ML20071L680
| ML20071L680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1983 |
| From: | Crane P PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Deukmejian G CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305270622 | |
| Download: ML20071L680 (200) | |
Text
'
r 6
, /2,..
y ) r~ l,i ;;.
Ngf 7 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'
(,
YM.g Y-2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-q
~c 3
D-4 S
A
t._
4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 5
6 7
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-275 8
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-323
)
9 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
)
Units Nos. 1 and 2
)
)
10 11 12 13 APPLICANT PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S 14 ANSWERS TO GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN'S AND JOINT INTERVENORS' 15 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 16 17 l
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
l 19 With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, 20 except ITR 36 and ITR 38, state:
21 (a)
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked 22 on the ITR.
23 (b)
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its 24 subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
25 (c)
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its 26 subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
0'305270622 830523 PDR ADOCK 0500027]
\\
O t
4 r
1 (i) data collection for the ITR; 2
(ii) analyses performed for the ITR; 3
(iii) the conclusions of the ITR; 4
(iv) documentation of the ITR.
5 (d)
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in 6
connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, 7
whether the IDVP relied upon it.
8 (e)
In categorical terms, what other information the IDVP 9
received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and, 10 with respect to each category; 11 (i) whether the IDVP independently verified the 12 inforrnstion received; 13 (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
14 (f)
What computer models were employed in performing 15 analyses in connection with the ITR, stating as to 16 each:
17 (i)
If the model was obtained from an outside source, 18 the identity of that source, I
19 the name or names by which the model is 20
- known, the general function of the model, 21 whether the model was received in source code l
22 l
23 or object code, i
whether the version received had been 24 25 certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature 26 of the certification, l
l,
O a
whether the model (i.e.,
the computer 1
2 program) was modified in any way (excluding 3
. modifications solely to alter the format in 4
which data were read or displayed) after 5
receipt and, if so, the nature of all such 6
modifications, 7
the manufacturer and model number of the 8
computer or computers on which the computer 9
model was run in connection with the ITR; 10 (ii)
If the model was not obtained from an outside 11
- source, 12 the identity of the person or persons having 13 overall responsibility for developing the 14
- model, 15 the name or names by which the model is 16
- known, the general function of the model, 17 l
18 the computer language in which the model was 19
- written, in general, what measures were taken to 20 21 verify the accuracy of the model, 22 the manufacturer and model number of the I
23 computer or computers on which the computer l
24 model was run in connection with the ITR.
l 25
///
26
///.
4 1
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
2 See Attachment 8.
3 4
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
5 With respect to the reassessment of the 6
containment building of Diablo Canyon unit 1, state:
7 (a)
What contractors and subcontractors to the DCP worked 8
on the reassessment.
9 (b)
The person employed or retained by the DCP or its
- 10 subcontractors most knowledgeable about the 11 reassessment.
12 (c)
The person employed or retained by the DCP or its 13 subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
14 (i) data collection for the reassessment; 15 (ii) analyses performed for the reassessment; 16 (iii) conclusions of the DCP in connection with the 17 reassessment; l
18 (iv) documentation of the reassessment.
19 (d)
What computer models were employed in performing i
20 analyses in connection with the reassessment, stating 21 as to each:
l 22 (i)
If the model was obtained from an outside source, l
23 the identity of that suarce, the name or names by which the model is 24 25
- known, the general function of the model, 26 4-a
-e
whether the model was received in source code 1
2 or object code,
.whether the version received had been 3
4 certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature 5
of the certification, 6
whether the model (i.e.,
the computer 7
Program) was modified in any way (excluding 8
modifications solely to alter the format in 9
which data were read or displayed) after receipt and, if so, the nature of all such 10 11 modifications, 12 the manufacturer and model number of the 13 comp' uter or computers on which the computer 14 model was run in connection with the 15 reassessment; 16 (ii)
If the model was not obtained from an outside l
17
- source, 1
the identity of the person or persons having 18 19 overall responsibility for developing the 20
- model, the name or names by which the model is 21 22
- known, l
the general function of the model, 23 the computer language in which the model was 24 25
- written, 26
///.
.m, 7--
in general, what measures were taken to 1
2 verify the accuracy of the model, the manufacturer and model number of the 3
4 computer or computers on which the computer 5
model was run in connection with the 6
reassessment.
7 8
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
9 (a)
URS/Blume, Associates (URS/Blume).
10 (b)
N. Tuholski, Engineering Supervisor, Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) 11 Dr. K. Buchert, Consultant, Bechtel.
Dr. L. Malik, Engineer, URS/Blume.
12 Dr. W. H. White, Assistant Project Engineer -
Seismic, Bechtel.
13 B.
Sarkar, Engineering Supervisor, Bechtel.
14 (c)
See Response to 2(b).
15 (d)
(i)
The computer code used was PGandE STRUDL.
See 16.
17 (ii)
The computer codes used were ANCON, ANSPLOT, ANSR, 18 ANSRSTS, AXIDYN, BLUME SAP IV, BASP, BASP-POST, 19
- CECAP, CCOEFF, CHECK, DIAGONAL, ENVEL, ENVELOP 20 FINEL, JAB / PLOT, JAB /FLSPEC, ME210, ME643, MODE, 21 PROG, SECT, SMIS, SMPLOT, SMSPC3, SPEC 1, SPEC 2,
.i 22 SPEC 3, SPECTH, SPECTRA, SRSS, STAND, TRANSFORT, 23 UFACLS.
See Attachment 1.
24
///
25
///
26
///
e.
+
,.--e.----,-,+..-.---..--.----.--.,-...--n
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
2 With respect to the reassessment of the 3
containment building of Diablo Canyon unit 2, state:
4 (a)
What contractors and subcontractors to the DCP worked 5
on the reassessment.
I 6
(b)
The person employed or retained by the DCP or its 7
subcontractors most knowledgeable about the 8
reassessment.
9 (c)
The person employed or retained by the DCP or its 10 subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
11 (i) data collection for the reassessment; 12 (ii) analyses performed for the reassessment; 13 (iii) conclusions of the DCP in connection with the 14 reassessment; 15 (iv) documentation of the reassessment.
16 (d)
What computer models were employed in performing 17 analyses in connection with the reassessment, stating 18 as to each:
19 (i)
If the model was obtained from an outside source, 20 the identity of that source, the name or names by which the model is 21 22
- known, the general function of the model, 23 24 whether the model was received in source code 25 or object code, 26
///,
whether the version received had been 1
2 certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature 3
- of the certification, whether the model (i.e.,
the computer 4
5 program) was modified in any way (excluding 6
modifications solely to alter the format in 7
which data were read or displayed) after i
8 receipt and, if so, the nature of all such 9
modifications, 10 the manufacturer and model number of the 11 computer or computers on which the computer 12 model was run in connection with the 13 reassessment; 14 (ii)
If the model.was not obtained from an outside f
15
- source, the identity of the person or persons having 16 17 overall responsibility for developing the 18
- model, the name or names by which the model is 19 20
- known, the general function of the model, 21 the computer language in which the model was 22 23
- written, 24 in general, what measures were taken to 25 verify the accuracy of the model, 26
///.
the manufacturer and model number of the 1
2 computer or computers on which the computer 3
.model was run in connection with the 4
reassessment.
5 6
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
J 7
(a)
See Response to 2(a).
8 (b)
See Response to 2(b).
9 (c)
See Response to 3(b).
10 (d)
(i)
See Response to 2(d)(i).
11 (ii)
See Response to 2(d)(ii).
Also ENVEL 2.
See 12.
13 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
15 With respect to the reassessment of the fuel 16 handling building of Diablo Canyon, state:
h 17 (a)
What contractors and subcontractors to the DCP worked 18 on the reassessment.
19 (b)
The person employed or retained by the DCP or its 20 subcontractors most knowledgeable about the 21 reassessment.
22 (c)
The per. son employed or retained by the DCP or its 23 subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
24 (i) data collection for the reassessment; 25 (ii) analyses performed for the reassessment; i
26
///
-r,,--
,v---
e,.
r-
--n
., ~ - -,
a
1 (iii) conclusions of the DCP in connection with the 2
reassessment; 3
(iv) documentation of the reassessment.
4 (d)
What computer models were employed in performing 5
analyses in' connection with the reassessment, stating 6
as to each:
7 (i)
If the model was obtained from an outside source, the identity of that source, 8
the name or names by which the model is 9
10
- known, the general function of the model, 11 12 whether the model was received in source code 13 or object code, 1
whether the version received had been 14 15 certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature 16 of the certification, i
17 whether the model (i.e.,
the computer l
l 18 program) was modified in any way (excluding 19 modifications solely to alter the format in 20 which data were read or displayed) after 21 receipt and, if so, the nature of all such l
22 modifications, 23 the manufacturer and model number of the 24 computer or computers on which the computer 25 model was run in connection with the 26 reassessment; i.
e'. _.. _ _ -....... _. _ _,
1 (ii)
If the model was not obtained from an outside 2
- source, the identity of the person or persons having 3
4 overall responsibility for developing the 5
- model, the name or names by which the model is 6
7
- known, 8
the general function of the model, the computer language in which the model was 9
10
- written, in general, what measures were taken to 11 12 verify the accuracy of the model, the manufacturer and model number of the 13 14 computer or computers on which the computer 15 model was run in connection with the 16 reassessment.
17 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
19 (a)
URS/Blume.
20 (b)
Dr. L. Malik, Engineer, URS/Blume.
D. Ovadia, Engineer, Bechtel.
21 Dr. W. H. White, Assistant Project Engineer -
Seismic, Bechtel.
22 23 (c)
See Response to 4(b).
24 (d)
(i)
The codes used were STARDYNE and PGandE STRUDL.
25 See Attachment 2.
26
/// !
's 1
(ii)
The computer ccdes used were BLUME SAP IV, 2
JAB /FLSPC', SPECTRA, DRAIN-2D, JAB / PLOT, DRNPLOT.
4 3
See Attachment 1.
4 5
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
6 With respect to the reassessment of the auxiliary 7
building of Diablo Canyon, state:
8 (a)
What contractors and subcontractors to the DCP worked 9
on the reassessment.
10 (b)
The person employed or retained by the DCP or its 11 subcontractors most knowledgeable about the 12 reassessment.
13 (c)
The person employed or retained by the DCP or its 14 subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
15 (i) data collection for the reassessment; 16 (ii) analyses performed for the reassessment; 17 (iii) conclusions of the DCP in connection with the 18 reassessment; 19 (iv) documentation of the reassessment.
20 (d)
What computer models were employed in performing 21 analyses in connection with the reassessment, stating 22 as to each:
23 (i)
If the model was obtained from an outside source, the identity of that source, 24 t
the name or names by which the model is 25 26 known,.
I
the general function of the model, 1
whether the model was received in source code 2
3 or object code, whether the version received had been 4
5 certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature l
6 of the certification, 1
whether the model (i.e.,
the computer 7
8 program) was modified in any way (excluding 9
modifications solely to alter the format in 10 which data were read or displayed) after 11 receipt and, if so, the nature of all such 12 modifications, 13 the manufacturer and model number of the 14 computer or computers on which the computer 15 model was run in connection with the 16 reassessment; 17 (ii)
If the model was not obtained from an outside 18
- source, the identity of the person or persons having 19 20 overall responsibility for developing the 21
- model, the name or names by which the model is 22 l
23
- known, 24 the general function of the model, the computer language in which the model was 25 l
l 26
- written, I
l l
l 1 r L
o.
in general, what measures were taken to 1
2 verify the accuracy of the model,
.the manufacturer and model number of the 3
4 computer or computers on which the computer 5
model was run in connection with the 6
reassessment.
7 8
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
9 (a)
URS/Blume.
10 (b)
Dr. L. Malik, Engineer, URS/Blume.
D. Ovadia, Engineer, Bechtel.
11 Dr. W. H. White, Assistant Project Engineer -
Seismic, Bechtel.
12 13 (c)
See Response to 5(b).
14 (d)
(i)
The codes used were BECHTEL STRUDL and 15 EASE 2/E2 SPEC.
See Attachment 2.
16 (ii)
The computer codes used were INTERP, JAB /FLSPEC, 17
- MODE, SPECTRA,
- SMIS, BLUME SAP IV,
- BASP, 18 BASP-POST, JAB / PLOT,
- PUNCH, PUNCHRS,
- READS, 19 READTH, SPECTH, TEST, ZPAFOR.
See Attachment 1.
20 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
22 With respect to the reassessment of the turbine 23 building of Diablo Canyon, state:
24 (a)
What contractors and subcontractors to the DCP worked 25 on the reassessment.
26
///.
~
s.
=
i -
1 (b)
The person employed or retained by the DCP or its 2
subcontractors most knowledgeable about the 3
reassessutent.
4 (c)
The person employed or retained by the DCP or its 5
subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
6 (i) data collection for the reassessment; 7
(ii) analyses performed for the reassessment; 8
(iii) conclusions of the DCP in connection with the 9
reassessment; (iv) documentation of the reassessment.
10 11 (d)
What computer models were employed in performing 12 analyses in connection with the reassessment, stating 13 as to each:
14 (i)
If the model was obtained from an outside source, the identity of that source, 15 i
~
the name or names by which the model is 16 17
- known, the general function of the model, i
18 whether the model was received in source code 19
(
20 or object code,
(
21 whether the version received had been 22 certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature 23 of the certification, whether the model (i.e.,
the computer 24 25 program) was modified in any way (excluding 26 modifications solely to alter the format in i
4 4
m
,,,--mm-e.--r--,,.--mxwee-.n
--m-#-----r,--m,,.-
,y,-
---,-s.,.-%,
- e
...%,---,---,-me,---e
=
+e---
t"-~
1 which data were read or displayed) after 2
receipt and, if so, the nature of all such 3
modifications, the manufacturer and model number of the 4
5 computer or computers on which the computer 6
model was run in connection with the 7
reassessment; 8
(ii)
If the model was not obtained from an outside 9
- source, the identity of the person or persons having 10 11 overall responsibility for developing the 12
- model, the name or names by which the model is 13 14
- known, the general function of the model, 15 the computer language in which the model was 16 17
- written, i
18 in general, what measures were taken to 19 verify the accuracy of the model, the manufacturer and model number of the 20 21 computer or computers on which the computer 22 model was run in connection with the 23 reassessment.
24
///
25
///
26
///
.v.y-w.
9
- - - - - - - + -
..-y c.--
~
1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
2 (a)
URS/Blume.
3 (b)
P. Chang-Lo, Engineer, Bechtel.
Dr. L. Malik, Engineer, URS/Blume.
4 Dr. W. H. White, Assistant Project Engineer -
Seismic, Bechtel.
5 6
(c)
See Response to 6(b).
7 (d)
(i)
The code used was BECHTEL STRUDL.
See 8.
9 (ii)
The codes used were AISCBM, ANSENV, ANSPLOT, ANSPST, ANSR, BLUME SAP IV, INTER, ENVELOP, FORCE, 10 11 JAB? COMBINE, JAB /FLSPEC, JAB / PLOT, JAB /SAPOST 1, 12 JAB /SAPOST2, JAB /SAPOST3, MODE, PART I,
See Attachment 1.
l i
15 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
17 With respect to the reassessment of the intake I
18 structure of Diablo Canyon, state:
19 (a)
What contractors and subcontractors to the DCP worked l
20 on the reassessment.
21 (b)
The person employed or retained by the DCP or its 22 subcontractors most knowledgeable about the 23 reassessment.
24 (c)
The person employed or retained by the DCP or its l
25 subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
26 (i) data collection for the reassessment; i.
1 (ii) analyses performed for the reassessment; 2
(iii) conclusions of the DCP in connection with the 3
reassessment; 4
(iv) documentation of the reassessment.
5 (d)
What computer models were employed in performing 6
analyses in connection with the reassessment, stating 7
as to each:
8 (i)
If the model was obtained from an outside source, the identity of that source, 9
10 the name or names by which the model is 11
- known, 12 the general function of the model, 13 whether the model was received in source code 14 or object code, 15 whether the version received had been 16 certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature 17 of the certification, 18 whether the model (i.e.,
the computer I
19 program) was modified in any way (excluding i
20 modifications solely to alter the format in 21 which data were read or displayed) after 22 receipt and, if so, the nature of all such 23 modifications, 24
///
25
///
26
///
i l
l.
the manufacturer and model number of the 1
2 computer or computers on which the computer 3
- model was run in connection with the 4
reassessment; 5
(ii)
If the model was not obtained from an outside 6
- source, the identity of the person or persons having 7
8 overall responsibility for developing the 9
- model, the name or names by which the model is 10 11
- known, 12 the general function of the model, the computer language in which the model was 13 14
- written, in general, what measures were taken to i
15 16 verify the accuracy of the model, the manufacturer and model number of the 17 18 computer or computers on which the computer 19 model was run in connection with the I
20 reassessment.
i l
21 22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
23 (a)
URS/Blume.
