ML20129A684
| ML20129A684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128G622 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507150365 | |
| Download: ML20129A684 (144) | |
Text
_ _
l
' ORlG w nnu i
l ...
1
! NRC/TUGC0 MEETING i
l t
l l
a I
l l
t I
t l
l VOLUME II i
l AFTERNOON SESSION GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 1106 W PIONEER PARKWAY, SUITE 400 i ARLINGTON. TX 76013
('JI 7) 460 2048, METRO 469 6100 l COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPfl0N viOEO TAPE $PECIAUST June 14, 19H j DAILY COPY I
i i 0S07150365 ADOCK OD00 0507035 PDR l A k
138 1 SECOND DAY, AFTERNOON SECTION
.. 2 3 June 14, 1985 4
5 PR0CEEDINGS 6 MR. NOONAN: I guess we can go ahead now and get 7 started.
8 MR. LEVIN: Okay. This is the third and final 9 segment of of our presentation. And in this 10 presentation we plan to address the discipline review 11 descriptions on the screen. We have an agenda that 12 shows the mechanical, electric, piping and civil.
j 13 However, we're going to slightly reorder that and put 14 civil second in line, followed by piping and electrical 15 systems.
16 MR. MOLLONSON: I have a -- Jim Hollonson with 17 Telsdyne, and I have a follow-up comment on Mrs. Garde's 18 comments on keeping -- and I was reserving what I had 19 written down until such time we review both plans.
20 I can see now that perhaps your necessity for an 21 effective review of that program, I'm going to have to 22 have some kind of an interface and control document, 23 naming all the external activities and so forth.
.q 24 There's also going to be an exchange, probably with 25 the external subcontractors on this job, the consultants GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
139 1 on this job, of volume of paperwork. I think it's the
- 2 responsibilities for the people who will control the 3 dissemination of that kind of information, should be 4 defined.
5 In other words, you don't want people coming in and 6 contacting just anybody and everybody to get what they 7 need to do the work.
8 Now on site is probably not difficult for the TRT 9 to do, but people who are remote from site that need 10 information, just can't call anything yet. They're 11 going to have to have a designated person.
12 I think perhaps it might be in order also to use 13 some format for request for information. And I think 14 concurrently with that document, if you prepare an 15 interface and control document, it should come out with 16 the program plan when the program plan goes out for 17 review. In fact it's almost going to be a necessity.
18 MR. LEVIN: Thank you for that suggestion. I agree 19 with you.
20 MR. MOLLONSON: Thank you. We --
21 MR. LEVIN: We'll get into the mechanical systems, 22 review descriptions. This chart shows the program 23 organization for conducting this review. As I indicated
,-- 24 earlier, Frank Shaffer is leading this effort.
~
25 I wanted to remind you that the primary emphasis of I
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 t ,
140 1 this review is self-initiated. And it's focused on the
,~ l L - 2 AFW system as a mechanical system. ,
l 3 However, there are several other issues that were 4 derived from items that were brought up through the 5 independent assessment program that are also included 6 within the scope of this review. And what I'd like to 7 do is first start with the discussion of those.
8 First ites. And we're using the terminology that 9 was presented by CYGNA in terms of identifying these 10 issues so it would be easier for people to identify them 11 from previous documentation that has been placed on the 12 record.
13 aut the systems temperature issue was derived from L -
14 the fact that system temperatures change due to new 15 information during the design process, related to the 16 CCW maximum temperature. CYGNA indicated it wasn't 17 clear that all affected dats was evaluated or updated 18 when this occurred. The project had concluded that 19 these changes were not significant. Members of the 20 mechanical systems team concur in this.
21 However, have felt that there was a need to 22 determine whether or not the same kind of occurrence i
23 could occur elsewhere.
c-, 24 Therefore, we will be taking a look at similar 25 types of changes in temperatures in the AFW system and i
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
141 1 interfacing systems as a test to see if that same kind J 2 of problem had occurred. Okay. '
3 MR. MARINOS: Let me ask a question, Howard. Why 4 would you just pick up this particular issue and not --
5 sy understanding was that you were going to go through 6 the water system in totality.
7 MR. LEVIN: Okay. It may not have been clear that 8 within the context of the mechanical systems evaluation 9 there are -- a segment of that review is focused at 10 identified issues, issues that are still -- have been 11 identified by various other programs. I'm referring to 12 those right now.
{ 13 In a few soments I'll be getting back to our 14 self-initiated review, our cut through the system in 15 general.
16 MR. MARINOS: You're just merely taking advantage 17 of someone's identification, some issues. But there may 18 be issues that may be in the component cooling water 19 systems that CYGNA's review was not significantly 20 comprehensive to have identified. So what value would 21 this information give you since it's not going to be 22 complete?
23 MR. LEVIN: The self-initiated review will provide 24 that test to see if that same kind of occurrence 25 occurred in another location.
GODFREY &' AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
142 1 MR. SECK: Angelos, these issues are included v
- 2 because they have been identified. They must be 3 resolved. And we want -- SRT wants the third party to 4 do that, and pasa the recommendation for resolution,to 5 the problem. It's for completeness.
6 On the front end, for identifieo 1ssues, the 7 self-initiated comprehensive sweep is in addition to 8 resolution of all these previously identified issues.
9 MR. MARINOS: You're not going to be guided only 10 from this issue.
11 MR. SECK: No. As a matter of fact, the 12 methodology applied is_1gnorant of the fact of these f
l[ ] 13 thing on the table. We have to deal with --
14 'MR. LEVIN: In fact, it serves, John, chat this
~
15 issue, for example, is one thac CYGNA felt was closed.
16 In other words, they had evaluated and determined 17 in this particular occurrence, it was not significant, ,
18 okay. We concur with that.
19 Notwithstanding, okay, we felt that we wanted to 20 ino'lude within other reviews, okay, the capability to 21 see if that confirmed that it didn't occur elsewhere.
22 Many of these other issues, and I think maybe it 23 serves just to list them and get directly into the q '24 self-initiated.
'~
25 MR. MARINOS: So you have identified the issues i
GODFREY & AH6S COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (8*7) 460-2048
143 1 that CYGNA -- have been identified?
-- 2 MR. LEVIN: The issues that are outstanding. That 3 they have indicated in their review list. I'm not sure 4 of the exact reference --
5 MR. MARINOS: One significant issue that they may 6 not flag it as an important issue is, that they resolved 7 it by saying that there was sufficient margin and that 8 is NPS-8, and that was a significant area that we were, 9 at least, concerned about. Although, in that particular 10 system, there was no problem, and has been discussed 11 earlier. The trends or the consequences and their 12 consequences may be different for that.particular 13 system.
14 MR. LEVIN: And that's one of the reasons why we 15 wanted to insure that NPSH is going to be looked at 16 somewhere else. Because in that case maybe we 17 weren't -- we didn't have that same --
18 MR. MARINOS: They didn't identify as an issue on 19 the component cooling water, obviously.
20 MR. LEVIN: We'll be covering that in a few 21 moments. Next slide, Frank. As I indicated, the 22 mechanical systems review will focus on the AFW system 23 as a test. The objectives of this review will be an c-, 24 evaluation of whether the independent assessment program 25 issues may occur in another mechanical system. And to GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
144 1
determine whether these issues manifest themselves, in 7
i.2 2 particular, in the AFW system.
3 The AFW system was selected because it is important 4 to safety. It includes interfaces with both the reactor 5 vendor, as well as the balance appliant. It has 6 diversity.
7 And we have both the motor and steam drives for the i 8 pumps, as well as both AC and DC power requirements.
l 9 And we have components, inside and outside containment.
10 And I addressed, earlier, how we in fact, we 11 verified that. In fact, it was a scod system to look 12 at.
[J 13 we plan to review various sources of information 14 where criteria or commitments have been made as input 15 into this review. And these typical sources include the 16 FSAR, other regulatory commitments, the regulatory 17 guides, branch technical positions and others.
18 Westinghouse interface criteria, safety evaluation --
19 supplemental safety evaluation reports, or other codes 20 and standards.
l l 21 That gets back into my earlier comments on f
22 capturing these things and how we're going to use our 23 check lists.
, ; 24 MR. MARINOS: Do you in this plan, later on,
.J 25 perhaps, identify areas that the auxiliary water feed GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
145 i 1 system does not contain that may be important to grants
-- 2 out of the system?
3 MR. LEVIN: I will address --
4 MR. MARINOS: I'm talking about the hydraulic 5 aspects.
6 MR. LEVIN: In a few minutes, we'll get to the 7 review scope and matrix. And we could give some 8 examples of things that we're going to look at elsewhere 9 for.
10 MR. MARINOS: You do have in that plan?
11 MR. LEVIN: You will see.
12 The typical documents we will be reviewing include 13 calculations that address flow requirements, condensate 14 storage requirements, pressure drops and NPSA, system 15 pressures and temperature, flow diagram, instrument and 16 control diagram. Single failure / failure modes and 17 effects evaluation, pipe break and flooding studies and 18 fire protection evaluations.
19 And I added that these are typical implemented 20 documents that will be reviewed.
21 MR. SHAO: I don't see any stress calculations.
22 MR. LEVIN: Okay. We will have to get -- these are 23 typical, Larry. They are included. You will see that I
,- , 24 in the matrix that follows. This was going to be a 25 typical list. I agree they will be included.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
146 1 MR. SHAO: Will include stress calculations?
_.) 2 MR. LEVIN: They will. To give you a feeling for 3 our initial scope and everything -- I want to prc' ace 4 everything I'm saying, this really applies to this 5 initial cale. We have identified, specifically, 15 calc 6 packages. Most of these things were generated in the 7 1979 to 1984 time frame. 18 specifications and these 8 things range back to 1975 through 1984.
9 Sixty-seven drawings, none of which were later in 10 time than 1984. And these specifics items have been 11 identified for the initial review. We plan to review in ,
i 12 terms of the outputs specifications for the pumps and 13 drivers, isolation valves, power operator valves.
14 Drawings for piping, vendor drawings, vendor manuals and 15 instructions. Then we set --
16 MR. SHAO: Are these active pumps or -- are these 17 active pumps?
18 MR. LEVIN: Active pumps and valves, yes, 19 Here's -- this is probably the best representation of 20 the initial review scope, this matrix.
l 21 And what we have done is partition the AFW review 22 areas into certain segments. For example, operating 23 mode and various activities or items that would be
-- 24 reviewed there. Operating limits, heat removal I
~
25 capability, water supplies, component functional GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100 (817) 460-2048
147 1 requirements. And there we, Larry, we see, you know,
-- 2 ASME type components there where we're looking at, both 3 and code consideration, single failure /FMEA.
4 I wanted to point out that the electrical aspects 5 from the standpoint of power departments and I&c are 6 dovetailed with the electrical power system review. In 7 other words, we will look at the power requirements and 8 the IAC within the system. Take the general 9 requirements that are being reviewed el4ewhere and get 10 the thread into this system.
11 MR. MARINOS: But electrically you go beyond 12 this --
[] 13 MR. LEVIN: Martin Jones will be represent.ing that 14 later on in the presentation.
15 MR. SHAO: On the functional requirements, as I 16 understand your FSAR, are you assuming normal design 17 limits? That's how you address that design functional 18 requirement? Am I right?
l 19 MR. LEVIN: I'm sure that's the case, in many l l
20 cases. I don't know if that's the case all the time.
2 '. MR. SHAO: I know the valves on the active --
I 22 instead of addressing the primary function, you say, for 1 23 any kind of plant connection you -- it's treated like a 24 design limit, and that's how you address a functional J
25 requirement.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
I l
148 l l
1 MR. LEVIN: That's certainly an aspect that we will s
- 2 be taking a look at.
3 MR. SHAO: You took both active pumps and valves?
4 MR. LEVIN: Yes. From the standpoint of the bases 5 that are provided for demonstrated compliance with the 6 code, as well as the bases for demonstrating the 7 runctionability.
8 And if the bases is derived from stress limit 9 considerations, we will have to take a look at the 10 particular application to see if that's appropriate. If 11 that is, in fact, an adequate way of demonstrating
-12 functionability.
13 MR. SHAO: For the mechanical component integrity, L-14 who will be doing the work?
15 MR. LEVIN: In terms of specific individuals --
16 MR. SHAO: I'm not specifying individuals. Which 17 group?
18 MR. LEVIN: It will be done entirely within the 19 third party review. We will be involving people like 20 Everette Rodenball, and people that have had a 21 significant amount of experience in the ASME 22 components.
23 And it will essentially be that aspect of that i- q 24 review, will be managed internally by some of the people 25 that are involved in the organization I described GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
149 1 earlier, in piping and supports area. People are
- a 2 looking at other ASME components.
3 MR. SHAO: Stone and Webster is not looking at it?
4 MR. LEVIN: Stone and Webster is certainly looking 5 at pumps and valves from the standpoint of nozzle hose 6 and items like that. I guess I would -- we will be i 7 addressing that in a few moments. Ed, from Stone and 8 Webster, will describe exactly the scope of his review.
9 MR MILHOAN: Excuse me, Howard you're on the slide 10 about the multiple design or multiple discipline i
11 considerations. Now, for example, on the first bullet, 12 high energy line breaks, are you saying that you're 13 going to be able to draw a conclusion on high energy 14 line breaks by the review of the AFW system?
15 MR. LEVIN: In terms of the initial scope, we're 16 going to use the AFW as a means of getting --
17 investigating that particular item. It ma a, or may not, 18 be a good system for that.
19 MR. MARINOS: So this is a listing- of things you're 20 going to look at? If it's not in there, you're going to 21 go someplace else?
22 MR. LEVIN: This is inadequate. For example, if 23 this is a low usage type of system and it's not really a
,--, 24 good test, maybe that area we have to get --
25 MR. MARINOS: So the message that you convey to us GODFREY & AMES COURT'REPORTI?lG Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
150 1 is, this is a listing of significant areas to be
__ 2 reviewed?
3 MR. LEVIN: That's correct.
4 MR. MARINOS: Whether this system provides that 5 opportunity, it's immaterial at this point. You're 6 going to go someplace if it's not in there?
7 MR. LEVIN: That's right. And the process I 8 described are four phase process, will help make that 9 judgment. You asked about one example before, something 10 that's not here, mainstream isolation valve, for 11 example, an important valve that comes to mind.
12 MR. MARINOS: Seismic two over one. Where would 13 you have that listed here?
14 MR. LEVIN: That will be covered later on the 15 seismic interaction question. Yeah. In the civil 16 structural.
17 MR. HUNTER: Howard Hunter, Region 4. Back on the 18 first slide for system operating modes. The first item, 19 startup, shutdown, accident conditions. Looking at 20 general design criteria and normal, abnormal, and 21 emergency operations. Is this inclusive of abnormal 22 operations, abnormal trends on the feed water?
23 In other words, operational trends, and abnormal
,- q 24 trends? In other words, you say accident. And I was J
25 asking what that definition was, startup, shutdown and i
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING l Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 !
l
151
, 1 accident. Would that be inclusive of general design
-- 2 criteria?
3 MR. LEVIN: Essentially. It includes all modes, 4 even including station blackout, which is very important 5 to the system.
6 MR. HUNTER: Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. NOONAN: Howard, if I could touch briefly on 8 that one, just to follow up a little bit. One of the 9 draft documents that Don Landers, he was concerned about 10 the operational -- whether or not, they were adequately 11 included in design. I guess you're telling me you're 12 looking at all of that.
13 MR. LEVIN: Okay. I have to differentiate, we're 14 talking about operational modes, Vince. Don was 15 concerned about the effects of those transients on the 16 hardware. And that will be addressed directly by Stone '
17 and Webster. We will be overviewing their activities in 18 that effort, and you will be hearing more about that 19 from Ed Siskin in a few moments.
20 MR. N00NANr I'm looking at -- did their design l 21 consider that?
22 MR. LEVIN: That's correct.
23 MR. NOONAN: It's in there? l
,-- 24 MR. LEVIN: Yes. We will make that judgment.
