the mail, and let me just say that there are a 3
y 12 number of slideh here that are all pages--there may be minor 5j 13 changes in the words--but they are all pages as -prdsented essentially I4 at the meeting at PG & E a few Saturdays ago which Region attended g
15 some Intervenors attended, and how much he wants to tell you e
j 16 about that is up to you gentlemen.
He has them all laid out M
f 17 here, so you can do what you want with it.
h 18 MR. DENTON:
My preference would be to get the E
19 l
g reports which are already published, that we skip this area and i
n 20 get the rest of the new items, and then if we have time, we can
~
i 2I come back and pick up on it near the end.
22 i
23 24' L
25 l i
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
ti_ _.
.y 3
4 54 1
MR. COOPER:
The next slide is the item of the 2
Interim Technical Report on the status of the Phase I Program 3
on QA Audit and Review Evaluation.
We describe this in our 13th 4
semi-monthly report.
e 5
We described in detail what the contents are 6
going to be of the three parts of the report, Purpose and Criteria R
7 Our audit of the Reedy organization, how they performed the work, s
j 8
and our evaluation of how this report influences the verification t
d C
9 of the design process.
z, og 10 We look at REddy's work to have been for two 3
h 11 purposes; one purpose was to be responsive to the order which k
j 12 required that certain comparisions be made between the QA pro' grams i
b 13 and their implementation, although Seismic Vendors prior'to June g
^
=
m s
14 1st, 1978, these comparisions being made relative to Appendix
{
15 B.
You have previously seen all of Reedy's Reports.
We had
=
j 16 a meeting or. April 1st.
You have seen the PG & E response to w
N 17 those reports which related to PG & E.
{
18 This, what we are trying to write here is to E
19 g
present all this information in proper perspective and to draw M
=
{
20 our conclusions as to what, if any, additional verification or 21 additional sampling is required uniquely because of the Reedy 22 work.
Remember, vna have already done the initial sample and 1
{
23 ; we have this other Interim Technical Report that Ned was going 24 to talk about with respect to additional verification and additional 25 sampling resulting from the Technical Program.
I 1
[
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 55 l
1 We had not really proceeded in any detail on 2
this report prior to writing this 13th semi-monthly, and under 3
our ground rules, I would be extremely reluctant to try to discuss 4
in any more detail here today because of the way we got the co-y 5l operation of an Interim Technical Report the way it is defined a
h 6'
in our Program Plan that once we reveal information to any of R
l e
7j the parties involved, we have to go through a million loops from S
R Q
8 thereon in, and I would like to restrict the information that J
9 we have presented to all parties involved in the last semi-monthly aoy 10 and not discuss any more detail about it.
Z-II MR. BISHOP:
Bill, could I ask you a question s
N I2 about your last semi-monthly, or the 13 th semi-monthly.
=
13
\\_.
MR. COOPER:
Yes.
=
i 14 l MR. BISHIP:
You just used the word " uniquely" uj 15 again.
=
j 16 MR. COOPER:
Yes.
^
\\
h I7 MR. BISHOP:
That no changes were required based
=
i
~
M 18 specifically the Reedy Report per se.
on F
h MR. COOPER:
Yes.
e I
20 MR. BISHOP:
Can you explain why you are using 21 that term so carefully?
I 22 g_
MR. COOPER:
Yes, because in Cloud's work to 23 1 date, they have certainly felt that in the contents of the Reedy 24 work, in the design process verification they have done to date,
.s.
3 25j and the additional verification and the additional sampling, a
4 h
(
h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
=-
56 1
is a result of everyting Cloud has done to date, and what we 2
are looking for here is is there anything in addition to that 3
which needs to be done, which is uniquely responsive to the Reedy 1
4 Report.
.It has nothing to do with *c..t Cloud has done on Reedy.
e 5
MR. BISHOP:
Thank you.
An j
6 MR. COOPER:
That concludes all we have to say G
8 7
on Phase I.
aj 8
On Phase II,'the status report that we give is d
0; 9
f airly simple : there have been a number of meetings and considerab le zog 10 correspondence between the participants on the independent matter E
11 on the Phase II Report.
I think it is not necessary to detail B
j 12 that.
E q,
13 The new additional thing about', Phase II as opposed
=
14 to Phase I is the Stone & Webster participation.
That has,'of 2
15 course, been previously submitted on January 13th, I believe we j
16 the correct date is, a letter of PG & E to the Commission recom-W d
17,
mending a Phase II Program which~did include a overall discussion E
{
18 of the Phase II Program, including the Stone & Webster work.
A h
19 In preparing the Phase II Program, our approach n
20 was to consider the Stone & Webster things that are completely I
21 new and unique; to consider that the Cloud work and the Reedy i
22 work was basically a direct extension of the Phase I work.
This
- s-23 turns out not to be true in detail in both cases, but I think 24 i it suffices for a description today as why we concentrated on s_
25 l the Stone & Webster work.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 57 i
We had a series---there have been a series of 2l orginzational meetings between Stone & Webster and PG & E people, 3
in fact there are some going on this week.
There have been previous 4
drafts of the Stone & Webster part of the plan submitted to PG e
5
& E and reviewed previously.
We have taken all of this information A
nj 6
and our first draft, which went to PG & E, that is, it went outside R
R 7
the independent program with respect to Phase II was dated May aj 8
21st.
We have received detailed comments on that draft as late d
d 9
as a few days ago.
We discussed those comments in the independent
'i wy 10 porgram meeting from 8 to 10 this morning, and then with PG &
E E
11 E from 10 to 11:40 this morning.
<3 j
12 We believe that we h' ave resolution in principle, 5
d 13 l at.least.
Most of these things that need to be changed before E
i 14 we can submit it to you people are the kinds of things you change 2
15 because somebody likes to ask you, well, why didn't you write j
16 it the way you are saying it and mean it?
And we are trying A
d 17 l to clean these up.
We have providedi the Independent Program i
18 team, and we will provide PG & E today with revised pages to E
l h
19,
the extent that we have able to revise them today.
n 20;l It is our expectation that any remaining comments, 21l suggestions, and so forth, will be back to us by Monday of next i
I l
22 l week.
It is our expectation that we will issue the Phase II s_
l 23 Program plan for NRC review on either Friday, the 18th, or the l
1 24 l following Monday.
l 1
25]
MR. MANCATIS:
Let me ask you inasmuch as you i
n l
N a
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
58 1
I have already submitted a Phase II Plan, Harold, does this have 2
to go to the Intervenors for a 15 day comment?
3 MR. DENTON:
I don't know.
Let me ask Joe P
4 Scinto if he would like to respond.
e 5
MR. SCINTO:
I am not sure I can.
A 1
a 6
MR. MIRAGLIA:
Maybe I can respond.
The initial R
7 Staff letter that is essentially characterized in basis or the 3
Q 8
things that should be considered in a basic program parallel dd 9
the Commission Order and indicated a 15 day comment period.
The ie b
10 letter was received from PG & E on Phase II back in January.
E h
11 There are a number of Commission memoranda at B
N I2 that time in response to letters from the Intervenors saying 3l 13
'that' defer the comment period until after the investigation on h
14 Phase I, and that kind of thing; so that clock was left open E
15 and running, and in response to PG & E back in February or Marcti, 5
g 16 we had indicated that we would institute the Phase II Program s
6 17 review at the conclusion and part approval of the Phase I Program 4
wx 5
18 review.
=
C I
I9 MR. DENTON:
So, the answer sounds like yes.
g 4
n 20 MR. MIRAGLIA:
The answer is yes, because in 21 that intervening period, the Phase II Program being submitted 22 was dif ferent from what is going to come in now, so it occurs
, g, 23,
to me that there would be a 15 comment period.
+
24 MR. MANCEATIS:
I read the transcript in complete 4
25 j detail some time back, and there is just what you indicated, i
i ALDERSON REPORTlNG COMPANY. INC.
I
4 59 1
but I came to the opposite conclusion.
I may be wrong, but I 2
just saying that I can see why it isn't clear.
I thought that 3
they words, and I can't quote them by memory, but I thought they 4
were such that they had the opportunity to comment and automatical ly.
e 5
it precludes them from comment, but I could be wrong.
M
=
9 6
MR. DENTON:
I don't recall the specifics, and R
7 what we will do is to review the Commission's direction to us a
j 8
and get back to you.
d 9
9 MR. NORTON:
We had disagreement inhouse, because zo 10 I agreed with Frank.
George has his opinion and I have mine.
3_
II MR. MIRAGLIA:
I am going on recollection.
We
?
j 12 have to go back and look at the words.
Ea 13 MR. NORTON:
But the important thing is that g,
g m
mg 14 we would like to be able to get started on the Phase II work
$j 15 without waiting for the NRC to approve the program, realizing
=
j 16 full well the changes in it and assuming that risk.
What we M
6 17 don't want to do is to be precluded on that basis.
N
{
18 MR. DENTON:
I don't have any problem with your P"
19 s
starting work on it at your own risk, the same way that you did n
20 with the Phase I Program, and with that understanding that it 21 is at your risk until it is approved.
22 MR. COOPER:
I am sorry.
I missed Harold's response g,
23j to Bruce, but I want to make it clear that we are started on 24 the Phase II Program, and it was my understanding that we asked q_
25 '
PG & E permission to start up and they gave it to us.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
J 60 1
MR. MANCEATIS:
We gave you the permission on 2
the basis that I know we are proceeding on it at risk and that 3
MR. COOPER:
I didn't want to leave it that there 4
is a possibility that anybody would think we hadn't started on e
5 it.
Me a
6 MR. BISHOP:
Bill could you give us an idea of R
R 7
what areas you have started in on Page 2?
sl 8
MR. COOPER:
There are two major things that G
C; 9
are underway.
One is a continuing familiarization of the Stone zo G
10
& Webster people with the systems they are going to be reviewing E
j 11 in a series of meetings this week.
The other one is that one 3
g 12 of our major concerns with respect to Phase II--excuse me.
Let 5
(,
y 13 me back up a minute.
Phase II, and you will see the arguments a
m 14 why this iswe think, valid, when you get to the Program Plan.
E
{
15 I don't want to take your time with it today.
Becuase it is a
16 g
one of those things that got to sit down to study.
W d
17 We have essentially, if we are talking purposes, wx 18 divided Phase II into two areas.
In the one area, we identify
=
19 g
as an area related to Stone & Webster's samples.
The systems M
20 and analyses which Stone & Webster would be sampling.
Now, the
^
21 identification that Stone & Webster sample does not identify 22 who does the work in the sense that Reedy's organization will i
23 !
be involved and Cloud's organization with respect to those samples l
24 l The other part of this universe that we are looking m
i 25 j at in Phase II is responsive to the portion of the letter which i
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
61 1
requires that for nonseismic contractors and the associated i
2 PG & E interfaces prior to a date given there, but for which 3
we are using June 1st, 1978, because there is an overlap in the 3
4 order dates and we tried to sort it out, that for all those vendor s e
5 in the PG & E interface that the QA Program and its implementation i
M 4
6 would be evaluated.
R 7
We added to that that if there are concerns about n[
8 the QA Program implementation prior to June, 1978, those vendors dd 9
not included in the Stone & Webster samples, that we would in i
h 10 addition do a review to try to determine if good engineering
_?
11 practice had been followed.
The purpose of this piece of work a
p 12 would be one to be responsive the letter with respect to the 5
y 13 QA conversion with Appendix B, and two, to indicate possible g,
i m
14 areas of concern where the program needs to be expanded beyond b
l 15 the Stone & Webster samples because of failure to perform good
=
l j
16 engineering practices.
d i
d 17 Now, that category, and by the way, Reedy would 5
j
{
18 be basically responsible for all this work supplemented as required A
I 19 That category on first glance could involve a couple hundred M
20 organizations, and I say at first glance that if you just take f
21 the PG & E contract list that was submitted to the Staff with 4
22 the January 13th letter, there is an attachment in there of an q
23lj extensive contract list.
We happen to be working off of a different i
i 24 list nowadays bec'ause it has different information on it.
I 25
- haven't checked to know whether the contractors are identical l
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
62 1
or not but there is a couple hundred of them.
And our concern 2
was how many are there, really, that we are going to have to 3
look at in this block that we have assigned, and reading, and 4
some people from our place had met with PG & E, contract people u
e 5
and technical people, and they rev'iewed th'is in detail.
They A
n 6
received documentation on all and were in the course of trying 9
8 7
to sort this down into what is the correct number, and as I rememb ar-M j
8 the last count, and this was still in progress, obviously, any dd 9
count is approximate, but the last count was that the number Yg 10 will be less than 15.
l a
I
- m11 Those are the two prime activities in progress.
E i
j 12 NOw, let me check back to see that we haven't mislead you in E
y 13 any way.
s,
=
h 14 MR. GIBBONS:
The number looks more like 10.
2 15 That includes Westinghouse.
My understanding is that this will s
be the subject of a Technical Review.
j 16 M
d 17 MR. COOPER:
Yes, eventually it will be, and N
l 18 they will be doing a design change work with respect to those
=
C 19 particular grants.
g n
20 MR. GIBBONS:
And.that includes the people from 21 Stone & Webster who will be working on it.
22 MR. COOPER:
Yes.
Well, Stone & Webster is going--
v 23 you are including the people from Stone & Webster.
24 )
MR. GIBBONS:
Right.
As far as I know.
I am 25 not certain of that, but that looks pretty reasonable.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
63 1
MR. COOPER:
That is the reason I said les's than 2
15.
Frank, Stone & Webster activities.
3 MR. SESTAK:
I can briefly summarize what we us 4
have done so far.