24 (b)
Dr. L. Malik, Engineer, URS/Blume.
Dr. W. H. White, Assistant Project Engineer -
25 Seismic, Bechtel.
26 (c)
See Response to 7(b). -
1 (d)
(i)
None.
2 (ii)
The computer codes used were BLUME SAP IV, 3
JAB / COMBINE, JAB /FLSPEC, MODE SMIS, SPEC 1, SPEC 2, 4
SPEC 3,
- RCCOLA, JAB /SAPOST1, JAB /SAPOST2, 5
JAB /SAPOST3,
- FORCE, ENVELOP, JAB / PLOT,
- SRSS, t
6 DRAIN-2D.
See Attachment 1.
7 8
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
9 With respect to the IDVP Phase I Final Report, 10 state:
11 (a)
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its sub-12 contractors most knowledgeable about the Final Report.
13 (c)
[ sic]
14 The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its 15 subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
16 (i) data collection for the Final Report (as opposed 4
17 to data collected for the ITRs);
18 (ii) analyses performed for the Final Rep)rt 19 (independent from the data collected for the 20 ITRs);
21 (iii) conclusions of the Final Report; 22 (iv) documentation of the Final Report.
23 (d)
What computer models were employed in performing 24 analyses in connection with the Final Report (excluding 25 models employed in connection with the ITRs), stating I
26 as to each:.
e
,, - -,, _ - - -, ~
r, - -,, -,,, -, - - - - - -, -,
,,_,,,--e.
a.
1 (i)
If the model was obtained from an outside source, the identity of that source, 2
3
. the name or names by which the model is 4
- known, the general function of the model, 5
I 6
whether the model was received in source code i
7 or object code, whether the version received had been 8
9 certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature 10 of the certification, whether the model (i.e.,
the computer 11 12 program) was modified in any way (excluding 13 modifications solely to alter the format in 14 which data were read or displayed) after 15 receipt and, if so, the nature of all such 16 modifications, the manufacturer and model number of the 17 1
l 18 computer or computers on which the computer l
19 model was run in connection with the Final i
20 Report; 21 (ii)
If the model was not obtained from an outside 22
- source, 23 the identity of the person or persons having 24 overall responsibility for developing the 25
- model, 26
///.
r
.y,.-
-..,,,v___----3,....----.-,.-,w-
-y-cr--. -..
the name or names by which the model is 1
]-
2
- knoWn,
-the general function of the model, 3
the computer language in which the model was 4
5
- written, in general, what measures were taken to 6
7 verify the accuracy of the model, the manufacturer and model number of the 8
9 computer or computers on which the computer 10 model was run in connection with the Final 11 Report.
I 12 l
13 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
14 See Attachment 8.
15 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
)
17 With respect to the IDVP Phase II Final Report, 18 state:
19 (a)
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its i
20 subcontractors most knowledgeable about the Final l
l 21 Report.
22 (c)
[ sic]
l 23 The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its 24 subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
1 25 (i) data collection for the Final Report (as opposed 26 to data collected for the ITRs);.
1 (ii) analyses performed for the Final Report 2
(independent from the data co]lected for the 3
ITRs.) ;
4 (iii) conclusions of the Final Report; 5
(iv) documentation of the Final Report.
6 (d)
What computer models were employed in performing 7
analyses in connection with the Final Report (excluding 8
models employed in connection with the ITRs), stating
{
9 as to each:
10 (i)
If the model was obtained from an outside source, the identity of that source, 11 the name or names by which the rodel is 12 13
- known, 1
the general function of the model, 14 whether the model was received in source code 15 16 or object code, whether the version received had been 17 18 certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature 19 of the certification, whether the nodel (i.e.,
the computer j
20 21 program) was modified in any way (excluding 22 modifications solely to alter the format in 23 which data were read or displayed) after 24 receipt and, if so, the nature of all such 25 modifications, 26
///
l.
__m.
the manufacturer and model number of the 1
2 computer or computers on which the computer 3
.model was run in connection with the Final 4
Report; 5
(ii)
If the model was not obtained from an outside 1
6
- source, the identity of the person or persons having 7
8 overall responsibility for developing the 9
- model, the name or names by which the model is 10 11
- known, the general function of the model, 12 13 the computer language in which the model was 14
- written, in general, what measures were taken to 15 16 verify the accuracy of the model, 17 the manufacturer and model number of the 18 computer or computers on which the computer 19 model was run in connection with the Final 20 Report.
l 21 22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
23 See Attachment 8.
24
///
25
///
26
///.
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
2 With respect to the DCP Phase I Final Report, 3
state:
4 (a)
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its 5
subcontractors most knowledgeable about the Final 6
Report.
7 (c)
[ sic]
8 The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its 9
subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
10 (i) data collection for the Final Report (as opposed 11 to data collected for the ITRs);
12 (ii) analyses performed for the Final Report 13 (independent from the data collected for the 14 ITRs);
15 (iii) conclusions of the Final Report; 16 (iv) documentation of the Final Report.
17 (d)
What computer models were employed in performing i
18 analyses in connection with the Final Report (axcluding l
l 19 models employed in connection with the ITRs), stating 20 as to each:
21 (i)
If the model was obtained from an outside source, 22 the identity of that source, the name or names by which the model is 23 24
- known, the general function of the model, 25 26
/// l l
1 i
whether the model was received in source code 1
2 or object code, 3
whether the version received had been 4
certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature 5
of the certification, l
whether the model (i.e.,
the computer i
6 7
program) was modified in any way (excluding 8
modifications solely to alter the format in 9
which data were read or displayed) after l
10 receipt and, if so, the nature of all such 11 modifications, the manufacturer and model number of the 12
(
13 ccmputer or computers on which the computer 14 model was run in connection with the Final 15 Report; 16 (ii)
If the model was not obtained from an outside 17
- source, 18 the identity of the person or persons having 19 overall responsibility for developing the 20
- model, the name or names by which the model is 21 1
22
- known, 23 the general function of the model, the computer language in which the model was 24 25
- written, I
26
///
l l.
,n.-
~ ':
in general, what measures were taken to 1
2 verify the accuracy of the model, the manufacturer and model number of the 3
4 computer or computers on which the computer 5
model was run in connection with the Final 6
Report.
l 7
8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
9 (a)
See Attachment 8.
10
- (c)
See Attachment 8.
11 (d)
(i)
The codes employed for analysis in the DCP Phase I l
12 Final Report are listed in Attachment 2.
In 13 addition, codes used for piping and pipe supports 14 are shown in Attachment 3.
15 (ii)
The codes employed for analysis in the DCP Phase I 16 Final Report are listed in Attachments 1, 4, and
(
17 5.
18 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
20 With respect to the DCP Phase II Final Report, l
21 state:
22 (a)
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its i
23 subcontractors most knowledgeable about the Final l
24 Report.
25
///
\\
l 26
///
l I.
1 (c)
[ sic]
2 The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its 3
subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
4 (i) data collection for the Final Report (as opposed 5
to data collected for the ITRs);
6 (ii) analyses performed for the Final Report 7
(independent from the data collected for the 8
ITRs);
9 (iii) conclusions of the Final Report; 10 (iv) documentation of the Final Report.
11 (d)
What computer models were employed in performing 12 analyses in connection with the Final Report (excluding 13 models employed in connection with the ITRs), stating 14 as to each:
15 (i)
If the model was obtained from an outside source, the identity of that source, 16 the name or names by which the model is 17 18
- known, 19 the general function of'the model, whether the model was received in source code 20 21 or object code, whether the version received had been 22 23 certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature 24 of the certification, j
25
///
l 26
///
l.
whether the model (i.e.,
the computer 1
2 Program) was modified in any way (excluding 3
modifications solely to alter the format in 4
which data were read or displayed) after 5
receipt and, if so, the nature of all such 6
modifications, the manufacturer and model number of the 7
8 computer or computers on which the computer i
model was run in connection with the Final 9
10 Report; 11 (ii)
If the model was not obtained from an outside 12
- source, the identity of the person or persons having 13 14 overall responsibility for developing the 15
- model, l
16 the name or names by which the model is 17
- known, the general function of the model, 18 19 the computer language in which the model was 1
20
- written, in general, what measures were taken to 21 22 verify the accuracy of the model, the manufacturer and model number of the 23 24 computer or computers on which the computer 25 model was run in connection with the Final 26 Report.
_ I
1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
2 (a)
See Attachment 8.
3 (c)
See Attachment 8.
4 (d)
(i)
The codes employed for analysis in the DCP 5
Phase II Final Report were COCO, MARVEL, and 6
RELAP4.
See Attachment 6.
7 (ii)
The codes employed for analysis in the DCP 8
Phase II Final Report were FAULTX, FLUD, ME204, 9
ME207, ME649, and VOLTANAL.
See Attachment 7.
10 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
12 How do you define " safety-related" for purposes of 13 compliance with appendix B to part 50 of 10 C.F.R.?
14 i
15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
i l
16 PGandE considers
" safety-related" and "PGandE j
17 Design Class I" to be synonymous.
18 For the purpose of applying quality requirements 19 PGandE has historically considered the term " safety-related" 20 to be applicable to systems and components (and supporting 21 des'ign processes) that are necessary to assure; 22 (1) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; 23 (2) the capability to shutdown the reactor and maintain it 24 in a safe shutdown condition; or 25
///
26
///.
1 (3) the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences 2
of accidents which could result in potential off-site 3
exposures. comparable to the guideline exposures of 10 4
CFR 100.
)
5 6
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
l 7
How do you define "important to safety" for 8
Purposes of compliance with General Design Criterion 1 of 9
appendix A to part 50 of 10 C.F.R.?
10 11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
12 Historically PGandE has considered the terms 13 "important to safety" and " safety-related" to be synonymous.
14
- Further, PGandE considers
" safety-related" and "PGandE 15 Design Class I" to be synonymous.
(See answer to Interroga-16 tory 12.)
The H.R. Denton memorandum defining "important to 17 safety" was issued long after "important to safety" was used 18 in GDC1.
Only recently has the NRC provided any indication 19 that the definitions of "important to safety" and 20
" safety-related" were not one and the same.
21
///
22
///
23
///
24 25 26.
-w e
,a
e-i 1
Presently, for those structures, systems, and com-2 ponents which do not have safety-related functions PGandE 3
applies a quality assurance program which is commensurate 4
with the structure's, system's or component's importance to 5
safety.
l 7
Respectfully submitted, 8
ROBERT OHLBACH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.
9 RICHARD F. LOCKE Pacific Gas and Electric Company 10 P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 11 (415) 781-4211 12 ARTHUR C. GEHR Snell & Wilmer 13 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 14 (602) 257-7288 15 BRUCE NORTON Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
16 P.O. Box 10569 Phoenix, Arizona 85064 17 (602) 955-2446 18 Attorneys for i
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 19
'y 20 j
21
' Phil A.
Cra Jr.
22 23 l
DATED:
May 23, 1983.
l 24 25 26.
--g
Attaciudsnt No. 8
- L.L,
May 20, 1983-
'p '.
- ~
v'
'? \\
fl:
l~t l?l
/-
Answers DOCKET MUMEER '
Pn 0 0. 8. U T! L. FAC.... v.,,,w#'#,
Contractors and Subcontractors in the Independent Design Verification Program to Interrogatories 1(a) through (f); 8(a), (c), and (d); 9(a),
(c), and (d); 10(a) and (c); and 11(a) and (c) of the "First Set of Interrogatories Propounded to Pacific Gas and Electric Company by Governor Deukmejian and Joint Intervenors" (May 6,
1983).
1 l
l l
l G
5/20/83 Table of Contents Answers to Interrogatory 1 Pace ITR-1 1-1-1 ITR-2 1-2-1 ITR-3 1-3-1 ITR-4 1-4-1 ITR-5 1-5-1 ITR-6 1-6-1 ITR-7 1-7-1 ITR-8 1-8-1 ITR-9 1-9-1 ITR-10 1-10-1 ITR-ll 1-11-1 ITR-12 1-12-1 ITR-13 1-13-1 ITR-14 1-14-1 ITR-15 1-15-1 ITR-16 1-16-1 ITR-17 1-17-1 ITR-18 1-18-1 ITR-19 l-19-1 ITR-20 1-20-1 ITR-21 1-21-1 ITR-22 1-22-1 ITR-23 1-23-1 i
vw
- =-e-w-m woryw
,-w,,c
- t
--w---
-y,w
-y-y
-r-
- -+---
w-
l 5/20/83 Table of Contents (Continued)
ITR-24 1-24-1 ITR-25 1-25-1 ITR-26 1-26-1 ITR-27 1-27-1 ITR-28 1-28-1 ITR-29 1-29-1 ITR-30 1-30-1 ITR-31 1-31-1 ITR-32 1-32-1 ITR-33 1-33-1 ITR-34 1-34-1 ITR-35 1-35-1 ITR-37 1-37-1 ITR-39 1-39-1 ITR-40 1-40-1 ITR-41 1-41-1 ITR-42 1-42-1 ITR-43 1-43-1 ITR-44 1-44-1 Answer'to Interrogatories 8 and 9 8-1 Answer to Interrogatory 10 10-1 Answer to Interrogatory 11 11-1 Statement of William E. Cooper iii i
ii i
- - - -. ~
5/20/83 1-16-1 ITR-16, Revision 0 Soils - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Abendruh, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud,- President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Dr. Robert McNeill, Consultant, Abendruh, Inc.
l c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Dension, Dr. Robert McNeill (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Dr. Robert McNeill (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Dr. Robert McNeill r
7-3
- 5/20/83 1-1-1 ITR-1 Revision 0 l
Additional Verification and Additional Sampling Effective 5/27/82 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services R.L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr.
Robert
- Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud, Associates, Inc.,
Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L.
Cloud Associ-ates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; f.nswer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison
1
,5/20/83 1-I-2 (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr., Robert Cloud; Edward Denison; R. Wray, Assistant Project Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
None; this ITR was prepared using information obtained with respect to other ITRs as of the date of preparation of this ITR.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
l Answer:
l j
None; this ITR was prepared using information obtained with respect to other ITRs as of the date of preparation of this ITR.
l f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
5/20/83 1-1-3 (i) if the model was obtained from an outside source, the identity of that source, the name or names by which the model is known, the general function of the model, whether the model was received in source code or object code, whether the version received had been certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature of the certification,
- whether the model (i.e., the computer program) was modified in any way (excluding modifications solely to alter the format in which data were read or displayed) af ter receipt and, if so, the nature of all such modifications,
- the manuf acturer and model number of the computer or computers on which the computer model was run in connection with the ITR; Answer:
STARDYNE ADLPIFE ANSYS These were the computer models employed by R.L. Cloud and Associates to perform seismic analyses in connection with all of the ITRs.
On occasion, other computer models were employed.
However, in all cases l
in which a model other than the three listed above was employed, the calculations were verified by the checker using hand calculations.
(i)
United Information Services (UIS) l
- Same as above
- Static and dynamic structural analysis UIS uses object code
- Yes, verified as demonstrated in VIS Quality Assurance Records
- No l
l
.5/20/83 1-1-4 The computer models were run on VIS computers.
UIS utilizes three mainframe computers:
CYBER-175 (APEX),CRAY,CYBER-176.
f.(ii) if the model was not obtained from an outside source, the identity of the person or persons having overall responsibility for developing the model,
- the name or names by which the model is known,
- the general function of the model,
- the computer language in which the model was
- written, in general, what measures were taken to verify the accuracy of the model, the manuf acturer and model number of the computer or computers on which the computer model was run in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
On occasion internal computer models were employed.
However, in all cases in which a model other than the three listed above was employed, the calculations were verified by the checker using hand calculations.
t 4
e
.5/20/83 1-1-5 ITR-1, Revision 1 Additional Verification And Sampling Effective May 27, 1982 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
t (i) data collection for the ITR; 1
l Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; l
'e 5/20/83 1-1-6 Answer:
Dr.