~
25 Okay. With that, we will proceed into the civil GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
152 1 structural review area, and that discussion will be led
_J 2 by Dr. Cris Mortgat.
3 MR. MORTGAT: Design of the -- program is of the 4 structure, is basically divided into three categories.
5 I'm sorry. It is the last section of the hand out. The 6 flow chart organization chart that was about 16 pages 7 from the end.
8 The effort is basically divided into three 9 particular areas. One related to cable tray supports.
10 One related to conduit supports. And the third, and 11 last one, to self-initiated and TRT related issue. -
-12 The cable tray support effort will be led by Doctor 13 Kircher. Doctor Kircher is president of Jack Biggs &
']
14 Associates. He_got his degree in structural engineering 15 from Stamford. He is a professional engineer in 16 California. Has 15 years experience, each 'or which are ,
17 related to nuclear industry.
18 He has an extensive experience 'in testing.which --
19 all of which the most depicable to his programs are the 20 Tangor Canyon Raceway program and Sesna 1 electrical 21 cabinets program. ;
l 22 The conduit support effort will-be led by myself, !
23 whereas the self-initiated and TRT related issues will
--, 24 be led by Doctor Arros. Doctor Arros has obtained his
]
25 degree in structural engineering from Stamford GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
153 1 University. He has eight years of experience, five of
'- 2 which.are related to nuclear industry.
3 MR. SHAO: Is that on this chart?
I 4 MR. SECK: Right-hand.
5 MR. MORTGAT: Of particular relevance to 'this 4
- 6 project, Doctor Arros was a principal structural j i
7 engineer in the area of reviewing concrete design and 8 dynamic analyses in the middle IDVP.
9 Both the cable tray effort and the conduit effort l
10 will rely heavily on testing. Testing will be performed 11 by ANCO engineers under the lead of George Howard.
12 Doctor Howard is a principal of ANCO engineers. He 4
i
[_ 13 has a degree in nuclear engineering from UCLA. And 14 he -- in California. He has 15 years of experience in 15 nuclear -- in the nuclear industry field, with a lot of 16 emphasi on research analysis and testing of some --
, 17 related to some nuclear facilities all over the world.
18 ANCO is very well known for their work in testing, ,
19 which is performed over the last week.
- 20 MR. SHAO
- You look like you have a lot of work on 21 the cable tray support, but on the other hand, there are 22 going'to be four people working on --
23 MR. MORTGAT: We will be going over it as I go i- - 24 through it.
J 25 Finally, the site activities will be reviewed by GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
154 1 Mr. White, a graduate from UCLA with a master's in
_.3 2 engineering mechanics. He has 14 years of experience, 3 eleven out of which are related to nuclear industry.
4 The areas of review can be divided, basically, into 5 two categories. The area in which issues have been 6 identified in the past. And other areas in which either 7 there was no issue identified or where no reviews have 8 been performed previously.
9 For it to be address in the area where issues have 10 been identified, basically, the cable tray supports, 11 conduit supports, the steam generator restraint, which 12 is derived from the TRT related issue SB, and the design 13 of seismic category II items, which is related to the
[
14 TRT issue 2D.
15 And the scope of this effort is, basically,
- 16 transferred from the TRT action plan, and will be --
17 will not be addressed in this review. ,
18 Under the self-initiated issues, we have three 19 areas where the review of concrete design, steel design, 1
20 and the HVAC supports. l l l 21 MR. MOLLONSON: Jim Mo11onson. Active organization l
)
22 chart. I'd like, once again, to point out that it 1
23 doesn't define any QA/QC -- in into action on that 24 chart.
,l 25 MR. MORTGAT: This will, as previously mentioned, GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 l l -_ . - . - _ - _ _ _ _ ._ ___ --.-_ _ . _. -. - _ .
l 155 1 this will be handled at a programmatic level.
- J 2 MR. MOLLONSON: Say again, please.
i i
3 MR. MORTGAT: This will be handled at that l 1
4 programmatic level.
5 MR. MOLLONSON: Yes. We understand that, but you 6 have got interaction between all these people with 7 QA/QC, and I think that should be shown. I have made
- 8 the same comment, I believe, on all of the other 9 organization charts. It's the same comment.
10 MR. BECK: Tour point is taken.
11 MR. MOLLONSON: Thank you.
12 MR. SHAO: Let me ask the question. You have u-13 concrete designs, steel design, HVAC supports. Why 14 don't you say supports? Why you pick HVAC7 15 MR. MORTGAT: As we go through presentation, I'll 16 explain that. We pick HVAC supports, because there is 17 some similarity between the hardware of the HVAC support 18 and the one that was used in the cable tray.
19 The HVAC support area is part of the Comanche Peak, 20 of the civil, structural, or the mechanical. However, 21 we decided to increase the scope of the review to see if 22 some of the issues that have been raised into the cable-23 tray area were also present.
-3 24 MR. SHAO: But why not other supports?
25 MR. MORTGAT: Well, basically, this is an initial GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
156 1 scope. And this effort is -- we had reason to do it, 2
~
_ a the HVAC, because we had a 1ead in terms of similarity.
3 MR. SHAO: Yeah, but the HVAC supports aren't 4 known, insures something,'like identified issues. The 5 reason you picked this one, is this one like cable tray 6 support?
7 MR. MORTGAT: No. Issues have been identified 8 within the HVAC area. It is just based on the 9 similarity of cable tray.
10 MR. SHAO: I was just marking the suggestion that 11 you should include supports, just the supports.
12 MR. CALV0: I guess it goes back to the basic I
13 philosophy that you had adapted. You selected a Ld 14 facility fuel water system. You're hoping that a 15 facility water system will give you enough depth and 16 breadth that you will have covered sont of the areas on 17 the plant.
18 On most areas that you will be missing, you will be 19 supplementing it by the small vertical slides. And I i
20 guess that falls within this area. .
21 MR. LEVIN: That's true, Jose. We have to take a
, 22 step back and look at -- we have looked at, for example, 23 piping supports are a major part of this program. HV --
,--- 24 I mean cable tray and conduit supports, are a major part
- 3 25 of the program. HVAC, we don't have any, to our GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
157 1 knowledge, of any problems. However, we're goind to l
' l
- J 2 take a look.
3 Larry, we're taking a look at the steam generator, 4 upper and lower lateral supports. There, in fact, may i
5 be other supports in the plants. I think what we need 6 to determine is whether or not there's some common 7 and/or, let's say some commonalities, that we're not 8 touching, some areas that we're not touching. And that 9 will occur Jose in phase 3.
10 MR. SHAO: The reason I asked this question, is we 11 look at a cable tray support we have some problem. We 12 look at a conduit with some problem. We look at a pipe
[, 13 support with some problem. That's why I want to have 14 other supports to make sure other supports are no 15 problem.
16 MR. MORTGAT: The point is well taken. Yes. Since '
17 the standards of review within those three areas are 18 significantly different, the approach followed by the 19 program might be different as well. For example, in the 20 cable tray and conduit support area, there has been an 21 extensive review, and some generic issues have been 4 22 identified. And considering the amount of review, there 23 is a low probability that additional issue will be
) ,-, 24 identified.
25 And, therefore, the emphasis of the program is to GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
. _ _ .-. - . --_. _=. . - _ _ - . - . . - _ . . _ _ - - . - _ - - _ . , _ . _ _ _ _ - .- _
158 1 answer the concerns in the comprehensive manner, whereas 2 2 in other areas, where the amount of review is either 3 much smaller or isn't in existence, the emphasis of 4 the program ir to organize a plan in such a way that 5 significant and important issues are being identified.
6 And this is being done through the use of f
7 sampling. And the sample can either be taken on a 8 random base or based on a generating judgment. This is 9 just to define the different philosophy between the 10 different areas of the program.
11 Starting with the cable tray and conduit supports, 12 and just a ,rew words about the general philosophy of
- [_ 13 design, as it was intended by Gibbs & Hill, the support 14 work design, as acting in the gath of each other, and 15 therefore no system approach beirs taken. The supports 16 could either be not included in all transfers or three 17 directional.
18 Two types of supports were involved in the design.
t 19 They were either, generate supports, and their intent 20 was to use the enveloping spectra, or all the floors and 21 all the buildings. And use the maximum load on the 22 trays or the conduits.
23 The other type of supports were either the special 24 or specific supports. And in that case those supports
,j 25 were designed for specific location. The cases for GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
159 1 building and usually for the actual load. Therefore
-a 2 --
this specific support might have less margin.
3 So based on such design philosophy, the system 4 should be fairly conservative. However, there has been 5 a number of syst.eas that have been raised that would 6 decrease at the conservative.
7 And therefore we're faced with a set of systems, 8 which on one hand have been designed with some 9 conservative in mind. And on the other hand, some 10 issues concerns have been raised by decrease 11 conservative.
12 MR. SHAO: Ba.ck to the support again. Did you have 13 L_ a request to use the latest ASME code Section NF, this 14 component support? When you do the review, are you 15 going to use the latest ASME code, or are you use a code 16 you committed FSAR7 17 MR. LEVIN: Larry, these cable tray supports are 18 not ASME supports.
19 MR. SHAO: I'm talking support in general.
20 MR. LEVIN: Well, where they're ASME supports, for 21 example, Ed Siskin will be addressing those. The answer 22 most definitely is that the --
23 MR. SHAO: But I think Ed is going to talk about i, 24 pipe support. I'm talking about component support in 25 general.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
160 1 MR. LEVIN: Like I said, these aren't within the
_ - 2 ASME scope. They're not governed by --
3 MR. SHAO: This -- the support area -- HVAC 49, 4 ASME NF, I mean, I just want to know is, when you talk 5 about supports, are you using HVAC 49 NF7 I'm not not 6 speaking of pipe supports. I'm speaking of supports in 7 general.
8 MR LEVIN: The yardstick that we use, Larry, in 9 terms of making the initial comparisons in degrees of 10 compliance, will be the commitment made by the project.
11 In the case of cable trays and supports, for example, in 12 terms of acceptance criteria, it's with the American 13 Institute of Steel Construction Code. Alcng with that L-14 are various other kinds of commitments that are related 15 to the development of the loads and assumptions used in 16 the dynamic analysis. But the benchmark, if you will, 17 are the commitments made by TUGCO.
18 MR. SHAO: One thing I'm not very clear, to me.
19 When you say you want to use the latest ASME code NF, is 20 that only for pipe supports or for all component 21 supports? Or when you use this latest NF, are they 22 going to mesh with the new ACI 3497 Or mesh with the 23 whole HC 349 for the accomplishing of it? What's the c, 24 thinking behind the whole supports now?
25 MR. LEVIN: Okay. If there's new thinking, I guess GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
I 161 1 I'd like to -- I'm not totally sure what you're 4
- e 2 referring to to --
3 MR. SHAO: When you support -- when you have 4 component first, you have NF. The NF go through another 5 support, concrete supports ACR 349. So when you de '
l 6 support, you have to use two codes. One is ASME code l 7 and also ACR code.
8 When you change, you say, use the latest addendum, 9 use latest code. And how are going to mesh the concrete to and the steel? And when you say you want to request, 11 you using only for the supports or for all component 12 supports?-
13 MR. LEVIN: Larry, I'm not familiar with any latest 14 requests. This is an NF plan. I guess I would have to 15 defer that to --
16 MR. SHAO: Maybe somebody can answer that 17 question. Somebody use the latest NF?
! 18 MR. LEVIN: I'm not sure that we can answer that 19 correctly.
20 MR. CALV0: I guess, you know, which of the
- 21 criteria you can document in the FSAR. And you're going 22 to --
l 23 MR.-SHAO: No, no. They want to use something l
24 other than the FSAR.
, -- l 25 MR. LEVIN: We'll have to get to you, Larry.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
162 1 Certainly our benenmark has been with the commitments.
_. . 2 Were -- if it was some request that would have to be j 3 factored the request for --
l
! 4 MR. 80SNAK: What Larry was getting at, there's l
- 5 been a request to use portions of a later edition and i
6 addendum. And that's kind of a separate thing I would i 7 look at. From what you're doing here, you're looking at 8 the basic commitments. Eventually, I guess it will have 9 to be reconciled.
10 MR. BECK: Yes. Thank you, i
11 MR. MORTGAT: To answer the concerns raised on the I
12 cable tray and conduit supports, our general plan was --
4
] 13 to either confirm that the existing supports have iL 14 sufficient margin. Or that would modify the specific 15 supports or support type.
16 And if we go to the next slide, which is somewhat 17 of a flow chart, describes how the approaches are being 18 followed. We are dealing here with two pilot 19 approaches.
20 One describes at the top of the chart, and one at 21 the bottom of the chart. And those approaches will run 22 on the part of the trite, and will interact through the 23 dotted line on the map.
, - - , 24 The dump part is really, it will field activity.
j 25 They were basically dealing with other, defying critical GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
163 1 components. And they're looking at designing a direct
- 2 modification that would directly answer all the concerns 3 that have been raised to building those supports, both 4 in the conduit, and the cable tray.
5 This effort.could be followed by as built effort 6 either consists of hundred percent of building of what 7 is in the field. Or a population survey will determine 1
8 on the less detailed, minor, what is in the tray.
9 As the as built goes on, some direct modification 10 may be implemented, related to the most critical 11 component that have been identified. As this effort 12 goes on, it will receive input from the bottom part of 13 the chart, which is a confirmatory effort, based on 14 testing and analysis. Both effort are going to start at 15 the same time, and will interact and provide input from 16 each other.
17 The confirmatory effort, which is based on testing 18 and analysis, is devised to take modeling techniques to 19 assess the adequacy of the systems and determine what 20 type of modifications are necessary for this -- the 21 effort is not going to be based on the hundred percent 22 verification, but rather on the analysis of sample of 23 runs. And those are shown on the second parts, doing 24 i
-q the as built effort.
25 Two samples of runs would be identified. One, the GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
I 164 1 engineering sample, which is based on engineering
- s 2 criteria, which are expected to provide systems that 3 respond in the less favorable manner. And another set 4 of samples which would be random. And we therefore ,
5 present our population.
6 The analysis of those two sets, the first one will 7 be, first, the engineering sample to identify the 8 critical elements, and therefore provide input to the 9 field activity in terms of what type of modifications 10 should be performed. Either increase the level of 11 modifications as being performed of the function, of the 12 type of results we're getting.
13 And the random sample will be realized afterwards, L_
14 to confirm the adequacy of decisions that have been made 15 in terms of the modification. If we go to the bottom 16 part of the chart --
17 MR. SHAO: Do we know the root cause of the I 18 previous problem that was identified in this area? What 19 was the cause of the problem?
20 MR. MORTGAT: You mean the type of --
21 MR. SHAO: Yeah. Why there is such deficiency in 22 the cable system?
23 MR. MORTGAT: At this time, we have not defined 24 what the root cause was. We know what the issues are
'~
25 and how they affect the response of the system and their GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100 (817) 460-2048
165 1
behavior.
1
)
l
- a 2 MR. SHAO: Is it better to know the root cause and 3 you can use your program to fix the -- 1 4 MR. MORTGAT: Following this program -- through the 5 application of this program, we will be able to learn a 6 lot about the root cause, because we're going to learn a 7 lot more about the behavior of those systems and what we 8 have in the field, than we do today.
9 So the root cause would be a result of the 10 execution of this program.
11 MR. SHAO: What was the FSAR commitment on cable 12 tray support SSER7 What --
13 MR. MORTGAT: Yeah.
u -
15 MR. MORTGAT: The bottom part, which is a 16 confirmatory effort, consists of three main plans.
17 One is a derivative of identical matters and 18 modeling techniques.
19 The second one is the selection of design loads.
20 And the third one, development of acceptance 21 criteria that are shown in these other boxes, on the 22 left.
23 Testing is going.to be an important part of this
. , - - - 24 effort. Testing will be applied on three levels. It
!' 25 will not be a testing to qualify either systems or 1 .