That is for/to become familiar with activities e
5 performed by PG & E in the design of the plant and the separation Q
' j 6
of their responsibilities from Westinghouse.
We have identified R
?
7 and sat down with them to identify all the safety related systems 3
a j
8 designed by PG & E.
Then we come back here and selected three d
0 9
a, specific systems.
One is the fluid system, one is a HVAC system oy 10 and one is an electrical system, to identify the 4kv safety related 3_
11 portions of that system.
Right now, we have a number of people a
j 12 out there right now, approximately 12, going into some detailed 5
j 13 discussions with PG & E and the Betchel people on various aspects s_
.=
14 of details of carrying out design requirements and coming back g
15 and developing our positions on the adequacy of the design.
=
j 16 MR. COOPER:
Bob.
M N
17 MR. VOLLMER:
Yes.
Are you doing this by design h
18 verification process or will that include 'any calculations, or--
E" 19 g
MR.SESTAK:
Both.
A combination of both.
n 20 MR. DENTON:
What instructions will you give 21 your reviewers with regard to whether they should accept a given 22 calculation at face value, or whether they should independently 23 try to calculate it?
24 MR. SESTAK:
Well, we can review the performance L
25 and perform a sampling approaching the calculations, and we will ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
b 64 l
1 to get them to stick to the more critical areas.
Certainly in j
2 all of our safety related systems, there are some specific design i
3 criteria they have to meet, and they can perform separate calcu-I 4
lations.
We know on some systems which are very similar to other f
o 5
designs that we have performed what some of the values should r
i 6
be, and we have a very good idea of what some of the answers R
7 are, and how to verify them.
~
l 3
{
8 8
MR. DENTON:
I was going to get to the point, d
d 9
if you get down to the person doing this actual audit, Technical i
o l
g 10 Expert, do you give any instructions as to percentage of calculations '
11 he should check, or do you leave completely to his discretion, S
j 12 or do you tell him to double check everything--by double check, 5
l q, y
13 I don't just:mean to read the calculations, but actually run 1
h 14 them through your own code; what kind---
i
{
15 MR. SESTAK:
Programs and code analysis, we run
(.j x
j 16 our code and run a sensitivity analysis that was used by the
{
W r
l d
17 subcontractor, and also the sensitivity is developed and take f
w x
{
18 those same inputs that were used with their code, and we come P
6 19 l
g up with some answer to find out what the differences are and 4
M
- l j
20 try to rationalize them.
That is on the code analysis.
i i
21 There are some manual calculations that we perform i
?
22 our own or do the same calculations with our own inputs.
[
f 23 MR. CLOUD:
Can I help you a little bit, Frank.
I 24 I think in recalling our early discussions now, there was a selected 25 sample system that all tra calculations would be checked in depth.
l j
l 1
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
65 1
I thought that was appropriate.
2 MR. SESTAK:
This is a sample calculation system.
3 MR. COOPER:
These are obviously spelled out 4
in detail in the Program Plan.
Let me say something that most 5
g people don't understand.
Our friends at the head table, they
- 9 6
didn't get any lunch, and we are trying to ask Ned the question R
- S 7
as to what they worked on in Phase II and give John a chance s
j 8
to do one housekeeping item, and let them have some lunch while d
9 everybody else takes a break, and then we can get back to our z
10 business.
So I was just trying to keep this from going on too-3_
Il long.
Ned?
M N
I2 MR. NORTON:
Our scheme to day is to keep on 5"
13'
(-
5 schedule, so we will take a short break.
m h
14 MR. DENTON:
Make it a working lunch.
{
15 MR. DENISON:
Cloud Associates is taking Stone m
E I6
& Webster sample and we are in the process of defining the sample w
h I7 space as far as the structural size of the mechanical aspects x
18 and further we have people working to establish the applicable I9 g
licensing criteria.
20 MR. COOPER:
John Hoch.
2I MR. HOCH:
How about these housekeeping items, 22
(,
since Dr. Cooper mentioned the meeting this morning, let ma just 23 make it explicit what the meeting was and what was talked about.
i I believe the attendance sheet you used reflects
(_
I 25 the attendance at this meeting as well as the meeting you had ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
66 1
with the independent people early this morning and the meeting 2
you referred to between 10 and 11:40.
So, I just wanted to make l
3 it explicit that we did, people from the Diablo Project, Sans, 4
Mrs. Norton an'd Locke, did meet with the Independent Design Verifi j
e 5
cation Program people this morning between approximately 10 o' clock A
s n
d 6
and 11:40 in addition to the discussion of the Phase II Program e
Rg 7
Plan and comments on that Plan as referred to by Dr. Cooper, 8
we discussed only two other topics, and let me mention them here I
d i
n 9
and if anybody has an addition, let ce know.
We discussed the bb 10 status of the Interim Technical Report and Reports that were E
-l 11 mentioned here earlier this morning, and we discussed the next U
l
{
g 12 'I item on the agenda.
We went over in detail, in some detail, a
13 th'e' milestone target schedule we will be discussing with you, t
[
14 and discussed in general the process of scheduling how we are 2
15 going to accomplish that between the project and the elements M
16 of the Independent Program.
)
j 1
W d
17 l Does anybody have any additions.to what we discuss ed w=
M 18 in the meeting this morning.
=H 19 MR. COOPER:
Just one slight change.
You said j
n 20 something about something that was discussed earlier this morning 21 in this meeting, and you meant earlier this afternoon.
22 MR. HOCH:
Earlier today.
I 23 MR. COOPER:
Yes.
i 24 MR. HOCH:
Okay.
1 N-25 l MR. DENTON:
John, we are ready across the hall.
4 I
i i
I h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
67 1
How long do you estimate it will be.
2 MR. COOPER:
Fifteen minutes?
3 MR. DENTON:
Gentlemen, shall we?.
4 (There was a luncheon recess taken.)
=
5 b
6 a
w a
j 8
e d
9
$k 10 E
ll:f 11 3:
y 12 s
13 y
14
- =
2 15 g'
16 as d
17 4
M 18
=
19 8
n 20 21
\\
22 u
23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
]
68 I
I MR. DENTON:
We have some questions based on what 2
we heard already today rather than forget them when we get into 3
the rest of the presentations.
Why don't we go back and pick 4
up the questions while they are fresh in our mind.
5 y
One of them is, who should be monitoring the QA y
3 6
now of the Subcontractor and why shouldn't that be Teledyne in 1
R
^ I E
7 their Project Management role?
k 8
MR. COOPER:
We think it should be as soon as I
d 9
we can legally do so because if we have under subcontract to us, ao G
10 we have both the Reedy anc Cloud Organization you have audited.
3 II They both are on our Authorized Vendors List.
We have not implement-3 f
I2 ed any specific audit program with respect to their performance 3
13 j
on thi's program yet.
c.
h I4 MR. DENTON:
I can understand the need to y
15 contracturally turn over that function but I would think that
=
j 16 4
you will need to pick up that function very soon in order to A
h I7 be sure you have got all of the control on the quality of the
=
l
{
18 products you are getting.
It looks a bit our of sinc to have
- i P
+
19 8
the responsibility of the quality of the subcontractor's work n
20 being done by PG & E and not by you.
l MR. COOPER:
I agree that it has got to be done 22 l
soon an'd it is a detail within the last week we just haven't
- q_
23 straightened out on transition.
There was a meeting I know i
24 during the break between some of the people talking about these 25 l kinds of things but I---
P, il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
69 1
MR. MANEATIS:
(Interrupting.)
Let me comment 2
on that.
3 We'cannot as a licensee, I don't think, absolve 4
ourselves with the responsibility of holding all contractors e
5 that we have engaged in the Quality Assurance Program.
We have E
, u 6
audited this thing already.
I think that is a matter of record.
R 7
As f ar as monitoring them on a continucas basis, I have no a
8 8,
problem after we have completed our contractural arrangments O
z~
for Teledyne to effect their normal monitoring of the contractors d
9 cy 10 because in a way they would be contracting for them.
We just E
E 11 did not want anything to fall through the crack.
The
<k j
12 The Contractors' QA Program had been, audited 5d 13 and that is a matter of record.
~
{
14 MR. NORTON:
Harold, can we ask you a quest' ion 9
15 on that?
E y
16 Could you perceive after Teledyne takes over m
p 17 i responsibility for the QA Programs of Reedy and Cloud who are 18 S & W who are under contract of them, would you perceive PG & E 5
{
19 no longer having responsibility for the QA of the Independent n
20 Verification Program out of house?
21 MR. DENTON:
No, I was not reaching that far.
I 22 guess I would see that in addition to your QA monitoring of your 23 contract you could ask Teledyne to assure themselves that the 24 program that is in affect meets their standards and part of the
~
25 input of their determination would be previous audits and this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
70 1
sort of thing so that Teledyne could on their on somehow agree 2
with you that the program that is out there meets the required 3
standards.
4 MR. NORTON:
You would expect us to continue our e
5 audits in the future into the rest of Phase I and into Phase II?
3 5
9 6
MR. DENTON:
We haven't been into that.
R 7
MR. BISHOP:
I think our only point there is s
]
8 that Quality Assurance is suppose to be an inherent of Project J
C 9
Management.
If Teledyne is the Project Manager they are z,
o 10 responsible for the quality of the Program and should have
_5
{
11 controls in effect to monitor them.
B j
12 MR. NORTON:
You have to understand the way this 4
g 13 evolved?
a m
f 14 MR. BISHOP:
We recognize that.
2 15 MR. NORTON:
It interferes with that normal thing.
E g
16 MR. BISHOP:
They took over technical direction A
6 17 May 24?
E 18 MR. COOPER:
March 24.
=
19 g
MR. DENTON:
You do not have to address the n
20 bigger issue as to who actually owns the contract sort of 21 obligation to allow your Project Manager to assess independently 22 whether or not the programs of these fellows meet the applicable
, s-23 standards.
24 MR. NORTON:
I agree and I think, Bill, correct 25 f, me if I am wrong, on an informal basis at least that has been ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
71 1
done already.
2 MR. COOPER:
We have audited both Reedy and Cloud, 3
I suspect Cloud within the last month and Reedy's operation 4
within the last two months.
e 5
Stone & Webster is on our Authorized Vendors List.
b h
6 We have not audited them.
At present it is not clear whether or Rg 7
not at present the Stone & Webster Contract is with PG & E, M
Q 8
whereas with the Reedy and Cloud Contracts they are designated G
d 9
to come with us and working towards fulfilling that.
7:e 10 I want to make sure we are real clear on this.
Ej 11 My interpretation of Tom's statement would be that even though 3
j 12 Stone & Webster would not be a subcontractor to us, we should E
(_
- j. 13 have QA responsibility-for their' work.
I think that is the a
y 14 statement you made, Tom.
Did I hear you correctly?
E 2
15 MR. BISHOP:
No.
If you are inferring that you Y
j 16 have to execute their QA Program, I did not mean to infer that.
e d
17 l I simply meant that you had the ultimate responsibility both
. 5 18 for the technical content of the program and the quality aspects, E
19 insuring that it is conducted in accordance with approved g
n i
20 quality programs.
21 MR. FRIEND:
I do not know if I agree with that, i
22 Tom.
I think PG & E retains the ultimate responsibility for s-23 the quality aspects of total IDVP Program.
They should have i
24 Dr. Cooper and Teledyne perhaps fulfill those more detailed L
25 functions of those other contractors but PG & E has the ultimate l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
72 1
responsibility.
Pg & E is the Manager, along with Dr. Denton, 2
of the Program.
3 MR. BISHOP:
There is no doubt about that but 4
Teledyne is issuing the technical report and drawing the bottom e
5 line conclusions.
To support that they have to know that that E
9 3
6 information in that report is valid and accurate and controlled R
8 7
in accordance with the approved guidelines.
It has the quality M
g 8
aspects I am talking about.
d
+
c 9
MR. VOLLMER: I think what Tom is saying is that g
10 they are sort of acting as an aid in the design organization E
j 11 which may have different aspects of desing being done.
So in 3
j 12 that sense they would have the responsibility but I think I E
13
~
agree in the sense that you are t.alking about PG & E does have h
14 the ultimate responsibility.
2 15 MR. FENECIS: As a point of clarification, I am g
16 going to ask all the subcontractors that are here, have you A
17 received your audits from PG & E, Quality Assurance Audits?
=
{
18 MR. DENISON:
Yes.
rG 19 g
MR. J4ANEATES:
How about Stone ~& Webster?
M 20 MR. SESTAK:
The question was different.
Oh,
~
21 PG & E?
22 MR..MANEATES:
Yes.
u 23 !
MR. SESTAK:
We had one done because our contract 24 came out of the Denver Of fice and it was on a previous contract
- e 25]
and we just carried over the terms and conditions from that 4
d a
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
73 1
previous audit.
2 MR. COOPER:
Would you speak up please?
3 MR. MENIATES:
You had an audit by PG & E?
4 MR. SESTAK:
Based on a previous audit.
o 5
MR. MANEATIS:
You have not changed your Quality h
h 6
Assurance Programs?
R g
7 MR. DICK:
I believe what we are all moving s
8 8
towards is an orderly hierarchy of responsibility here.
We are d
d 9
caught in a little bit of transition.
As part of that, my io B
10 understanding is that PG & E will be looking to Teledyne to d
g 11 execute a program, part of which will place a certain requirement B
j 12 on the other members of the IDVP.
Of course, part of that
~c 13
, program operates on Teledyne itself.
Presumably when this s,
j 14 transition is completed, that is what we will receive.