Robert Cloud; Edward Denison; Ronald
- Wray, Assistant Project
- Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
None; this ITR was prepared using information obtained with respect to other ITR's as of the date of preparation of this ITR.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received;
~
(ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
None; this ITR was prepared using information obtained with respect to other ITRs as of the date of preparation of this ITR.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
See response to ITR-1, Rev. O.
y
5/20/83 1-2-1 ITR-2 Evaluation of the Quality Assurance Program
.and Implementation Reviews 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services R.F. Reedy, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr.
William E.
- Cooper, IDVP Program Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
l R.F.
- Reedy, President, R.F.
- Reedy, Inc.;
P.J.
Herbert, W.S. Gibbons, Principals, R.F. Reedy, Inc.
1 (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Not Applicable i
I
-5/20/83 1-2-2 (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. W.E. Cooper (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer Dr. W.E. Cooper d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
- d. and e.
ITR-2 was prepared by Teledyne Engineering Services using information developed by R.F.
- Reedy, Inc.
and presented in seven separate technical reports addressing quality assurance procedures for seven of PGandE's contractors on the DCP.
The following repc 's and other information were obtained from ti DCP in connection with the preparation of these seven technical reports.
Reedy Report and Date Information o EES/CYGNA EES work Proposal dated March 3, 1982 Feb. 18, 1977 e
- - - - - -, - ~
g
. 5/20/83 1-2-3 Reedy Report and Date Information Contract between PGandE and EES/CYGNA dated March 9,
1977 (Contract No. 5-16-77).
EES Quality Assurance Manual Revisions 2-4.
o Wyle Laboratories Contracts between PGandE and March 1, 1982 Wyle Labs (Contract Nos. 5 77,5-66-77).
Purchase Orders 4294 and 4R4294.
Letters, R.V. Bettinger (PGandE) to D.
Smith (Wyle) dated September 28, 1977.
Wyle Quality Control Manual SPP-518Q (April 30,1977)
Wyle Quality Control Procedures Manual SPP-518.
o URS/Blume URS/Blume Work List for PGandE March 5, 1982 on Diablo Canyon (App.B to Reedy Report dated March 5, 1982).
URS/Blume Quality Assurance Manual Rev. 2 (Nov. 19, 1976).
o ANC0 Engineers ANCO-PGandE Contracts, Nos. 5-o March 1, 1983 68-77, 5-82-77.
ANCO Quality Assurance Manual (ANC0 Spec. QAM-002)(May 1978).
o EDS Nuclear, Inc.
Sumary of EDS experience with Jan. 20,.1982 PGandE 1/5/82.
EDS Quality Assurance
- Manual, Rev. 11 through 15.
o Hardinq, Lawson Associates
- Listing, HLA
- Jobs, Diablo Canyon, PGandE (App.B in 1/26/82 Reedy Report).
HLA Quelity As.surance Manual and l
Operating Procedures.
l
{
t
- 5/20/83 1-2-4 Reedy Report and Date Information o PGandE PGandE QA Manual (Jan. 1970)
March 16, 1982 PGandE QA Manual Vol.
I (Policy),
Vol II (QA Proce-dures),
Rev.
3 through Manual Change Notice No. 36.
R.F. Reedy, Inc.
relied on this information in connection with the seven subject technical reports.
For each of the seven entities, information was verified during the audits performed as described in the technical reports.
Dates,, attendance, and subjects at meetings are given in each of the referenced reports.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
None.
l l
l
.m__
-m-e,-----
" ~ '
^-
5/20/83 1-3-1 ITR-3, Revision 0 Tanks 1.
With respect to each ' ;, inr.luding all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
f Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Engineering Decision Analysis Corporation b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.; Hanson Loey, Project Engineer and Equipment Coordinator, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud; Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
5/20/83 1-3-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 8, 9, 14, 26, 28, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, and Yes.
50 in the subject ITR o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets for E0Is
- Yes, listed in Appendix A of the ITR o FSAR
- Yes, o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports Yes.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
i (i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Boric acid tank drawings Yes; field verified.
o Diesel oil priming tank drawings Yes; field verified.
o Starting air receiver vertical Yes; field verified.
tank drawings o Anchor bolt drawings No.
l 5/20/83 1-3-3 Information Verification o Schematics for piping attached Yes; field verified.
to the tanks.
o Design criteria memorandum No.
o Level indicator weight data for No.
priming tank o Nozzle load data No.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel o
Information provided in response No.
to specific written requests f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
ANSYS See response to Interrogatory 1(f) for ITR-1 Rev. O.
l
(
- - ~ ' ' '
^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^ ^ ^
/
5/20/83 1-4-1 ITR-4, Revision 0 Shake Table Testing 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Hanson Loey, Project Engineer and Equipment Coordinator, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey l
(ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
4 Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud; Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
y
5/20/83 s.
1-4-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey d.
What reports the IDVP received from the OCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 6-14, 18 and 22 in the subject ITR Yes.
o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets for E01s Yes.
listed in Appendix A of the ITR o FSAR Yes.
o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports Yes.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IOVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IOVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification Informatio,n obtained in meetings No.
o and in telecons with PGandE f
personnel o
Information provided in response No.
to specific written requests No other information was obtained in connection with the subject ITR.
l l
-5/20/83 1-4-3 f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
4
)
i l
I
.5/20/83 1-5-1 ITR-5, Revision 0 Design Chain 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
~
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud; Edward Denison; and Mark Revett, Assistant Project
- Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services
---,-e n
- 5/20/S3 1-5-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr'. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Reports obtained from the DCP consisted of References 4-11 in the subject ITR.
In addition, the design analyses for each of the initial samples were examined to verify the originating organization.
These design analyses are ident,1fied in the answers to Interrogatory 1 for the following ITRs:
ITR Rev.
ITR Rev.
3 0
30 0
4 0
31 0
5 0
32 0
6 0
32 1
7 0
33 0
10 0
33 1
l 12 0
37 0
13 0
39 0
15 0
40 0
16 0
43 0
17 0
44 0
These reports were relied upon by the IDVP.
1 e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received;
.~.
5/20/83 1-5-3 (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information.
Verification o Information obtained in meetings No, and in telecons with PGandE personnel o Information provided in response No.
to specific written requests f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
r 9
i I
l l
i
{
t e
f l
,e.
+w-e-,e---
- .-w-.rm,.--r w--
-4
--y 7 gr
+-----
'l
'v 5/20/83 1-6-1 ITR-6, Revision 0 Auxiliary Building 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a, What contractors and subcontractors to the IOVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
i Teledyne Engineering Services i
I
~
Nobert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Hansen, Holley & Biggs, Inc.
t
'.,.,The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its
- b su'Scontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
1Answof:
Et
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Vince
- Stephens, Building Coordinator, Robert L.
Cloud
~
' ~
Associates, Inc.
Myles Holley, Principal, Hansen, Holley & Biggs, Inc.
i
~~
<The person employed or retained by the IOVP or its subcon-c.
5 tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; v -.
Answer:
Dr. Robert' Cloud, Edward Denison (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer.:,
Dr. Robert Cloud, Vince Stephens, Myles Holley (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; 4
Answer:
Or. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison
~
/
f m,
,5/20/83 1-6-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 4-7 in the subject ITR Yes.
o PGandE Resolution and Completicn Shcets tcr E01s Yes.
listed in Appendix A of the ITR o Auxiliary Building Soil Spring Calculations, J. A.
No.
Blume Associates, 1973, P105-4-441-020 o Auxiliary Building Slab Analysis, 1/28/74, No.
F105-4-431-010 o Auxiliary Building Hosgri Seismic Evaluation, I.
No.
Sokoloff (PGandE), P105-4-431-006 o Auxiliary Building Slab Analysis, 11/30/76, I.
No.
Sokoloff, P105-4-431-007 s
o Analyses and Unsmoothed Floor Spectra for the 1977 No.
and 1979 Auxiliary Building Reports o Allowable Stresses for Earthquake Performance, J. A.
No.
Blume, P105-4-441-001 o FSAR
- Yes, o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports
- Yes, e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the 10VP received from the DCP in connection with the.ITR, and with respect to each category:
,e
~~,
~5/20/83 1-6-3 (i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Lift pour drawings No.
o Building concrete drawing Yes; field verified, o Building steel reinforcing drawings No.
o Steel drawings Yes; field verified, o Steel fabrication drawings and Yes; field verified.
data Major equipment location drawings Yes; field verified.
o c Minor equipment location drawings No.
o Equipment weights No.
o PGandE field information for minor No, equipment weight o Soil spring data No.
o Time history data No.
o Frogram listing of DYB0X 2 No.
o Program listing of SHERWAL 5 and No.
verification o
Information obtained in meetings No, and in telecons with PGandE personnel o 'Information provided in response No.
.to specific written requests f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
ANSYS, STARDYNE See response to Interrogatory 1(f) for ITR-1 Rev. O.
4
-y
+
5
. /20/83 1-7-1 ITR-7, Revision 0 Electrical Raceway Supports 4
1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Er.gineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Asscciates.
l Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison r-7
-,n-,,,-- - - - - - -.,
5/20/83 1-7-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Dr-11 son d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 1 and 2 in the subject ITR
- Yes, o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets for E01s Yes.
listed in Appendix A of the ITR c Raceway Calculations Yes.
No.
Date RLCA Tab No.
S-197 12/17/81 005 S-60 A&B 12/12/81 006 S-387 12/14/81 007 S-563 12/30/81 008 S-18 11/29/81 009 S-594 1/7/82 010 S-7 12/19/81 011 S-1B 12/23/81 012 S-4B 1/7/82 013 S-235 1/19/82 014 S-36 1/12/82 015 S-88 12/10/81 016 S-90 12/9/81 017 S-288 12/30/81 018 S-202 1/27/82 019 S-98 2/1/82 020 S-242 2/2/82 021 Testing Reports for S-6 Brace, 1979 and 1982, Yes.
o P105-4-434-025, 026 and 028
1
' 5/20/83 1-7-3 Relied Report On o FSAR
- Yes, o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports
- Yes,
- e. In categorical terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(1) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Raceway weights No.
o Raceway and cable listings No.
o Raceway and support drawings Yes; field verified.
o Raceway installation specifications Yes; field verified.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel o Information provided in response No.
to specific written requests f.
What computer models were employed in per#orming analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
5/20/83 1-8-1 ITR-8, Revision 0 Verification Program For PGandE Corrective Action 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IOVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IOVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IOVP or its subcon-
[
tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison l
(ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison l
(iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
j Dr.
Robert Cloud; Edward Denison; Ronald
- Wray, Assistant Project
- Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services
'5/20/83 1-8-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o Phase I Final Report - Design Verification Program, Yes.
PGandE, 9/1/82 The IDVP also received and relied upon reports as designated for other ITRS.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o General PGandE program information No.
was obtained through meeting minutes and telecons o The ITR was also prepared using See other ITRs.
information obtained with respect to other ITRs i
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR.
l l
Answer:
l None.
.c 5/20/83 1-9-1 ITR-9 Development of the Service-Related Contractor List for Non-Seismic Design Work Performed for DCNPP-1 Prior to June 1, 1978 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services R. F. Reedy, Inc.
Other persons were retained. by Roger F.
Reedy, Inc. to perform work on this ITR under the direction and supervision of R.
F. Reedy, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its suocontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Roger F. Reedy, President, R. F. Reedy, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its l
subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
l Roger F.
Reedy; Paul J.
Herbert, Principal, R.
F.
I Reedy, Inc.
(ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Roger F. Reed,; Paul J Herbert i
5/20/83 1-9-2 (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Rog,er F.
Reedy; Paul J.
Herbert; Mark
- Revett, Assistant Project
- Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services.
(iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Roger F. Reedy, Paul J. Herbert d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
None.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
1 Answer:
i' Information Verification o Diablo Canyon Project, Yes; verified by reviewing Consultants Contract List contracts and change orders for contracts of the various consultants.
o Contracts 'between PGandE and Yes; same.
their consultants on the Diablo l
Canyon Project o Information obtained orally in No, meetings with the DCP and other IDVP participants
-5/20/83 1-9-3 f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
1 1
l J
t
5/20/83 1
1-10-1 ITR-10, Revision 0 Verification Of Design Analysis Hosgri Spectra 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charga Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Edward Denison, Project Manager Robert L. Cloud Associates Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison l
(ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison
5e
,5/20/S3 1-10-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
See response to Interrogatory 1(d) for the following ITRs:
ITR Rev.
ITR Rev.
3 0
30 0
4 0
31 0
6 0
32 0
7 0
32 1
12 0
33 0
15 0
33 1
17 0
37 0
43 0
Relied Report On o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets for E01s Yes.
listed in Appendix A of the subject ITR e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with I
i respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
,m.,
--+-s
~
5720/83 1-10-3 Answer:
See response to Interrogatory 1 for the following ITRs:
ITR-Rev.
ITR Rev.
3 0
30 0
4 0
31 0
6 0
32 0
7 0
32 1
12 0
33 0
15 0
33 1
17 0
37 0
i 43 0
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
ANSYS, STARDYNE, ADLPIPE 3ee response to Interrogatory 1(f) for ITR-1, Rev. O.
l 9
J e
1 l
'I
. 5/20/83 1-11-1 ITR-ll, Revision 0 PGandE - Westinghouse Seismic Interface Review 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Pobert L. Cioed and Associates b.
Tne person enpioff:d or retained by the IDVP or its subcentractors most kr.wledg'eable about the ITR.
Answe*:
Ronald Wray, Assistant Project Menager, Teledyne Engineering Services L.
The person employed or retair,ed by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Ronald Wray (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
j Ronald Wray (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Ronald Wray (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
l.
Ronald Wray 9
- ~ ~ - -.
o-
5/20/83 1-11-2 d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o
References 1-3 and 6-8 in the subject ITR.
- Yes, o
PGandE documents listed in Appendix A of the ITR Yes.
c.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the informaticn received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Westinghouse csicolatior-sheets No.
and packages referred to in ITR text c DCP Completion and Pesolution Sheets No.
for E01 files referenced in (not generated by) ITR o DCP trip report of IDVP Westinghouse No.
Audit.
o Documents reviewed at Westinghouse No.
offices.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connect-ion with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
5
, /20/83 1-12-1 ITR-12, Revision 0 Piping 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineerir.g Services Robert L. Cicud Asscciates, Inc.
b.
The person employeo or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Presiderit and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Asteciates, Inc.
Eovaro Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Charles
- Browne, Piping Coordinator, Robert L.
Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Charles Browne (iii) the conclusions of the ITR;
5/20/83 1-12-2 Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Charles Browne (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison d.
What reports the IOVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IOVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Reoort On o References 5, 50, 50a, and 83-95 in the subject ITE Yes.
o PGandE Resolution and Congletico Sr.eets for E01s les.
listed in Appendix G of the ITR o FSAR Yes.
o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra'(11/28/81) RLCA i
- P10S-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports Yes.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IOVP received from the OCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IOVP independently verified the information received; (ii) i,f it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o SAM displacements No.
o Component drawings and data No.
o Equipment specifications No.
o Flued head drawings No.
5/20/83 1-12-3 o Design criteria memorandum No.
o Valve index No.
o Instrument Reference No.
o Piping isometrics Yes; field verified, o Piping schematics No.
o Valve drawings Yes; field verified.
o Valve qualification summaries No.
o Valve weights No.
Equipment location drawings Yes; field verified, o
o Flange drawings No.
o Piping layout drawings No.
o Equipment drawings ho.
o Pipe support drawingr No.
i o Equipment founsation and support No.
drawings o Equiptr.ent math modals and No.
stiffnesses o Design change order for equipinent 14 0.
o Building drawings No.
l 0 System descriptions No.
o Nozzle drawings and values No.
o Equipment nozzle drawings No.
o Equipment weights No.
I o Insulation weights No.
o Heat tracing cable weights No.
o Piping walkdown procedures No.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel l
o Ir! formation provided in response No, to specific written requests f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
ADLPIPE See response to Interrogatory 1(f) for ITR-1, Rev. O.
l 5/20/83 1-13-1 ITR-13, Revision 0 Soils - Intake Structure 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L, Cloud Associates, Inc.
Abendruh, Inc.
l b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowlecgtabic about the ITR.
Answer:
s Dr.
P.obert
- Cloud, Pre!ident and Principal in Charge, Robert L Cloud Associates, Inc.
Edward Dension, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Dr. Robert McNeill, Consultant, Abendruh, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Dr. Robert NcNeill, Edward Denison (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Dr. Robert NcNeill (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Dr. Robert NcNeill
2.