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100 (817) 460-2048
166 1 supports. It will be testing to understand the
.2 2 behavior, or components, or some other components that
-3 have been questioned in terms of their modeling or their 4 behavior.
f 5 And the second level of testing at the higher level 6 where some representative number of supports will be 7 tested as units.
8 And finally some system testing these are testing 9 in the field or in the lab. The idea through this 10 effort is to understand the behavior of the elements in 11 such a way that the modeling techniques will be used.
12
- Rest on enough justification --
13 MR. NOONAN: Let me ask a question on that. What 14 is your definition of acceptable for cables? In the 15 testing areas, what is going to be the criteria? What 16 is acceptable?
17 MR. MORTGAT: At this time, what we'll use the 18 testing for, is to understand the behavior. For 19 example, the connection, one and two bolt connection, 20 which lots of questions have been asked about.
21 Or the behavior of the clamps. There have been 22 lots of questions asked about the low transfer between j i
23 the trends and the support, or the conduit and the
,--, 24 support.
- J 25 So these have been made about those problems. So l
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
l l
167 1
1 all of them are based on the -- what we want to do is l 2 test some of those components to see what is the 3 physical behavior of those systems. And therefore in 4 the article two, to come up with --
5 MR. NOONAN: Frevious to analytical reports?
6 MR. CHANDLER: Let me pick up on Vince's question.
7 Maybe it will clarify it maybe it will confuse it. Let 8 se give it a shot. You reach a conclusion of 9 acceptability --
10 MR. MORTGAT: I would define it -- I have not 11 defined what acceptability would be at this time. At 12 this time the testing is only directed --
{~] 13 MR. CHANDLER: Well, I'm looking at your chart. ,.
3 14 Look at your chart for a moment. You're determining, at 1
15 least on line one, based on testing, and you're reaching 16 a conclusion of acceptability and nonacceptability.
17 What are you judging acceptability on at that point?
18 MR. MORTGAT: At that point, the acceptability is 19 the capability of our models, our tools to present the 20 behavior of the systems in the field.
21 t
MR. CHANDLER: Not the acceptability of the system 22 itself?
23 MR. MORTGAT: The -- no. It is to be presented for 24 the behavior of the systems. That's why this comes 25 .before any analysis, we're going to look at either GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
168 1 different techniques, and determine whether those are
)
j 2 applicable to represent the behavior of the systems.
3 MR. CHANDLER: Vince, did that help you or confuse 4 it?
5 MR. NOONAN: . I guess I'm looking at that first 6 little box of testing, Howard. It looks like you say 7 acceptable, yes'or no. And you go to modifications, 8 what kind of modifications, based on what criteria?
9 MR. LEVIN: Maybe I can differentiate these tests.
10 Are not, for example, the same kind of tests you might 11 do -- let's say we're doing a qualification of 12 component. We're putting out 'on the shake table. And t
13 we're going to put in its design basis input for that L.J 14 ites, ano shake it, and see that it still performs, and 15 all those things that go along with the qualifications 16 test.
17 What we're trying to do is develop a technique that 18 can be applied on a statistical basis for the evaluation 19 of the entire population of cable tray systems. Now 20 what one could do is, let's say we could randomly select 21 some systems in the plant to analyze them.
22 And on the basis of that, in the course of which it 23 is structured, and the way the results could be r-, 24 evaluated in a statistical sense, that will be fine.
m j
25 The role of the testing is to justify those analytical GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING l Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 '
169 1 techniques.
2 The nature of the problems here are such that a 3 fair amount of discussion has occurred in the past 4 several months between TUGC0 and the independent 5 assessment program personnel, where things aren't so 6 straightforward that we can just go and directly analyze 7 these systems. Okay.
8 We need some information to help us do that, number 9 one.
10 And, number two, to provide justification for those 11 approaches. The goal is to use the testing to justify 12 development of the models. And we're hoping t'o develop
[_ 13 those models in such a way that they can be executed on 14 a broader scale, as opposed to having to be too detailed 15 or too sophisticated, not being able to because of 16 impracticality implemented in a broad sense.
17 MR. NOONAN: Let me just ask one question. You say 18 identify modifications on that chart. What 19 modifications? Modifications of your models?
20 MR. LEVIN: No. In this case, what we're saying, 21 as a result of the testing, we may identify the E2 particular components that exhibit lower bound behavior, 23 such that, you know, it really doesn't make sense to i -- 24 factor that information, and to try to deal with that 25 problem in the analytical model.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
s 170 1 ., In other words, if there's lower bound equipment
_ - 2 there, or components, the approach might be just go and 3 directly seek those items out in the population, and fix 4 .them. In fact, that is the essence of the original 5 approach, that the approach would be to identify those 6 lower bound items, go out and fix them directly. Okay.
7 Then take a loo'k at that system, okay, with those
~
8 '
modifications made, and atilize this program, 9 . statistically based program of evaluation, to confirs 10 that tl hat modified systee .now behaves in a way that 11 meetstiet functional re'quirements.
12 MR. CHANDLER: Howard, where does it get plugged 13 back in, though, if you have gone through on your flow LJ 14 chart, you have gone to your testing. You get to the 15 point of acceptability, you then say. Now you then 16 auggested that there might be modification to the 17 system, and you leave it off at that point. Do you 18 bring it back in, as I think I understood you to say, in 19 the analysis, the box ends at that point?
20 MRi MORTGAT: Yes. That provides an input on what 21 is going oc at the upper level through the dotted line, 22 the fields activity. Basically those two plans are '
23 provided -- to provide information from the top -, from ,
,- q 24 the bottom to the top'.
J
- 25 So if through the testing program we see that some GODFREY &' AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
171 1 of the components that we thought would be behaving some 2 way or another, and we don't know up to now, because 3 none of those have been tested, do not perform the way-4 we thought could, they will go up there and through the 5 modification program and --
6 MR. CHANDLER: Let me ask one other point. If I 7 now follow through that same line, testing is 8 acceptable.
9 We now go into analysis. On that same line, a 10 third possible input is from the last line of your 11 chart, which is acceptance criteria development.
12 I guess it's not clear to me why the acceptance 13 criteria development would avait completion of analysis J
14 as opposed to preceding analysis. In other words, what 15 are you judging acceptability of analysis on --
16 MR. MORTGAT: At the.beginning, when we go through 17 testing and the remodeling techniques we have, not look 18 at any systems yet, we are just -- two -- the testing
- 19 shows us that our modeling techniques are not 20 applicable. We cannot match those systems, we will have 21 to stop there the -- for having a hundred percent, no.
22 At the first is not acceptable, which means we cannot 23 model those systems.
24 MR. 80SNAK: This morning I scratched in Abasco 25 with a dotted line going in to Cris Mortgat. Now how l
l GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING
( Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
172 1 are they going to do their own testing, or what's going
.J 2 to happen? I scratched in Abasco here on this morning's 3 chart, flow chart, saying that Abasco is going to be 4 doing all the table tray, conduit supports.
5 MR. MORTGAT; Yes. Above the dotted line, all the 6 work is being performed, this dotted line.
7 MR. 80SNAK: Well, suppose they don't go along with 8 your testing. Suppose they're going to go in and do the 9 whole thing over again. Maybe I'm -- supposing that 10 something isn't going to happen.
11 MR. SHAO: This 1 -- above the dotted line is 12 Abasco, and below is another, for the same subject.
- J 13 MR. MORTGAT
- That's correct.
14 MR. NOONAN: Howard, I don't think we're 15 communicating on this. I'm not going to take the time 16 to get into more detail, but I think we need to discuss 17 this further. I dren't understand it.
18 MR. LEVIN: Yes. I guess, Vince, it's my^ reeling 19 that given the nature of this whole activity, and Cris 20 has summarized particularly the testing program very 21 briefly. And it's a fairly comprehensive effort, as 22 well as the Abasco effort. And I think that there's
'23 probably a need that, for example, prior to even c, 24 embarking on that program, that, you know, it's in the J
25 early stages of development right now, that there be GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
173 1 discussions to insure that you're on board, and you do Y 2 understand that and it's communicated adequately. '
3 MR. SHAO: Well, what are -- within the 4 organization to do? Why the --
5 MR. MORTGAT.: What activities are field activity 1
6 which involves direct modification, total building of ;
7 the whole population of cable trays and conduit? And if 8 other one is of testing and -- testing and analytical 9 effort, conservative. What is going on.
10 MR. SHAO: Now we're going to have two groups to l
11 look at. All confused.
12 MR. BOSNAK: What Stone and Webster will be doing 13
{ in their area is different than what Abasco will be 14 doing in their area. I guess I didn't understand that 15 this morning either.
16 MR. MORTGAT: Yes. Because the feel is that if we 17 understand the behavior of some of the components which 18 are really critical in the concerns that have been 19 raised through the review process, and those -- some of 20 them are rather simple to understand. The one and two 21 board connection behavior. The friction of the plant.
22 If we assume that those behave a hundred percent 23 theoretically,.then we have to go with the top program.
i- q 24 However, if through testing we can understand what the 25 real behavior of the elements are, all the justification GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
174 1 will be needed to sol've all the problems directly. With
- s 2 that, testing may not be required.
3 MR. BOSNAK: I understand what you're saying Cris.
4 But, I guess, I assume that Stone and Webster was doing 5 all the piping, as Abasco was going to be doing all of 6 the cable tray and conduit supports.
7 MR, LEVIN: The analogies are the same. Stone and 8 Webster is doing, as you indicated, the piping from the 9 standpoint of those design basis activities. The same 10 holds for Abasco and these cable tray activities. But 11 we're talking about performing direct modifications.
12 That is a project activity, and they are doing that in i 13 both cases in the piping area.
L .)
14 The third party is involved in overseeing that 15 work. And in an analgous sense, third party is involved 16 here in doing a confirmatory evaluation of the adequacy 17 of that work. So the parallels are the same.
18 MR. BOSNAK: But who identifies the -- well, the
~
19 problems -- some of them have been identified. Maybe 20 some of them have not been, but the corrective action to 21 solve the problems is that a third party group, or is it 22 the other contractors who will be reporting to the 23 projects?
,- q 24 MR. LEVIN: Abasco, in this case, would identify 25 those direct modifications, conduct design activities, GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING l Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
i 175 1 required for those modifications, and --
2 MR. SHAO: Yeah, but this diagram here, Abasco only 3 have field. They don't do any analysis.
4 MR. LEVIN: Well, that may not be clear, but they 5 do have to do analysis.
6 MR. SHAO: Here it just says field, and then 7 testing analysis is done by someone else.
8 MR. LEVIN: What we're talking about here is --
9 well, if you you see below the dotted line is 10 oonfirmatory. There is analysis associated above the 11 dotted line, Larry, and that is design basis.
12 MR. NOONAN: I tell you what, why don't we just
[_ 13 leave it? We'll be on the record we don't understand 14 it, and hope we will see a program.
15 MR. SHAO: I would like to see one group.
16 MR. LEVIN: And we will be glad to discuss this 17 program and testing program in more detail.
18 MR. MORTGAT: I guess we can take the next slide.
19 The following item is a TRT related issue which.
20 was -- this steam generator -- steam generator 21 restraint. This issue was identified by TRT as an issue 22 58, which was the approach shortening of the upper 23 lateral bolts.
,- 24 THE REPORTER: And the what?
J 25 MR. MORTGAT: . Upper lateral bolts. Upper lateral GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
176 1 restraint bolts.
-- 2 During the performance of the action plan related 3 to that TRT issue, it was noticed that some of the bolts 4 were in fact shorter.
5 MR. SHAO: This we have discussed last time. Can 6 we skip that?
7 MR. MORTGAT: So that's really the self-initiated 8 evaluation.
9 MR. SHAO: One thing, I would like you to talk a 10 little bit on this seismic CAT -- two --
11 MR. MORTGAT: This is exactly the same program that
~
12 was presented.
13 MR. NOONAN: Let me correct the record by reading
![_
14 this thing. The reason we're -- for going into this
.15 discussion,.it's going to take place after the February, 16 March time frame in those transcripts.
17 MR. LEVIN: Vince, I think I alluded to it
, 18 earlier. These items, the TRT issues that have design 19 related implications, have been folded into this program 20 so that we maintain an overview of that.
21 I wanted to indicate though, Larry, that there's a, 22 particularly with regard to upper lateral restraint 23 issue, the depth of that review has increased. Okay.
24 So it's -- in the case of the category two items, t
e J 25 it's exactly as you understand it. It's been GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
177 1
programmatically transferred, steam generator upper 2 lateral, taking a look at a few more issues. And that 3 will be defined in the program.
4 MR. MORTGAT: Under this self-initiated programs, 5 the reason for generating those programs was to expand !
6 the scope, provide a more complete coverage of the civil 7 structural design. And also to focus on other areas of 8
SAFE team which had not been reviewed.
9 The typical type of review that would be performed 10 will be to look at the loads and the load combinations, 11 the model, and the boundary conditions, the computer 12 codes used for the analysis and design, the design
[ 13 procedures, and the acceptance criteria. And this would 14 apply to the three areas I will be describing later on 15 with some foundation.
16 In the area of design concrete, the initial scope 17 of review has selected three buildings, one being the 18 containment, and the other one being -- the two other 19 ones being the auxiliary building, and the fuel 20 building.
21 Within the containment, four areas will be 22 reviewed. A section of the shed wall, and the areas 23 with the distance between them. Basically the i- q - 24 penetration area; wall dome interface; and the wall 25 foundation.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING
, Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
i 178 1
Within the auxiliary building and fuel building, l
-- 2 'five slabs and five wall calculation piping will be 3 selected randomly and reviewed. And after that, another i 4
ten additional calculation packages will be selected, either randomly,.or based on any finding from t
5 6 previously --
7 MR. SHAO: Okay. When you pick these items, do you 8 have the age -- not only age in mind, but the cutoff of 9 the major organization?
10 MR. MORTGAT: In this case they --
11 MR. SHAO: I don't know what is the correlation at 12 Gibbs & Hill, who did design the concrete structure. Do
[, 13 they have different groups or one group or --
14 MR. MORTGAT: Well, these items would be taken into 15 consideration and reviewed. As we go through the 16 reprocess of reviewing the calculations, we follow the 17 process of where the load came from or who generated
, 18 that.
i 19 MR. SHAO: What I said, just look at the original 20 organization is how the work is done. So that you 21 should pick the area in such a way you cover all 22 organizations.
23 MR. MORTGAT: Yes, chat's right. And the fact that 24 the samples are being randomly, should provide that type l
. J 25 of --
1 GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
179 1 MR. CALVO: Not necessarily. All right. You can
-- 2 miss all organizations. There's too many 3 organizations. I think you should consider all the 4 organizations, and within your organizations, random 5 samples.
6 MR. MORTGAT: I agree with you. This is an 7 initial -- yes. In the area of steel design, again, the 8 initial scope would be to select two sections of the 9 structural steel frame in the cable spreading room.
10 This is the only major structural structure in the whole 11 plant.
12 .So two sections of that frame will be selected for
~
[_ 13 review. And then upper ten structural steel components 14 and some supports will be included in the sample as we 15 brought up before.
16 MR. SHAO: I have the same comment for structural 17 two steel, also. The major organizations, I don't know 18 how they're organized.
19 MR. MORTGAT: Well, this will be included in the 20 process of review. This will be taken into the process 21 of review for consideration. Finally, the HVAC support 22 area, and we talked about that a little bit before we 23 selected.
I
,7 24 Because there was some similarities between those
~
25 supports and the cable tray supports, even though they GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100,, (817) 460-2048
i 180 1 were not designed by the same organization, and they
-- 2 weren't underlined by the same organization, either.
3 aut some or the hardware are similar on the one that 4 is --
5 MR. SHAO: But my bottom line, eventually, is you
. 6 say all supports are okay. So I think you have to 7 explain your scope here, issue all the supports in this 8 plant are okay.