Is that 2
15 your understanding, George?
j 16 MR. MANEATIS:
I do not want to commit until I A
g 17 check with our Quality Assurance Manager to make sure that this M
10 is the intent and that everybody is going to accept it, including E
19 g
the NRC just on the basis of the questions that were just raised.
. n 20 MR. DENTON:
What I would prefer is that Teledyne 21 have a role to the extent necessary so those elements of the 22 Program that are essential to their reaching a technical 23 conclusion about the adequacy of the facts, that they are able i
24 to say that they know firsthand.
Maybe there are elements of s.
25 ;
the Program or something but certainly you can not have Teledyne ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
74 1
say,-assuming the numbers we have got are any good we reach 2
these conclusions.
3 MR. CLOUD:
I would like to ask something at this 4
stage if I might.
I would agree perhaps in terms of formal e
5 responsibilities and alignments already referred to, there has d
6 been some delav but in terms of the actual understanding of R
8 7
the quality of our work, if anything we have had too much of it M
8 8
because we have been audited not only for the Quality Assurance n
'J d
9 controls but there have been hundreds of man hours spent actually ic g
10 checking all the calculations themselves just in the short time E
5 11 that Teledyne has been on board.
B d
12 MR. DENTON:
I just wanted to flag that I think E=
d 13 it is.an issue in transition and I think having brought it to s-9 y
14 your attention and there must be approaches followed in similar 2
15 situations that are fully satisfactory to the NRC.
We will j
16 leave to you to try to work one up in this case.
w b^
17 The second issue goes to who checks the origin M
18 of errors in coming back to this 1/2 inch steel plate again?
=H
{
19 Since it did not deal with a design problem per se, it may have n
20 been a procurement problem or an installation problem.
It seems 21 like someone should follow up on the origin of that error if it 22 is not a design so that when you come to an ultimate conclusion L
23 about the adequacy of plant design and construction, that little i
24 finding has been considered.
I had the sense that you did not t
25 l do it if it was not a design area unless you just happened to i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
75>
1 1-identify it.
2 MR. DENISON:
That is not the case.
On the 3
particular item we consider the significance of the individual 4
item for disposition of the'open item.
In this case it was 5
found to be a Class C Error which indicated that there was an e
6 error in the installation of safety related equipment but that G
7 no design criteria operating limits had been excaeeded.
s j
8 The overall significance of that individual open d
C 9
item is betng assessed separately by Cloud Associates.
10 MR. COOPER:
Excuse me.
If it were a question 3
g 11 of procurement of the material or something like that, an error a
p 12 in material procurement as opposed to a design aspect, we would E
13 q
not pursue that material procurement to find out who made the 14 mistake, for example.
2 15 MR. DENISON:
We would assess the significance E
y 16 of the item as a material procurement problem perhaps?
A d
17 MR. COOPER:
We would say it looks like a E
5 18 material procurement problem or something, yes.
P h
19 MR. NORTON:
Gentlemen, I think you are begging
- n 20 the question.
The question is, are you assessing in terms of 21 its being a generic problem, not in terms of its significance---
22 part of the program is to ascertain whether or not you should 23,
strike your sample or go running off looking at something else.
I 24l I think that is the question.
s-t 25 l MR. DENTON:
Yes.
That is a better characteriza-l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
T.'
-s: sc y..
s,-
t s -
g
- y. -3
's s
h
>N
(
N 3
1 1
'-m p,. _ '
.t"
{
'N j
tion.
'N
'w a
s 2
MR. CLOUD:. ]WE would if we found'~ repeated qv x
3 instances of this kind of error, by that mechaiiism that-~would u
s translate into a} gbneric concern----thekIiave been other 4
s N
g 5
. situations where we found the same kind.of-[ discrepancies-in e
y s.
d 6
a repeated sense and' tliose have been called' out separa'tely.
m 57 x'~
F 7
Our mechanism for investigating'those_th.ings %c,her than specific 3
,z N
r 9
8 design errors or design discrepancies would be through the ~
n
~
d c
9 issue of do they appear more.than once.
. s, g
10 MR.'DENTON:
Than' gets to.a th[rdipoint that we
?.
I.c 11 wanted to bring up, trends.
There could be findings that you is y
12 make that repeatedly fall into the category of no mcdificatiori o
'\\
d 13 required but you suddenly fi'nd si>: os seven procurements wher~e b @
s.
l 14 they consistently buy steel the wrong size-- g g
ss i
m 2
15 MR. CLOUD:
(Interrupting. )
That is exactly it._
- s a:
j 16 MR. DENTON:
Then you would say, maybe we ought 4
m b.
17 to look into that?
4 y
a 18 MR. CLOUD:
T}at-is exactly correct.
^
In, response i-19 8
to a question earlier in this meeting-about the' possibility of e
20 new EOI being generated just.from the process ^of assessing an'd
~
i 21 writing the Interim Reports that I said, yes, of-course.
It 22 would be possible that new ones would be generated just by'a
'L 23 study of the data.
That would result from a study of trends.
24 MR. DENTON:
Staying on the same thread, PG & E u
25 j is doing a lot of internal review and respons'e to some of the I
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i 7.7 1
issues that get sent over and their own initiative of searching 2
out items.
These could be useful in spotting trends or influenc-i 3
ing an overall judgement.
Maybe their running on thei~r 4
additional piping system runs or something.
How does that o
5 information, if you find potential errors, get back into a M
n I
i 3
6 final judgement.
R 7
MR. COOPER:
Our Program Plan speaks specifically aj 8
to that and it says that we review the PG & E Semi Monthly Report G
d 9
and if we see something in there that could be an indicator or i
Oy 10 something significant to our Program, that we request the Z
h 11 information from PG & E.
-ic g
12 MR. CLOUD:
That is correct, Bill, but I would 4
E y
13 like to follow on just a little to bring an issue out on the
=
l 14 table we have talked about many times.
That is simply that the i
.)
2 15 process that Bill just described is being followed.
The facts j
16 of the matter are, if we had less restrictive definitions or j
a d
17 i concerns about the whole issue of independence, we would do a 5
h 18 better job in this review of working with PG & E and their p
E 19 findings because we are, in the process that Bill described as R
20 you-can plainly see, a stand off kind of process.
It is 21 extraordinarily independent but independence doesn't always 22 make for the best technical product.
23 MR. DENTON:
What would propose to change?
24 MR. CLOUD:
I mn not making a proposal.
I just t
25 '
wanted to first get out and maybe at some later time we can talk ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l.
78 i
I about it.
It would be better if we could just feel more free 2
to communicate with the other parties.
3 MR. DENTON:
I had heard the observance of the 4
arm's length relationship was affecting the time limits of e
5 various resolutions but I guess I had not thought that it was A
es 6
also affecting the quality.
4 R
7 MR. CLOUD:
Like everything else time is money.
E j
g 8
In this case time is quality.
O c
9 MR. DENTON:
Can you give me an example?
W O
g 10 MR. CLOUD:
No, I can't.
_E j
11 MR. DENTON:
I do not mean specifics.
What kind t
s g
12 of relationships would be better able to receive the goal you g
y 13 are seeking and still not compromise the independence of this.
=
h 14 MR. COOPER:
Let me butt in on that one just a t
2 15 minute.
I think that we cannot cite examples for the simple I
w*
j j
16 reason that our concern is that we may be missing something.
1 A
l d
17,
PG & E's concern is that they may be missing something because w*
I M
18 of this situation resulting.
P j
I 19 I've tried to say in this explanation of 10.3 j
e r
20 that is in our last Semi Monthly that PG & E can send us 21 anything they want to at anytime in writing but the only way 22 we can really ask for it is in response to seeing it in the v
23 i Semi Monthly Report.
The contrast is not true.
We cannot send i
r 24 anything to PG &'E they ask us for in writing unless it has a
>s.
25 j more detailed basis.
I think the problem is bad from our view-l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
79 t
1 point.
I'm glad Bob brought it up but I think the problem is 2
worse in the PG & E viewpoint.
3 MR. NORTON:
Harold, one of the areas and it is 4
not necessarily a specific example is that it is very difficult s,
i e
5 for PG & E to start on resolution of a problem without technical h
6 people who must resolve the problem discussing that with the R
7 Cloud or Teledyne who " discovered the problem."
In other words, nl 8
they cannot sit down with two or five engineers and say, "This 0d 9
is why we see it as a problem. "
PG & E might say, "Well, gee, io 10 did you consider this?" or whatever in order to get moving on 5
h 11 the resolution.
From PG & E's standpoint that is a real
's
]p 12 drawback with this total arm's length thing.
It is a delay in 5
i 13 resolution of the. problem.
.s, m
i m
14 I think there is a problem with the identification 5
E 2
15 of the problem.
It might not be a problem if people could Y
i g'
16 discuss it before it got labeled as a problem.
In a way, that l
A I
d 17 is minor problem.
The resolution is a more important thing.
s 18 MR. DENTON:
Why don't we talk about a general
=H
{
19 principle and maybe it would help you.
n i
20 It seems to me the thing we would like to do is 21 to be sure that in the first instance problems are flagged 22 without any efforts made to resolve them so that you do a full 23 l sweeping of all the potential problems that any reviewer could i
24 find.
Then if you get that problem captured in a system for w
25 identification so you can be sure it is not going to get lost 1
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 80 i
I and then that problems is announced to you and to other parties 2
in the proceedings,which is part of the complication here so 3
that everybody gets alerted to the problem, then the people who j
i j
4 wanted to write back additional to whoever identified the j
i e
5 problem---In this case Teledyne and say, here is some additional l
i 3
i e
4 6
information I have on it, and that was all done in the open, E
7 it seems like that kind of procedure to me would accomplish our f
i Ml 8
goals.
I 1
dd 9
MR. HOCK:
Let me try to illustrate something.
by 10 MR. DENTON:
I do not think that that would work.
y f
11 MR. HOCK:
Let me try to illustrate something that 3
g 12 happens in the reverse direction.
5
{ (
y 13 We have discussed your flow of in' formation from i
j 14 PG & E's internal program back to the IDVP, the kind of thing i
E 2
15 that you said, it was part of your question to begin with.
j 16 One of the ways that that process is impeded by
'A l
t I
d 17 l the independence issue is as follows:
1 w
i X
l M
18 We have to put in place a very rather complicated 5
{
19 set of procedures to control information flow in both directions.
n 20 That does, as Dr. Cooper suggested, require a written request i
21 for information from our people to go back into the IDVP, some i
22 varv complicating and cumbersome things.
We have to do that l
\\_
4 23 i because to have one of the IDVP people come into our shop and j
t 24 talk to our engineer and ask for information, we have to know
't i
25 l-what that exchange was so we won't have an exchange that will t'
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
h
81 i
i violate the independence process.
That is not a specific but i
2 it is an illustration, at least.
3 MR. COOPER:
Looking for a way out of our present 4
bind, it is my feeling that anytime a guy is willing to undo i
e 5
a document, a retrievable document, that this is what his E
n 6
opinion is, he ought to be able to say anything at any time to R
7 anybody, as long as it is traceable, as long as that trail can I
s j
8 be followed.
Od 9
Situations come up where something has been in 7:o 10 a Semi Monthly Report where some of the Staff people were looking Ej 11 at results and th PG & E people had to stand there and look at a
j 12 the Staff people looking at the results and said, "Why can't 5
i y
13 we look at it too.
It is public knowledge, it-is documented
.=
14 in this draft and so forth."
It does get very difficult and 2
15 we are all seeking better ways.
5 y
16 MR. DENISON:
Let me just clarify the problem w
d 17 that Bill was mentioning.
5 5
18 We have Professor Holley under contract and we U
{
19 sent him a copy of a draft Auxillary Building Report.
This
- . n 20 Report had not gone through a full project review.
Some of the 21 results had not been checked, they were fresh out of the t
22 computer, if you will.
As a courtesty we sent a copy to j
23 )
Teledyne.
It was our understanding that they were part of our 24 group and as the reviewer we thought it would give them a step x-3 25 l up on the process.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
8 21 f
i i
It came to a great shock to both Bob and myself t
2 that the NRC was able to come in and take a look at that draft f
3 Zeport.
Certainly if you came into our shop we would strongly i
4 resist you looking at results fresh out of the computer.
In j
i 5
that instance you have got a document that wasn't public and e
h 3
6 we were discussing a Monthly IDVP and we have got the NRC e
i i
R 7
coming and basically doing some sort of 'ochnical review on 1
M 4
8 8
the document.
l d
=
9 MR. FRIEND:
And then saying that we could not
\\
i e
10 look at it.
E_
g 11 MR. BISHOP:
I think the functions are getting a
]p 12 mixed up.
The NRC function is simply going in to make sure---
t c
13 it is doing a couple of things.
One, it is making sure that l
14 the program is operating in accordance with the plans that we
(
2 15 approved.
That is the prime function.
The other one in this
[
Y 16 case, I think we had technical reviewers along.
They are the j
w l
17 I people who are going to make the bottom line reviews from our w
4 m
{
18 standpoint and they are getting a feel for the depth and the 19 g
quality of the activity that is going on.
That is the purpose n
20 of them looking at that.
1 21 MR. FRIEND:
I can understand the problem.
I
~
i e
22 think that I agree with you that if a person puts in his 23 I writing his views, then he ought to be somehow free to talk 24 about those views with other parties and why he feels that way v.
25 in exchange information.
Then tha other party eventually has i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
83 1
to put in writing back their views on that if they hope to 2
influence it.
The other parties should not expect to influence 3
in a cross the table talk.