-5/20/S3 1-13-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Reoort On c Refererce 6,7, and 9-11 in the suojact liR.
Yes o PGandE P.esolution and Ccmpletfon Ehee+s Yes for EDIs listed ir. Acrencix A of the ITR.
o FSAR
- Ves, o FGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports
- Yes, e.
In categorical
- terms, what otiier information the IDVP received f rom the DCF in connection wi'th the ITR, anc wita respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Building concrete drawings Yes; field verified, o Topographical drawings No.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel o Information provided in response to No.
specific written requests.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
5/20/83 1-14-1 ITR-14 Verification of the Pressure, Temperature, Humidity, and Submergence Environments used for Safety-Related Equipment Specification Outside Containment for Auxiliary Feedwater System and Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization System 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR-36 and ITR-38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDV? worked on the IIR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Charles Frances Bergeron, Lead Nuclear Engineer, SWEC (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Charles Frances Bergeron (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
John Edward Krechting
z.
'5/20/83 1-14-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Charles Frances Bergeron d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On p
o FSAR Yes.
c SER Yes.
o Evutuation for Effect of Fostulateo Pipe Break Out-Yes.
side Containment fcr Diabic Canyon Ur.it 1, PGE-01-02 Revision 3 o Thermal Hydraulic Analyses of Postulated Pipe Break Yes.
Outside Containment at Diablo Canyon Unit 1, 2GE-01-27, Revision 1 o PGandE letter to NRC, dated 1/28/80, re: auxiliary Yes.
feedwater flow rate o Nuclear Services Corporation (NSC) calculation:
Yes.
Compartment Pressurization Analysis, 1-15-74, File No. 1.37.12, 33.5 o NSC calculation: Long-term Environment Analysis Yes.
Revised, 2-20-74, File No. 137.12, 33.421 o NSC calculation: Environmental-Pressurization Other Yes.
High Energy Lines, 4-1-74, File No. 33.423 o NSC calculation: Flooding Analysis of G Area and Yes.
Auxiliary Building, File No. 33.440 Westinghouse letter to PGandE, 1-2-79, Mass and Yes.
o Energy Release Rate o Report 411-82.221, 8-25-82, Diablo Canyon Blowout Yes.
Panels and Fire Door Test
- 5/20/83 1-14-3 Relied Report On o PGandE calculation: Maximum Allowable Pressure for Yes.
Doors 265, 348, 357, and 358, 7-26-82 o PGandE Environmental Qualification Report 9-81
- Yes, Computer Program CONTENST Output,
Title:
Diablo Yes.
o Canyon Unit 1 - Area GW - Main Steam Break - Steam Valve Failure, 5-2-74 o Computer Program CONTEMPT Output,
Title:
Diablo Yes.
Canyon Unit 1 - Turbine - Main Steam Break - Steam Valve Failure, 5-24-76 o Computer Program CONTEMPT Cutput,
Title:
Diablo Yes.
^
Car. yon Unit 1 - GE at 115-Ft Elevation-Leakage fron ai.S. in GW area, 4-29-74 o Computer Program PRTHRUSl Ciutput,
Title:
Diablo Yes.
Canyon Long-Term Blowdown Arialysis Steam Check Valve Failure
~
o Technical Specifications Yes.
o PGandE resclutic') and/or completion packages to Yes.
E01 Files 8001, 8002, 8003, B004, 8005, B006, 8033, 8034, and 8040 o Identification and description of computer program Yes.
used for generation of pressure-temperature environ-ment outside containment o Letter from AEC to PGandE, " General Information Yes.
Required for Consideration of the Effects of a Piping System Brea'K Outside Containment," 12-18-72 o Letter from AEC to PGandE " General Information Yes.
Required ~for Consideration of the Effects of a Piping System Break Outside Containment," 1-29-73 o Information from PGandE which described opening to Yes.
l atmosphere from 8-inch gap between containment and area GE/GW o Information from PGandE providing turbine building Yes.
l galbestos siding data i
t
1 5/20/83 1-14-4 Relied Report On o NSC computer program output for FLUD used in the No.
Flooding Analysis "G" Area and Auxiliary Building o Information from PGandE providing data on bird Yes.
screen located in turbine building roof monitor o Information from PGandE that provided data on Yes.
blowout panel in area GW e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connec; ion with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) wnether tne IDVF independently verified the infor-j mation received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Ar.swer_1 information Verification c Equipment Location Yet; general locations of equip-ment, compartment arrangenents, and compartment openings in areas GE, GW, and the turbine building (el 140') were field verified for development of geometric models.
o Concrete drawings Yes; same, o Drawings which show building Yes; same.
penetrations o Main steam Yes; general location of main piping schematic steam system in areas GE, GW, and the turbine building were field verified for development of geometric models.
o Piping and mechanical Yes; same, drawings
,5/20/83 1-14-5 Information Verification o Structural steel drawings Yes; general locations of steel and siding in areas GE, GW, and the turbine building (el 140') were field verified for development of geometric models.
o Turbine building siding Yes; same.
drawings o PGandE Drawing No. 049021-18 No.
Piping Specificatien Index o Drawing No. 69-XA-25-9 Nc.
asienbly cf 28-inca x 24-inch x 26 inch Main Steam Line Yalve o PGun0E Drawing No. 102040-9 No.
Line Designation Ttble o bestinghouse Steam Generator ho.
Drawings Nos. 1097J74, 7175360 o Letdo:r Lint: cri# ice No.
specification data sheet for R0 27, 28, 29 o PGandE drawings which show the No.
locations of temperature detectors in areas outside containment for the temperature monitoring program o CRVP system duct drawings Yes; field verified for general location of equipment ducts.
o F3andE Drawing No. 59650 Yes; field verified general Roof Access Details-Turbine location of opening in roof Building o Air Conditioning Control Room Yes; 'ield verified general Pressurization System Ducting location in turbine building Details Drawings for development of geometric nodalization.
l
,5/20/83 I
1-14-6 Information Verification o DCVP-TES-934 (83/03/28)
No.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
(i) if the model was obtained from an outside source, Answer:
None f.(ii) if the model was not obtained from an oJtside source, the identity of the person or perstns having over-all responsibility for~ developing the model.
the namt er names by whir,h tl.e model is kacun.
- the general fuaction of the model,
~
- the computer language in which the andal wA-
- written, in general, what measures w?re taken to verify the accuracy of the model, the manufacturer and model rumber of the computer or computers on which the computer model was run in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
- SWEC Version 12, Level 03,
- NUO92A, Subcompartment Transient Response code (THREED)
The program calculates the transient pressure, l
temperature, and humidity in subcompartments following a postulated rupture in a moderate or high energy pipeline.
FORTRAN IV - 98 percent BAL - 2 percent
- Benchmarked with industry codes RELAP 4 Mod 5 and COMPARE MOD 0 and manual verification of various phenomena.
- IBM 370/3033
5/20/83 1-15-1 ITR-15, Revision 0 HVAC Duct and Supports Report 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Arsociates, Inc.
i Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associctes, Inc.
Hanson Loey, Project Engineer and Equipment Coordinator, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
j Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey I
(iii) the conclusions of the ITR;
]
6
-5/20/83
)
r 1-15-2 i
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison i
y
'('iv )
documentation of the ITR.
Answer:-
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection
'with the ITR' and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
A,iswer:
Relied Report On c References 3, 4, and 8-10 in the subject ITR Yes.
o PGandE Pescletion and Completion Sheets for EDIs Yes.
listed in Appendix B of the ITR o FSAR Yes.
P o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports Yes.
l e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the:DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o HVAC installation specification No.
o HVAC layout drawings Yes; field verified.
o Pyrocrete weight No.
o HVAC duct material list No.
=.
5/20/23 1-15-3 o HVAC duct and supports No.
i mounting details o HVAC support fabrication drawings Yes; field verified.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel o
Information provided in response No.
to specific written requests f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
STARDYNE' See response to Interrogatory 1(f) for ITR-1, Rev. O.
I l
l l
l l
,m--
n-c-
---x-m,----7 r-r
~r
5/20/83 1-16-1 ITR-16, Revision 0 Soils - Outdoor Water Storage Tanks 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IOVP worked on the ITR7 Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Abendruh, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IOVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about ti,a ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Dr. Robert McNeill, Consultant, Abendruh, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IOVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Ed.iard Dension, Dr. Robert McNeill 4
(ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Dr. Robert McNeill (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Dr. Robert McNeill
~
5/20/33 1-16-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 6-10, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 in the subject Yes.
ITR o PGandE Resolution and Completion Reports for E01s Yes.
listed in Appendix A of the ITR o FSAR Yes.
o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports
- Yes, e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with l
respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o 0WST structural drawings No.
o OWST excavation drawings No.
[
o Information obtained in meetings No.
l and in telecons with PGandE personnel o
Information provided in response No.
to specific written requests
5/20/S3 1-16-3
- f. What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
I l
r
5/20/83 1-17-1 ITR-17, Revision 0 Piping - Additional Samples 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Charles
- Browne, Piping Coordinator, Robert L.
Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud; Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
l (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; j
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Charles Browne (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Charles Browne l-f
5/20/83 l
1-17-2 l
(iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Charles Browne d.
What reports the IOVP received from the OCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IOVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On References 4, 29, 30, and 49-53 in the subject ITR.
Yes.
o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets for E0Is.
Yes.
o listed in Appendix G of the ITR o FSAR Yes.
o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE OCP Semi-Monthly Reports
- Yes, e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IOVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IOVP independently verified the j
information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o SAM displacements No.
o Component drawings and data No.
l l
o Equipment specifications No.
o Flued head drawings No.
o Design criteria memorandum No.
o Valve index No.
i l
l
-5/2(h'83 1-17-3 Information Verification o Instrument Reference No.
o Piping isomet'rics Yes; field verified.
o Piping schematics No.
o Valve drawings Yes; field verified, o Valve qualification summaries ho.
l 0 Valve weights No.
o Equipment location drawings Yes; field verified.
o Flange drawings No.
o Piping layout drawings No.
o Equipment drawings No.
o Pipe support drawings No.
o Equipment foundation and support No.
drawings o Equipment math models and No.
stiffnesses o Design change order for equipment No.
o Building drawings No.
l o System descriptions No.
o Nozzle drawings and values No.
o Equipment nozzle drawings No.
o Equipment weights No.
o Insulation weights No.
o Heat tracing cable weights No.
o Piping walkdown procedures No.
o.Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel o
Information provided in response No.
to specific written requests f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
ADLPIPE See response to Interrogatory 1(f) for ITR-1, Rev. O.
1
5/20/83 1-18-1 ITR-18 Verification of the Fire Protection Provided for i
Auxiliary Feedwater Systems, Control Room Ventilation and Pressurization System, Safety-Related Portion of the 4160 V Electric System 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR7 Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC),
Tech /Ed Services b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Karl Andrew Swenson, Lead Power Engineer, SWEC (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Karl Andrew Swenson
- /
,S/20/83 1-18-2 (iii) the. conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
John Edward Krechting (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer Karl Andrew Swenson d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o FSAR Yes.
o SER Yes.
o Technical Specifications No.
o Design criteria for sprinklers, detectors, and fire No.
barrier construction o Supplementary information for fire protection review Yes.
November 13, 1978 o PGandE letters to the NRC addressing NRC fire Yes.
protection questions (2-6-78, 8-3-78, 11-13-78) o PGandE Resolution and/or Completion packages for Yes.
E01 Files 8019, 8020, 8021, 8032, 8035, 8036, 8037, 8038, 8039 e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
,5/20/83 1-18-3 Answer:
Information Verification o Equipment location drawings No.
o Ventilation system flow diagrams No.
o Fire protection piping drawings No.
j o Fire loading adjacent to AFW No.
l pump room o Fire barrier construction for AFW Yes; field verified that pump rooms barrier installed in accord ance with licensing commit-ment.
o Ventilation drawings showing Yes; field verified fire dampers in HVAC system locations.
for AFW pump rooms o Drawings showing H2 piping Yes; field verified locations in vicinity of AFW general location of H2 pump room lines.
o Fire protection sprinkler Yes; field verified sprink-drawings ler locations in areas con-taining the sample systems.
o Documentation of electrical Yes; field verified AFW conduit locations in AFW pump room conduit locations.
o Drawings of fire hose reel Yes; field verified loca-locations tions in areas containing the sample systems, o Drawings of portable fire Yes; same, extinguisher locations o Fire Detector Drawings Yes; same.
o PGandE response identifying Yes; same.
control room breathing apparatus o Architectural drawings showing Yes; same.
fire barrier construction
.5/20/83 1-18-4 Information Verification o Electrical raceway drawings Yes; same.
o DCNs, electrical elementary Yes; field verified conduit diagrams, and raceway information routing.
for FCV-95 o Fuse characteristics for fuses No, associated with dc control of FCV-95 Letters to/from PGandE and NRC No.
o o DCM-M-6 Rev 5 Yes; field verified hydrogen line enclosures in AFW pump rooms.
o DC-0-E-M-208 Yes; same.
o DC0-EE-550 R10 Yes; field verified conduit routing.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
None.
l l
l
- 5/20/83 1-19-1 ITR-19 Verification of the Post-LOCA Portion of the Radiation Environments Used for Safety-Related Equipment Specification Outside Containment Auxiliary Feedwater System and Control Room Ventilation and PressurizaItion System 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
General
- Dynamics, Electric Boat Division, Reactor Plant Services b.
The person employed or retain.ad by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC l
c.
-The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Charles Francis Bergeron, Lead Nuclear Technology Engineer, SWEC (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; l
l l
l
5/20/83 1-19-2 Answer:
Charles Francis Bergeron (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
John Edward Krechting (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Charles Francis Bergeron d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
l Answer:
Relied Report On o Radiation Research Associates (RRA); RRA Job Record Yes.
No. RRA-4273-004-001 o RRA-4273-004-002 Yes.
o RRA-4273-006-001 No.
o RRA-4273-006-002 No.
o RRA-4273-006-003 No.
o RRA-4273-006-004 No.
o RRA-4273-006-005 No.
o RRA-4273-006-008 Yes.
l l
o RRA-4273-006-009 No.
o RRA-4273-006-010 No.
o RRA-4273-006-011 No.
o RRA-4273-006-013 No.
o RRA-4273-006-014 No.
l o RRA-4273-006-019 No.
o RRA-4273-006-020 No.
l l
5/20/83 1-19-3 Relied Report On o RRA-4273-006-021 No.
o RRA-4273-006-030 No.
o RRA-4273-006-031 No.
o RRA-4273-005-015 No.
o FSAR No.
o Diablo Canyon Radiation Shielding Review
- Yes, o QADMOD Computer Run ID=2B13; Output for RRA; Yes.
Job Record # RRA-4273-006-008 o QADMOD Computer Code User's Manual
- Yes, o ORIGEN Computer Code User's Manual No.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Fluid system piping schematics No.
o PGandE piping drawings Yes; field verified the general locations of radioactivity piping targets and shield walls used in SWEC dose analysis o Isometric drawings (pipes)
Yes; same.
.--r
-y
.m.
--y y
5/20/S3 1-19-4 Information Verification o PGandE piping and mechanical Yes; same.
drawings o PGandE concrete drawings Yes; same, o PGandE piping specification index No.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
(i) if the model was obtained from an outside source,
- the identity of that source, the name or names by which the model is known, the general function of the model, whether the model was received in source code or object code,
- whether the version received had been certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature of the certi-
- fication, whether the model (i.e., the computer program) was l
modified in any way (excluding modifications solely to alter the format in which data were read or displayed) after receipt and, if so, the nature of all such modifications, l
- the manufacturer and model number of the computer or computers on which the computer model was run in connection with the ITR; Answer:
1 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.
SWEC version developed under contract to SWEC by Radiation Research Associates (RRA)
QA0 P-5 (Los Alamos) Version 00, Level 03, NU-137, Point Kernal Gamma Transport (QADMOD)
- The program calculates the dose rates at a series of detector locations for a number of different source points representing volumetric sources
.5/20/83 1-19-5 i
- Source code
- SWEC version developed under contract to SWEC by RRA was qualified by hand calculation
- The QAD P-5 program has been updated to include:
- 1) the FASTER geometry routines, 2) a point source option, 3) a translated cylindrical source volume option and 4) internal library data for conversion f actors, buildup factor coefficients, and mass at-tenuation factors for several materials and com-position.