9 MR. CALV0: Or accomplish commonology for the ones 10 that you selected. Okay.
11 MR. MORTGAT: Yes. That is the end of the review.
12 MR. LEVIN: Okay. I believe we're ready to i
13 proceed. The next segment of our presentation will be a eJ ,
14 description of the piping and supports program.
i 15 In the way of introduction, many of you who have 4
16 participated in yesterday's presentation already 17 understand that TUGC0 has made a decision to perform a 18 reanalysis of a portion of the piping. And this 19 reanalysis will ultimately become the analysis of l 20 record.
21 Stone and Webster has been retained to conduct this l
22 work. And to describe that program would be Ed Siskin.
23 I want to emphasize that the Stone and Webster efforts
, cq 24 will be subject to a third party overview.
. s a 25 And after Ed finishes his presentation, I will j GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
i 181 1 describe that overview, including some of our d 2 interfaces.
3 With that, I'd like to introduce Ed Siskin from 4 Stone and Webster.
5 MR. NOONAN: Ea, before you. start on your l 6 presentation, staff is interested in finding out what 7 Stone and Webster is doing, their roles in this effort.
8 Mrs. Ellis from CASE has provided some questions 9 she would like to be answered by Stone and Webster. I 10 gave you a copy of those a few minutes ago. I would 11 like to make sure we don't miss anything here.
~
12 Maybe at the end of your presentation you could
'_ 13 summarize these questions.
14 MR. SISKIN: Okay. Vince, I will do that, although 15 I think some of the questions will be discussed in the 16 presentation. I will go back over those specific items 17 when we're done. I trust you will bear with me while I 18 stand. Two advantages, one, my back i.s really achy from 19 all this sitting. And second, I will have that
- 20 incentive to be precise and brief. Okay.
I 21 Why don't you put on the first slide? change 22 colors, too. Basically, that concisely says what TUGCO 23 has asked us to do. It's our intent to go through and
- q 24 qualify all as ASME class 2 and class 3 piping, systems, a
25 and supports, in accordance with procedures that meet l
l GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100 (817) 460-2048
182 1 our standards, and all FSAR and other requirements.
_d 2 It's a complete integrated requalification.
3 MR. BOSNAK: Ed, on the scope of the question, 4 maybe should go to John Beck, who is taking care of 5 class 1.
6 MR. SISKIN: Let me mention what's going to happen
- 7 with class 1 as I go through the presentation. A little 8 more description on the scope. First, what we intend to 9 do with regard to this effort.
! 10 First, we're going to do a hundred percent of all 11 class 2 and class 3 pipe large conduits, the large.
12 We'r's going to do a hundred percent of all the
[, 13 large bore supports, including those for class 1. We're 14 doing a reanalysis of the small bore.
15 MR. SHAO: Wait a minute. You say large bore means
! 16 two inches or four inches?
17 MR. SISKIN: Above two inches is large. Two inches I 18 and below is what we understand to be defined as small 19 bore on this plan. Obviously, every plan it's something 20 different.
21 on the small bore, we have a situation that is very 22 similar to the situation that Doctor Abatee of Abasco~
j 23 faces. We are going to do a sampling basis to verify ,
--- 24 adequecy. That may end up to be a hundred percent 25 sample, but we will do enough analysis there to be able GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING l Metro 469-6100 (817) 460-2048
183 1 to have Stone and Webster stand behind the design and 2 the installation of that work.
3 MR. SHAO: Some of the allegations, some of the
! 4 supports cannot be analyzed. What do you do with these 5 kind of supporta?
6 MR. SISKIN: Obviously, we have standards, if we 7 can't analyze them, the support would have to be 8 changed.
9 MR. SHAO: Are you going to have to change it 10 first, and analyze it, and then change it?
11 MR. SISKIN: Let me get back to that one in a few 12 minutes, because there are some supports that are going
[_ 13 to be changed and can be analyzed. And may very well be 14 okay. But are going to be changed for expediency. And 15 I'll get that to in a few minutes.
16 We're also going to try to, or we also intend to 17 try to, verify all structural and s'ystem inputs, to 18 insure complete integrity of the piping and support 19 process.
20 Now what I mean by that, and the next one is, we 21 are going to check the structural model. We're going to 22 check the standard, so that we know the structure can 23 withstand the load from the supports.
,- - 24 We're going to check the gin impingement loads 25 specified. We intend to check the system transients.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
184 1 We have our system engineers reviewing that work at J 2 Abasco -- at Gibbs & Hill right now.
3 So again, everything associated with this job, it 4 is our intent to be able to have done sufficient work, 5 so that we can stand behind that effort and that 6 calculation, and finally that installation.
7 In some cases, it means not redoing the analysis, 8 it just means agreeing that the analysis is okay. Or on 9 a specific or a sample basis. In other cases, it will 10 be redoing it all. Yes?
11 MR. FLOUGHTERY: Jim Floughtery, Teledyne. Are you 12 going to use Stone and Webster procedures, engineering j 13 procedures, in the verification effort? Are you going 14 to review the Abasco audit?
15 MR. SISKIN: The Gibbs & Hill -- sorry, Bob.
16 MR. FLOUGHTERY: The Gibbs & Hill procedures to see 17 if those are consistent with, in each and every judgment 18 sense, Stone and Webster procedures, that you have been 19 using.
20 MR. SISKIN: No. I don't think there is any 21 incentive to do that. We have our standards that we 22 have used repeatedly on plants, that you gentlemen and 23 many of the same faces have reviewed in great detail.
c-- 24 That specifies what sorts of transients, what sort of j
25 operating modes, all the other things that are required, GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING
~ ~
.- _ =__- . . _ _ . .
l 185 1 that's what we're going to do.
d -
2 MR. FLOUGHTERY: In the hundred percent sample, I 3 agree. But when you get down towards the last two
. 4 items, is that going to be a hundred percent sample?
I l
5 MR. SISKIN: If there is a particular standard that 6 would have to be checked on all systems, yes. In other 7 words, if there is a particular hydraulic transient that 8 needs to be addressed on small bore, we will make sure 9 that it's done.
10 So it will be a combination of a random sample,
, 11 large enough to get a 95/95, coupled with an engineering 12 sample which says these are things we specifically ought'
[, 13 to trust, what to check.
14 MR. SHAO: When you say reanalyze, you gave us a 15 redesign. I thought the only problem was also on i
16 design. Are you going to redesign and analyze, or just
- 17 reanalyze?
18 MR. SISKIN: We are' going to do whatever is 19 necessary, so that we can stand behind the design chat 20 is installed. If that means --
i 21 MR. SHAO: If you are going, to say, reanalyze?
22 MR. SISKIN: If I say reanalyze, and what is 23 installed is correct, obviously we can stand behind it.
F7 24 If I reanalyze, and I can't stand behind it, then it's 25 going to have to be redesigned.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
186 1 MR. SHAO: You're doing redesigning and 1
-- 2 reanalyzing?
)
1 3 MR. SISKIN: We're doing a reanalysis, and that may 4 dictate some redesign. Expediency may dictate some f 5 redesign as well. Is that clear?
6 As I said, we were going to mention what we were !
7 going to do with Westinghouse, too. From a practical 8 standpoint, there has been enough review on a number of 9 our other projects, and you gentlemen, to feel fairly 10 confident in Westinghouse's work, very confident in 11 Westinghouse's work, with respect to specific pipe 12 analysis.
I 13 There are several things we're going to do, as we cJ 14 will get to in a minute. First, we're going to confirm 15 that Westinghouse had the correct information on which 16 to base their analysis.
17 MR. NOONAN: I think that's what I wanted to point 18 out, basically. It's not so much the Westinghouse 19 analysis, but it's the interface between Westinghouse 20 and Gibbs & Hill.
21 MR. SISKIN: We're going to reverify that they did 22 get the correct information. And where Westinghouse 23 provided information, and that was used to design, we're
,--, 24 going to reverify that as well, or reanalyze it.
,j 2,5 MR. BOSNAK: Ed, is all the supports on GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
187 1 Westinghouse piping your responsibility.
-J 2 MR. SISKIN: Some are and some aren't. Some were 3 in fact Westinghouse's responsibility. And I don't 4 propose to go look at those. If they were another 5 agency, other than Westinghouse, we would go verify 6 them.
7 MR. SHAO: Let me ask one question. All the class 8 1 supports are designed by Westinghouse or somebody 9 else?
10 MR. SISKIN: Some are designed by Westinghouse and 11 aome are designed by Gibbs & Hill.
12 MR. SHAO: But you're not going to look at class 1
~
13 supports?
c ..
14 MR. SISKIN: We're going to look at class 1 15 supports designed by Gibbs & Hill or any other 16 organization other than Westinghouse.
17 MR. SHAO: So you want to look at class 1, class 2 18 and class 3 supports not designed by Westinghouse?
19 MR. SISKIN: That's right. Now recognize, and I'm 20 sure, particularly those of you who have worked in this 21 area in great depth, appreciate when you do an analysis, 22 when you're going a design and an analysis, it's not 23 just a single piece. It's an integrated program.
,--, 24 And a large part of our effort is going to be to 25 carefully control the reanalysis and any redesign that's GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
188 1 necessary, or ccasidered necessary, on a basis of a
_J 2 carefully integrated controlled program. We are 3 basically using the ones that we use on our other plants 4 as the starting point.
5 We're also trying to encapsulate this effort, so 6 that we're confirming all the inputs. We're confirming 7 every place.where there would be an interface.
8 We're not going back and rechecking Gibbs & Hill.
9 Basically, we're starting from scratch in these areas.
10 It makes no sense to go reaudit or recheck when, in 11 fact, you're going to do the analysis or redesign all 12 over.
13 MR. NOONAN: Does that include the modeling?
u -
14 MR. SISKIN: Yes.
15 MR. NOONAN: Gibbs & Hill modeling?
16 MR. SISKIN: Yes. Okay. Now I wish I could simply 17 say, we're going to use Stone and Webster's standards 18 intact, because you have seen them often enough. And 19 while there have been numerous discussions, I think you 20 felt comfortable with them.
21 There are some problems in using them without 22 careful review and check. There are a number'of 23 designs and features in this plant which are not 24 consistent with what we normally specify. Things that l
,- ,I
.a ;
25 we're not particularly familiar with. It doesn't mean l GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING i
Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
189 1 they're wrong. But it's not something that we have J 2 included in our generic analyses to justify our 3 techniques.
4 So there are going to have to be some changes in 5 the way our standards are applied. That's under 6 preparation right now, and we are expecting to have that 7 done about the'26th of July.- We have a sufficient 8 number of operating procedures, however, already 9 available, so that we intend to start the preliminary 10 production work as early as Monday.
11 MR. SHAO: I think the case of -- a couple of 12 questions. I have the same question. What collation
[_ 13 are you going to use?
14 MR. SISKIN: They are some of the questions that 15 Vince talked about, earlier. I will answer those 16 specifically as we so.
17 MR. SHAO: Okay.
18 MR. SISKIN: I think I mentioned earlier though, 19 we're basically going to stick to what is specified in 20 the FSAR, in normal standards. At no point have we 21 reached the conclusion that we have to ask for a 22 change.
23 So it's the FSAR, for example, specifies the 74 1
i i --,I 24 addition, then that's what we're going to use. We're 4
i . ;
25 not going to use the increased value -- not going to l
l GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 L
i 190 l 1 request the increased values for the moment. That's the
- 2 way we're going. There may be some other things in l 3 progress along that. But that's not our intent at the 4 moment. l 5 MR. 80SNAK: . Do you intend to try to take advantage 6 of -- we do have a ree.uest to take advantage of 7 increased dampening, so that you can say to remove 8 supports, where that might be, perhaps, a wise thing to 9 do.
10 MR. SISKIN: The present actions right now are 11 predicated on using the 161's. Whether there is a 12 further request -- a future request to use PVRC, or
! 13 something like that, I'm really not in a position to L J ,
14 answer.
15 MR. 80SNAK: Decision has not been made?
16 MR. SISKIN: That's right. But we're providing on 17 the basis of 161.
18 MR. SHAO: You're not using this 397.11 to do this?
19 MR. SISKIN: We're not using any unabsorbed code 20 cases.
21 MR. SHAO: As in disconnect?
22 MR. COUNSIL: Not at this point.
23 MR. SHAO: What he said and what we got --
24 MR. SISKIN: I think there are some discussions 4
c-,1 25 going on about the possibility of using a new ARS. And GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
_ - ~ _ . _ _ _ .- _ . _ . - _ -.- .. . . _ _ _ ._-__ _ _ . _ - _ . _ _ , .
, 191' i
1 if a new ARS were to be approved, we certainly would 2 2 look at the advisability of using it for our analysis.
- 3 aut again, if you will notice the procedures.
4 Again, I'm saying that the path we're taking right now 5 is to use existing effort, SAR existing code 4 6 requirements existing.
- 7 MR. SHAO
- The code in the FSAR7 8 MR. SISKIN: In the FSAR. Consisting NRC 9 requirements, I have no exceptions. I'm asking to take 10 at this particular time --
11 MR. SHAO: On reg guide 1617 12 MR. SISKIN: Reg guide 161.
[_ 13 MR. TRAMMELL: This is Charlie Trammell.
Just for 14 clarification purposes we do have a letter from the 15 utility requesting to use code case N-411, which 16 involves dampening, I think, or piping. The PVRC stuff -
17 you mentioned.
We have another request.
18 MR. SHAO: Code K-397.
19 MR. TRAMMELL: 397. I'm not clear on that one.
20 MR. SHAO: That's P shifting. No, P shifting.
21 MR. TRAMMELL: Which relates to piping design. And 22 then we have a meeting on ARS, which I don't know of.
- 23 MR. BOSNAK
- That's different.
,--, 24 MR. SHAO: That's why I said the disconnect. I
)
25 don't understand.
- GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
b 192 1 MR. NOONAN: I don't think we need to get into a
_J 2 discussion for the code cases right now, but be just 3 sware that we do have those on record right now. -
4 MR. SISKIN: I'm aware they're being processed.
5 But I'm also aware that we're under an extremely tight 6 constraint. We want to get this work done. We want to 7 set it done to the standards we know are acceptable and, 8 obviously, the existing ones aren't acceptable. If 9 there is some relief granted, we'll consider whether to 10 go back to it or use it.
11 MR. SHAO: Are you going to use the full back?
12 MR. SISKIN: Possibly.
I LJ 13 MR. MILHOAN: This is a question to TUGCo. Have 14 you revised your chapter 17 QA program description to 15 address this particular activity? If not, it appears 16 you need to do that.
17 MR. BECK: I need to understand why you made the i 18 statement, 'you need to revise chapter 17 to address 19 this activity".
20 MR. NOONAN: John, let me interrupt. I think on 21 all the quality assurance / quality control questions we 22 have been asking here, particularly those regarding 23 third party and discipline here, I'd like to derer
- i- , 24 discussion on those.
t 6 j 25 I'm going to go back to the starr and talk to them GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING j , Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
193 1 about how we plan to handle that. Now I'll be making
- 2 my -- we'll be --
3 MR. BECK: Okay.
4 MR. SISKIN: You will notice one -- there, the 5 third from the bottom, is to implement fully our quality 6 assurance program. If we're going to be in a position 7 to stand behind that design, then we're obviously going 8 to have to carefully control what we do in accordance 9 with our standards.
10 Now the last, look up to the last -- that's 11 probably the -- one of the major significant points 12 here. We have gone in great detail through the various
[] 13 minutes of hearings, and watched discussion of many open 14 items.
15 We have had numerous discussions. We have read the 16 CYGNA report. We understand a large number of issues 17 that have been raised.
18 It's our conclusion that by redoing this thing, to 19 a large number of these issues, therefore no longer need 20 to be addressed.