The way I would build in a protection 4
is that whatever PG & E would write back in on say Professor g
5 Holley's or your report or someone that has been made available, 3
6 is that someone in the upper levels in Teledyne, reviews the R
8 7
original concern and the basis for it, and reviews the answers M
i j
8 that various parties may have said about that and you still d
d 9
came to what I would consider an. independent judgement of your io g
10 own, you may have gotten some comments from people on that in E
)
11 the process.
's jp 12 I don't know if that does it.
E 13 MR. COOPER:
That would satisfy me.
It has been v
g
{
14 implied'that we cannot even listen to somebody else's comments 2
15 because it might bias us.
]
16 MR. DENTON:
Maybe we need a separate meeting w
d 17 on this topic if it is that complicated.
5 18 MR. NORTON:
Harold, that would help in terms of H
{
19 resolution very much.
I would like to go back to your original
. M 20 question and that had to do with the idea of tracking and looking 21 for trends and that sort of thing.
22 Is it complicated that that will be covered, t
23 either that there is a trend or there is not a trend in your 24 li Interim Technical Reports because I think it clearly should be, s_
25 l MR. DENISON:
The report that was issued yesterday ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
84 1
that you muld have on your desks this afternoon, that report 2
does address items such as trends.
1 3
MR. COOPER:
The slide that Ron showed specifically 4
referred to a paragraph 9.2 in the Program Plan which covers g
5 identification and evaluation of design problems and spells out e"
6 jus these things that we are talking about.
R 7
MR. DENISON:
Item 950 was specifically addressed sl 8
in that way.
d i
d 9
MR. DENTON:
One of the items in your Interim Y
10 Technical Report dealt with the Auxilliary Building Designs, Bl 11 this report you mentioned that is on the street now?
1 3
. j 12 MR. DENISON:
The report is not on the street.
E l
13 Well, let's talk about it.
We have an Interim
(,
x 5
14 Technical Report that is on the street.
f f
15 MR. DENTON:
That is what I meant.
5 g'
16 MR. DENISON:
We have a draft report on the t
w b'
17 i Auxilliary Building which has not gone to Electric Company.
5 2
i 5
18 MR. DENTON:
The Interim Technical Report that g
you just wrote, PG & E could also have been flagging in their 19 M
20 Monthly Reports things they were finding that needed correction 21 in that same area.
i 22 I think the question I was trying to get at and 1
23 the same one you are raising, Bruce, is in your Interim Technical 24 l Report on this subject, did you also look not only at what you k-3 were finding but at what PG & E was finding and reporting in 25 ;
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
85 1
the same area?
2 MR. DENISON:
PG & E Open Item Reports are 3
explicitly mentioned in our Interim Technical Report.
They tie 4
back into generic concerns and recommendations for additional e
5 verification and additional sampling.
An 3
6 MR. DENTON:
The reason this trending from all e
i E
7 sources, whether they are Error C and B's, PG & E findings, or M
j 8
NRC findings, is that what you really want is two things.
You d
d 9
want correction of that specific deficiency found if it is io 10 required and you want an understanding of its generic implica-E 5
11 tions and pursuit of those if it is significant.
It looks like
<a d
12 in order to the latter you have got to be sure that in the final E=d 13 case Teledyne has got all the information on all the errors g
s_
14 found whether they are Class C, D or minor or however they are 2
15 happened to be classified.
They all bear on the final question
=.'
16 we want to answer, is this plant designed and constructed in j
W g
17 accordance with the application, w=
M 18 MR. DENISON:
To that extent we do that.
We do 1
H i
[
19 not factor in NRC concerns other than the ones that we read in M
20 the licensing correspondence that comes to us.
i 21 If you have a certain number of concerns that 22 you could put in writing to us, we would certainly factor that 1 %-
1 23,
in.
24 l s_
25 l
s I
k ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
86 i
MR. MANEATIS:
Al, in our semi-monthly report, 2
we comprehensively talk about every one of our areas and it goes 3
to everybody and they can make these judgments if we haven't 4
already made it.
e 5
MR. DENTON:
Are you saying you're prohibited 3
e.'
6 from getting back and asking and clarifying the questions on R
7 their report?
s!
8 MR. MANEATIS:
No, our program plan requires that d
C 9
we do so.
ioy 10 MR. HOCK:
I thought we are saying,.though, a E
11 little bit that there is an inhibiting process in the procedural
- s f
12 complications for an Ed Denison, for example, to go ask a S
13 5
questions about one of our reports that we've had to put into
=
{
14 effect primarily because of the independences.
j 15 MR. DENTON:
Well, if you hope to get through in l
=
g another hour, I guess, maybe we ought to agree on the indepen-(
16 s
~
17 dence and procedural questions again and make sure we've got
{
18 ground rules really well in hand and well studied what we've P"
19 g
proposed in the 13th report and perhaps schedule a meetting in n
20 the next week or two to come to grips with those problems.
i 2I MR. COOPER:
Could I suggest that there might be 22 an appropriate time to look at this procedure for assurance of w
23 I
no conflict of interest that we submitted sometime ago?
24{
MR. DENTON:
All right.
y m
25h MR. COOPER:
If we get it cn the same agenda, it s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
. ~ _ - _
i 87 1
might be appropriate.
2 MR. DENTON:
Fine.
3 MR. CLOUD:
May I also suggest that I think these 4
meetings in Boston can get more done than in Boston.
o 5
MR. DENTON:
All right.
M n
i 3
6 MR. FRIEND:
I think we'd like to comment that R
7 we truly believe that the quality of the program would be a
j 8
enhanced if we could somehow have better technical dialogue at I
d 9
the independent review.
4 zo g
10 MR. CLOUD:
That's the basic point I raised.
3_
II I MR. DENTON:
I don't see why we can't revise the 3
j 12 procedure that would reserve both objectives.
I propose that
=3 13 5
we.go to item 3 on the agenda now.
m 5
I4 MR. FRIEND:
As we discussed with you when we i
2 15 first became involved in the project, we intended to try to g*
j 16 schedule all the activities of the various participants and as s
N I7 of today we have done that and have some information to present i
?
h 18 to you and Jim Leahy will make the detailed presentation.
A" 19 l
g I need to make some qualifying remarks, though, t
- n 20 before he starts.
First, this schedule was developed by the 2I Bechtel PG&E project team based on some of our own Bechtel 22 experience and based on some of our knowledge of other indepen-23 dent programs and what they were able to accomplish.
24 It has not had a chance to be reviewed indepth by w..
25 the independent verification program members at this point.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
\\
/
88
\\g 1
However, the way we created the schedule, just for your general 2
understanding, as you know, we have within PG&E a technical I
3 verification program which is separate from the independent i
4 program.
We looked at our resources and the tasks that we saw e
5 necessary in that technical program and scheduled those through 6
a point of restoration of the low power license and we turned R
7 to operations, an'd then we tried to fit the independent verifiers a
j 8
programs to that schedule.
O d
c; 9
So, that is the method we have used to create the ao d
10 schedule and neither Teledyne,nor Cloud,nor Stone and Webster has j
E Il yet had a chance to review in detail this schedule.
We are S
j 12 planning to have these kind of reviews with them and perhaps E
13 with th6 Commission itself after all have had a chance to q
l 14 assimilate it.
~
$j 15 The final point I'd like to make in presenting
=
j 16 the schedule is the following.
We believe the schedule is m'
h 17 ambitious but achievable, and for your future information and
=
{
18 thinking, it is our intent that where other organizations may G
19 g
have difficulty in seeing ways to achieve the schedule that we n
20 have put down, we are going to suggest to them that they supple-21 ment their manpower resources with Bechtel or other resources 22 working under their direction and control as a means of trying
, L 23 to hold that schedule.
24 We want to furnish, whether deficiencies or lack f
25 l of manpower, we want to try to furnish and fill that gap with our b
h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 89 I
forces or other forces, other subcontractor's forces, under their 2
control.
3 So, that's the basic philosophy with which we are 4
approaching this, and now I'd like Jim Leahy to make a more 5
g detailed presentation to you.
e 3
6 7
MR. DENTON:
If you could keep it to maybe 15 or E
I 5
7l 20 minutes.
E 8
0l MR. LEAHY:
That will be fine.
I'm going to talk O
i N
9 to this schedule up here and you have half-size schedules being iG 10 l passed around.
=
l k
II I'd like to, again, give you atrief description
- s N
I2 of the format of the schedule.
Across the top is a time scale 5
l.13 two. weekly.with some key dates indicate'd across the very top m
I4 I
- j with a description c f that ey date.
u]
15!
Along the left edge here is the organization with j
16 i the primary activity on that schedule line followed by just w
h I7 simply a reference number, helpful if you're talking about what
=
{
18 particular part of the schedule is under discussion, and then P"
19 g
a description of the scheduled activity.
Then the body of the 20 schedule, center, is fairly straight forward, schedule lines.
2I Broken lines do indicate constraints.
There are several 22 references in the body to notes over in the right columns, and 23 !
down the center approximately is the update line.
The date of 24 '
this schedule is the 18th of May.
On the right, a short legend 25j which attempts to define the scope as we understood it at the il d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
90 2
I time of issue of the schedule.
2 As Howard explained, the basis for this schedule 3
is - well, let me back up just a moment.
Briefly, the first 4
twelve lines, excuse'me, lines two through twelve outline Phase 5
g I
of the independent design program.
Line one is start up.
9 6
The 13 through 21 comprises the project technical R
- 2 7
program which is basically two parts, one of which is occupied s
j 8
in response to the consultants, and the second start is the Od 9
in-house efforts I referred to.
.ac 10 Below that, we have job site activities down to II 29, but also including line 41, which is for Phase II.
This 1
3 N
I2 comprises the same kind of an IDVP related activities on a single 5a g
13 line, number 23 and s6me'other work activities that are ongoing s,
14 on the field below that.
$j 15 Line 31 is the project Phase I
reports as a
j 16 distinct from the TES line 12 reports, and below, further on a
h 17 down beginning around line 45 is representation of Phase II.
As
=
18 we presently understand it, it is still under review, the detail P"
19 g
plan having been received recently.
At the bottom are a couple n
20 of lisencing issues of concerns.
21 Now, the basis for the schedule, as I began to 22 say, is really the work that we know the best, the in-house work.
3l We did logics and checked those against our resources and 24 i developed a completion date for that effort that goes back up
~
'S '
to line number 14, as you can see.
It's the establishment of thc.
~
i 1
[
l ALDEFiSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
~
91 I
l last action plans.
2 We then generated from that logic a target date 3
for the completion of the Phase I
activities by the program, 4
and we call those parallel critical paths to that point since 5
3 the IDVP has not finished reviewing yet.
o n 3
6 From there, approximately the week ending 9 July e
e7 7
~
to the 16th, the last action plan that is required to be n
D 8
completed prior to fuel load is completed, with any potentially a
d 9
.j resulting physical dangers in the field going to the field at oH 10 that time.
=
E 11 g
Field modifications are scheduled to be comlete, d
12 E
targeted to be complete at approximately 30 July and that goes C
d 13 1 s-g
,up into the TE5 phase report, target complete 6 August, which E
14 y
then goes to the RFC.
The RFC review period is approximately
=
9 15 Q
9 August to 31 August.
That leads directly into fuel load.
The x
T 16 g
assumption here being that there is some indication prior to d
17 that that the lisence is forthcoming so that necessary pre-ops wx 18 and short term surveillance tests can be initiated before that
=
19 l
date.
Another, not on the critical path but significant, 21 item is line 32 which outlines the submittal of the modification
, q, schedule and jus'tification for those items that may be completed 1
23 l following reinstatement of full power lisence.
Phase II is not 24 considered to be critical path at this point.
The start up 25 '
i sequence,the fuel load and low power testing into power l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
92-1 ascension is considered to be critical path.
We feel that there 2
is sufficient time between the completion of Phase I as it is 3
shown here and power ascension to complete Phase II without 4
having it impact on the power ascension during the operations s_
g 5
sequence.
0 6
To summarize, the key dates on this schedule are R
OS 7
9 July for the completion of Phase I IDVP action plan.
That is
~
s j
8 the action plan related to any IDVP finding; 16 July for the last 0
9 project, IDVP actual plan required for fuel load; 23 July for E
10 Phase I schedule modifications and their justifications; 30 E_
i II July to complete the last field modification required for fuel I
3 j
N I2 load.
1 c
y 13 MR. DENTON:
Now, on the Phase I modification
~
,~
=
j h
I4 scheduling, that's a question we deferred when I first asked 4
s]
15 this, when did you think that Phase I might be reasonably z
E I6
~
complete, so you're predicting around the middle of July?
W r
I7 MR. FRIEND:
I want to emphasize that we have
=
{
18 model restraints.
p I9 2
MR. DENTON:
Right.
R 20 MR. LEAHY:
Charlie pointed out that this 9 July date is not the end of Phase I.
It's the end of the sampling 22 and the interive loop that evolves and action plan.
The report s,
23
- writing, as you can see, does continue on into August, report I
24
- s p
writing and submittal.
25 MR. DENTON:
What line is that?
1 i
1 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
93 L
1 MR. LEAHY:
That is line 12, and also indicated 2
on line 12 is some attempt at representing the interim technical 3
reports.
4 MR. BISHOP:
They are cosmetic in nature, they 5
g have no significance with those numbers or anything.
What your 9
6 chart shows is assembling monthly reports.
R 8
7 MR. LEAHY:
Note 4 will tie you in to the 3
j 8
interim technical reports as well.
d d
9 z,
MR. NORTON:
Howard, when you mentioned supple-o 10 menting resources of other groups, were you inferring that 5
II Bechtel people could be workir.g for the independent reverifica-a j
12 tion program?