The program was also modified to 1) reduce and simplify the required card input, 2) simplify the printed oktput and 3) include an op-tion to have the summary table punched on cards.
IBM 370/3033 f.(ii) if the model was not obtained from an outside source, the identity of the person or persons having over-all responsibility for developing the model,
- the name or names by which the model is known, the general function of the model, the computer language in which the model was
- written, l
in general, what measures were taken to verify the accuracy of the model, the manufacturer and model number of the computer or computers on which the computer model was run in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
l
. SWEC l
- Version 01, Level 01, Nu014, Fission Products in Nuclear Reactor (ACTIVITY 2) 1
- The program computes the fission products inven-tory in the fuel and concentrations in coolant and waste gas decay tanks in a nuclear power plant
- FORTRAN IV l
l
5/20/B3 1-19-6 l
t
" Manual Qualification."
NUO14 was qualified by hand calculations and checked against a Westing-house RESAR
- IBM 370/3033 Answer:
SWEC l
Version 01, Level 00, NU007, Radioisotope The program calculates the activity of isotopes in l
the primary coolant of a shutdown reactor by solv-i ing the appropriate decay-purification equations
- FORTRAN IV
" Manual Qualification." NUG07 was qualified by hand calculation
' IBM 370/3033 l
l I
{
e l
l l
l I
,/20/83 5
1-20-1 ITR-20, Revisions 0 and 1 Verification Of The Mechanical / Nuclear Design Of The Control Room Ventilation And Pressurization System 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IOVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
Foster-Miller Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IOVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC c.
The person employed or retained by the IOVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Karl Andrew Swenson, Lead Power Engineer, SWEC (ii) a'nalyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Karl Andrew Swenson m'
f
, 5/20/83 i
1 1-20-2 (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; 4
Answer:
Joh.n Edward Krechting 4
(iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Karl Andrew Swenson d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it, i
Answer:
Relied Report On o FSAR
- Yes, o SER Yes.
o " Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5M Hosgri
- Yes, i
Earthquake" o Technical Specifications
- Yes, o Vendor heat load data for all equipment in control Yes.
room envelope cooled by the CRVP system o Vendor-certified CRVP fan performance curves at
- Yes, design conditions l
0 Control room radiation and toxic gas buildup Yes.
calculations o CRVP system vendor damper drawings data sheets and Yes.
- pressure loss test data at design flow o Calculations which establish control room envelope Yes.
heat losses o Calculations which establish CRVP system design air
- Yes, flows o Preoperational test results verifying design flows Yes.
e
.,.m-.-,
5/20/83 1-20-3 Relied Report On and proper damper operational sequencing for all modes of CRVP system operation o The CRVP system design criteria
- Yes, o PGandE analyses used for sizing the CRVP and
- Yes, handling units o CRVP startup procedures
- Yes, o Plumbing layout of control room and CRVP mechanical Yes.
room to identify floor drains and the PGandE analyses to indicate whether loss of trap priming has any impact on control room pressurization o Air balance test reports
- Yes, o Calculation for C02 buildup from mode 3 operation Yes.
of the CRVP system in the control room Calculation indicating system pressure drop for flow Yes.
o of 800 cfm through each carbon filter serving the control room and 1600 cfm through one filter when either unit is off-line o Documentation concerning location of HEPA and carbon filters serving control room o EDS design review of the control room HVAC which was
- Yes, completed 9/80 Certified control room pressurization test report
- Yes, l
o verifying control room envelope can be maintained at 1/8 in. W.G.
l o Basis for the assumption of a control room infiltra-Yes.
tion rate of 500 cfm as indicated in FSAR, page 9.4-6 l
0 Basis for the term "2+0.6x2" shown in a formula in Yes.
FSAR, page 9.4-6c o Basis for statement " Flow characteristics of the
- Yes, damper are such that the average flow over the l
closure time is less than 60 percent of full flow" I
indicated in FSAR, page 9.4-3 l
PGandE Resolution and/or Completion Packages Yes.
o l
to E01 Files 8012 and 8016
5/20/83 1-20-4 e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IOVP received from the OCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to.each category:
(i) whether the IOVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Equipment location drawings Yes; field verified CRVP equipment location.
o CRVP System schematic Yes; field verified items such as number and sequence of fans, ducts, dampers and air-conditioning equipment.
c CRVP system vendor damper drawings, No.
data sheets and pressure loss test data at design flow o CRVP system vendor filter drawings No.
and data sheets o Vendor drawings and data sheets No.
for.the CRVP system air condition-l ing (chiller) units and cooling l
coils o PGandE/EOS correspondence which No.
establishes the CRVP design criteria o 'CRVP system chilled water or refri-Yes; field verified to gerant piping drawings ensure that no l
l significant differences exist that could affect operation as described in licensing documents.
l o Duct pipe specifications No.
5/20/83 1-20-5 Information Verification o Line designation tables No.
o Equipment location drawings Yes; field verified equipment located per
- drawings, o CRVP system duct drawings Yes; field verified to ensure that no signifi-cant differences exist that could affect opera-tion as described in licensing documents.
o CRVP system chlorine and radiation' No.
monitoring instrumentation purchase specification manufacturer dat.a sheets and installation require-ments o Leakage rate and pressure drop No.
curves for the bubble-tight dampers o Orawings showing location of chlorine and radiation monitor on Yes; confirmed field the inlet of the control air con-location to be in ditioning system accordance with drawings.
o Equipment purchase information No.
o Letters to/from PGandE and NRC No.
l o DCVP-TES-928(83/03/25)
No.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
l Answer:
None.
,5/20/83 1-21-1 ITR-21, Revisions 0 and 1 Verification Of The Effects Of High Energy Line Cracks And Moderate Energy Line Breaks For Auxiliary Feedwater System And Control Room Ventilation And Pressurization System 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
I Karl Andrew Swenson, Lead Power Engineer, SWEC (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Karl Andrew Swenson
5/20/83 1-21-2 (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
John Edward Krechting (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
l Karl Andrew Swenson l
d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o FSAR Yes.
o SER
- Yes, o " Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5M Hosgri Yes.
Earthquake" o Technical Specifications Yes.
o Nuclear Services Corporation Report, PGE-01-29
- Yes, o Resolution and Completion packages from PGandE for Yes.
E0I Files 8011, 8014, 8028, 8029, 8030, 8031 and 8050 l
l e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii)
'if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Equipment location drawings Yes; field verified general location of AFW 4
i
^-
5/20/83 1-21-3 1
Information Verification and CRVP Class I
equipment.
o Line designation tables No.
Condensate system piping drawings Yes; drawings were used o
as guides to identify and locate piping in the field.
Piping general location was verified.
Auxiliary feedwater piping drawings Yes; same.
o o Fire protection system piping Yes; same.
drawings o Makeup water system piping drawings Yes; same.
o Turbine steam supply piping, includ-Yes; same.
ing main steam piping, steam genera-tor blowdown piping, and steam piping to the turbine driven auxiliary feed-water pump o Extraction steam and heater drip Yes; same, system o Chemical and volume control system Yes; same.
o Turbine and generator associated Yes; same.
systems o Auxiliary steam system Yes; same.
o Safety injection system Yes; same.
Residual heat removal system Yes; same.
o o Fire protection system Yes; same, o PGandE letters to/from NRC No.
i o DCVP-TES-931(83/03/25)
No.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
l None l'
5/20/83 1-22-1 ITR-22, Revisions 0 and 1 Verification Of The Mechanical / Nuclear Portion Of The Auxiliary Feedwater System 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 l
and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
Foster-Miller Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
l Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Karl Andrew Swenson, Lead Power Engineer, SWEC (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Karl Andrew Swenson l
(iii) the conclusions of the ITR; l
s.
3/20/83 1-22-2 Answer:
John Edward Krechting (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Karl Andrew Swensen d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o FSAR Yes.
o SER
- Yes,
" Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5M Hosgri Yes.
o Earthquake" o Technical Specifications
- Yes, o Condensate Storage Tank Sizing Calculations No.
Calculations which establish AFW system design flows No.
o o AFW pumps NPSHA calculations No.
o AFW system parameters inputs (temperature, press, Yes.
i pipe schedule, pipe material) to stress analysi,s i
calculations o AFW system files of design information Yes.
o AFW system pre-op test procedures
- Yes, Operating procedures indicating the operator actions Yes.
o l
in response to low AFW pump suction pressure alarm and low condenate storage tank level alarm o Operating procedure for AC power operation and Yes.
l realigning to secondary water sources PGandE basis for selecting the " maximum operating Yes.
o pressure" for the AFW piping o Report clarifying the acceptance of the fire water Yes.
1
'e 5/20/83 1-22-3 Relied Report On tank as the backup water source for the AFW system PGandE description of the purpose of the AFW system No.
o
" fill line" shown on the piping schematic diagram o Procedure documenting the SG water hammer test was Yes.
performed hot o Test data showing required auxiliary feedwater flow Yes.
can be provided PGandE letter to the NRC transmitting test procedures Yes.
o and results of 48 hr endurance test for motor driven S
AFW pumps Written description by PGandE concerning isolating
- Yes, o
auxiliary feedwater after a feedwater line break accident PGandE Resolution and/or Completion packages for E01 Yes.
o Files 8009, 8010, 8015, 8027, 8048, 8060, and 8062 e.
In categorical terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(1) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Equipment location drawings Yes; field verified AFW equip-ment location, o Fluid system piping schematics Yes; field verified to assure no significant differences exist from a hydraulic opera-tional view point.
o PGandE Drawing No. 04902 Valve No.
Specifications
5/20/83 1-22-4
\\
Information Verification PGandE/ Westinghouse correspondence No.
on AFW system design interface criteria o Piping specifications Yes; calculation of pipe minimum wall thickness, o Valve specification Yes; field verified as in-stalled per specification and piping schematic, o AFW pump-certified vendor test No.
curves for MD and TD pumps o AFW System flow control valve No.
characteristics (Cv versus % open) from vendor o AFW system installed orifice data No.
sheets indicating orifice diameter from vendor o Vendor valve drawing and data sheets Yes; field verified as in-for AFW system valves stalled per specification and piping schematic, o Condensate storage tank vendor Yes; sizing calculation i
j drawing o Condensate storage tank specifica-No.
tion o AFW pump (MD and TD) specification No.
o Condensate system piping drawings Yes; drawings were field verified to compare the as-built configuration to piping schematics and to assure no significant dif-ferences exist from a hy-draulic operational view-point.
5/20/83 1-22-5 Information Verification o Feedwater system piping drawings Yes; same.
o Steam system piping drawings Yes; same, o Auxiliary feedwater piping drawings Yes; same, o Fire protection system piping Yes; same.
drawings l
o Makeup water system piping drawings Yes; same.
l o Containment penetration drawings Yes; same, o Piping specifications index, general Yes; same, notes, and services (PGandE Drawing No. 049021) o AFW with Project Letter No. 1630 No.
concerning steam system criteria compliance o AFW system E-H actuator vendor data No.
sheets o AFW system piping isometric drawings No.
o Vendor letter responding to PGandE No.
l question regarding pump drainage o Steam flow rate for AFW pump turbine No.
o Letters to/from PGandE and NRC No.
o Drawings showing raw water re-Yes; field verification of servoir and piping to the AFW pumps i ing configuration which did not include detailed dimensional measurements.
o Westinghouse curve indicating AFW No.
flowrate required for remaining at l
hot standby and for cooling down o Manufacturer's data showing required No.
flow / temperature / pressure for the AFW turbine bearing cooling system o Manufacturers data showing required No.
design pressure and temperature for the AFW turbine bearing heat ex-changers
- 5/20/83 1-22-6 Information Verification o Purchase specifications and infor-No.
mation for control valves 95, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, and 115 o Vendor data listing maximum dif-No.
ferential pressure that the valves are designed to open and close for 95, 37, 38, 436, 437, 106, 107, 108 110, 111, and 115 o DC0-E-M-0476, Rev. 0-3 Yes; field verification of installation.
o Valve specification 1166 No.
o Valve specification 0722 No.
o Specification for valve 46.5 No.
o Manufacturer data for FI-9, 10, No.
and 12 o Valve specification for G-0218 No.
o Vendor data for design pressure No, and temperature for the turbine governor cooling unit o PGandE Drawing No. 663183 Yes, field verified.
(Fischer & Porter Co. Flow Indicator outline drawing o DCVP-TES-946(83/04/04)
No.
f'.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in con-nection with ine ITR:
(i) if the model was obtained from an outside source, Answer:
None.
f.(ii) if the model was not obtained from an outside source,
- the identity of the person or persons having overall responsibility for developing the model,
- 5/20/83 1-22-7 the name or names by which the model is known,
- the general function of the model,
-.the computer language in which the model was written,
- in general, what measures were taken to verify the accuracy of the model, the manufacturer and model number of the computer or computers on which the computer model was run in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
- SWEC Version 0,
level 04, HY-66, Piping System Analysis Program (PSAP).
- The program performs a comprehensive hydraulic analysis and design of a network piping system.
Any parameter such as flow, diameter, or form loss coefficient of each pipe in the system can be determined if the other two are known.
- FORTRAN IV
- "Comparision Qualification" with HY-63 was performed.
HY-63 is " Steady State Pipe Network Analysis Program-Linear" and was qualified by comparison to hand I
calculations.
- IBM 370/3033.
l I
l l
I l
~-
5/20/83 1-23-1 ITR-23, Revisions 0 and 1 Verification Of High Energy Line Break And Internally Generated Missile Review Outside Containment For Auxiliary Feedwater System And Control Room Ventilation And Pressurization System 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Stephen Patrick Sekerak, Lead Engineering Mechanics Engineer, SWEC (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Stephen Patrick Sekerak (iii) the conclusions of the ITR;
'z.
5/20/83 1-23-2 Answer:
Jobn Edward Krechting (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Stephen Patrick Sekerak d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o FSAR
- Yes, o Nuclear Services Report-PGandE-01-26, Rev. 1 Yes.
o Nuclear Services Report-PGandE-01-27, Rev. 1 No.
o Nuclear Services Report-PGandE-01-28, Rev. 1 Yes.
I o Nuclear Services Report-PGandE-01-29, Rev. 1
- Yes, o Environmental Qualification Report for Safety-Related Yes.
Electrical Q uipment, June 1981 o Descriptio: cf a method for determining pipe internal Yes.
diameter and wall thickness o Letter identifying break locations and types for Yes.
condensate, extraction steam and heater drip, and turbine generator and associated systems (DCVP-SWEC-144 response to document Rev. #12)
PGandE responses to IDVP questions as a result of Yes.
o background exchange meetings o Resolution and/or completion packages for E01 Files Yes.
(
8007, 8008, and 8049 e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
l l
5/20/83 1-23-3 (i) whether the IDVP independently verified the informa-tion received; (ii) if'it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Condensate system piping area Yes; drawings were drawings field verified to compare only the general routing of the as-built piping con-figuration with the piping drawings to assure no significant differences in routing exist which might affect postulated high energy line rupture locations.
o Feedwater system piping area Yes; same.
drawings o Main steam system area drawings Yes; same.
l o Steam generator blowdown area Yes; same.
drawings o Steam piping to auxiliary feed Yes; same, pump turbine drawings o Extraction steam and heater drip Yes; same.
drawings o Chemical and volume control system Yes; same, drawings o Turbine and generator associated Yes; same.
system drawings o Auxiliary feedwater system drawings No.
o Safety injection system drawings No o Residual heat removal system No.
)
j i
drawings I
~
5/20/83 1-23-4 Information Verification o Auxiliary feedwater piping No.
isometrics o Air conditioning drawings - control No.
room o Concrete drawings for auxiliary No.
building o Concrete drawings for containment No.
o Concrete drawings for fuel handling No.
building o Concrete drawings for control room No.
o Equipment location drawings for Yes; drawings were auxiliary building field verified only to the extent necessary to verify the as-built locations of compo-nents identified as sources of postulated internally generated missiles.
o Equipment location drawings for Yes; same.
fuel handling building o Equipment location drawings for Yes; same, turbine building o Equipment location drawings for No.
containment o Cable tray and conduit layout No.
drawings 'for AFW and CRVP systems o Line designation table (PGandE No.