21 They are resolved simply by the fact that the 22 analysis has been done in an acceptable way. We'll get 23 to that point a little bit more in a minute.
24 As we say there, by reanalyzing the piping and 25 supports, with proven techniques, consistent with GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
194 1 FSAR commitments and NRC requirements, many outstanding
- - 2 issues are no longer relevant.
3 where there are issues that remain relevant, we 4 have a requirement proposed by TUGC0 on us to come up 5 with a resolution. In some cases that will be studies, 6 some cases it will be special analyses. In some cases, 7 we're going to say that while it's probably right, it's 8 not worth the time to go analyze it or study it further, 9 go change it.
10 There are going to be a number of changes. There 11 may be a significant number of changes that are going to 12 be made as a point of expedience. It doesn't mean that I 13 if we took the time, or some other design agent, took u J 14 the time, we couldn't snow that they were acceptable.
15 But we have made the conclusion. We have drawn the 16 conclusion that it's quicker to change it to something 17 that is standard of the industry, if you will, something 18 that is normally used, consistent, than go on and try to 19 justify it.
20 In some cases, we will be able to justify it and 21 let it go at that. The bottom line there is that even 22 if there were say 500 design changes and construction 23 changes at the end of the effort, that doesn't mean that
,- q 24 there was anything wrong with the original 25 installation. It doesn't prove that it was right GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
195 1 either, but it doesn't prove that it was wrong. That's
-- 2 a very important point.
3 Let me give you an example I remember. Larry 4 remembers this one pretty well. I think Jose may, too.
5 We did a reanalysis of a plant, really fi.ve plants back 6 in 1979. And we ended up, as a point of expediency 7 changing the design of over 200 supports.
8 And we discuased the point that I just made, that 9 that's not necessarily indicative of a bad situation.
10 And a couple on the ACRS said, "Okay. Well, prove it."
11 Sy the time the effort was cut, off we had shown 12 that over a 180 of those changes were not necessary. '
[_ 13 But it just took too much time to analyze and prove it.
14 Probably out of the 200, maybe two or three 15 literally required change. It took more time to analyze 16 them than it did than just to change them out. And 17 we're going to be doing some of that here. Mr. Counsil 18 has been very explicit about getting the thing done 19 properly, but getting it done quickly as well.
20 A couple of points before I show you the 21 organization chart.
l 22 First, in accordance with our normal policy, where 23 supports and piping are so inter related, we do piping i - -- 24 and supports together on the project. Individual 25 supervisors are responsible for a particular run of pipe l
1 l GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING
! Hetro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
196 1 and the supports associated with it. We find that that ,
- 2 2 integrated approach is much more effective.
3 MR. SHAO: What do you consider the determined 4 point of supporta? In the concrete or the steel 5 structure?
6 MR. SISKIN: At this point, we're considering the 7 termination of the support at structural steel, at the 8 start of structural steel. We're going on and looking 9 on a aampling basis to confirm that the structural steel 10 and the building model are capable of taking a look.
11 But we're not going to run every load right down the 12 basement.
l 13 MR. SHAO: I think I have a different question.
L J 14 When the structural steel go, somehow it goes into 15 concrete. Eventually, are you going to look into this 16 kind of connection, too, the structure steel?
17 MR. SISKIN: We will be looking at a sample of that 18 to confirm that the techniques used for the design and 19 the loads specified were done properly. We're not going 20 to redo it a hundred percent. No.
21 MR. SHAO: So you hundred percent stop at the 22 structural steel. But you don't look at the connection 23 between structure steel and the concrete.
, - - - 24 HR. SISKIN: That's right. Only on a sampling 25 basis.
4 GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
197 1 MR. SHAO:. Every support somehow eventually goes to
-- 2 concrete.
3 MR. SISKIN: That's right. And in a case where 4 you have a support that is attached directly to the 5 concrete, clearly you're going to look at that 6 interconnection, whether it's Hiltis or Richmonds or 7 whatever.
8 Where in fact it goes to an eye beam, that may go 9 at that connection to the the eye beam, is where our 10 analysis will atop, one hundred percent basis. Where 11 the eye beam goes into the structure, that's a sampling 12 situation.
[j 13 MR. 80SNAK: So you will end up with footerint 14 loads and verified --
15 MR. SISKIN: Basically, we'll_end up with looking 16 closely enough at the existing analysis to confirm that 17 the specified loads as a function of, i.e. and so on, 18 are reasonable or we will redo them.
19 MR. CHU: Do you remember which version of ASAT 49 20 you used in this Comanche Peak for additional? Plan 3 21 FSAR was founded in 1973.
22 MR. SISKIN: Identify yourself, please.
23 MR. SHAO: Dr. K.Y. Chu, will show up on the
-- 24 organization in a minute. This is a very high powered 25 slide show we have.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
t 198 1 MR. S M '.0 : The question is, what year of -- what
_- 2 addition after ACR 49 was viewed in Comanche Peak?
3 MR. SISK!ft: I don't know. Do you?
4 MR. CHU: It would be 1974, my understanding. As 5 of recent -- of the ASME code.
6 MR. NOONAN: Division -- I think is a -- I'm 4
7 thinking of ASR 349.
8 MR. SHAO: 349 -- 349 would be --
MR. SISKIN:
9 Whatever was specified in the FSAR was 10 what was I assume.
11 This is the organization chart we have put 12 together. Because it is a challenging assignment and a' 13 high priority assignment, I think we have put together a
[]
14 fairly strong team. Let me briefly discuss a couple o 15 the key players here. And then point out how we
, 16 understand our interface with the other organizations 17 is.
I 18 I have a vice president of Stone and Webster and 19 manager of our New York office. Thas office has been, I
+
20 for the last two or three weeks, and will be for the 21 next few months at least, running itself. Or I have 22 some very confident department managers that will be 23 running it.
24 I have assembled this team of a combination of some 25 high power people. But also people I have worked with s,
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 g
._.--.----.--.-.-.,..----_-_.-__---l-
199 ,
1 in the past on engineering mechanics work, and feel 2 comfortable with.
3 Ron Klaus, who is our project manager, the 4 assistant manager of the engineering department at our 2
5 Cherry Hill office. Before that he was manager of their 6 engineering mechanics division at Cherry Hill. And back 7 in '79, he was one of my assistants in that five plant 8 shutdown, which'Vince remembers so well.
9 K Y. Chu, who is the lead technical man. He's 10 manager of our engineering mechanics department in New 11 York. Doctor Chu was also one of my assistants during 12 the 1979 effort.
[ 13 In order to make su,re that we really do keep pure 14 from a quality assurance and an engineering assurance 15 standpoint, I have asked Dick Kelly, who is our vice 16 president of quality assurance, to personally oversee 17 setting up this effort. He has assigned the assistant 18 manager of our engineering reassurance division in 19 Boston, Paul Waters, to be the full-time manager of that l
20 effort here. I 21 For those of you who aren't aware, Stone and i
22 Webster, has not only a quality assurance effort, but we l
23 also have what is an engineering assurance effort. I l
,y 24 think we were the first and probably by far the most 25 effective users of that technique.
l l
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
200 1 Engineering assurance is the equivalent of a
.- 2 technical quality assurance. These are technically 3 qualified people setting up to oversee audit, and check 4 on the performance of the engineering work we do. In 5 many cases, equally as qualified to do the work as the 6 person they're checking on.
l 7 In at least two cases, the commission has signaled l 8 that out for special recognition of its effectiveness.
9 That's fully booked on this project. There is not 10 another person shown on that chart, basically that 11 doesn't have at least 15 years experience in this area.
12 Doctor Dunlap, who is my engineering manager in New 13 York, will be spending half time overseeing the work l 14 technically also. And off on the side, you see a box l 15 called the options review committee. This is something 16 that we have found necessary, particularly in an 17 expedited effort, in a difficult technical area. You l
18 set up standards. You set very careful procedures and l 19 criteria. And they're adequate the majority of the 20 time.
21 Occasionally, the working level man hits something 22 he's not sure of, or it doesn't fit into the bulk of 23 what we normally do. He doesn't have the authority to
, - , 24 continue on. It has to be referred to the committee.
6 j
25 The committee consists of myself, Doctor Dunlap, Doctor GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
201 1 Shao, Ron Klaus, project manager, and any specialists we
-- 2 choose to bring in to address it.
1 I
3 We tend to move the difficult problems out of the 4 production line right away. And we also assure they get 5 adequate attention before you end up having a vested 6 interest in that position as well.
7 So it's been very successful in the past, and I'm 8 counting on that for keeping this thing moving.
9 As I have said, at the end of this effort, Stone ;
10 and Webster is going to be willing to stand up here and 11 say, and demonstrate, that what is installed in the 12 plant is correct.
[, 13 In addition, our efforts are going to be 14 overviewed. They're going to be overviewed by Gibbs &
15 Hill, the architect of record. They're going to be 16 overviewed by the project for whom we're working 17 directly, particularly Mr. Finerin, who works for Mr.
18 George.
19 And Robert L. Cloud Associates, who is a highly 20 qualified group, and one that we're well familiar with 21 throughout. They will provide the detailed kind of 22 technical look at our efforts that will give TUGCC 23 confidence in what's going on.
i--- 24 In addition, Mr. Levin's efforts will also involve 25 a third party overview of the efforts.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
- o. -- _
202
, 1 You will also notice that these things all come
.j 2 into Mr. Klaus. And that I also have a line going from 3 se to TUGCO, as well as from me to our chairman of the 4 board. The line into TUGCO, as per TUGCO's direction, !
5 is directed to Mr. Counsil, to make sure that this thing 6 is done properly and moves properly.
7 Basically, that's it. Let me read into the record 8 the specific questions that Mrs. Ellis wanted.
9 MR. NOONAN: Before you get on that, just one 10 question in the TUGC0 line. That's Bill Counsil that 11 you report to?
12 MR. SISKIN: I report directly to Mr. Counsil. My 13 project manager reports to Mr. George and his project,
[
14 of course.
15 MR. NOONAN: And again, what about Bob?
16 MR. SISKIN: Bob Cloud is also working for Mr.
17 George to provide a technical review of everything we're 18 doing straight through.
19 MR. NOONAN: Everything?
20 MR. SISKIN: Everything.
21 MR. BOSNAK: I'd just like to comment. I can 22 understand this, and I compliment on you. Some of the 23 other charts I have commented on earlier, I just
-- 24 couldn't understand who was doing what. This I can
, ,J 25 follow and it's clear.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
203 1 MR. SISKIN: Appreciate it. I'm hoping that we're s
- - 2 not going to spread out the responsibility. If there's l
3 anything wrong at the end, the two people to blame are i
)
4 here.
5 MR. COUNSIL: Three people.
6 MR. SHAO: We'll point at three people.
7 MR. NOONAN: As far as I'm concerned, there's only 8 one.
9 MR. SISKIN: Do you want me to read this and give 10 you a chance to think up some more nasty questions?
11 MR. SHAO: Go ahead. I have to leave in 15 12 minutes.
L.-
13 MR. SISKIN: Is Stone and Webster going to do an as 14 built walkdown to determine what is actually in the 15 field before they do their reanalysis?
16 The answer is no. Simply as a matter of 17 expediency, we are starting our rework in parallel.
18 We'ra starting to get the walkdown information. We have 19 adequate control, so that as corrections are identified, 20 they will be factored into the analysis. Just can't 21 afford the luxury of doing everything.in a series.
22 HR. COUNSIL: But you are doing a walkdown?
23 MR. SISKIN: We are doing a sufficiently large pq 24 sample of a walkdown to give us 95/95 confidence, and of 25 course, with standard 105', that the information that GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
204 1 affects the stress or support analysis is correct. If 3J 2 we can't get that assurance, we will do more walkdowns.
3 If need be, we vill do a hundred percent walkdown.
4 MR. SHAO: One suggestion I had said before, if you 5 have sent support, you think you cannot analyze, don't 6 force it, change it, then analyze it.
7 MR. SISKIN: There are -- the reason I hedged on 8 that Larry, well, let me -- the reason I hedged on that 9 is because there is one I would like to discuss with 10 some people about. I think it can be analyzed by 11 comments made in the past. There ars some comments made 12 in the past that we can discuss on a technical basis.
L1 13 Second question. Is Stone and Webster going to LJ 14 analyse all large bore pipe supports in units one?
15 And the answer is yes, except for any that were 16 designed by Westinghouse. In' unit two that's under i l
17 discussion right now. I don't think there's been an 18 answer to that. And really doesn't need an answer at 19 the moment.
'20 How many supports are involved? When and how 21 long? I think roughly 9,000 is the number I seen. But 22 don't quote me on that. We're starting Monday. We have 23 had a training program going this week. Our objective
- 24 is to finish this effort by November -- December 20th, 25 1985.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
205 1 MR. SHAO: How many class 1 supports?
- 2 MR. SISKIN: I don't have that answer, Larry. I 3 MR. NOONAN: Let me ask a different question. On
\
4 the sample of your walkdown, is that going to be 5 described in your program plan? ;
6 MR. SISKIN: Yes, Dick Kelly is working on it now. l l
7 MR. TRAMMELL: I have a take-off question on that 8 walkdown. l 9 MR. SISKIN: Just to keep the record straight, let 10 me answer these questions. And that way you can have 11 them all in one place, and then you can challenge me to 12 your heart's content. .
[_ 13 To what edition of the code are we going to work?
14 If not the code of the record, why not?
15 We are going to work to the code of record, 1971.
16 Are you going to use what was originally committed 17 to in the FSAR? At this point, I know of nothing where 18 I'm requesting a change. That doesn't preclude'my i
19 coming back sometime in the future, as I know more 20 details, and asking for'something. But at this point, I 21 don't know of anything I'm requesting a change for.
22 MR. SHAO: When would you know?
23 MR. SISKIN: I won't answer that question. It
,- , 24 might be the 19th of December when I come across it.
I 25 MR. TRAMMELL: Tuesday?
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
206 1 MR. SHAO: Tumsday, special?
- 2' l 2 MR. SISKIN: I'm proceeding on the existing ARS's j
\
3 basically.
l 4 Next question. Are you going to use any code cases 5 such as 411 in the analysis? If so, what specifically?
6 Not at this time. At this point we're using 161. I'm 7 assuming when you're saying code cases, you're talking 8 about unabsorbed code cases. At one point they become 9 part of the code.
10 Will we also be using the same code cases? Well, 11 the rest of it is not germane. Okay. Those are the 12 questions. Now I cut this gentleman off here.
L' L -
13 MR. TRAMMELL: Yeah. I just have a, just curious 14 about this as built walkdown, because we had a bulletin 15 that was issued in 1979 that I know we're all familiar 16 with was called bulletin 79 14, which was an as built 17 walkdown. And TUGC0 has told me they have finished 18 doing that on unit one. And they have not finished on 19 unit two.
20 If you're going to walk it down again, does that 21 indicate you want to confirm that confirmation, make 22 doubly sure that you have any reason to doubt that they 23 didn't do an accurate walkdown before?
c-- 24 MR. SISKIN: I have no reason to doubt that they I
25 didn't do an accurate walkdown. But I have said that GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
207 1 we're going to confirm the inputs, at least, on a
- J 2 sampling basis.
3 And that's obviously a very major input, so I feel 4 we have to confirm that. Is that all? Howard, you
. 5 used -- thank you. You used them up.
6 MR. NOONAN: I'd like to take about a 15 minute 7 break at this time.
8 (Whereupon there was a recess.)
9 MR. LEVIN: Okay. If we can get started. We have 10 one remaining presentation on electrical instrumentation 11 and control. But prior to getting into that, I wanted
- 12 to make a few comments, as I indicated on the i 13 introduction, to Ed's system.
t J 14 A few words as to just what we will be doing as 15 third party to overview Stone and Webster's piping and 16 supports program.
17 Number one, we will be involved actively in 18 . concurrence, relative to the resolution of the 19 identified issues in piping area. We will be involved 20 in overseeing the implementation of the resolution of 21 those issues.