5 13
(_
MR. FRIEND:
Yes.
l 14 MR. BISHOP:
We could be doing tasks.
de.* t
{
15 think Howard means that Bechtel people would come back here and
=
j 16 start working under the direction of Cooper, necessarily, but w
h I7 we certainly could take over work that needed to be done or
=
{
18 supplement TES or whoever needed it.
P s
I9 g
MR. FRIEND:
How would you make that compatible n
20 with the independent statements, for example, that Doctor 2I Cooper is using on his personnel right now?
22 l
MR. DENISON:
Let me help in that.
- Recently, l
s_
23,
Cloud put together a request for information to begin some i
24 {
additional work on the building, I think, and one of the u.
25 recommendations you can see on the flimsy for the auxiliary i
I I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- _ = -.
94 I
building was to assess the changes in the safety related 2
buildings, and there is a great deal of clerical front end work 3
that is involved in that.
You have to establish the analyses 4
of record.
You have to establish what the imputs are, the date e
5 3
of establishment of the inputs, and then there's a great deal of 6
clerical checking as far as taking the building drawings and 1
7 expanding on the little cryptic draftsmen notes as to what the s
j 8
changes are that can all be put out in a format that would be d
9 very useful to us in our efforts, and those efforts we described b
10 in a letter to PG&E Bechtel and at the bottom of the letter it II details the Cloud involvement in such a process.
is f, I2 There would be some checking by the Cloud people S
g 13 of the Bechtel efforts and thdre would'be constant monitoring.
t l
14 MR. DENTON:
It's a very innovative idea and if t:
1 15 we could figure out a way to use some of your talents, we might ij 16 even be receptive. But I think we have to consider carefully any us
{
17 actual use if you wanted to get into the independent verificatior
=
f 18 program, and I think you've raised a very good question.
I I9 8
assume you didn't want an answer back from us today, but merely n
O to throw it out.
MR. FRIEND:
No, I wanted to point that out for I
22 your general' consideration.
But in this case, C1 cud had outlinec.
23 '
the desire to get a lot of material from us that they would have 24 to assemble and cull through and sort and arrange in some sort 25 l of manner that they could be working on.
We suggested that we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
95 I
take a large part of that and do that for them under their 2
direction and control and to present them a neater package that 3
they could immediately begin the technical work on, and those 4
are the kinds of things that we would like to offer to the y
e 5
b program in a way of assuring that we could meet the schedule.
a 3
6 MR. DENTON:
To some extent, that's happening G
- S 7
When you send out a problem, depending on how you define now.
A j
8 the problem, you're getting Bechtel to do work.
O C
9 MR. COOPER:
This is in response to the Saturday
,zo h
10 morning presentation of the conclusions that they send out
~
II technical reports, it's coming out this way. One of the things a
f I2 that was identified was Cloud would review all the other safety S
g 13 related buildings or changes subsequent to some date because of s_
h 14 concerns that raised by the work on the arch program, and I
{
15 think very rightfully somebody from EG&E Bechtel said, why do x
j 16 your people have to do all this work?
Why can't we do our dog W
h I7 work and give it to you and have you audit and review it.
We
=
18 said, of course, because you can send us any information you I9 g
want at anytime, you put it in writing and we'll consider it for
- n 20 what it's worth; and this is essential.
MR. DENISON:
All the technical judgments on that 22 work would be done by Cloud Associates personnel.
g, 23 MR. DENTON:
I don't propose to try to settle the 24 issue.
I think I understand what you're doing.
I think I have 25 '
no difficulty with a lot of work you do providing Cloud assumes ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
il 96 i
I responsib'ility for the validity and accuracy of that kind of 2
activity and somehow he doesn't abbregate the final decision 3
making.
(
4 MR. CLOUD:
The kinds of things that we can ask 5
g for help are the very nature limited, or there's only a certain n
~
i j
6 class that, for example, the historical stuff, it's a matter of R
7 record now anyway so it can't be - it is what it is and it's I
s J
j 8
just a matter of collecting it and organizing it.
O c;
9 MR. DENTON:
Okay.
I'm glad you brought it up.
z O
10 We'll just be sensitive to it.
If it appears to be going beyond
_6 II what we're accustomed to, we ought to discuss it in more detail w
I y
12 and be sure to check any problems.
=
13 q,
a MR. FRIEND:
Certainly..We'have no desire to z
5 I4 do anything that will be negative toward the program.
We want to
$j 15 help the program as a whole attempt here.
i
=
d 30 MR. DENTON:
Well, I think you laid out the kind W
,(
17 of elements I'd hope to see because it is a very complicated
=
{
18 scheme and it's going to call for a lot of NRC resources, P
39 g
whatever.
I guess I would be interested in any comments from 20 the other parties, or is it too early?
l 2I MR. COOPER:
Well, I think the presentation well 22 defined what it is and what it was intended to be and we s_
23 obviously have an interest in responding and working out.
There 4
i 24 is a great deal of interaction between the activities on various 25 i
sides.
You have items that are transferred to PG&E and so forth, i;
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
97 I
and we need to get all these together and we're moving in that 2
direction.
3 MR. MANEATIS:
Can we get a reaction from you, 4
Howard, as to the gear time indicated there for the NRC, Phase I?
5 g
MR. DENTON:
It depends greatly on what comes at 9
3 6
the time.
R*S 7
MR. LEAHY: The interim reports?
E j
8 MR. DENTON:
I think we'd be prepared to give you d
c; 9
a better reaction after we've had a chance to study it.
Of x0 h
10 course, the only thing that strikes me as requiring attention
=
II is the assumption that we have properly defined Phase I, whereas a
g 12 you remember my letter back said that until the results of Phase 3
s.
5 13 I are a little clearer,.we want to be sure that there wasn't m
l 14 something that we found that would alter our original judgment E
y 15 of what the scope of Phase I ought to be. So you put this x
j together as though Phase I is properly fine and I would 16 w
I7 encourage you to go ahead and kick off Phase II at your risk so f
18 that whatever key areas might be turning up, we'd have enough I9 8
information so that we could make that decision as early as n
20 possible about what is required before re-establishing a low 2I power lisence.
MR. LEAHY:
One last point.
This schedule is 23 updated monthly as a matter of course.
MR. DENTON:
Why don't we look at it and see if f
w_
25 we think some items should be added or things that interest us, f
L ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
98 1
and things we may be especially more interested in and get back 2
to you.
It's certainly the sort of thing I hope to start 3
graphing with, s_
4 MR. FRIEND:
Yes, and we would particularly like 5
some identification of - at least I, personally, am not at all B
6 sure of what role Brookhaven has, what they are doing for you.
j R
7 It's not shown here at all.
We'd like to show it on there if s
j 8
it's an important thing.
O c;
9 MR. DENTON:
I'll bring that up in our item 5 y
10 category today.
II MR. NORTON:
One thing that everybody has to keep W
y 12 in mind is that, to me, it's not a question of expansion of I
5."
13 time.
It's a question of expansion of resources.
The only 5
(_
l 14 people whose resources PG&E can't expand are yours.
We can E[
15 expand the resource to Teledyne, Cloud by-authorizing to hire x
j 16 more people and Bechtel to hire more people. But we cannot w
h I7 expand your resources, so we need to know from you how we get
=
{
18 stuff to you sooner so we can stick by a schedule.
Because I E
I9 g
know that you dont' want to be in a position of being the guy at n
20 the end saying, oh, gee, we need this.
l l
2I MR. DENTON:
That was one reason for having this 22 kind of meeting so that we can close - I felt very uneasy because 23 -
I don't know the kind of schedule you're working towards and 24 don't know whether I should send my staff off to work on some 25 l other plan or keep them on Diablo and with this kind of informa-I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
99 I
tion we'll be able to assign the right resources.
2 I think to some extent you can expand our 3
resources by - if we're properly able to define our concerns so 4
that you are able to clarify it for us.
g 5
MR. FRIEND:
We're hoping you decide the latter N
a 6
case to keep your people on Diablo.
R 7
MR. DENTON:
The note didn't mention an effort Q
8 that I can tell but we may have to revisit Mr. Cloud again if U
c; 9
he's going to be lonely.
zog 10 MR. LEAHY:
Any questions?
Il MR. BISHOP:
One comment.
You might want to u
j 12 consider - you mentioned the definition of Phase I had a dis-Ea 5
13 claimer in his lett'er that he sent to PG&E and that's, of course, s_
m m
5 I4 partly because we were interested in seeing what Phase II is
{
15 going to cover in the schedule and it looks like you're doing
=
j 16 a good percentage of the Phase II activity prior to completion w
h I7 of the Phase I report.
It might be helpful if you made some m
h 18 reference to an interim report or something of that nature of P"
19 g
Phase II activities along that same time period so that we could n
j 20 at least swallow all the Phase I and signficant aspects of Phase l
21 II that are identified in that point in time.
22 MR. MANEATIS:
We'll consider that in the context g
23 of these interim reports.
24 MR. BISHOP:
And there were interim reports 25 identified for the Phase II.
That was my point, I guess.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
L
106 I
MR. FRIEND:
Well, we're just starting to iterate 2
with Teledyne and if that looks appropriate, we certainly will 3
modify the schedule to show that.
4 MR. SCHIERLING:
You mentioned you will update
~
5 g
the schedule monthly?
3 6
MR. FRIEND:
Yes.
G 7
MR. SCHIERLING:
Do you itend to maybe include s
j 8
the updated schedules in your technical reports to us?
d c;
9 MR. FRIEND:
We did talk about that. Bill, did 10 we agree?
E II MR. COOPER:
I suggested the possibility and I s
g 12 don't think we've done anything.
You know, we just talked about ca g
13 it.
y, m
5 I4 MR. MANEATIS:
We talked about it and we said that 15 we had in mind to possibly attend this on every other semi-y 16 monthly report which would put us on a monthly basis.
So, you m
h I7 would not get it, as an example, once every month, but you would e
{
18 get it the next.
P h
I9 MR..DENTON:
Something like that would sound fine n
20 as an information tool for us.
MR. FRIEND:
Okay, then we will do that.
But I 22 want to reiterate we need to work with the IDVP participants 23 in the near term, the next few weeks to make sure that we do have 24 a schedule and we're all committed to it.
I 25 MR. DENTON:
It sounds like this is, in my view, i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t 101 1
your initial stab at a schedule, the other parties have got to 2
get back to you with their comments.and then you'll regurgitate 3
another version.
s.
4 MR. FRIEND:
Exactly.
5 g
MR. MANEATIS:
Of course, I would want to say that 9
3 6
I regard it as more than an initial stab.
It's a whole lot of G
7 work and it does define the logic of all of the material uba*
y 8
are interrelated.
There may be some questions as to rate lifts, d
C 9
but as was pointed out earlier, they all yield to the manpower z.o 10 out in Warren, I think it is.
II MR. FRIEND:
I don't want to too much discredit B
y 12 our work.
We do think the logic is totally valid.
The area that 5"
13 s.
5 we believe that there'might be some discrepancies that the IDVP
=
l 14 people haven't had a chance to look at is the duration.
2 15 MR. DENTON:
I couldn't be more pleased with this
=
.]
16 level of detail.
It is very complex.
We, in the Commission, e
h 17 have a great deal of difficulty even undarstanding, sometimes,
=
{
18 all the scopes that have to be completed through you, by your-P" 19 g
selves and by ourselves, and this will enable us to do a much n
20 better planned job.
2I Let me ask you a question going back to this 22 morning.
When an issue gets sent over for PG&E action, are q_
23 l those things now all flowing through Bechtel?
24 MR. MANEATIS:
They're flowing through the 25 l intergrated organization.
There's really no distinction between I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
102 I
Bechtel and PG&E.
It's just the project organization.
2 MR. DENTON:
So, the organization you've set up 3
handles --
4 MR. MANEATIS:
Yes.
That's correct.
There is
- i 5
not going to be a PG&E handling of these, let's say, open items 6
or Bechtel handling of the open items.
There's only going to R
7 be a project handling of the open items.
So, you don't have to
{
8 deal with that.
d d
9 4.
z.
MR. DENTON:
Now, let me ask the project organi-cy 10 zation.
Is it clear that your bi-monthly reports are feeding E
h II back to Teledyne all the possible trends and findings that your.
a j
12 project team is coming up with.that might bear on the ultimate 5"
13 s-5-
decision?
I mean, is that monthly report really serving that
=j 14 vehicle?
15 MR. MANEATIS:
You mean the semi-monthly?
m d
Ib MR. DENTON:
Yes.
A h
I7 MR. MANEATIS:
I think it is.
I think that there x
{
18 are a number of items with narrative description of all aspects P"
19 8
of the investigation going on.
It is the cranking of the n
20 individual items that adds detail as to what happened to it, 21 how it's been classified, is that correct.
So, any careful 22 reading of it will give you a picture.
It will raise questions.
. q, MR. DENTON:
Let me ask Teledyne, then, is it 24 '
l serving adequatetely for your purpose to put astericks on things 25 to flag them for you?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
103 1
MR. COOPER:
As far as we can say, the report is 2
serving adamantly.
We obviously don't know any more than you 3
do what they're leaving out.
It's.always the concern, though, 4
seriously, that the person who is writing that report from the 5
g other side of the house may not be fully communicating things 4
6 that may be useful to you.
So, I think that the report as it R
7 stands seems to me to be doing the job correctly and what we've Q
8 got to do is make sure that we, on our side, request information, d
d 9
additional information about that and that we get responded to z,
o 10 with that information in a timely manner.