Drawing No. 102040-9) o Piping specification index, general No, notes, and services (PGandE drawing No. 049021-18)
B/20/83 1-23-5 Information Verification o AFWPT missile shield drawing Yes; field verified that shield is in place.
o Fluid system piping schematics No.
o Change sheets for piping area No.
drawings o Letters to/from PGandE and NRC No.
o DCVP-TES-930 (83/03/25)
No.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
G
..A
5/20/83 1-24-1 ITR-24, Revisions 0 and 1 Verification Of The 4160V Safety-Related Electrical Distribution System 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
Tech /Ed Services b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Edward Francis Heneberry, Lead Electrical Engineer, SWEC (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Edward Francis Heneberry (iii) the conclusions of the ITR;
.5/20/83 1-24-2 Answer:
John Edward Krechting (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Edward Francis Heneberry d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o FSAR
- Yes, o SER Yes.
o PGandE/NRC letters Yes.
o Technical Specifications Yes.
o Identification of safety-related systems
- Yes, o Maximum and minimum values of operating voltage,
- Yes, MVA, x/r ratio and power factor for 500 kV, 230 kV, and 25 kV (generator) systems o Relay information and settings for:
Diesel generators Yes.
4 kV circuit breakers Yes.
4 kV and 480 V bus undervoltage Yes.
4 kV and 480 V Coordination Yes.
Largest 4kV motor (charging pump)
Yes.
o Design Criteria:
4160 V system No.
480 V system No.
115 V ac system No.
125 V de system No.
o Voltage Profile and Short Circuit Calculations:
4160 V safety-related systems No.
4
~
~
' 5/20/83 1-24-3 Relied Report On 480 V safety-related systems No.
o PGandE practice for loading 4160-480 V load Yes.
center transformers o Lists of equipment supplied by diesel generators Yes.
for various loading conditions o Diesel generator motor starting test data Yes.
o Protective relay settings Yes.
o 4160 V ground resistor calculation Yes.
o DCNs outstanding prior to 11/30/81 Yes.
o Brake horsepower of reactor coolant pump Yes.
o Equipment line-up on 12 kV and 4 kV buses Yes.
o Equipment current level relative to relay Yes.
coordination curves o kW and kVA loadings on diesel generators for various
- Yes, operating conditions o Schedules for automatic sequential loading of the Yes.
i emergency diesel generators o Results of qualification tests run by diesel Yes.
generator manufacturer o 480 V bus loading summaries
- Yes, o Transformer tap settings Yes.
o Brake horsepower of 4kV and 12 kV non-safety motors
- Yes, o kW and kVA test loadings applied to diesel generators Yes.
when PGandE Test Procedure 21.1 was performed o Documentation of input data used in short circuit and Yes.
voltage p'rofile calculations o Additional test data to verify the capabilities of Yes.
the diesel generator o Oscillograph SM SS4A-5007645 diesel generator test Yes.
results Voltage profile documentation for full load, low Yes.
o voltage conditions, auxiliaries being supplied from main generator 25 kV bus o Short-circuit calculations for 480 V safety-related Yes.
i
. 5/20/83 1-24-4 Relied Report On buses o PGandE Resolution and/or Completion packages for E01 Yes.
Files 8013, 8022, 8023, 8024, 8025, 8026, and 8045 e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Vendor Data - power transformers No.
o Vendor Data - main generator No.
o Vendor Data - diesel generator No.
o Vendor Data - motors larger than No.
100 hp.
o Vendor Data - medium voltage switch-No.
gear o Vendor Data - 480 V safety-related No.
MCCs o Manual circuit schedules 12 kV circuits No.
4 kV circuits No.
6 Schematic diagrams - diesel genera-No.
tors o Schematic diagrams - 4 kV main No.
circuit breakers o Schematic diagrams - 115 V ac and No.
125 V de systems o Index of PGandE electrical drawings No.
o Vendor data for electrical equipment No.
in 4160 V System o Letters to/from PGandE and NRC No.
-m-
i 5/20/83 1-24-5 Information Verification o Switchgear and oreaker locations No.
o Vendor kW and kVA ratings of No.
diesel generators o Design and construction of diesel No.
generator main cables t
l o Raceway information for diesel No.
I generator cables o Vendor defined minimum starting No.
voltage for safety system motors o Specifications for 4 kV safety-No.
related switchgear and emergency diesel generators o Vendor defined 4 KV switchgear No.
capability o DCVP-TES-945 (83/04/04)
No.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
j
(
(i) if the model was obtained from an outside source,
- the identity of that source,
- the name cr names by which the model is known,
- the general function of the model,
- whether the model was received in source code or object code,
- whether the version received had been certified for accuracy and, if so, the nature of the certi-
. fication, whether the model (i.e., the computer program) was modified in any way (excluding modifications solely to alter the format in which data were read or displayed) after receipt and, if so, the nature of all such modifications,
s.
'5/20/83 1-24-6 the manuf acturer and model number of the computer or computers on which the computer model was run in connection with the ITR; Answer:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Dow Engineering Company l
Version 00, level 00, EL-067, Station Service Optimization and Analysis Program (SSOAP)
The program calculates the maximum and minimum allowable station service transformer impedances at various load levels and identifies the optimum impedance.
It also investigates the steady state operation of auxiliary system conditions including motor starting transient conditions.
It t
l calculates symmetrical and asymmetrical currents and MVA for an auxiliary system under faulted conditions.
- Source code.
A)
The EPRI Transient / Midterm Stability Program j
(EL-063) - Power Flow Module was qualified by comparing test cases run on the Stone &
Webster computer with computer output of test l
case results provided by EPRI.
B)
The Dow Engineering Short-Circuit Program (EL-028) was qualified by performing manual calculations using test case input data and then comparing the results with the test case computer output.
1)
The program is known as " Station Service Optimization and Analysis Program" or more simply as " Station Service Program."
l
'u'
~
' 5/20/83 1-24-7 2)
It is an enhancement and incorporation of two previously cualified programs:
a)
The EPRI Transient / Midterm Stability Program (EL-063) - Power Flow Module b)
The Dow Engineering Short-Circuit Program (EL-028).
3)
Modifications were made to a copy of each of these two programs (i.e.,
the qualified versions of EL-028 and EL-063 were not disturbed) to include the following options i
for EL-067:
a)
Induction motor equivalent circuits b)
Branch impedance data input c)
Station service transformer data input d)
Synchronous machine data input 4
e)
Circuit breaker data input.
4)
EL-067 was qualified by comparing runs made with EL-067 to the previously qualified i
programs as follows:
o Load flow runs compared with output of EL-063 runs made with the same test data input o
Short-circuit runs compared with output of EL-028 runs made with the same test data input The added options were qualified by performing manual calculations using the test case input data and comparing the results with the test case computer output.
IBM 370/3033 l
'5/20/83 1-24-8 f.(ii) if the model was not obtained from an outside source, Answer:
None.
S/20/83 1-25-1 ITR-25, Revisions 0 and 1 Verification Of The Auxiliary Feedwater System Electrical Design 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
Tech /Ed Services b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
1 Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Edward Francis Heneberry, Lead Electrical Engineer, SWEC (ii)
' analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Edward Francis Heneberry (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
John Edward Krechting
-~
.~
~
^
5/20/83 1-25-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer Edward Francis Heneberry d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o FSAR Yes.
o SER Yes.
o Technical Specifications
- Yes, o List of Electrical Safety-Related AFW Equipment
- Yes, o List of AFW Electrical Equipment Requiring Qualifica-Yes.
tion and Environmental Conditions o Environmental Qualification Reports for AFW Electrical Yes.
Equipment o PGandE Criteria for cable installation in tray Yes.
o PGandE Resolution and/or Completion Packages for E0I Yes.
j Files 8011, 8042, 8043, 8044, 8061, and 8063 l
o Relay Protection Settings
- Yes, e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the l
information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Electrical one-line drawings No.
o Wiring diagrams No,
S/20/83 1-25-3 Information Verification o Circuit schedules and data No.
o Raceway schedules and data No.
o Vendor motor data No.
o PGandE purchase specifications No.
o Design change notices prior to No.
11/30/81 for one-line drawings o PGandE electrical drawing list No.
o Vendor breaker data No.
o PGandE design and test data No.
o PGandE marked-up drawings of raceway Yes; field verifica-and electrical equipment in AFW tion of raceway rout-system ing and equipment lo-cation.
o Power cable design and construction No.
o Cable block diagrams No.
o Electrical schematics No.
o Circuit listings No.
f o Raceway listings No.
o Equipment location code No.
o Manual power circuit and raceway No.
listing for the AFW System o Letters to/from PGandE and NRC No.
o DCVP-TES-944 (83/04/04)
No.
l f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None l
l
' 5/20/83 1-26-1 ITR-26, Revisions 0 and 1 Verification Of The Control Room Ventilation And Pressurization System Electrical System 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC l
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-c.
tractors most knowledgeable about:
l (i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
j Edward Francis Heneberry, Lead Electrical Engineer, l
SWEC i
(ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Edward Francis Heneberry (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
John Edward Krechting
5/20/83 1-26-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Edward Francis Heneberry d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o FSAR Yes.
- o SER
- Yes, o Technical Specifications
- Yes, List of Electrical Safety-Related CRVP Equipment
- Yes, o
o List of CRVP Electrical Equipment Requiring Quali-Yes.
fication and Environmental Conditions o Environmental Qualification Reports for CRVP Yes.
i Electrical Equipment o PGandE criteria for cable installation in tray Yes.
o PGandE Resolution and/or Completion packages for Yes.
E0I Files 8011, 8041, 8042, 8044, 8061 o Relay Protection Settings
- Yes, e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP l
received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the.
IOVP independently verified the
{
information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Electrical one-line drawings No.
o Wiring diagrams No.
- - - 4r
5/20/83 1-26-3 Information Verification o Circuit schedules and data No.
o Raceway schedules and data No.
o Vendor motor data No.
o PGandE purchase specifications No.
o Design change notices prior No.
to 11/30/81 for one-line drawings o PGandE electrical drawing list No.
o Vendor breaker data No.
o PGandE design & test data No.
o PGandE marked-up drawings of race-way and electrical equipment in CRVP Yes; field verification of raceway routing and system equipment location.
o Power cable design and construction No.
o Cable block diagrams No.
o Electrical schematics No.
o Circuit listings No.
o Raceway listings No.
o Equipment location code No.
o Manual power circuit and raceway No.
listing for the CRVP system o Letters to/from PGandE and NRC No.
o DCVP-TES-No.
973 (83/04/13) f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
4 None.
5/20/S3 1-27-1 ITR-27, Revisions 0 and 1 Verification Of The Instrument And Control Design Of The Auxiliary Feedwater System 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 j
and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
i Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering C.orporation (SWEC)
Foster-Miller Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IOVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC c.
The person employed or retained by the IOVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Frank James Rezendes, Lead I&C Engineer, SWEC (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; l
Answer:
Frank James Rezendes 1
(iii) the coreclusions of the ITR;
'5/20/S3 1-27-2 Answer:
John Edward Krechting (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Frank James Rezendes d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IOVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o FSAR Yes.
o SER
- Yes, o PGandE Environmental Qualification Report Yes.
o PGandE Resolution and/or Completion packages for Yes.
E01 Files 8018, 8032, 8047, 8051, 8052, 8054, 8055, 8057, 8058, 8059, 8060, 8064 e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IOVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Equipment location drawings Yes; field verified Class I equipment location for CRVP and AFW Systems.
t w-
-c w
=
y-r,
~, -,
5/20/83 1-27-3 Information Verification o System piping schematics Yes; field verified com-ponent redundancy and functional location.
o Instrument schematics Yes; verified instrument classification to FSAR.
o Control logic diagram Yes; verified logic to FSAR description, o Electrical schematics Yes; verified to logic
- diagrams, o Electrical connection diagrams No.
o Instrument design criteria Memo M-3 No.
o Purchase order No.
o Vendor data No.
o Equipment specs No.
o Letters to/from PGandE and NRC No.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
None.
l l
i l
-5/20/83 1-28-1 ITR-28, Revisions 0 and 1 Verification Of The Instrument And Control Design Of The Control Room Ventilation And Pressurization System 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
Foster-Miller Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
t i
Answer:
John Edward Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Frank James Rezendes, Lead I&C Engineer, SWEC (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Frank James Rezendes (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; n-
SR0/83 1-28-2 Answer:
John Edward Krechting (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Frank James Rezendes d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IOVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o FSAR
- Yes, o SER
- Yes, o PGandE Environmental Qualification Report Yes.
o Technical Specifications Yes.
l o PGardE Resolution and/or Completion packages for Yes.
(
E01 Files 8017, 8046, 8053, 8056, 8057, 8059 e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IOVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
l Answer:
Information Verification o Equipment location drawings Yes; field verified Class I equipment location for AFW and CRVP Systems.
o System piping schematics Yes; Class I
component l
redundancy and functional l
1.
-5/20/83 1-28-3 Information Verification location for AFW and CRVP Systems.
o Instrument schematics Yes; verified instrument c'.assification to FSAR and elec schematics.
o Control logic diagram Yes; verified to FSAR descripticn.
o Electrical schematics Yes; verified to logic diagrams and FSAR description.
o Electrical connection diagrams No.
o Design criteria memoranda No.
o Purchase orders No.
o Vendor data No.
o Equipment and Installations Specs No.
o Letters to/from PGandE and NRC No.
o DCN-EE-446 No.
o Main control board drawings Yes; field verified for AFW and CRVP Systems instrumentation and l
control arrangement.
o Installation contract No.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
l l
Answer:
None.
5/20/83 1-29-1 ITR-29, Revision 0 Design Chain Initial Sample 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and ITR 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
R. F. Reedy, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by.the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
John E. Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC Mark A.
- Revett, Assistant Project
- Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
John E. Krechting; Roger F. Reedy, President, R. F. Reedy, Inc.; Paul J. Herbert, Principal, R. F. Reedy, Inc.
(ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Not a alicable.
(iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
John E. Krechting, Mark A. Revett
'5/20/83 1-29-2 Answer:
John E. Krechting, Mark A. Revett (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
John E. Krechting; Mark A. Revett d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
None e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and, with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; l
(ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
l Answer:
l l
Information Verification o Diablo Canyon Project Yes; verified by review-Consultants Contract List ing contracts and change orders for contracts of the various consultants.
o Information obtained orally No.
in meetings with DCP and other IDVP participants
- f. What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
None.
S'/20/83 1-30-1 ITR-30, Revision 0 Small Bore Piping l
l 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 I
and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR7 Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the 107P or its subcon-l tractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr.
Robert
- Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Charles
- Browne, Piping Co-ordinator, Robert L.
Cloud Associates, Inc.
l c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud; Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
(ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Charles Browne l
l
1.
5/20/83 1-30-2 (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Charles Browne (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Cherles Browne d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14 in the Yes.
subject ITR o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets for E0Is Yes.
listed in Appendix C of the ITR o FSAR Yes.
o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 l
o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports Yes.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
A 5/20/83 1-30-3 Answer:
Information Verification o Piping isometrics Yes; field verified.
o Design criteria memorandum No.
o Piping walkdown procedures No.
o Piping support drawings Yes; field verified.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel o Informatioit provided in response to No.
specific written requests
,f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
ADLPIPE See response to Interrogatory 1 (f) for ITR-1, Rev. O.
e i
't 5/20/83 1-31-1 ITR-31, Revision 0 HVAC Components 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr.
Robert
- Cloud, President and Principal in
- Charge, Robert L.
Cloud Associates, Inc.
i Hanson Loey, Project Engineer and Equipment Coordinator, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey
. (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
l Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
l Dr. Robert Cloud; Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
f z.
5/20/33 1-31-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 3, 4, 6-8, and 11 in the subject ITR Yes.
'o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets Yes.
for E0Is listed in Appendix B of the ITR o Review of Seismic Qualification of HVAC Equipment Yes.
Diablo Canyon, EDS Nuclear Inc., 2/22/79 and 8/19/79 (P105-4-436-002 and 004) o Buffalo Forge Calculations 1085 BLA Fan, SA-A-36/0 Yes.
DC-663399-29-1, 1973 o FSAR
- Yes, o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports Yes.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with l
respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the informa-tion received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Fan drawings Yes; field verified.
o Damper drawings Yes; field verified.
' $c 5/20/83 i
1-31-3 I
l Information Verification l
o Actuhtor instruction book No.
[
o Actuator weights No.
o Ventilation layout drawings No.
o HVAC installation specification No.
o HVAC duct thickness No.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
l and in telecons with PGandE personnel o Information provided in response to No.
specific written requests.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in f
connection with the ITR:
Answer:
STARDYNE See response to Interrogatory 1(f) for ITR-1, Rev. O.
l l
i
~ 5/20/83 1-32-1 ITR-32, Revision 0 and 1 Pumps 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 l
and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person enployed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr.