22 And more importantly, we will be on the receiving 23 end of a feedback group of information that will come 3- , 24 out of that effort, such that we can factor this into 25 our root cause and generic implications evaluation.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
l l
teS 1 With that, I'd like to --
3
't ; 2 MR. NOONAN: Excuse me. Just one question on 3 that. When Ed Siskin was talking about taking -- l l
4 calculating -- the looking back on the structure to I 5 release -- I guess it goes to the concrete, that he was l i
6 going to sample on certain -- assuming that he, I guess, 7 found some problems.
8 But if he did come up with something in the case, 9 the loads are not being carried into the actual 10 structure. Is that when you get involved, at some point 11 in time?
12 MR. LEVIN: .That's one example of where we must r
13 definitely be involved.
s . .
14 I'd like to introduce Martin Jones, who is 15 coordinating the electrical instrumentation and control 16 review.
17 MR. JONES: If you will give me your attention to 18 the organization chart for just a minute. As we -- as 19 Howard mentioned early on, electrical line effort, was 20 basically divided into two parallel paths. One for the 21 electrical systems. One for the I&C systems.
22 The electrical systems will be Jerry sitka, and 23 the INC systems will be Lionel Bate , who is right
,_ 24 here. Give you a little background on both these 25 gentlemen.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
209 1 Jerald Sitka, BS, electric engineering and BS in
[_ 2 mechanical engineering.
3 MR. MARINOS: Is he present?
4 MR. JONES: He's not here. He has -- excuse me.
5 Greater than 13 years electrical engineering experience, 6 with about eight and a half years electrical engineering 7 experience, applicable to power plants.
8 I think to address the question that was asked 9 earlier this morning, without having talked to them 10 direccly, the people, no one says they feel he's working 11 directly~1n the -- five years.
12 He has four years in addition to that in 1 13 consulting, also in the nuclear power field. His L.J ,
14 background, he was a technical lead for the electrical 15 power systems, Midland IDPT. He was an engineer P.E. in 16 Illinois.
17 Lionel Bates is right here. Has a BS and an MS in 18 mechanical engineering. 13 years experience in nuclear 19 plant operation and design engineering. Nine years 20 experience in I&E design. That's applicable to nuclear 21 power plant. And has-in excess of five years direct 22 design experience.
23 In addition to his assignment here, he was a 24 technical INC lead on the IDPT mechanical engineering,
,_,l
'~
25 state of California.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
210 1 Beneath those two areas back on the organization
'_ . 2 chart, we're presently showing an additional ten 3 engineers to date. Since we are early on in this 4 program, we have tentatively identified four of those 5 people. And we have a number of resumes that we're in 6 the process of reviewing now. We are looking to track a 7 lot of people with experience in this field, 8 particularly with direct design experience.
9 MR. CALV0: Excuse me. You got -- you still got 10 two functions; right? You got the function of the TRT.
11 You also got the function of the design adequacy?
Yes.
12 MR. JONES:
13 MR. CALV0: Now are you going to have a different 14 set of people working for the construction adequacy 15 review, but for the design adequacy?
16 MR. JONES: In some cases. But in some cases there 17 is some overlap. Basically the TRT work is in the
~18 report stages as, opposed to being in the work, stage.
19 So I don't really feel that there will be too much of a 20 conflict in those two areas, although I will have to 21 admit that right now we are being somewhat put back in 22 the TRT effort, because of concentrations. That is 23 true.
24 MR. MARINOS: So who are the individuals that you
' ~
25 would engage on the design adequacy review from the GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
211 1 construction phase you are going to utilize?
2 MR. JONES: Oh, who is doing that? I have devoted 3 a saying on the left side of the chart who is a 4 coordinator on this, is also a coordinator on the TRT 5 issues. He spen.ds a lot of time --
6 MR. MARINOS: I thought you were going to utilize 7 people that you presently have your TRT work 8 construction adequacy work to also involve in the design l
9 adequacy program. Who are these --
10 MR. BECK: Outside yourself, Lionel is involved.
11 MR. JONES: Lionel has been involved as a third 12 party consultant on some of the work in that area as 13 well.
L -
14 MR. MARINOS: So the people is Lionel and 15 venosan, the only two people.
16 MR. JONES: And myself.
17 MR. NOONAN: Martin, this morning somebody asked 18 the question about your experience in design, design in 19 the plant. Would you answer that question?
20 MR. JONES: I have answered the question. But if 21 you did not hear it, I have had no direct i.e. design 22 experience. My experience has been limited to the 23 design aspects from the utilities standpoint.
,_ 24 Let me say that as we discuss this instrument, the 25 electrical instrumentation issues,'that our program GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING ,
Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
l 212 l
1 closely parallels what Howard give you this morning in !
- m. : l
_j 2 sechanical systems. And there's good reason for doing 3 that, and I think you will see the parallel as we 4 continue on.
5 There are three parts to the electrical INC 6 program from the external sources. There are TRT 7 1'd en t ified issues, I'll get to in just a moment. CYGNA 8 identified issues, which-there is now one issue. And 9 the self-initiated ones. Self-initiated plans, of 10 course,.is designed to protect unknown deviations from 11 the commitments. And this is the part that will be
~
12 discipline.
13 Next slide. Identified -- the TRT identified u -
14c issue. And that is electrical component functional 15 requirements. To give you a little background on that, 16 during TRT NRC action items, questioned component 17 qualifications, two different items.
18 One of those would be AMP butt splices as used in 19 the control line, primarily in the control spread r o o ci .
20 And the other was use of Servicair flexible 21 metallic conduit separation, primarily in the control 22 room spread room panels.
23 Both of those are trade names. Amp is the
,_ 24 manufacturer of butt splices. Servicair is the trade
' ~
25 name for flexible metallic conduit.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
213 1 During the course of the investigation of TRT, we
_ ., 2 have determined that both of these components were 3 approved for use, prior to their -- to the confirmation, 4 at least, of their function qualification.
l 5 In one case., we have had to do a fair amount of
- 6 test work that is on the Servicair conduit. In the case 7 of butt splice, it's been primarily a case of getting a 8 qualification package from the manufacturer and having 9 it reviewed.
10 But'the issue here, o'r course, is that both of 11 these items, which were initiated in the field, that is 12 the need for those items, were identified by field i
t.. j 13 engineer, and accidentally put into service, 14 What we are' interested, in this case, is are there 15 other items such sa that which have not been 16 functionally quallfled to the service for which they 17 have been applied? We intend to address that issue.
18 The next slide is really concerned with the same 19 thing. That is, the issue is the citing engineer 20 organization issued use of safety related components, 21 which don't have a documented engineering review. And 22 the objective, of course, is provide assurance that 23 components which were selected by site during
__, 24 construction meet the approach functional requirements.
I 25 The action plan will consist of the following, GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTIllG '
Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
214 1 which is to identify components selected by site during
_ _ 2 construction. To identify a subset of the above that 3 did not have that formal approval of the ARE. To 4 identify the functional criteria for those components 5 that were not properly qualified, and to evaluate 6 components against the criteria.
7 At that time, we developed corrective action for 8 any identified deficiencies, and we will input results 9 of this action plan into generic implications and root 10 cause process.
11 The second area of the electrical instrumentation 12 program was the CYGNA identified design issue, which is 13 similar to what Howard had identified earlier today.
t _
14 That is, temperature and pressure ratings in the 15 component cooling water system were changed. But 16 subsequent to that, the requirements for the 17 instrumentation associated with that system was not 18 reviewed.
19 Consequently, two transmitters were identified as 20 not being pressure and temperature requirements. I l
21 think that's been pretty much closed out by CYGNA 22 through other information that was found, such as the l
l 23 use of interlocks. But we in our action plan develop 24 action plans to address some of the concerns that might
- 25 occur in other areas or other systems.
l l GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
1 l
215 1 MR. MARINOS: Martin, can I go back to the two
_ _ 2 previous slides regarding the electric component 3 function program? Do they relate to TRT7 4 MR. JONES: I'm sorry. This is a continuation of 5 that same TRT issue.
l 6 MR'. MARINOS: All right. l 7 MR. JONES: Those last two.
8 MR. JONES: Okay. The next slide is the electrical 9 I&C self-initiated evaluation. Unlike a TRT, CYGNA's 10 self-initiated evaluation is a new program that we have 11 just begun work on this.
12 Howard touched a little earlier on the basis of t i 13 the system selection. These are on the initial system LJ 14 selection.
15 The electrical power supplies were selected for 16 three reasons. It's the importance to safety, design --
17 the many design interfaces that are involved there, and
! 18 the diversity of systems equipment. The AFW system as 19 it applies to the instrumentation and electric part of 20 it, was selected for importance and safety, because it's 21 a representative multi-discipline system, representative 22 of the system.
23 There are many interfaces within and without that
,__, 24 system.
25 .And the fourth reason is consistency with l
GODFREY & AMES COURT-REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
216 1 mechanical system review. Those are two things that
. _ 2 will flow along with parallel. That's IN and--
3 MR. CALV0: Nothing to do with you. But what --
4 you elected to pick up the heat water system, because it 5 has many attributes in that system, both mechanical and 6 electrical.
7 But if I remember yesterday in the construction 8 adequacy review, when we took the sampling system, we 9 say we selected the alternate shutdown system, because 10 it also has a lot of attributes for the -- interface 11 through other systems.
12 What have you -- have you considered the alternate
- 1 13 shutdown system, maybe more attributes, at least the w 0 l
14 construction of this design adequacy review, considered 15 that? It doesn't -- fuel water system. Why use -- too 16 different? What's the system who provides you with more l
17 than anything of the other systems?
18 MR. JONES: I think primarily our part of the AFW 19 system was -- one of the main reasons, of course, was 20 the mechanical system. It was selected as the l
l 21 mechanical system, which was a representative system, so i
22 we could go along in parallel with that. I think that's 23 the primary reason for selection of the electrical I&c 24 components that system.
~
25 To get into the details of the self-initiated ;
)
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
4 217 1 evaluation, the objectives are to determine whether
__ 2 design deviations exist in the electrical 3 instrumentation and control areas. It's just as simple J
4 as that. As broad as that. Do any design deviations 5 exist in those areas?
6 The initial scope is, get back to what was said, 7 review of the instrumentation controls for the AFW 8 systems, as well- as for the electrical power supplies.
9 And then in the review of the electrical power 10 supplies, just to give you a little bit of what -- scope 11 of where we're talking about, we're talking about from 12 the off site power -- off site power for the startup r~~ 13 transformers to the 6.9 KV bus to the 480 volt motor L ._
14 control centers, all through that path.
15 In addition to that, we have selected balance of 16 plant, 118 volt, AC, uninterruptible power supplies from 17 the inverters themselves out to distribution panels.
18 We have selected the 125 volt DC system power
. 19 supplies from batteries to their distribution panels.
l 20 And then we have selected all interconnections between 21 the AFW, the off site standby, the 118 volt AC. And 125 22 volt DC systems. Interconnection between those, l
! 23 Getting back to matching N-45 211, as Howard f
24 demonstrated to you earlier today, the design criteria, l
25 that is, the typical sources for the electrical I&C GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
218 1 design criteria, are first, of course, NRC requirements -
__ 2 from 10 CFR 50; the FSAR;.other regulatory commitments, 3 which include reg guides, BTP's, I&E bulletins, SSER's, I l
4 and other sources. !
5 In addition.to that, we consider the vendor ,
i 6 interfaces. A good bit of information comes from 7 Westinghouse NSSS system. Some of it comes from the 8 turbine-generator manual, and there are other vendor 9 intersurfaces ineluded.
10 Another source of design criteria, of course, is 11 the industry codes and standards. And then there are, 12 of course, plant unique items which, for example, are 13 the system electrical parameters and the site J
14 environmental conditions.
15 MR. NOONAN: On the interfaces. You say others.
16 How many are there?
17 MR. JONES: I would have to pick a thing and say, 18 for example, the control panel on the AFW turbin. I'm 19 not saying that is one of the examples.
20 But it's sort of a black box that has a vendor 21 supply control panel inside there. So I suspect that we 22 will find many of those. ~
23 The example that Howard picked of the main steam
_, 24 isolation valves is'another real good example. A
~
25 complicated system furnished by a manufacturer, to which GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
219
.1 we have a number of different types of interfaces.
v
, ; 2 MR. MARINOS: Martin, you talk about design 3 criteria for the electrical system, 10 CFR 50 and FSAR.
4 Those are general criteria.
5 MR. JONES: .They are very general. ,
6 MR. MARINOS: They don't address the specific 7 electrical system design. You have to decide on --
8 standards, specific things. And I don't know what i
9 decision you will make. Are you going to verify what 10 gives it has used, is current and is prudent, or you 11 . going to use your own?
12 MR. JONES: We're going to what they're using, and e 13 - we wil'1 also confirm that that is correct.
L_
14 Any other questions on this page? Typical 15 implementing documents for the electrical I&C systems 16 are, for example, and any of these are repeated in 17 Howard's presentation.
i 18 There are evaluations for single. failure / failure 19 modes and effects, for the high energy breaks, for 20 flooding, for missiles and fire hazards analysis.
, 21 Another part of the implemented documents, which we'll 22 look into thoroughly, calculations. Some examples of
~23 those are load capacity, voltage profiles, short circuit
,_ , 24 calculations, instrument set points, cable sizing.
' ~i 25 There are a number of drawings at a very high GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING
- - Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
220 l
1 level, which are also considered to be implemented j 2 documents. For example, those are the one line diagrams 3 we begin with. Instrumentation and control drawings.
4 The logic diagrams that are used, and also the system 5 control items.
6 For the typical design outputs to get into the 7 third stage, certainly we consider specifications. Just
, 8 to give you some typical examples here, that would be 9 the electric I&C portions of specs for the diesel 10 generators.
11 Certainly the switch gear, remote control centers, 12 relays, that type of equipment.
t 13 And I think we have a misspelling. It's not --
w ,-
14 electrical. It's election -- electrical election
. 15 specification. That is as it applies across the board 16 to the work that's going to be done.
17 Another one more important areas of design output 18 of course is vendor documentation. This includes 19 drawings, manuals, certifications. Certainly design 20 data, which we'll get back to in a minute.
21 The last of the typical design outputs of course 22 are the construction drawings, which'are 3 line 23 diagrams, schematics, wiring diagrams, interconnection
__ 24 diagrams, instrument data, layout drawings, and even
, 25 like cable routing sheets.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING l Metro 469-6100 (817) 460-2048 I
221 1 I would like to say as part of this, I think the
_j 2 question was asked this morning about the testing i 3 program, startup testing program of the program. We do 4 plan to make good use of that information.
5 That's available to us from the startup program to 6 verify, for example, calculations that we're doing up 7 front in tne electrical instrumentation. design. Things 8 like verify -- logig, verification instrument set 9 points. And that type thing. So we do plan to take 10 advantage of the data they that we get back from the 11 plant test.
12 MR. MARINOS: You're going too fast for me,
- j 13 Martin. I want to go back three.
- c. J 14 MR. JONES: Okay. I'm sorry.
15 MR. MARINOS: In the one you have evaluations and 16 calculations. In looking at that listing, and I would 17 accept the fact that it is probably a temporary list.
l 18 There is a significant area that is missing here, like' 19 sizing of motors and valves.
1 20 HR. JONES: Absolutely.
I 21 MR. MARINOS: None of those items would imply that 22 you have got them in there.
i 23 MR. JONES: It is only a typical list. Oh, okay.
24 And you will see it when we get in the matrix summing it
,_,l !
'~ l 25 up later. Yeah. Thank you. I i
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
222 1 MR. MARINOS: You have got it somewhere else?
$ 2 MR. HUNTER: Marvin Hunter at the Region 4 When 3 you talked about switch gear motor control and relays 4 for the 41 6.9 KV bus 480, this includes all the load 5 check circuits, for the diesel for the emergency start 6 loss of power realys. You will be looking at all those 7 circuits?