II MR. DENTON:
Perhaps you just ought to ask k
-f I2 internally, have your people who write the report -
S 13 5
MR. HOCK:
Let me'see if I can answer, since I s-m m
E I4,
signed it, Harold, maybe I can answer the question.
{
15 MR. DENTON:
All right.
e d
Ib MR. HOCK:
It's our intent that that report has A
h I7 in it everything supported in a manner completely consistent x
{
18 with our discussion with you in, I believe, February, when we p
h I9 talked about the threshold of reporting, the fourteen or 21 day n
20 time period, the procedure we've established internally to 21 identify these items, either resolve them or if they're not 22 s_
resolved to report them, and you will see in this weeks report there are two more items.
We're doing that in a manner complete-24 ly consistent with the way we described it.
25 i i
Now, there is a problem.in the amount of detail ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9
-,..,.--+--m-
-wr---
--T y.
104 1
you put in.
Now, we are always in a quandry whether we describe I
2 an item in a paragraph or in a hundred pages, and you have to 3
make a choice.
What we've done is to try to put a summary L-4 description that's understandable, we hope not obfuscatory and,
=
5 however, it isn't detailed enough to be'the be all and the end 6
all of all descriptions.
E 6
7 For those who need additional information - and s
j 8
your people have been out.
Ken Herring has been in our shop, d
q 9
Bill Morell.
When the additional information is wanted, you zo g
10 really have to come anddig in to it.
It's impractical to put in
=
Il a report every two weeks that much detail.
3 N
I2 MR. DENTON:
I don't have any examples one way or 5"
13 the other.
I just thought it might be good to reiterate to your A-5m l
14 people that write the report for you that what encompasses the
{
15 report is the conveyance of these subtle trends and findings in x
j to Teledyne so that they are able to fully understand the 16 w
I7 implications of what you're finding and if you're doing that 5
18 now, fine.
But it seemed it might bear reiteration be cause the P
I9 g
report of the reports kind of gets lost occasionally.
n 20 MR. COOPER:
There was one instance, for example, 21 where we requested information and the response continued to 22
- s, follow the semi-monthlys.
It was a rather unsatisfying response.
23 But these kinds of things -are going to happen just because we 24 are all human, but I think the direction is right.
25 l MR. NORTON:
I'd like to get a correction in the i
{
ALDERSON REPORTING' COMPANY. INC.
105 1
record.
Bill made kind of a jest and ev'erybody laughed about 2
- well, we don't know anything more about it than you do.
It was 3
said in jest.and if.somebody reads this transcript three months 4
down the road, it doesn't say in jest, and I'd like a clarifica-5 g
tion right now if we can.
?
6 MR. COOPER:
I'd like to say that I did say that G*
' S 7
in jest trying to make the point that it's extremely difficult, G
]
8 if not impossible,to reflect every little detail that might be d
9 z.
of concern to another person and I think all of us in this e
h 10 program are trying our best to understand everything that is
=
II going on every place with the barrier of independence between 3
g 12 us and it's in that context _that I made that remark.
I think Ea 13
(_
5 you for. bring.it up.
m E
14
- =
2 15 j
16 e
b^
17 5
18
=
19 n
20 21 i
)
22 v
23,
24
(-
i 25 :
i i
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
106 1
MR. FRIEND:
Okay on the schedule?
2 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
I think the first item on the 3
agenda was one that we-may have discussed briefly when you were 4
back meeting with us.
It was raised by some of the other parties 5
to the proceeding, namely about the formal incorporation about e
3 m
6 the Project Team into the application.
I wanted to just discuss E
7 further where that stands and what the status is because I felt
~
s j
8 that you were going to provide us some information that modified d
q 9
the present application more fully.
zog 10 MR. FRIEND:
Your understanding is correct and 3
h II I think we are prepared to discuss it.briefly.
3
]p 12 Charlie Dick is prepared to make a short 5
j 13 presentation.to you about the Program and within that he will g,
m l
14 tell you our sche'dule for submitting a formal piece of writing g
15 to you.
m j
16 MR. DENTON:
I would like you to keep it to the A
d 17 I fifteen minute timeframe.
We would appreciate it.
Y M
18 MR. DICK:
Yes, sir.
E 19 We have interpreted this part of the agenda to g
n 20 if you are interested in knosing where we stand on the
- mean, 2I Program and when you are going to be receiving some detailed 22 descriptive information.
r 23 ;
I would like, however, to step back shortly to 24 the last meeting we had where we pointed out that as of that 25 :
point in time we were operating under the PG & E Program and k
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
107-i that we were making arrangements and plans to shift to a project 2
program which was based on the Bechtel Topical QA Report, that 3
is the BQ Top 1 Provision 3A.
The reasons fcr that primarily 4
being to more appropriately fit the changed nature of the e
5 Project organization from what was essentially a functional M
n d
6 type organization to what is now a project oriented organization.
c R
g 7
So where do we now stand?
First of all, I am s
3 8
pleased to report that the Project Quality Assurance Manual n
d d
9 has been completed and approved by PG & E.
That was done in z'
h 10 accordance with our committment on May 28th.
3 5
11 The next item that is necessary to make this a
<a p
12
,living program, however, is to complete the procedural changes 5
d 13 which are necessary to comply with the provisions of that Manual.
g s-E 14 Those'are well advanced and we would plan the initial issue U=
2 15 of those within the next week or two.
g 16 Third, we owe you people a description of the m
f 17 Program.
That'is likewise well advanced and we are targeting E
M 18 next week for that to be mailed to the Commission.
There is
=
19 some question at present as to the exact format under which~
M 20 that should be prepared and submitted so that we anticipate w
~
21 that would resolved, if it has not already been resolved, this 22 week.
What do you mean by format?
24 '
M R'. DICK:
When we last met I believe that we indicated that we anticipate submitting that as a revision to 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
108-1 1
the FS AR.
We have since received some indication that it would 2
be equally acceptable if not preferred to submit it in a letter 3
form.
We are attempting to get clarification on that right now.
4 In either case it should not matierally affect the date of s-s 5
submittal.
N 6
MR. VOLLMER:
Are you issuing this to tne 7
Commission as a document which shows revisions to or deviations
~
j 8
from the' Bechtel Topical Report?
d 9
MR. DICK:
Yes, sir, i
7:O 10 MR. VOLLMER:
Rather than resubmitting the whole j
11 thing?
It would certainly make our review a lot easier that way.
2 l
12 MR. DICK:
That is our present plan for submitting 3(
13 l
this to you.
Just indicate the changes to the Topical.
s,
=
i h
14 '
MR. VOLLMER:
Those would be primarily organiza-i E
15 tional?
h g
16 MR. DICK:
Let me think a moment.
Yes.
I A
i 17 j believe that is the case.
There will be a few other minor U
5 E
18 changes but the main thrust will be organizational.
=H h
19,
MR. VOLLMER:
With all the pressure on to n
20 complete the plan for PG & E's satisf action, what precautions 21 do you build in to assure that you do maintain the proper j
22 quality standards?
u 1
23 MR. DICK:
We have established an independent 4
i 24 Quality Assurance Organization within the project which reports 25 back to Bechtel Management rather than to PG & E Management.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
109 1
The system which will be proposed will be that 2
which we believe has been proven satisfactory in other projects l
3 and which has been acceptable to the Commission.
\\,
4 PG & E Quality Assurance, Corporate Quality e
5 Assurance will retain an overall surveylance of the project in h
6 addition to that which is provided by the Bechtel Corporate R
- 8 7
Quality Assurance.
s[
8 We have carefully reviewed the procedures and a
d 9
we are establishing what we believe will be an affective ioy 10 organization within the Project to r.onitor those, that is 5
h 11 monitor in compliance with those procedures.
3 j
12 We have completed our staffing of that organiza-5
.g 13 tion with one exception which I will get to in a moment.
That a
h 14 leads me to another point I was going to make here.
That is E
2 15 to indicate that organization in the home office which is 5
g 16 essentially fully staffed and functioning.
I say that it is a
d 17 fully staffed, I mean that it is staffed sufficient for present E
. 5 18 purposes.
We do anticipate expanding it by some undetermined 5j 19 number of people as work proceeds downstream and we get a better n
20 indication as to the impact of the verification Program.
~
21 MR. DENTON:
I g";ss one thought I had in asking 22 the questioa, Bechtel has volunteered to make available extra v
23 Staff to ce sure the tasks are completed on time.
I was wonder-24 ing if that extends to the QA Department so that the tasks that
~.
25 l you have to do are also fully staffed and manned?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
110 1
MR. DICK:
Sir, would you repeat your question?
2 I missed the last part.
3 MR. DENTON:
Well, you talked about this vacancy s-4 that you have in the QA Department and Bechtel's willingness e
5 to staff up other companies who may difficulty meeting the 5
8 6
schedules.
Is the corporate structure also willing to be fully e
Rg 7
forthcoming in staffing up the QA Department?
8 MR. DICK:
Absolutely.
It is not because of d
d 9
the shortage of Personnel.,
It is essentially the position 7:
h 10 to which I alluded, deals with the construction organization, 3
5 11 the job site force and~ identifying an appropriate individual
<a e
12 for that who I understand has now become available.
E=j 13 MR. HOCK:
Let me correct what I think is a
=
14 misimpression.
Charlie can stop me if I am wrong, w
2 15 You said pressure on us to complete the plan or E
y 16 something.
In this interim period we are operating under the w
p 17 PG & E QA Program, we are operating with a set of procedures s
M 18 that are in' place.
We are not operating in any kind of an 5
{
19 informal way and -I think while there are some ackwardnesses e
20 because of the project organization, that they are not affecting 21 the quality work in this interin period.
I do not think that 22 we are in a situation where we are so harried by time to get
,s.
23,
this new system in place that that is affecting our performance I
24 l here.
25f MR. FRIEND:
I would like to say say something ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
111 1
Philosophically you might say.
Excuse me, Charlie.
2 First, although we are interested in achiaving j
3 the restoration of license as soon as possible, we are in no way k,
4 intent to mitigate or slight the Quality Assurance Program.
e 5
We at Bechtel believe that we have been an important part of A
9 6
this industry for years and we intend to continue in this R
7 industry.
3 k
8 There is one thing worse than not getting our d
C 9
old power license back.
That is getting it back and then finding
,a O
10 another mistake and losing it again.
So we are going to do E
h 11 everything we can to be sure that this Plan is put right and a
j 12 when we come to you, it will be with our best judgement along 5
13 with our PG & E Associates that the plant is ready to run.
s_
=
l 14 MR. DICK:
I would like to add one further 2
15 element that may or may not lend support to our emphasis on x
g 16 the recognition of sensitivity of the Quality Program and that i
d j
d 17,
concerns myself.
5
- h 18 As you are perhaps aware, I was until recently E
19 the Manager of Division Quality Assurance.
I have now been l
. R 20 relieved of that position and I have no official relationship 2I to the Quality Assurance Program anymore.
I'm with the Project 22 Management Group and accordingly I am not in a position of having y
i 23 l to wear two hats, one to serve the progress of the project, 24 the othe: to maintain independence with respect to the Quality 25 :
Assurance Program, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1-12 i
So I believe we have pure situation with regard 2
to that now.
3 MR. DENTON:
Perhaps you better explain in a s-4 bit more detail than what you are telling me here.
I do remember e
5 y u were wearing two hats.
Which hat are you now wearing?
h I
6 MR. FRIEND:
He is now on the project totally e
e 7
and there is a new Division Manager of Quality Assurance.
That 8
was purposeful move to allow the traditional attention and do 9
independence of a Quality Assurance Manager's role and to get
?.
10 Charle's experience and judgement to bear totally on the Project.
E 5
11 So it was a conscious decision on our part.
<k d
12 MR. DICK:
Does that clarify, sir?
3c
(_
y 13 MR. DjNTON:
Yes, it does.
m E
14 MR. SCHUHEJNG: One question.
That.QA activity Nm 2
15 is not listed on the schedule here, is it?
N T
16 MR. FRIEND:
I beg your pardon?
Ei d
17 MR. SCHIERLING:
The element of the QA Program 18 that we are talking about now is not on the schedule?
H" 19 MR. FRIEND:
Correct.
8n 20 MR. DICK:
I believe it is important to recognize, 21 Hans, that we have very carefully planned to not have any gaps 22 in program covers.
In fact, one reason we are delaying the s-23,
application of the Project Program is to make sure we have the 24 appropriate procedures in place.
We do not want to be caught s
25,
with a situation where we have a new Quality Assurance Manual
\\
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
113 1
but not implementing procedures in place.
So we have been 2
proceeding as rapidly as possible to install those.
3 MR. DENTON:
Coming back to the change in your A.
4 status just so I properly interpret it, what this does then is r
e 5
provide another person in the Bechtel Home Office QA Department h
=
3 6
whose sole job it is to maintain the Quality Assurance Programs fn 5
7 for Bechtel?
A 8
8 MR. DICK:
That is correct.
d d
9 MR. DENTON:
You will maintain it for the Project i
Og 10 and will also have to satisfy the Bechtel Home Office Standards?
3) 11 MR. DICK:
I report to Howard Friend as a member B
d 12 of his Project Management Team.
I happen to have a special 3
C y
13 interest in Qual'ity Assurance and have had some experience in s_
m 14 it and that is why I am here today.
E 2
15 MR. DENTON:
So this should strengthen the g'
16 organization and attention given to the Project?
W b'
17 MR. DICK:
We hope so, yes.