Robert
- Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L.
Cloud Associates, Inc.
Hanson Loey, Project Engineer and Equipment Coordinator, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud; Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
~
5/20/83 1-32-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11 in the subject ITR
- Yes, o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets Yes.
for E0Is listed in Appendix D of the ITR o Auxiliary Feedwater Pump and Motor, Seismic Yes.
Qualification, 3/18/83 (P105-4-435-050 SQE-1.1 Rev. 0 21.10G) o Diesel Fuel Oil Transfer Pump and Motor, Seismic Yes.
i Qualification, 3/4/83 (P105-4-435-051 SQE-8.2 i
Rev. 0 21.10G) o Seismic Capability of RCIC Turbines (GS-1 and GS-2)
Yes.
Keith Feibusch Associates, Engineers, 4/71 and 2/73 (P105-4-420-008) o Seismic Analysis 4 x 6 x 90 stage DVMX Auxiliary Yes.
Feedwater Pump for PGandE, 6/72, DC-663056-58-1, (P105-4-420-007) o ASW Pump Review Calculations, March 31, 1978
- Yes, o FSAR Yes.
j o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports Yes.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
)
,5/20/83 1
1-32-3 (i) whether the IDVP independently verified the informa-tion received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Pump nozzle data No.
o Vendor information on subject pumps No.
o Design criteria memorandum No.
o Isometrics and schematics for piping No.
attached to pumps o Equipment mounting drawings for No.
subject pumps o Equipment drawings for subject pumps Yes; field verified.
o Material lists for subject pumps No.
o Vendor instruction manual for auxiliary No.
saltwater pump o CCW pump mounting details No.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel o Information provided in response to No, specific written requests.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
STARDYNE l
See response to Interrogatory 1(f) for ITR-1, Rev. O.
l l
L
5/20/83 1-33-1 ITR-33, Revision 0 and 1 Electrical Equipment Analysis 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr.
Robert
- Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L.
Cloud Associates, Inc.
Hanson Loey, Project Engineer and Equipment Coordinator, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (iii) the conclusions of the ITR;
5[20/83 1-33-2 Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud; Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
(iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IOVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 4, 5, 10, and 13 in the subject ITR Yes.
o PGandE Resolutien and Completion Sheets Yes.
for E0Is listed in Appendix A of the ITR o Instrument Panels - Areas F, G, J, and K, Seismic Yes.
Qualification, 1/17/80, 1.288.13 o Instrument Panel 64, Seismic Qualification, Yes.
l 11/19/81, M-42 o Instrument Panel 69, Seismic Qualification, Yes.
11/19/81, M-43 l
o Instrument Panels 163, 164, 165, 166, and 168, Yes.
Seismic Qualification, 11/24/81, M-44 o Resonant Frequency Tests of Enclosed Panel-Mounted Yes.
Pressure Transducers for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2, Seismic Qualification Report, 5/7/78, 7333.
j 142-76, C.B: Scott / Mechanical Engineer, H.K. McCluer/
Supervisor Mechanical Engineer o Class I instruments located in panels 64, 69, 163, Yes.
164, 165, 166, and 168, Seismic Qualification, f
11/30/81, M-46 (P105-4-437-009) o " Seismic Integrity Analysis of Hot Shutdown Remote Yes.
Control Panel," prepared by C.E.S. Ueng, GIT, 7/12/72 (663106-10-1) l l
i 5/20/83 1-33-3 o Seismic Qualification Analyses: PY-22, Power AC Panel-Yes.
boards, Circuit Breakers; 2/9/83 (P105-4-437-031) j o FSAR Yes.
o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA i
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports Yes.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the informa-tion received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Main annunciator cabinet drawings Yes; field verified.
o Hot shutdown panel drawings Yes; field verified.
o Local instrument panel drawings Yes; field verified.
o Instrument AC panel drawings Yes; field verified.
o Equipment mounting details for above Yes; field verified.
described equipment i
o Instrumentation weights No.
o Anchor bolt drawing No.
l o Vendor instruction book No.
o Panel thicknesses for local instrument No.
panels o Information obtained in meetings No.
l and in telecons with PGandE personnel o Information provided in response to No.
specific written requests l
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
STARDYNE See response to Interr,ogatory 1(f) for ITR-1, Rev. O.
s.
' 5/20/83 1-34-1 ITR-34, Revision 0 and 1 Verification of Diablo Canyon Project Efforts by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dean C.
Stratouly, Assistant Project Manager, Teledyne l
Engineering Services John E. Krechting, Project Engineer, SWEC c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-
~
tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
John C. Krechting (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
None performed.
(iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dean Stratouly, John E. Krechting
~
1.
~
5/20/83 1-34-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dean Stratouly, John E. Krechting d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Information On
,o DCVP-TES-729 (83/01/24)
- Yes, o DCVP-TES-748 (83/1/31)
- Yes, o DCVP-TES-869 (83/3/8)
Yes.
In addition, this ITR was prepared using information obtained with respect to ITRs 14, 20, 22, 27, 28, and 42 as of the date of preparation of this ITR.
- e. In categorical terms, what other information the IDVP received
~
from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
- None, f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in j
connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
~
s 5/20/83 1-35-1 9
ITR-35, Revision 0 IDVP Verification Plan for Diablo Canyon Activities 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person emples al or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr.
Robert
- Cloud, President and Principal in
- Charge, Robert L.
Cloud Associates, Inc.
Edward Dension, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(1) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Dension (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr.
Robert Cloud; Edward Denison; Ronald
- Wray, Assistant Project
- Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services
'5/20/83 1-35-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o Reference 1 of the subject ITR.
- Yes, o Letter, DCVP-RLCA-616 ( April 25,1983)
Yes.
o Letter, DCVP-TES-911 (March 22, 1983)
Yes.
The IDVP also received and relied upon reports as designated for other ITRs e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification i
o General PGandE program information No.
was obtained through meeting minutes and telecons, This ITR was' also prepared using See other ITRs.
o j
information obtained with respect to ther ITRs.
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in l
connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
I
~.
'5/20/83 1-37-1 ITR-37, Revision 0 and 1 Valves 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc. -
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr.
Robert
- Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L.
Cloud Associates, Inc.
Hanson Loey, Project Engineer and Equipment Coordinator, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-l tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; l
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud; Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
s.
' 5/20/83 1-37-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
^
Relied Report On o Reference 4, 5, 9 of the subject ITR
- Yes, o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets Yes.
for E01s listed in Appendix A of the ITR o Velan Valves FCV-37, 38 and 95, Eigen-value Analysis Yes.
EDS Nuclear,1/17/79. (P105-4-443-002,1700009 Calc.
004 Rev. 2) o FSAR Yes.
o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports
- Yes, e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with t
respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the informa-l tion received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o FCV-95 valve drawings and data Yes; field verified.
l o FCV-41 valve drawings and data Yes; field verified.
o Piping math model and listing of No.
results for piping attached to the subject valves, t
r
i Si20/83 1-37-3 Information Verification o Design criteria memorandum No.
o General valve specification No.
o PGandE design change order.
o FCV-95 Yes; field verified.
o FCV-41 Yes; field verified.
o FCV-37 Yes; field verified.
o FCV-38 No.
o FCV-42 No.
o FCV-43 No.
o FCV-44 No.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel o Information provided in response to No.
specific written requests, f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
STARDYNE See response to Interrogatory 1(f) for ITR 1, Rev. O.
l i
t l
i w--
5/20/83 1-39-1 ITR-39, Revision 0 Soils - Intake Structure, Bearing Capacity and Lateral Earth Pressure 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR-36 and ITR-38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Teledyne Engineering Services Abendruh, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Dr. Robert McNeill, Consultant, Abendruh, Inc, c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison, Dr. Robert McNeill (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Dr. Robert McNeill (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Dr. Robert McNeill y -
,--$+g
'5/20/83 1-39-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Dension d.
W. hat reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 1, 5-7 and 15-19 in the subject ITR.
Yes.
o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets for E01's Yes.
listed in Appendix A of the ITR.
o Reports listed in response to Interrogatory 1(d) for Yes.
ITR 13, Rev.
O.
o FSAR
- Yes, o PGandE DCP Semimonthly Reports Yes.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP l
received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and, with
~
respect to each category:
(1) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
l Information Verification o Intake concrete drawings No.
l o Intake lift drawings No.
l o Harding Lawson Associates No.
report clarification o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel e
I 5/20/83 1-39-3 Information Verification I
o Information provided in response No.
to specific written requests I
o See also, response to Interro-See other ITRs.
gatory 1(e) for ITR 13, Rev. O i
- f. What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR.
Answer:
None.
i I
(
i
-.-,--s
---m,,
,_-.,-,n.-__._.
n 5/20/83 1-40-1
\\
ITR-40, Revision 0 Soils Report-Intake Structure Sliding Resistance 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR-36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Abendruh, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Dr. Robert McNeill, Consultant, Abendruh, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison, Dr. Robert McNeill (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Dr. Robert McNeill (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Pobert Cloud, Dr. Robert McNeill
. 5/20/83 1-40-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Edward Denison d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 8, 9, and 12 in the subject ITR
- Yes, o Reports listed in response to Interrogatory 1(d)
Yes.
for ITR-13, Rev. O and ITR-39, Rev. O o FSAR
- Yes, o PGandE DCP Semimonthly Reports Yes.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information, j
Answer:
Information Verification o Intake lift drawings No.
o Intake concrete drawings No.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel o Information provided in response No.
to specific written requests l
o See also responses to Interrogatory See other ITRs.
1(e) for ITRs-13 and -39 l
e
<m.
~
Le 5720/83 1-40-3 f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
An,swer:
n None.
e e
spann r
1-41-1
+
1 ITR-41 Corrective Action Program and Design Office Verification 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
I Teledyne Engineering Services R. F. Reedy, Inc.
Other persons were retained by R. F. _ Reedy, Inc. to perform work on this ITR under the direction and supervision of R.
F.
Reedy, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Roger F. Reedy, President, R. F. Reedy, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-(
tractors most knovledgeable about:
(i) data c~tsittion for the ITR; Answer:
k.sr.. '(.ady (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Roger F. Reedy (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
i Roger F.
Reedy; Mark
- Revett, Assistant Project Managce. Teledyne Engineering Services.
L-
1 l
3R0/83 1-41-2 (iv) documentation of the ITR; Answer:
Roger F. Reedy d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report:
On o Diablo Canyon Engineering Manual (PGE)
Yes.
o Diablo Canyon Project Engineering, Instructions Yes.
o Diablo Canyon Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual Yes.
o Diablo Canyon Quality Assurance Department Procedures Manual
- Yes, o Bechtel Topical Report, BQ-TOP-1, Rev. 3A.
Yes.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the infor-mation received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o DCP Open Item Documents Yes; verified that work was performed in accordance with DCP QA program.
o Analysis Packages Yes; same.
o Computer Runs Yes; same.
o Design Control Memoranda Yes; same, o Drawings Yes; same, o Design Change Notices Yes; same, o Correspondence No.
o Contracts Yes; same.
.~
$/20/83 1-41-3 Information Verification o Procedures Yes; same.
o Instructions No.
o Signature Registers Yes; same.
o Organization Charts Yes; same.
o QA Work Plan / Logs Yes; same.
o Information obtained orally No.
in e.eetings with DCD personnel No.
- f. What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
l l
e.,+
.-e.,
~
- - 5/20/83 1-42-1 ITR-42 RFR IDVP Phase II Review and Audit of PGandE Company and Design Consultants for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 l
1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
q a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services R. F. Reedy, Inc.
Other persons were retained by R.
F.
Reedy, Inc.
to perform work on this ITR under the direction and supervision of R. F.
Reedy, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Roger F. Reedy, President, R. F. Reedy, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Roger F.
Reedy; Paul J.
Herbert, Principal, R. F.
Reedy, Inc., W.S.
Gibbons, Principal,
'R.
F.
- Reedy, Inc.
(ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Roger F. Reedy, Paul J. Herbert, W.S.
Gibbons
[
5,20/:1.1 1-42-2 (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Roger F. Reedy, Paul J. Herbert, W.S.
- Gibbons, Mark Revett, Assistant Project
- Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services 1
(iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Roger F. Reedy, Paul J. Herbert, W.S.
Gibbons d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report:
On o Radiation Research Associates, Quality Assurance Manual (September 1979)
Yes.
o Quadrex Corporation, Quality Assurance Manual, Revisions 0, 1 and 2
- Yes, o Quadrex Corporation Engineering Mechanics Yes.
Instructions.
o Quadrex Corporation Project Design Reports Yes.
o EDS Nuclear Inc., Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 0-10, 12-15
- Yes, o PGandE QA Manual Revisions 0-3 Yes.
PGandE Engineering Department Manual Revisions 0-4
- Yes, o
o Diablo Canyon Final Safety Analysis Report
- Yes, o PGandE Review Report Numbers IH-1, IH-2, IH-4, IH-5
- Yes, o Look Back Review Procedure W718.ll Revision 2 Yes.
. !v/.'il.1;,1 1-42-3 e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the infor-mation received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Analysis packages Yes. Verified that work was performed in accor-dance with DCP QA program and/or Design Control Practices.
o Computer runs Yes; same.
o Drawings Yes; same.
o Design change notices Yes; same.
o Correspondence Yes; same.
o Contracts Yes; same.
o Procedures Yes; same, o Instructions Yes; same.
o Organization charts Yes; same.
o Information obtained orally in j
meetings with DCP personnel No.
i i
f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in l
connection with the ITR.
I Answer:
None.
l
5/20/83 1-43-1 ITR-43, Revision 0 Heat Exchangers 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Hanson Loey, Project Engineer and Equipment Coordinator, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Dr.
Pal Raju, Consulting Engineer, Teledyne Engineering Services l
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
.Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey, Dr. Pal Raju (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey, Dr. Pal Raju l
w
.~
5/20/83 1-43-2 (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud; Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.; Dr. Pal Raju (iv) documentation of the ITR.
l Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey d.
What reports the IDVP received from the DCP in ' connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 4, 5, 10, 13, 14-16, and 19 in
- Yes, the subject ITR I
o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets for E01s Yes.
listed in Appendix A of the ITR o Vibration Tests of a Component Cooling Water Heat Yes.
Exchanger at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, ANC0, 7/78, P105-4-445-009 o FSAR Yes.
o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports Yes.
e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with respect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the information received;
.,-m
.-r
-n.-
e,
5/20/83 1-43-3 (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o CCW piping support drawings Yes; field verified.
o CCW piping isometrics Yes; field verified.
o Anchor bolt drawings No.
o CCW heat exchanger drawings Yes; field verified.
o CCW heat exchanger mounting Yes; field verified drawings o Vendor data No.
o Material list No.
o Anchor bolt configuration data No.
o Design criteria memorandum No.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel o Information provided in response No.
to specific written requests f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
l Answer:
i STARDYNE See response to Interrogatory 1(f) for ITR-1, Rev. 0
- 1 e
5/20/83 1-44-1 ITR-44, Revision 0 Shake Table Test Mounting Class IE Electrical Equipment 1.
With respect to each ITR, including all revisions, except ITR 36 and 38, state:
a.
What contractors and subcontractors to the IDVP worked on the ITR?
Answer:
Teledyne Engineering Services Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
b.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, President and Principal in Charge, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
Hanson Loey, Project Engineer and Equipment Coordinator, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
c.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcon-tractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey (ii) analyses performed for the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey
5/20/83 1-44-2 (iii) the conclusions of the ITR; Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud; Edward Denison, Project Manager, Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
(iv) documentation of the ITR.
Answer:
Dr. Robert Cloud, Hanson Loey d.
What reports the 19VP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR and, with respect to each, whether the IDVP relied upon it.
Answer:
Relied Report On o References 3, 4 and 10-14 in the subject ITR Yes.
o PGandE Resolution and Completion Sheets for E01s Yes.
listed in Appendix A of the ITR i
o Safeguards Relay Board-PGandE Anchorage Analysis, Yes.
File No. 52.19, Calc. No. EQP205.1, 2/10/83, P105-4-437-037 o Excitation Cubicles of Emergency Diesel Generators Yes.
Anchorage, EQP 228.1, 3/3/83, P105-4-437-041 o 125 V de Switchgear, EQP 220.1, 3/14/83, Yes.
P105-4-437-042 o Potential Transformers Support Analysis, 9/15/78, P105-4-437-030 o FSAR Yes.
o Hosgri Annulus Vertical Yes.