8 MR. JONES: Absolutely. That's also in the matrix.
9 MR. MARINOS: I want to caution you in one 10 particular area, your water system. You will have 11 sufficient design features in the 6.9 KV for motor 12 sizing, but you're n,ot going to have it in the 480 ,
i 13 vall. You're going to go out -- you're not going to go u- '
14 out there, variable motors of the right size, to give 15 you a feeling about the adequacy of that design.
16 MR. JONES: That's quite right. I think in the 17 program Howard as he described it, to make sure to go 18 through all the lists, the equipment that's available.
19 MR. MARINOS: And generally in -- they will have a 20 different group to the 6.9 KP design, and the other 21 group 480. So you will not have that kind of 22 continuity.
23 MR. CALV0: It goes without saying, your basic
_, 24 philosophy will be, do what you can with the material i 1 25 field water system. You will supplement it in such a GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
223 1 manner to give, you know, overall reasonable assurance
_j 2 of the electrical design. I I
3 MR. JONES: Certainly. I guess we were at the end 4 of the slide and have gotten to the matrix. This begins 5 a preliminary review-matrix, and it parallels what 6 Howard gave this morning for the system. Again, these 7 fall into the pattern of the in 45 211.
8 The review areas that we're covering here, and I 9 won't read them all. But I'll give you some examples.
10 For example, the system operating limits, we might 4
11 review to; focus time cu'rrent requirements and frequency 12 requirements when we're identifying the criteria. We 4
t 1 13 might not look at a design output document that shows L.J 14 that.
15 So as you can look down through the matrix, it will 16 identified to you what we have picked in a preliminary i
17 manner as areas we'll look at, as it -- featuras that we I
18 will look at on each one of'those areas.
i 19 Just to mention a few of these. And these are not j 20 all, by any means. We look at system operating limits, i
l 21 system operating modes, the electrical characteristics.
22 Those might include both profiles, short ci:.cuit 23 currents, terminal voltage, cable sizing, rotor sizing,
,__, 24 and other items.
! 25 We will be looking at electrical loac capacity for l
l GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING l Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
224 1 off site power, standby power supplies, inverters,
, 2 batteries, chargers, transformers, et cetera.
3 I think -- touched on what you asked earlier, 4 Darwin.. We're looking at load sequence and shedding the 5 transfers. Looking at protective relaying in that 6 area.
7 Under the general area of control, some examples of
'8 that are some system interlocks, automatic initiation 9 operation, manual operation. We also will be looking at 10 some process control aspects.
11 MR. CALV0: Martin, how much you pick -- two 12 disciplines to each unit, and two station batteries, for a 13 example?
L J 14 MR. JONES: There are four actually.
15 MR. CALV0: Four of them? That's right. How about 16 the batteries in the switch yard. Are those independent 17 of the station batteries? Got some batteries up there?
18 MR. JONES: I believe they're located in~the switch 19 yard; is that right, Sam? They are located in the l 20 switch yard.
21 MR. CALVO: So independent of the station 22 batteries? Okay.
23 MR. JONES: Instrumentation. We'll go to status
,__, 24 indication, operational surveillance areas, alarm 25 functions, and certainly protective devices and GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
225 1 settings.
._ 2 We will look at component functional requirements. I l
3 That is, we'll look at qualifications, for example, '
4 components to select. We will look at another area, !
5 single failures use FMEA's.
6 One area we haven't touched on yet, I don't think 7 has been touched on today, support systems. We're 8 looking at from an I&C standpoint, we think two good 9 systems to look at that haven't been covered are, the 10 diesel generator fuel transfer system, which is the 11 support and power supplies and diesel generator cooling 12 water requirements.
L 13 In addition to that, we expect to be looking at L _.
14 some I&C requirements for the HVAC system as well.
15 MR. CALV0: The -- water system is one of the 16 systems -- had the -- the other one. ,Was supposed to do 17 something that'the fuel water system must do for the 18 Westinghouse plants. I don't recall. Has to be 19 independent. Some kind of requirements in there.
20 Maybe you want to consider that or keep that in 21 mind when you're going through this water system with 22 the electrical instrumentation. I think you may have 23 submitted -- I don't know.
24 From the licensing standpoint, Westinghouse is
' __,i 25 going to come out with a generic design.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
.~ . . _. _ _ _~'.
h 226 1 So there is no details available? I'm sorry.
5
_s 2 Forget it. Okay.
3 MR.'MARINOS: Martin, let me ask about the diesel 4 generators. John Beck stated yesterday briefly that the 5 diesels are being tested for increase in capacity and 6 increase 'In demand, or whatever it is. Do you have any 7 information?
8 MR. JONES: I'm not familiar with that at this 9 point. I'm sure we will be.
10 MR. MARINOS: So is your effort going to confirm 11 the maximum demand on the diesels before or after they 12 do the tests, whatever they have decided the demand will t
13 be?
c_ _
14 MR. JONES: I'm sure it will be after the tests.
i 15 MR. BECK: What -- Angelos, to clarify our request, 16 is simply to test the diesels at their original design 17 capacity, rather than the limitation that was based on 18 them in the initial part of the diesel generator issue i
19 by the program plan. The name plate.
20 MR. MARINOS: Name plate you're going to retest?
21 MR. BECK: Yes. And then finally, as we show on 22 the chart, multi-discipline considerations. I believe 23 these were the same list that Howard covered earlier.
,._ , 24 Those are the high moderate line breaks, 25 environmental qualification, internal flooding, fire GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
.l 227 1
protection, with some protection of seismic L. ' 2 qualification. <
3 Are there any other questions on this? This was 4 the last of the slides.
5 MR. CALV0: I do not.
6 MR. LEVIN: Vince, this concludes the prepared 7 portion of our presentation. I had a few summary 8
remarks, and I'm sure John Beck will want to add to 9 those.
10 I guess one observation, it's been a long day, and 11 we have gone through a significant amount of detail, '
12 even though, with all that, we still have only presented t- 13 L- a summary of our program.
14 And, as John Beck and Vince stated earlier, the 15 purpose of our meeting was not to elicit a specific 16 signor for approval on the part of the staff at this 17 time. However, what we were attempting to do was 18 communicate a sense of what we were doing.
19 In that regard, I hope that the breadth and depth 20 of our review is apparent to all of you. We welcome and 21 expect additional questions and follow up, particularly 22 after we submit our program plan and action plans that 23 will govern our work.
,__ 24 In particular, in those documents, we will be 25 describing in detail the interrelationships, and some of GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
a-228 1 those concerns in terms of organization that were
(- 2 expressed today.
3 I hope to be able to make sure that is absolutely 4 clear. I believe that the details in the presentation 5 of the cable tray effort will satisfy some of the 6 questions that came up in that area as well.
7 Additionally, we will elaborate on the role of the 8 quality programs evaluation in our review to make sure 9 it's absolutely clear.
10 And, Vince, one other comment, that I believe that 11 we will be getting back with you, progress our 12 activities, relative to where we stand on phase three i
u -
13 principally, and how we're proceeding on our 14 determination of scope, and the depth of our review as 15 representative in our checklist.
16 I guess in summary, one thing I hope we have 17 accomplished today is a communication of the magnitude 18 and comprehensiveness of our program. And I guess this 19 is -- it really gets back to our goal. That being that 20 what we're attempting to do is provide reasonable 21 assurance that safety significance design deficiencies 22 have been detected and resolved.
23 MR. CALV0: Vince, I wanted to put into the record
__ , 24 a couple of questions given to me by the -- you want me 25 to do that?
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100 (817) 460-2048
229 1 MR. NOONAN: Why don't you wait until we get
.) 2 through this? I'm going to ask Bill -- I want to talk 3 to you about -- you want --
4 MR. COUNSIL: I got one.
5 MR. NOONAN:- John, do you have anything you want to 6 add?
7 MR. BECK: I would only summarize by repeating a 8 couple of things that I said yesterday as we started 9 out. This program is intended to demonstrate that we 10 have our arms around all the issues, or have identified 11 the methodology and a' program to do that, where we 12 haven't identified issues.
! 13 Our end goal is to do what Howard just said.
L .
14 Provide t'ath reasonable assurance that there are no 15 safety significant deviations remaining at Comanche 16 Peak. To identify all of them and resolve them.
17 I hope that we have been successful in this 18 overview context in demonstrating that this program is 19 capable of doing that. We look forward a rigorous 20 review in a detailed sense in the coming weeks and 21 months of the effort.
22 MR. .NOONAN: Okay. I'm going to -- Mrs. Ellis,'I 23 will offer you the opportunity, maybe you can join us at 24 the table, where we can give you a microphone, if you j 25 have some comments.
l GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING l Metro 469-6100. (817) 460-2048
230 1 Well, in the action plan we have, you know, utility
- _ 2 said the direction plan has covered all of the issues 3 that were talked about for licensing. One thing that we 4 have not had a chance to discuss to any depth, not going 5 to do it today, but I do need to encourage some, is the 6 operational aspects. We have not talked operations at 7 all. That and show operation. The training, all of 8 'that. All those.
9 I think that's being involved. Jose will be the .
10 one that's doing that for me. And he will be making 11 known his -- I guess we'll be getting back to you, and 12 what we need to do, what we need to discuss in that 13 area.
c_
14 Jose had a couple things here he wants to bring up 15 here, mainly on functionability of equipment and pre-op 16 testing.
17 MR. CALV0: It gets into a little bit into the 18 operational aspects of it.
19 MR. NOONAN: Go ahead a r. d read it 'nto the record.
20 MR. CALV0: And my group leader just left, and 21 asked me to read this. And bear with me in English.
22 And I'm going to have some difficulty to operate to --
23 "I guess the focus of discussions from the past two g_ 24 days has been on the adequacy of equipment design and
' ~
25 quality of equipment installation, and how this --
those GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 !
231 1- will be determined.
, , 2 We heard those -- most, if not all, that equipment 3 has been installed for varying periods of time."
4 He also incurs that the action plans which you had 5 --
"the utility has presented, will be taken at this 6 period of time to reach a conclusion."
7 Therefore, the first question is asked. "Do you 8 have a formally' documented program for maintaining that 9 --
installed equipment in a functional high quality 10 estate?"
11 And the second question that he has, "Have you 12 given any consideration to repeating some preoperational i 13 test, or a portion of this test, because of the lengths L -
14 ' of time that it will pass to the -- because a portion of 15 the test, to determine the continued systems 16 acceptability due to the length of time, which will head 17 past since they are -- since this was done before?"
18 So these -- he's worrying about the fact that, you 19 know, you had done things in the past. I guess the same 20 question would ap' ply to the operator qualification. You 21 have maybe -- I don't know what stage you have been 22 going through it. What are you going to do all this 23 time? You will be going trying to demonstrate the same 24 quality and construction quality?
25 MR. COUNSIL: Would you like me to address those GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
. 232 1 right now?
_j 2 MR. NOONAN: If you want to.
3 MR. COUNSIL: I can. Let's take the preventative 4 corrective maintenance program. There is a document, 5 preventative maintenance and corrective maintenance 6 program. Preventative maintenance is in fact scheduled, 7 and it is being carried out.
8 I do get reports on a monthly basis on any missed 9 preventative maintenance, and what it's scheduled as far 10 as to bring that back up.
11 In addition to that,'all we also have.to draft 12 technical specifications. And where possible, in this i 13 cold shutdown mode that we're presently in, we're also e _
14 carrying on the surveillance requirements o'r the 15 technical specifications, and those are ready to model 16 any time NRC would like to. Now I believe Region 4 is
. 17 in fact doing some of that work now.
18 We have also, now going to your second question --
19 all right. I'll come back.
20 I think there was a second half to the first one 21 one.
22 MR. CALV0: Yeah.
23 MR. COUNSIL: When am I going to repeat the j ,__,
24 preoperation tests? Only if work is done on those 25 systems that will require repeat of those preoperational l
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
233 1 tests. Those systems by and'large are in operation
_ ; 2 today.
3 Wherever possible, if the system is placed in the 4 layoff, and we have rotational requirements, as you 5 know,~on pumps.and motors and things of this nature.
6 Get them off the flat spots and bearings so they 7 don't have flat spots and bearings, things of that 8 nature. We operate the systems, rather than just 9 turning where their bulks are in, so forth.
10 I am not presently planning repeating any 11 preoperational tests unless we do vork on systems that 12 would require, you know, modification or whatever, that
! 1 13 will require a repeat of the preoperational test, t J.
14 As far as operator training, we have submitted our ,
15 operator retraining requalification program. We're 16 living to it right now. Operators are retraining one 17 week in six, with a documented program.
18 In addition to that, we are presently working on 19 the end relt accreditation programs. And those are in 20 process at this time in order to see accreditation.
21 But as, you know, not being an operating plant, we 22 do have a time frame after the operations, before 23 accreditation. But we are preparing those programs to 24 date. And the preparation is there for your audit as
,__,I
'~
25 you desire to.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
234 1 MR. CALV0: Okay. Thanks.
(R L ._ 2 MR. NOONAN: Okay. I don't have any further 3 questions. Any further staff questions on the program 4 . plan? Mrs. Ellis?
5 MS. ELLIS: I have got quite a few. A lot of these 6 are informal questions, too, just sort of as I tracked 7 them through the day. And I'll throw them out. If you 8 would like to address them as we go, fine. Otherwise 9 this is some of the things we will be looking for, among 10 others, of course.
11 One' thing that I noticed early on was, I believe 12 Billie Garde mentioned this, and I want to also F 13 emphasize, because it's something I noted immediately, t_ .
14 was our concern about, Howard, about bringing things to 15 the attention of TUGC0 and not auditing or having 16 CPRT audit the implementation.
17 Historically, of the plant, one of the problems we 18 have had has been with implementation. And I think it's 19 very, very important that that be reconsi'dered, and that 20 something worked out so that the CPRT does audit not --
21 does audit the implementation as well.
22 And also that some method is set up so that you 23 also evaluate use as is dispositions of any corrective ;
- _ _ , 24 action. I think that's a very, very, very important 25 area.
i GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
I 235 1
Another thing I was wondering in regard to CYGNA,
, , 2 have the applicants now provided CYGNA with all of 3 CASE's filings? For instance, our answers to the 4 applicant's motion for summary to disposition. I would 5 like to know what the status is on that. I'm not sure 6 at this point in time exactly what CYGNA has received 7 from us as far as what they really.know about our 8 concerns. Have they received our findings?
9 And in addition, what is the status as far as 10 people on the CPRT teams and so forth? I was very 11 concerned about summaries being given from the -- that 12 were prepared by the attorneys, for instance.
! 13 And I think this is something we're definitely L_ .
14 going to want to know, probably from each of the heads 15 of the different organizations, is exactly what you know 16 and what the source of your knowledge is in this 17 regard. What you have been told about issues that have 18 already been identified as problem a'reas in support.
19 Another thing I was concerned about is CYGNA's 20 apparent desire to wait -- or the applicant's desire to 21 have CYGNA wait to have the CYGNA report in final form.
22 And I certainly would urge that at this point in time 23 that there be some consideration given to some sort of 24 draft, rather than final report.
I__,l 25 I also would point out that it's been a continuing GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
236 1 concern of ours, and I think it's almost to the point of
_ ) 2 being a moot point, as to CYGNA's independence, in one 3 regard, looking at it from one aspect.
4 The interaction with the CPRT, for instance, will, 5 in one sense of the word, banish CYGNA's indeper.dence, ,
6 which has been subject to much discussion at the 7 hearings and so forth.
8 I just wanted to point that out. I think at this 9 point in time that really it would be better for CYGNA 10 to find out all that they can about different issues 11 *which have been identified.
12 And as far as the applicant's people, the new 13 people that have come on board, all of you, we're very L - . .
14 auch interested and we're wanting to know what previous 15 work you may have done at Comanche Peak, whether you 16 have worked with, or for one another.