5 18
=
H 19 E
n 20 21 22 w
23 I
24 i 25 i
I i
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
114 1
MR. DICK:
That is essentially the status of 2
things, except to add perhaps some thing that I don't think 3
has been previously mentioned, and that is that the Project has s-4 been physically relocated together with the Quality Assurance e
5 people along with the Engineers, so-that the main body of the 3
6 Project is physically in the same building, integrated on a physi-R 7
cal plane as well as on the organizational plane.
Howard, do A
j 8
you want to add anything to that?
d.C 9
MR. FRIEND:
No.
ioy 10 MR. HOCH:
I guess I would like to add something E
h 11 to it from the standpoint of one of the relocated people, and B
j 12 we described this organization to you a couple of months ago, Ej 13 and it's different.
It's a very unusual organization, and I s_
=
m 5
14 think that those of us who moved across the street from PG &
$j 15 E and became a part of it are pretty enthusiastic about the organ-
=
j 16 ization.
It's working, and it's work'ng in a lot of ways.
It's i
A I
D 17 working--we find our responsibilities or our organizational respon-5
{
18 sibilities being blurred a little bit, if you will.
We find P
I9 g
ourselves talking about we work for the Diablo Canyon Project.
n 20 I think so far it is very successful.
2I MR. VOLLMER:
What are the numbers involved right 22 now?
23 MR. LEAHY:
It's going up all the time more or i
24 less 187, I think.
A little less than 200.
25 MR. MANCEATIS:
That doesn't begin to give you h
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 1
115 1
the picture of how many are working on this project and still 2
have a substantial amount of the company working on this project.
l 3
MR. HOCH:
We have PG & E people, Engineering s
4 people of PG & E working for Betchel Supervisors, and Betchel 7
e 5
people working for PG & E Supervisors.
I guess I am almost getting 3
c?
6 religious about this.
R 7
MR. DENTON:
Let's get to the last item.
We sj 8
have had a few topics we wanted to raise and we would welcome d
C 9
z, any other topics that people want to put on the table.
I was o
G 10 hoping that Mr. Reynolds would be here to reflect the concerns 5
h 11 that he raised in a letter of May 28, but in his absence let i
j 12 me raise one of them for discussion.
He complains about the E
y 13 time limits of his receipt of reports issued by Teledyne, and s-h 14 apparently Teledyne issues about the NRC Staff and PG & E copies
-=[
15 of this reports, but does not supply joint intervenors with copies m
g' 16 instead relies on NRC Staff to do so after they have been served w
i g
17 on us.
I think we have undertaken to serve the reports we receive 18 on all the other parties.
He is obviously interested in getting
=H
{
19 a more timely receipt of these documents, and I was wondering M
20 if we ought to have Teledyne add him to the list of initial 21 receipients.
I don't know how you feel about that.
22 In our thinking about the issue, there is also u
23 another person on the Service List who would also like to have 24 a timely receipt, and eventually the list magnifies, but what 25 j we ought to try to deal with as a concern is if there is any i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
116 1
useful way we might.
[
2 MR. NORTON:
Harold, we did deal with this in 3
previous meetings, and it is in the transcript.
It was discussed E
s.
4 at length and it was agreed to by the joint Intervenors at that g
5 time that this was acceptable, and that I can also appreciate j
n
~
.~
l 3
6 I is his complaint now, and I-don't care whether he gets the report 8
7 the 14th, or the 9th, or the 12th.
You know, I don't care.
I a
n j
8 don't think Teledyne cares.
d c
9 What Teledyne doesn't want to get into, and what Y
10 Bob doesn't want to get into, and everybody else, are these humungous; i
a t
h 11 mailing lists, and that is why the NRC said fine, we will do
- s f
12 it one at a time.
Ej 13 So, I would say the simple answer is to kdd s_
l h
14 Gov. Brown's counsel, and joint Intervenors counsel, and myself l
b i
E 15 to Teledyne's mailing list, because I don' t get them either,
w
=.'
16 because they go to San Fransisco, and then.they get inhouse, j
x 6
17 and then somebody gets a copy and mails it, and I get the one i
5 f
18 from PG & E about a day before or the day after the one I get P
j
}
19 from you, so they can add the three attorneys of record to their h
20
_ mailing list.
I don't care at all.
No problem.
i l
21 MR. DENTON:
I think that is a constructive propos al.l l
22 I checked on the time it requires for us to get them reproduced i
23 for the entire Service List and serve them on all the parties, I
s i
t i
24 l and apparently it takes about seven working days before they l.
t 25 actually get mailed out of Washington from the time that we q
a i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
117 1
get them.
I don't know why it takes so long, but it just seems 2
to.
3 MR. NORTON:
I would only add that it is much s.
4 to do about nothing, because nobody is doing anything with these 5
reports anyway, but you know, the hell with them.
O 6
MR. MANCEATIS: I only have one problem with that.
A 7
Does that mean now that we have established if you give it to Rl 8
the attorneys of record, what happens when one of the newspapers d
d 9
calls up and they want it also?
ioy 10 MR. NORTON:
The answer to that George is that 3
j 11 the attorneys of record are entitled to it.
All the parties
's y
12 are represented by those attorneys of record, and you know, that Ej 13 is just the way that it is.
The newspapers will get'it when g,
a e
3 14 you guys release them.
You know, you can't distingguish between 2
15 one party and another, but the attorneys of record is a good 5
g 16 place to draw the line, because they represent all the parties.
A g
17 MR. MANCEATIS:
That sounds like it would satisfy I
h 18 Mr. Reynolds concern, and we have, I see no problem.
19 MR. COOPER:
May I comment before you make a l
~
n
\\
20 decision.
At the present time, we, Cloud, Reedy, and very soon 21 I presume, Stone & Webster, will all be submitting semi-monthly l
22 reports, and we have made a suggestion in our Phase II Program 23 Plan in a way to change these semi-monthly reports so they are 24 not equal.
One is all text and the other one is all EOI type
(
x.
l 25 !
forms.
Gabe Hart informed me of that a couple weeks ago to start ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
=..
t i
I 118 I'
thinking about.
I got no problem.
We will send a reoprt to 3
2 anybody.
You two are clients and tell us who to send them to, a
3 and we receive at least a dozen requests from a dozen different i
4 parties that request them.
The attorney of record argument may
)
i 5
y be a valid one.
If it is, I am sure'that the attorneys will 9
6 make sure it holds.
j R
?
a o
i S
My suggestion now is that we give some consideration I
s
}
l 8
to the proposal tht we made-in Phase II to get out into the world i
a 9
l!
~not four or five semi-monthly reports from each of us involved 2
i o
j 10 here, but essentially the recommendation is that on the second 3
=
4 II friday of each month, each of us submits Open Item Reports form l
{
g 12 type of thing, and that on the third friday.of each month, all i
c a
s-5 13 the indepe~ndent people send me their mont'hly text report, and-m e
5 I4 that on the fourth friday of each month, we TES issue a consolidated, 3
Y l
h 15 integrated, text form report giving the status of the Program.
m l
E I0 If we don't do that, it is going to mean that i
f h
I7 all of us are going to have to send it to these people.
m l
Well, Bill, I would like to react P
n 39 to that.
The order says that we only have issue semi-monthly n
20 reports.
It doesn't expiicitly state that every contractor has i
h 21 to issue a semi-monthly report; only that, and this is the way l
ls_
I am going to interpret it, is.the Program of Independent Verificatic(
22 i
j 23 ;
Program Manager issues a semi-monthly report.
We may want to 24 consider after rearrange the contractural arrangement, assuming j
l 1
25 I that we are going to do this, that you will issue one report, i
t i
f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t w
l 119 1
and it will have appended to it all of the subcontractors to 2
the Independent Design Verification Program attendance.
3 MR. COOPER:
I don't want to append.
I want 4
to integrate and have it one story.
e 5
MR. MANCEATIS:
Even at that.
3 9
6 MR. NORTON:
But that, whatever the report is, R
8 7
we can agree, this is the mechanism by which it is going to be M
j 8
sent out.
d i
d 9
MR. COOPER:
Well, yes.
io 10 MR. MANCEAILS:. Whatever you are going to do.
E g
11 MR. NORTON:' ' So, I think it is an excellent idea.
?
j 12 You get so many reports.
This is the 13th, one guy is the 14th, 5
y 13 another.
m 14 MR. MANCEATIS:
It has already caused a lot of 2
15 confusion with the proliferation of reports and it is hard to s
j 16 keep track when you are in reports up to sixteen, and whose A
d 17 sixteen are we talking about.
It ends up in a lot of confusion.
5 18 MR. DENTON:
I like the idea of an integrated P
h 19 report.
I saw this before myself as being a status report, where
. n 20 things stand, what is in progress, what has been accomplished; 21 that sort of thing, and not be a lot of individual reports.
22 MR. NORTON:
Mr. Denton, the next paragraph of 23 the letter, the third item, asks for still more reports from 24 Teledyne and we are strongly opposed to that.
They want 25 l Teledyne to issue and serve on all parties weekly lookahead reports.
i l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
120 i
I agree with their complaint when they say tht adequate notice 2
should be given to me.
They are absolutely right.
Adequate 3
and reasonable notice should be given for all meetings, and like 4
anything else, K think that has normally been done, and like s_
e 5
anything else, on some occasions, somebody is going to get jacked b
8 6
around by not getting as much notice as they might otherwise e
Gg 7
like, but that happens in any project.
M 8
8 This business of Teledyne coming out with another n
dd 9
weekly lookahead report, we are just vehemently opposed to that.
i h
10 That is a decision, I guess, that you have to make.
E_
2 11 MR. DENTON:
I Propose just to deal with this
<3 l
d 12 one issue of time limits, and 'if you are willing to volunteer E
O
.j' 13
.the attorneys of record as recipients of all reports issued by i
s-
=
y 14 Teledyne, that is as far as I was going to go in trying to satisfy ing '
I i
2 15 to these concerns today.
E g
16 MR. NORTON:Well, we didn't responde to this because w
g 17 we assumed that you wanted to discuss it at the meeting, and I
E l
18 I just wanted to, you~know, to make sure that we didn't, that
=F
}
19 Teledyne didn't get stuck with another report.
They write too R
20 many reports now.
~
21 MR. MANCEATIS:
May I ask for a point of clarificatio 22 Do we have to respond at all to this?
We are going to do it 23 if that is the decision.
24 MR. DENTON:
It's addressed to us, and we will 25 talk to Mr. Reynolds about the resolution of'this one aspect, t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 121 I
aspect, and then discuss the others in a more detailed way.
2 MR. COOPER:
We will have to formally submit 3
it this month.
I am sure we can work this out.
All I am saying s,
4 is let's not start with this week's, but let's start with the e
5 one two weeks after at the earliest.
f 6
MR. MANCEATIS:
We won't start it until---
G 8
7 MR. SCINTO:
I don't think you have to do it 3
j 8
for the one you have already put in the mail.
d d
9 MR. COOPER:
No, no, s no.
i
~
oy 10 MR. HOCH:
There is one due tomorrow I think j
11 or something.
3 j
12 MR. CENTON:
A separate item then is the NRC's 5
13 own efforts to do some verification-calculations and how those h
14 results should be treated.
We do have this Brookhaven Study 2
15 of the Annualist that has been under way for some time and nearing j
16 completion.
I would propose that we treat this report as an A
d 17 input to the Teledyne decision-making process, putting it in 5
18 the hopper on the top of your chart, and let you decide what
=H
(
h 19 it does to the San Fran Plan and the hard and that sort of thing n
20 and see how PG & E would respond to it so that we don't set up 21 still another group but is treated as another input to your system 22 Maybe Dick would like to talk about the potential schedule for 23 this report coming up.
24 MR. VOLLMER:
Well, we hope to get one in the i
i 25 l next ten days.
I might be able to advise you of a better date I
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
J
122 i
1 maybe early next week, just for your planning purposes.
2 MR. DENTON:
We have had, I guess, Brookhaven 3
and a number of consultants recalculating the forces resulting 4
from vertical acceleration of the anulous area, if that is the s,
e 5
proper characterization, and I think it is going to come to a 3
6 different conclusion than the original design.
I wouldn't want E
{
7 to say more than that, but establish the process by which those 3
8 8
differences might be addressed.
It would be through your system.
n d
d 9
MR HOCH:
How do you intend to handle that; would i
gi j
g 10 it be through Teledyne?
3) 11 MR. DENTON:
And all the other parties.
W j
12 MR. HOCH:
And all the other parties.
5 y
13 MR. DENTON:
And I think when we send it to
,um g
14 Teledyne, we will recommend that it receive treatment as though 2
15 it were provided by one of your own subcontractors.
wx g
16 MR. COOPER:
I think that is a good way to W
b~
17 integrate that into the Program, as a matter of fact.
id i
18 MR. MANCEATIS:
I take it then that Teledyne f
h 19 can communicate with those people?- If they have questions, they I
i A
20 can call on the phone and say, gee, do you mean this or that, s
21 you know, well, because they announced their conclusions?
i 22 MR. NORTON:
Because they announced their con-2 23,
clusion.
I I
j 24 l MR. MANCEATIS:
Well, how aobut our---
I 25 MR. NORTON:
In other words, once they have stated l
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
=- -
I i
123 1
their conclusions, they then can be talked with?
2 MR. DENTON:
No problem, provided you come through 3
us to establish'the contacts, since they are our consultants.
4 We want to know, but I don't see any barriers to setting up e
5 that communications channel.
3 9
f,4 3
6 e
N o
8 7
3 8
8 e<
dc 9
aio 10 a
g 11-is d
12 E
o d
13 s'
S E
14 sx 2
15 s
.j 16 us
^
b 17 M
18
=
t 39 I
g i
3 n
j l
20 21 t
22 l
I 23,
i l
24 l
25 !
i i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
124 j
MR. DENTON:
This pretty much exhausts the Plan, 2
but let me ask the Staff if there are other issues that we should 3
cover here.