Spectra (11/28/81) RLCA
- P105-4-200-004 o PGandE DCP Semi-Monthly Reports Yes.
5/20/83 1-44-3 e.
In categorical
- terms, what other information the IDVP received from the DCP in connection with the ITR, and with r' aspect to each category:
(i) whether the IDVP independently verified the informa-tion received; (ii) if it did, how it verified the information.
Answer:
Information Verification o Test proceaure clarification No.
o Equipment drawings Yes; field verified.
o Equipment foundation drawings Yes; field verified.
o Equipment location data Yes; field verified, o Equipment mounting data in No.
response to questions o Equipment classification data No.
o Information obtained in meetings No.
and in telecons with PGandE personnel o Information provided in response No.
to specific written requests f.
What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the ITR:
Answer:
None.
5/20/83 8-1 Response to Interrogatories 8 and 9:
Note:
These interrogatories refer to the IDVP Phase I Final Report and the IDVP Phase II Final Report respectively.
Only a single IDVP i
Final Report is being prepared.
The only content unique to Phase I is Section 6.6; Section 6.7 is unique to Phase II.
- However, the same answers would apply to both 6.6 and 6.7.
Therefore, the interrogatories 8 and 9 and answers thereto are combined.
With respect to the IDVP Final Report, state:
(a) The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the Final Report.
Answer:
Dr. William E. Cooper (c) The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
l (i) data collection for the Final Report (as opposed to data collected for the ITRs);
Answer:
There was no " data" collection for the Final Report as opposed to l
data collected for the ITRs.
f (ii) analyses performed for the Final Report (independent from the analyses for the ITRs);
l O
4 y
5/20/83 8-2 Answer:
These were no'
" analyses" performed for the Final Report independent from the analyses performed for the ITRs.
(iii) conclusions of the Final Report; Answer:
Dr. William E. Cooper (iv) documentation of the Final Report.
Answer:
Dr. William E. Cooper (d) What computer models were employed in performing analyses in connection with the Final Report (excluding models employed in connection with the ITRs).
Answer:
l j
None.
e--
+c m
4 5/20/83 10-1 Response to Interrogatory 10:
With respect to the DCP Phase I Final Report, state:
(a) The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the Final Report.
Answer:
The IDVP did not prepare the DCP Phase I
Final Report.
Information furnished by the IDVP was apparently utilized by those who prepared the DCP Phase I Final Report and the IDVP supplied comments on the Final Report to the DCP.
The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about any particular subject treated in the DCP Phase I Final Report is the person most knowledgeable about that same subject treated in relevant ITRs and is identified in the answer to Interrogatory 1.
(c) The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the Final Report (as opposed to data collected for the ITRs);
Answer:
IDVP knowledge concerning data collected for the Final Report will be reported in ITRs presently identified by the IDVP but not yet issued.
(ii) analyses performed for the Final Report (independent from the data collected for the ITRs);
5/20/83 10-2 Answer:
IDVP knowledge concerning analyses performed for the Final Report will be reported in ITRs presently identified by the IDVP but not yet issued.
(iii) conclusions of the Final Report; (iv) documentation of the Final Report.
Answer:
Many persons employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors have read the DCP Phase I Final Report.
As indicated in the response to Interrogatory 10 (a) above, the person most knowledgeable about any particular subject treated in the DCP Phase I Final Report, including related conclusions and documentation, is the person most knowledgeable about that same subject treated in relevant ITRs and is identified in the answers to Interrogatory 1.
D s_.
,_,m
I 5/2d/83 11-1 Response to Interrogatory ll:
With respect to the DCP Phase II Final Report, state:
(a) The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about the Final Report.
(c) The person employed or retained by the IDVP or its subcontractors most knowledgeable about:
(i) data collection for the Final Report (as opposed to data collected for the ITRs);
(ii) analyses performed for the Final Report (independent from the data collected for the ITRs);
(iii) conclusions of the Final Report; (iv) documentation of the Final Report.
Answer:
The DCP Phase II Final Report has not been issued.
Consequently, no answers can presently be given to these Interrogatories by the IDVP.
y
6 STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS SS:
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX The undersigned, William E. Cooper, being duly sworn this 20th day of May, 1983, upon his oath states that he is employed by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) as a Consulting Engineer and is assigned as Project Manager for the DCNPP-1 IDVP for which Teledyne Engineering Services is the Program Manager, that he is informed on the matters of inquiry of Interrogatories 1 (a) through (f); 8 (a), (c), and (d); 9 (a)
(c), and (d); 10 (a) and (c); and 11 (a) and (c) of the First Set of Interrogatories Propounded to Pacific Gas and Electric Company by Governor Deukmejian and Joint Intervenors; that in answering the above and foregoing Interrogatories he has personally reviewed or caused others to review the files and records of Teledyne Engineering Services; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation; Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc. ; and R. F. Reedy, Inc. and has caused information to be gathered from employees and officers of those entities and their contractors and j
consultants; that the answers to the above and foregoing interrogatories l
are true and correct as he has been informed and verily believes, l
hL $$r*>-~
William E. Cooper May 20, 1983 William S. Moonan My Cornnission expires August 6,1987 i
e
p -..-- qnma m
\\
/
c.
a FIRST SET OF IIRERROGA'IORIES k _'
PROPOUNDED 'IO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY BY GOVERNOR DEUKMFJIAN AND JOINT INI'ERVENORS
?[h c:. L : u@..
5.:' ;,\\
~ ' pr
~ t r.
..i.(:~
/
I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories ll(d)
Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
O S. Auer Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of May, 1983.
somnmummummimmmnmummmimg E
C. T. NEAL MADISON b MOIM/ ;in'!C - CAUFORNIA l t
E %$1i"I CliY AND COUNTY OF
=
E 48 SA!4 FRANCISCO E
ggf E
My Commission Empires Dec 27,1985 !
E J 88883!I88I18Il888881185158503833888416868888888188 E 8886E C. T. Neal Madison, Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California My Comission expires December 27, 1985 0
e - - -
s FIRST SET OF INTERROGA'IORIES
' PROPOUNDED 'IO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY BY ~ GOVERNOR DEUKMFJIAN AND JOIffT INTERVENORS I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories ll(d)
Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
~
/
y 3. B Subscribed and sworn to before rae this 23rd day of May, 1983.
Mcy J. Lemaster, Mary Public SEAL Mu n n u m m m x m m m M Mir. NOTARY PUBtlC C N ANCY J. LEMASTER in and for the City and County f3 of San Francisco, State of g; jfjf,08 clTY M D COUNTY OF u
California Ii
N SAN FRANCISCO di 14,1986 !]
f!, My Commission Expires Apni xxnxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'd My Cornission expires April 14, 1986
~n
,,,m p,,nw--
e-
- - -r
n------
~ -
a-<r
~ ' < >
4,.'
x,.
FIRST SET OF INTERRO3A'IORIES s.
y PROPOUNDED 'IO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY t-BY GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN AND JOINT IlffERVENORS I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories ll(d)
Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
b C.1 E. C. Connell, III subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of May, 1983.
[ SEAR xxxx:.:x:.:xxxx:w: :.W.;:" :xT:xx" y
NANCY J. LEMASTER Nancy J. Lemaster, Notary Publi::
I'GTMY PUBucCUiORNIA in and for the City and County
. d 4.~cr.
"(($$';j,[o' of San Francisco, State of II @~j i
,,7,.,m p n gr.,s g.r:i:.t, ices y
- ,.c.
- .,,
.y;:w rz ~" * * * ^" ' '
My Comission expires April 14, 1986
.-r---
l STATE OF-MASSACHUS,ETTS s
. :4 7 COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX 3
4,.
i :,
t 3
~
y b
c 3.-
The undersigned, William E. Cooper, being duly swornithis(2[0th day Engineering Services (TES) as a Consulting Engineer'.an of May, 1983, upon his oath states that he is employed b Teledyne Project Manager for the DCNPP-1 IDVP for which Teledyne Engineering Services is the Program Manager, that he is informed on the matters of inquiry of Interrogatories 1 (a) through (f); 8 (a), (c), and (d); 9 (a)
(c), and (d); 10 (a) and (c); and 11 (a) and (c) of the First Set of Interrogatories Propounded to Pacific Gas and Electric Company by Governor Deukmejian and Joint Intervenors; that in answering the above and foregoing Interrogatories he has personally reviewed or caused others to review the files and records of Teledyne Engineering Services; Storie & Webster Engineering Corporation; Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc.; and R. F. Reedy, Inc. and has caused information to be gathered from employees and officers of those entities and their contractors and consultants; that the answers to the above and foregoing interrogatories are true and correct as he has been informed and verily believes.
hW $$w William E. Cooper May 20, 1983 M
William S. Moonan My Commissian expires August 6, 1987
--v.-,,
-~
v---
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CDMPANY N
BY GOVERNOR DEUKMFJIAN AND JOINT IlffERVENORS
.'ha I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories ll(d)
. Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
s
/
e Thoma
. Crawford Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of May, 1983.
.i 14affcy J. Lemaster, Notary Publi
):20:D CON DO
'T D~CD09 in and for the City and County NANCY J. LEMASTER jj of San Francisco, State of
!! Ih..~$: NOTARY PUBl.lC-CAUFORNIA M aqm cin Ano ccWW OF y
California ij b5 SAN FRANCISCO jj N My Commission Expires April 14,1986 M Ex:.:xxxxxx:o:xxxxxxvxm": < <xxxx!4 My comission expires April 14, 1986
--r--
g
=-
M FIRST SET OF INTERROGA'IORIES PROPOUNDED 'IO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECfRIC COPSANY BY GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN AND JOINT INTERVENORS I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 12 and 13 Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
J hn B S
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of May, 1983.
/
/
Ndncy J. Lemaster, Notary Public SEAL xx:c.:.:. xxxx:.:x:ec:xx:ce.:x:.:xxx:ccc<;;
in and for the City and County ii NANCY J. LEMASTER M of San Francisco, State of j;g NOTARY PUBUC-CAUFORNIA U California y (.cjg.*[.
CITY AND COUNTY OF y
ij
'2
SAN FRANCISCO X
[*.
My Commission Expires Apnl 14,1986 N x:co: o:xx:ccccccccxxxx e<xxxxxxxM My Comission expires April 14, 1986
1 i
FIRST SET OF INTERROGA'IORIES PROPOUNDED 'IO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY BY GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN AND JOINT INTERVENORS I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 10(d)
Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
4
%A Lincoln E. Malik Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of May, 1983.
,,,,,,,,,,un. uiinnauinniainun unnunnig i
C. T. NEAL MADISON 5
5-NOTIAY PT!!C -CAtlFORNIA j i
9 CITY A.43 COUNTY OF.
g 5
Sail IRANCISCO E
h.[
Na d/b ininunuuna di iSi$ ' ' ' " "' "
l C. T. Neal Madison, Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California l
My (bmission expires December 27, 1985
> = *.
k,
-(-.
FIRST SET OF INTERRCX1A'IORIES C
'\\
I' PROPOUNDED 'IO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECI'RIC COMPANY
~2' BY GOVERNOR DEUKMFJIAN AND JOINT INTERVENORSE -
.~
/-
.,~
/'
I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 4, 5, and 10 (d)
Said answers are true and wrrect to the best of my knowledge and belief.
YWJ.L David Ovadia subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of May, 1983.
SFA> x:om:om:': C *"'" **** **E fTancy J. Lemaster, Notary Publi i.!
NANCY J.'LEMASTER [.j h +Q., coray Puaut C:'.lio?.N!A 8 in and for the City and County gybp clTY AND COutiTY OF p
of San Francisco, State of x
W SA!4 FRAT!CISCO ij California i My Commission Excites April 14.19 6 *q y,uxxxxux:o:nxxxxnux*unk My Conraission expires April 14, 1986 r
~.
..,y
e FIRST SET OF INTERROGA'IORIES PROPOUNDED 'IO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY BY GOVERNOR DE' KMFJIAN AND JOINT INTIRVENORS J
/
I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 2, 3, and 10(d)
. Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
)
A7 Bimal SarPir Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of May, 1983.
smumumnunmmunannanuman= mum E
C. T. NEAL MADISON i
! M NOTARY P'JM!C -CAUFORNIA E E IM CITY Af43 COUNTY OF j
E
?#
SNJ FRANCISCO
=
................................................m..!
.((
h M/
I My Commission Expires Dec. 27,1985 C. T. Neal Madison, Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California My Oamission expires December 27, 1985
~
m
s FIRST SET OF INTERROGA'IORIES s
PROPOUNDED 'IO PACIFIC GAS Arm ELECTRIC COMPANY BY GOVERNOR DEUKMFJIAN AND JOIh'T Ih'IERVEtORS I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 10(d)
Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
S Satya Sagar Sharma subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of May, 1983.
N20iicy J. Lemaster, Notary Publi SBet::xn:o:=ncron:nn: enc:nx;j; in and for the City and County N
NANCY.!. LEMASTER j, ns.
c y/ff3:' f:0TA'?Y PUCLIC-CAllFORN!A [;
of sin Francisco, State of cin Ano cour4Ty oF N 58si.
California stN r;w:ctsco x:-i My Commission Expires April 14,1986 P hxx:o:xxxxxxxxx:<xn <x m wcm -
My cornission expires April 14, 1986
-m
O
=
FIRST SET OF INTERROGA'IORIES PROPOUNDED 'IO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CDMPANY BY GOVERNOR DEUKMEJIAN AND JOINT ItTIERVENORS I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 10 (d)
. Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
/
//IdW l /7/PPmA David C. Tateosian Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day i
I of May, 1983.
en..n..unan.n.nnu..
.n.n.......nn. nn.
! g...
C. T. NEAL MADISON j
NOTAU Fut!!C - CAllFORNIA 5 (qwp CITY AND COUt4TY OF 2
- d. [ h5/b/the M Comm on ae 7,19ss
...................r.....................................
C. T. Neal Madison, Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California My consnission expires December 27, 1985
5.-
FIRST SET OF INTERROGA'IORIES ; -
c ',
(
PROPOUNDED 'IO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC-COMPANY.;
3 r
BY GOVERIOR DEUKMEJIAN AND JOItTI' INI'ERVEt0RS
[
^
A W
j, s1
.C /
4'G -
^
I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 6, 7, and 10(d)
Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
William H. White subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of May, 1983.
Ndncf J. Lemaster, Nota D blic;hS6A xxxx>:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxv in and for the City and County NANCY J. LEMASTER h of San Francisco, State of 4,44 NOTARY PUBLDCAUFORNIA y California V,b-CITY AND CO!!NTY OF i,:
'5N SAN FRANCISCC g
My Commission Expires April 14,1986 y
- <x:o:xxxxxxx:<xxxxxxxxxxxxxW My Connission expires April 14, 1986 9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-275
)
Docket No. 50-323 Diablo Canyca Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document (s) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company has (have) been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
Judge John F. Wolf Mrs. Sandra A.
Silver Chairman 1760 Alisal Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Mr. Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street Judge Glenn O.
Bright San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission John Phillips, Esq.
Washington DC 20555 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest Judge Jerry R.
Kline 10951 W.
Pico Blvd. - Suite 300 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Angeles CA 90064 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 David F.
Fleischaker, Esq.
P. O.
Box 1178 Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg Oklahoma City OK 73101 c/o Betsy Umhoffer 1493 Southwood Arthur C.
Gehr, Esq.
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Bank Center Janice E.
Kerr, Esq.
Phoenix AZ 85073 Public Utilities Commission State of California Bruce Norton, Esq.
5246 State Building Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
350 McAllister Street P. O. Box 10569 San Francisco CA 94102 Phoenix AZ 85064 Mrs. Raye Fleming Chairman 1920 Mattie Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Shell Beach CA 93449 Board Panel US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Frederick Eissler Washington DC 20555 Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara CA 93105 T
So
i Chairman Judge Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Li;.a. sing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Washington DC 20555 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Judge W. Reed Johnson Washington DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
Attn:
Docketing and Service US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Section Washington DC 20555 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.
Judge John H.
Buck Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Office of Executive Legal Director US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20535 Washington DC 20555 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Michael J.
Strumwasser MHB Technical Associates Susan L.
Durbin 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K Peter H. Kaufman San Jose CA 95125 3580 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 800 Los Angeles CA 90010 Mr. Carl Neiberger Telegram Tribune P.
O.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo CA 93402 f
Date:
May 23, 1983 Pacific s and E ctric Company -
4 m_