4 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Yes.
I was going to ask Howard s,
e 5
about the schedule with respect to Unit One.
Have you done any-h A
6 thing with respect to Unit Two?
e R
8 7
MR. LEAHY:
Shall I speak to that?
4 f4 0
8 MR. FRIEND:
Yes.
We are in a preliminary phase, n
da 9
but go ahead, Jim.
N 10 MR. LEAHY:
We have a draft logic, how you get 3
5 11 there, a road map, that we are trying to stack.
We've got tasks c
12 defined.
We're trying to stack resourcer against that right now.
z 5d 13 I don't recall or anticipate an issue date, but.the initial issue S
s-I E
14 is no more than a month away, I think.
5=
{
15 MR. MIRAGIIA:
It would be helpful to us, because m
y 16 there are activities, Staff related activities, for Unit Two, e
d 17 and there is some question as to how much of the independent route s
5 18 to take that is going to affect Unit Two as well.
It might be
=
19 helpful when that schedule is developed. Perhaps you could be M
r 20 able to find out.
21 MR. COOPER:
I have another question to raise 22 briefly when it is appropriate.
23 MR. DENTON:
Now is fine.
I 24 I MR. COOPER:
When we have this item on the l
25 '
Communications Systems and so forth, we in the Independent Pro-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i i
125 1
gram would like a better understanding than we now have of 2
something we know we have to conform with and live with that we 3
don't quite understand and as we look at both you folks as our 4
clients on this job, in addition to NRC being a client, NRC has s.
5 g
the regulatory responsibility and a regulatory function that they a
n]
6 have to serve.
R 7
We know that and we wish to conform with that, s
j 8
but we don't fully understand exactly what that means in the dd 9
z, context on this program and we're a little bit concerned that o
h 10 some of your staff may not, also.
What we would like to do is
=
ll work into the agenda that particular meeting when we're talking B
N I2 about communications, make sure we have an understanding of' 5
f 13 communications between'ourselves and your people,also.
g m
5 I4 MR. DENTON:
All right, and I do see differences
{
15 in our relationship with independent contractors than with the a
j 16 original design and this has come up in previous independent w
f I7 design programs and we will put it on the agenda.
=
{
18 MR. MANEATIS:
When you say we, just to be clear, p
19 g
you mean Teledyne?
n 20 MR. COOPER:
I was thinking of the independent 21 program, but I'm sure this is going to be a joint meeting and I'm certain that PG&E and Bechtel want to understand this, also.
~_
l MR. MANEATIS:
Yes, but I mean when you said you l
24 had a concern as to how the independent program manager communi-25 cates with the NRC more so than the independent program and PG&E i
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
126 I
and Bechtel.
2 MR. DENISON:
An NRC guy comes in from a region 3
or from staff, he wants to look at something, we want to be 4
cooperative but we want to have some ground rules.
s-e 5
MR. MIRAGLIA:
That's one concern process which 8
3 6
I'm sure Teledyne also shares.
They are going to have surprise R
7 inspections.
That's certainly within your rights.
But I think s
j 8
what we've been having in the past are some fairly loosely a
d 9
z.
scheduled inspections and we, frankly, never know when you're y
10 coming.
So, if there are inspections, you certainly surprise 3
h II us.
If they were scheduled, we didn't know about them.
3 N
I2 MR. BISHOP:
We're prepared to suffer that if E
I g
13 '
there is'nobody there to, talk to us.
It's pa,rt of'the routine
, s_
m 5
I4 breaks to our game.
We may get surprised ourselves.
2 15 MR. FRIEND:
I'd like to talk about the Brooknaver x
16 report, the way you.characterizea the report sounded ominous, h
I7 I hope when you send it to the independent verification program
=
{
18 you qualified what it is. It has been an independent review.
It P"
19 8
hasn't had the benefit of, perhaps, as much detail as the n
20 independent verification program nas nad in the way of drawings 21 and so forth, as far as I understand.
22 l MR. VOLLMER: I think it has the benefit of a fair 23 l amount of detailed information from BTV.
24 i
MR. FRIEND:
Well, I'm concerned - there was a i
25 lot of confusion and letters back and forth about what was the i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
127 I
computer printout and what did 1980 mean.
2 MR. DENTON:
I think your point is well taken.
3 MR. FRIEND:
I hope this thing doesn't get 4
ss characterized as being the final word.
5 g
MR. DENTON:
Well, I haven't seen the report and 9
6 I would not want to characterize it any further than I understand.
R a
oS 7
that there will be some differences between the spectra of s
j 8
forces that were arrived at in the Brookhaven study versus d
9 z.
others that were originally developed by PG&E.
It's a very oy 10 esoteric field, I realize, and that's why I think it's best 3
II treated as a technical report and given peer review by Teledyne.
3 y
12 We have put a lot of work into it, but nonethe-3 g"
13 less, the important thing is that it be considered along with the s_
w 5
I4 totality of other studies which have been done.
{
15 MR. WRAY:
Will this report carry an NRC endorse-x d
I0 ment for disclaimer or what?
I haven't seen it yet.
W 17 MR. DENTON:
I'll refer to the contracting x
{
18 official.
P 19 8
MR. VOLLMER:
It's a report by a contractor at n
20 our direction.
I think that's exactly the characterization, 2I that we will not have given endorsement at the time at which 22 we provide it.
23 ;
MR. SCINTO:
You will not have reviewed it in-24 house in other words at the time you release it?
s 25 !
MR. VOLLMER:
That's right.
It provides some-1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
128 1
thing that needs to be opened up.
2 MR. DENTON:
That calls to mind another issue.
3 That is, who are the two consultants in the civil structuring 4
engineering field tnat are being retained by Cloud?
s.
g 5
MR. VOLLMER:
Professor Holley.
O s
6 MR. DENTON:
Now, I understand that Teledyne is R
7 using the same consultant in fulfilling the additional expertise s
Q 8
in the civil area in your review?
d d
9 MR. COOPER:
The intent was that Professor Mc11ey' s 10 services be switched from Cloud to ourselves.
His function, as 11 we see it, really won't change much except tnat we'll have more a
p 12 direct access to him and his guys will be doing the work.
5" I3 Our thought was that if, as originally conceived 5
m
{
14 in the program, that if Cloud plus Holley was okay, then later 15 on, Cloud plus Holley plus TES was not okay, then perhaps j
16 one of the better arrangements was to have Cloud plus TES plus W
17 I
Holley and that might be okay again.
We've discussed this with
=
{
18 Jim Knight and he felt that this was perhaps a good way to P
h I9 '
resolve the issue, but the intention is that Professor Holley's 20 contract would be turned over to us.
But I don't honestly see 21
~
a great deal of difference in what he's doing.
22 He's reviewing the work and contributing to 23 our assurance that the job is being done right.
24 MR. DENTON:
To me, it's worth pursuing just a 25 j
bit more in that we thought that you needed that expertise to l
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
129 1
assess tne imput you were getting and certainly Professor Holley 2
retains that type of expertise.
However, if he did the work in 3
an area for Doctor Cloud originally and then Cloud submits it 4
to Teledyne and then Teledyne submits it back to Mr. Holley for s,
5 g
review.
r n
6 MR. COOPER:
We reviewed that.
He will not be R
7 reviewing his own work.
His work has primarily been in review-M 8
8 ing consultations and some assistance with Cloud, but we did d
d 9
review this in cur discussions with him and with discussions z'o G
10 with Cloud's people, and there was some discussions when you were E
II here a couple of weeks ago and we were pretty well set ourselves N
I2 that we weren't going into a situation wnereby working for us 5a 13 5
he was now reviewing work which he had done for Cloud.
~-
=
l 14 MR. DENISON:
I think the situation could be 15 better classified as Cloud performs some initial work.
Both x
j Teledyne and Professor Holley do some review.
It goes back to 16 e
I7 Cloud and it then becomes an approved document with both Cris x
IO Holley and Teledyne approving it.
I9 g
MR. COOPER:
We hope we're beyond a point n
20 of this initial review and the stipulations are put out where 21 we had to consider each and every little thing about Cloud's 22 organization and their work as being of suspicion.
We'd rather 23 i
look at ourselves now as an independent design verification 2
program team that is working together to get the job done.
I i
25 !
think that certainly, say, when Ron Wray goes out and sees Ned Ii ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
130 l
and his people and they are working with tnem, we make sugges-2 tions about the way we'd like to see things done and we some-3 times have some good argaments and sometimes Cloud's people will 4
disagree with us and we'll say, no, we think it ought to be s_
5 g
done this way, n
6 In that case, we feel we have an obligation to R
7 come back and do it our way to make sure tnat the answer is the N
j 8
same if that happens.
But we look at ourselves as being a team q"J 9
of TES plus Clouds in tnis instance, for whatever help we can 2o G
10 get them to bear on the program.
_E II MR. DENTON:
Well, I don't want to make a problem 3
N I2 where there isn't any.
I just want to understand it.
It sounds E"
I3 5
like you're talling me now.that Doctor Holley is'now or will m
5 I4 shortly be working for Teledyne?
{
15 MR. COOPER:
It's a matter of getting the con-
=
g 16 tracturals.
A
,NI7 MR. DENISON:
Let me clarify one thing.
Cris e
3 18 Hollef has been involved early on in our building work to p
19 g
establish the overall picture in addition to reviewing work.
So, e
20 there was quite a bit of initial involvement.
2I MR. DENTON:
Any other issues any one would like 22 to raise?
Any issues on behalf of parties who are not here?
23 One last one in tne final report of Phase I, what i
24 do you envision would be in the final report?
25 MR. COOPER:
It's about a paragraph in the program I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
131 I
plan and we've added a very important sentence on page two that 2
differs from page one.
3 We look at it as something which defines well 4
the various errors were that have been found and what the s,
5 y
resolution of those have been that summarizes the good things t 9 3
6 that we found and tries to put them all in proper prospective e7
- S 7
and makes reference to the technical reports as a backup to this a
j 8
information and, obviously, comes to the conclusion that the d
c; 9
program has been completed, _ problems are resolved and here it z
O h
10 is.
Or if there is something outstanding that defines th'e
=f II situation of disagreement between ourselves and the PG&E f
I2 people or whatever resolution.
.a 13 5
MR. DENTON:
So, I can look to that to have a s-m 14 definitive statement ot Teledyne's views on whether the plant, 15 considering everything you've learned, has or has not been d
I0 constructed in accordance with the requirements and a delineation m
h I7 of those areas where you think it still may not be in accordance
=
b I0 if there are such areas?
A" 19 8
MR. COOPER:
I have difficulty with the word
,- n 0
construction, but rather the design verification has been 21 successfully completed and any shortcomings to be corrected 22 properly to meet the lisencing applications.
MR. DENTON:
I think we'll look for that final 24 report to have some sharply delineated conclusions that puli 25 together and sensitize all tnese facts that we talk about in l
[
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,!NC.
132 1
such detail.
2 MR. MANHATIS:
We als'o have an endorsement if the 3
plan is properly desiened according'to specifications in every 4
respect.
(.
m 5
MR. NOFf0N:
I would also hope' that the interim,
[
X s
9 6
reports, all 25 of them, would have some of those snarpi'j'
^
S 7
defined conclusions lc ng before tne final report so that you i
j g
8 people can be reviewing those conclusions and either concurring l
a I
o 9
or not concurring.
f 10 MR. COOPER:
The purpose of the interim technical iS h
11 report is to report a conclusion of the program.
Es
,j 12 MR..DENTON:
Now, the only issue that we didn't
~c 13 cover was the contents of the firstt Interim Technical Report,
,r v
m 3
14 and I wonder if you'd 'like.to comment on that in the remaining m
y, 2
15 few minutes.
sa x
p y
16 MR. NORTON:
Have you given up your,6:30 flight?
A 1;[
17 MR. DENTON:
No.
N 18 MR. NORTON:
Wej 1, your few minutes may be gone.
U 19 MR. DENTON:
Well, give me 'just a few minutes g
~
m 20 if you want to characterize the contents of. this Interim <Tdchni-l.
21 cal Report.,
~
22 MR. COOPER:
It.'s simply stated that we believe the program is far enough along to be able So draw some con-23 24 l clusions_as to what is needed to be done'to rap up Pnase I.
I s
l 2his is our present picture of it.
We're not-guaranteeing there 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
13J l
won't be changes.
We want to get it on the street as soon as 2
possible and keep working on 3t.
3 MR. DENISON:
It was mailed yesterday.
- l g.
4 MR. COOPER:
To all parties to whom you are
~5 g
required to send a copy.
j' n 6
MR. DENISON:
The same package as the Sem.1-Monthly
~nC 7
Report.
=
8 MR. DENTON:
If there are no more comments, tj d
9
)
let's close this meeting.
2of:
10 5
I j _ l'1 a
ti 12 z
5 '
1 y
13 y
=
$ ~ 14 2
15 s
i a ~16 l
vi l
6 17 l
N M
18 E
I 19 1
=
4 20 21 22 l
23 24
,i.
s 25l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the U.
S.
Nuclear RETulatory Commission in the matter of:
Diablo Canyon Seismic Review I
Da:e of Proceeding: June 10, 1982 Docket Number:
None
? lace of Proceeding: Waltham, Massachusetts were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
Robert E.
Mayer Official Reporter (Typed)
?. $
AU Official Reporte (Signature) 1 e
e a
9
. _ _ _ _