17 What ties you may have in any way, shape, or form 18 to the project, either through the people who are at the 19 plant now, who have been at the plant, or your ties to l 20 others who are working on this new effort.
(
21 I think that's something we're very much interested 22 in, and I think it will save everybody's time if you can 23 get that information together for us.
1
,_ 24 Another thing that concerns us, and I think we will 25 be wanting an a'swer n to this as different needs of the
, GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
237 1
area go, and that is, where you will be when this plant M
,.j 2 goes on line. Are you going to be just here for this 3 one effort, and disappear forever and leave it to i
4 somebody else to see that it's implemented and done 5 properly? Or will you be here for the long haul, and 6 see that it's cone? That's something we will want to 7 know from each of the new people that come on board.
8 Another thing, along that line, I'm a little 9 concerned, Mr. Counsil, as to how you have been 10 presented to the people at the plant. I'm talking about
~
11 ~the workers and the QC inspectors,'everybody that works 12 there.
F 13 How much do they think -- how far do they think L .., .
- 14 your authority extends? Do they think that you're going 15 to be there for the long haul? Do they know how much 16 authority you have? This sort of thing, you know, how 17 much -- in other words, it's fine to go in and say, 18 "Okay. We're going to wipe the slate clean, have a 19 brand new QA/QC sort of outlook here."
20 But unless that has filtered all the way to the 21 bottom, I think that it's very important that this be 22 made crystal clear right now, and immediately, a n. in 23 the most forceful terms, to the ranking file here on
.. 24 down. So that's something we'll also want to know, and
' '~
25 also how this has been done and so forth.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
238 1 When reviewing the checklist for discrepancies,
... 2 deviations, deficiencies and.so on, in nonconformance 3 reporting, anything along the corrective action line, !
4 identification line, is then nonconformances, we'll want 5 to know when, where, and how, and by whom, trending will i 6 be done on these matters? How they will be factored?
7 And who will be doing that?
8 And also, going beyond that to what use the 9 trending will be put, and exactly how this will be 10 incorporated into the plant. Also, in regard to check 11 lists, in talking about the documentation review I
12 process, conclusions, and so on, I think that, Howard, I
13 you mentioned that there was a full set of check lists ud-14 that you expect to be available in the August' time 15 frame.
16 On the work that's being done at the plant now, 17 what's being used? We would like to see those I think 18 as soon as possible. And if work is on, going at.the 19 plant on anything, there should be some sort of the 20 check list or something available now.
21 In regard to the design issues, we're concerned 22 about what's going to be looked at. I think before I 23 had indicated at one of the meetings to you, Howard,
,_ 24 that we were concerned about the issues. I think the 25 March 23rd meeting.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
l l
239 l
1 Probably some of the issues, you mentioned
_ , 2 something to the effect that issues were on the table, 3 vid you seemed at that time, as though you were more 4 familiar with the summary disposition as far as the 5 Walsh/Doyle went.
6 I want to make real clear as far as the design 7 issue -- unless the Walsh/Doyle issues go, the 8 Walsh/Doyle allegations will contain primarily, I guess, 9 summarize, primarily in the August 22, '83, case, 10 proposed findings on the Walsh/Doyle issues.
11 And the summary disposition motions were part of a 12 three-prong plan by the applicant. And they were one v 13 prong of that plan, which was to -- which it was agreed k..
14 upon would determine the design adequacy of the whole 15 plant.
16 So if applicants have in mind now backing out of 17 that deal, which it appears, what you have got in mind 18 at this point in time, I'm not sayi.ng we'll agree to 19 that first of all. But should that develop and should 20 applicants want to do that.
21 That means immediately the summary disposition 22 motions are definitely not the only issues. You have to 23 go back and address all the Walsh/Doyle issues as far as
,_. 24 we're concerned, from that point on.
' ' ~ I 25 So you need to be aware we will be wanting you to GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
_ - - _ _ _ . - _ _ . . _____ 1 . _ _ _ _ _
240 ;
1 look at all of those things and be pushing for you to
[ 2 look at all of them. .0therwise we would have not just
- 1 3 agreed to the few issues which just the applicants 1 4 themselves chose.
5 Also we need to know how much the new people know 6 about these issues. Have you reviewed things like the t
7 transcript of the May, 1983, hearings? Where did you
~
8 get your information about these things on the design 9 issues especially? We need to know how much you are
.10 aware of those things.
11 One of the things that most'of you will not be 12 aware of, because you weren't around at that time, was Fl ua 13 the really difficult situation that CYGNA found itself 14 in'the February of '84 hearings, where they thought they 15 had a handle on everything.
16 But when they came to the hearings, they were in' 17 effect sandbagged, because they were hit with questions 18 they were unable to answer. And said, "We haven't 19 looked at that. We will have to go back and look-at."
20 We don't want that situation to come about, once we get 21 to the hearings part. We think~we should have positions 22 firmly in hand.
23 And in fairness to all of you, you need to know
__, 24 what those issues are. And you need to be able to ,
' ~ 1 25 address them when you to come to the hearings. So if we !
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
l 1
241 1 ask you for instance, "Have you checked to see if this
, , 2 support is unstable?" You can say, "Yes," because you
.3 know that that's an issue, and it's something you're 4 going ~to have to deal with.
5 And you will be able to say, "Yes, we have. And i
6 this is our conclusion about it and why." And your
, 7 calculations to back it up or whatever.
- 8 One thing you will find, too, is that we will be 9 very, very nosy about what you're doing. We'll want to 10 see things like extreme details on things. We will want
- 11 to know calculations. We want to have time to review 12 those. I'd like at some point to be able to discuss r
i 13 some of these things with you in a little bit more open
. L .J 14 forum than we have-in the past, so we won't go to 15 hearings in a blind state.of mind.
16 One thing too, that is very difficult for us, 17 because some of you we haven't had a really chance to 18 meet with before, to talk with. That it's very 19 difficult for us, because we have two engineers. Just 20 think. Two engineers have caused all this trouble, that 21 used to work at Comanche Peak.
. 22 One of the overriding concerns that we have and we 23 think all of you should be thinking about and 1
24 addressing, and at some point in time should address,
' ' ~i 25 is, how could this have at all been averted? Why did i t l
l GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 i
._. - - - - , - . . - - - - _ _ _ . , . . _ _ - - . . _ , , , ..m., _ , _ _ - - - . _ _ _ - - . _ . - - - . - - _ _ _ - . _ _ , - - - - ~ ~ - - -_-_.-_m
242 1 have to happen this way? What was there within the
. ; 2 system that did not pick up on these concerns from these 3 two engineers while they were still' employed at Comanche 4 Peak? Why did this develop in the way it had to 5 develop?
6 I think that that's one of the things that needs a 7 lot of work. And it's something that the applicants 8
need to come to grips with, not just in the engineering 9 area, but also in the other engineering areas as well, 10 where even when we have have had talk of intimidation 11 and harrassment of QC inspectors and this sort of thing.
12 Another thing we're a little bit concerned about is -
t u -
13 the amount of detail for some of this. For instance, on 14 some of the listings we notice that CYGNA wasn't listed, 15 specifically though the IDP was listed. And it would be 16 very helpful, I think to everybody, certainly when we 17 set to the hearings, the licensing board, if you could 18 identify these things like by phase one and two. Phase 19 four in a little bit more detail than what you have.
20 Another thing that -- we will be wanting to know l
i 21 about each of the different categories is, who defines 22 and bounds these issues? Where you get your 23 information? Who decides all of that? Who
__, 24 specifically? What is the process that's gone through 25 to find those determinations?
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
l
)
243 l 1 Another thing in regard to the corrective action
- j. 2 program, I think it was mentioned several times that 3 when problems arise and are identified, that an NCR will 4 be written up or something. We would like to know, are 5 NCR's going to be the method used? One of the things in 6 the TRT's finding was there was something like 40 7 different types of different -- or different things 8 called IR's, NCR's, CMC's, so forth, to identify 9 different forms of deficiencies in the plant.
10 We would like to know what kind of system you are 11 using, and what will be used by each' of you in this.
12 Exactly how it fits into the overall system? How it i
i 13 gets into the trending process and so forth, and who L J 14 writes them up? Who will be dispositioning them, all 15 through the whole process.
16 Another thing that is still a concern, and this was 17 discussed somewhat today. But I'm not sure it's really 18 clear in our minds at this point, is when you have a 19 QC inspector go out and look at a support, are you going 20 to have an engineer looking over his shoulder, who can 21 say whether the support is unstable?
22 It's still not clear to us exactly how the design 23 QA part is going to fit in this. How that
,__, 24 identification is going to come about on a regular
' ~
25 basis.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
l 244 1
And one of our concerns'is that,- though we realize
.J 2 you're pushing hard to try to get one unit licensed, 3 these licensing hearings for unit one and unit two. And 4
there's still a lot of work to be done on unit two.
5 So we have . concerns that go not just to what's been 6
done in the past with unit one, but what's going to be 7 happening from now on with unit two.
8 Okay. This was mentioned a little bit earlier, 9 too. If one of the vendors has an identified deficiency 10 in one area, would they look -- would you then look at 11 other areas that they're involved in? We would like to 12 go a little bit further from that, and find out exactly l
L_ .
13 how this determination will be made, who would be doing 14 this, how would it be identified, will it be 15 procedural 12ed?
16 Another thing we're very interested in throughout 17 this whole process, by the way, is the procedures. If 18 something isn't proceduralized, we feel that many times 19 this means you're going to be expecting somebody else to 20 do it, and nobody is going to end up doing it.
21 So I think we're going to be looking very closely 22 at the procedures for doing a lot of these things.
23 In regard to the design QA which I mentioned,
,. 24 would be interested in finding out just how this whole 25 process with design QA is actually accomplished. The GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
245 1 steps that are going on and that will be going on
. 2 throughout the whole design effort or review of design i
3 effort.
4 And about procedures. Will these procedures be in 5 place just for this review?. Are they going to be there 6 from now on? Are these going to be procedures for the 7 site to use exactly? What kind of status will these 8 procedures have, and what place will they have in the 9 plant?
10 One thing too, I believe someone with the NRC, I 11 don't recall now who mentioned that test results can be 12 relied on in some instances. I'd like to put out a word i
.I 13 of caution there. A lot depends on the type of tests, t J 14 who did them, whether they are under fire in our 15 hearings process, whether they have been accepted by 16 everyone, including us. And because some of the test 17 results are definitely still very much in question, we
, 18 won't stop questioning those, of course.
19 And another aspect of it is whether or not they 20 have been tested under all conditions. And you have to 21' look at things like how the cycle goes, and this sort of 22 thing.
23 So I think -- just a word of caution then. If you
,_ 24 do rely on tests, in the event of QC, you can be sure we
^
25 will be looking at those pretty closely, too. So you GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
246 1
need to ,be ready to answer those kinds of questions, y
_J 2 because that's something we will be talking about.
3 okay. In discussions earlier about NRC interface, 4
I think that it was mentioned, John, that the NRC might 5 vant to come to examine documents. We would like to 6 get in on some of that. I just wanted to point that 7 out, that, you know, as I mentioned before, yesterday, I 8 think that if we've got no other way to go, we'll 9 definitely file whatever interrogatories request for 10 documents, whatever, formally within the formal hearing 11 process. It will take a little longer.
12 And eventually when you guys get down to the wire t
L. -
13 and want to get your license, you're going to be sitting 14 there waiting on us to review documents, I'm afraid. I 15 think you need to rethink your attitude on some of that.
16 Throughout all of the reviews that you will be 17 doing, we'll be interested in knowing if you're looking 18 at the FSAR commitments at the time the work was done, 19 rather than as they currently exist. We want to be sure 20 that you're aware of that so you will be able address 21 that also. Because that's an issue that we'll certainly 22 be looking at as well.
23 When you're looking at, in regard to like pipe 24 supports or cable tray supports, or whatever, who and
~
25 how will they be checked to make sure that all the GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100 (817) 460-2048
l 247 1 CMC's, NCR 's, whatever, have been incorporated? So I
- 2 that what you're looking at is in complete package. The 3 whole process there will be important to us.
4 Also we'll be interested in finding out if when you l 5 did review things, if adequate calculations and 6 justification existed when the supports or whatever's 7 involved were first designed. And we would like to know 8 exactly how that process will go -- will be handled, who 9 and how it will be handled? Who will be handling it and 10 how it will be?
11 One thing with regard to generic implications, and 12 Billie Garde mentioned this, too. About the very minor
! I 13 discrepancies that you might not really be looking at L.J '
14 them as closely as we would like for you to look at 15 them. One of our concerns, such as mathematical errors 16 is that in the hearings process? We have been assured 17 that the applicants went through like nine iterations or 18 so.
19 And it's our contention that if you go through 20 something like nine iterations, and you have nine 1 l
1 21 different people checking this, by the time you get )
l 22 through with it, you shouldn't have many math errors. '
23 One or two might pop up occasionally. Certainly nothing 24 to the point of what we have seen here.
25 And we would especially like to call your attention l
l l
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 1
248 1 to CASE's first motion for summary disposition that we
_j 2 filed. And in that, we went through and pulled out, 3 just from the CYGNA report, some errors that were 4 pointed out by CYGNA, in percentage like 70, 72 percent, 5 something like that, which is outrageous.
6 And this is something that we're very definitely 7 interested in. How this could occur, went through all 8 these different iterations, and where does that leave us 9 as far as confidence in the rest of the plant? How does 10 this impact on the overall competence, as far as the 11 other things which haven't teen looked at as closely, as 12 possibly pipe support, cable supports, and so on.
[ i 13 In that regard, we would like also to find out if 14 these discrepancies, even though you do consider them 15 inconsequential, if they will be identified and set 16 forth in the report similar to the way CYGNA did in 17 their written report. And we would like to urge that 18 they.are, that they should be.
i 19 In regard to the cable tray supports and the pipe 1
l 20 supports, we have some problems with some of the people 21 which you have involved. Now when I say this, it's not, 22 I hope that these people won't take this personally.
23 But Doctor Anil and John Fenree, I feel really 24 are too close to the project. They have filed extensive
, _,i
~
25 affidavits and so on. They reviewed the pipe support GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
249 1 design area. They have been very, very closely involved
_) 2 with all this, to the point where even intentionally, 3 unintentionally whatever, they have a vested interest in 4 the outcome.
5 And we think that perhaps you should rethink some 6 of your procedures and set up where you have them 4
7 following very closely on some of these things.
8 I noticed on the cable tray supports that you're 9 going to sample the as built in unit one and a hundred 10 percent of the as built in unit two. We would like to 11 know how that criteria came about? What was the 12 criteria for making that decision, or why was that t chosen?
i 13 LJ 14 In regards to the self-initiated evaluations, we're
- 15 interested in where you got or will get your loads and 16 your load combinations. Which design procedures will be 17 used, where they came from: Are they the ones that they 18 were designed to, or are they current procedures? What 19 are you looking at when you're using these in your
- 20 analysis or your review? And I will get to this in a l
21 little more detail in a minute.
22 In regard to concrete design, will the Richmond 23 insert summary disposition motion that I answered, 24 specifically, also be included in that? If so, how and
' ~
! 25 who will be looking at it? And in what manner will it GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 r.-, , . < - , , - -%,, , - - -c---,.,r.- . - - , --,<%-y. m---. .. - - - ,,-%.,,g, - - - , . , - - .-,-r----y ---,.-,,.,-,e---r,,-v--
250 1 be addressed?
_ 2 With regard to samples, and in particular I wrote 3 this note, was looking at the piping and supports. As 4 far as the sampling basis, who will make the 5 determination of how this is done? How will it be 6 handled? What specific criteria vill be used to 7 determine the sampling, and will it be proceduralized?
8 And, if so, what procedures and so forth?
9 And, Mr. Siskin, especially we were very concerned 10 to hear you speak so many times of expediency. We 11 realize the applicants are in a hurry to get the plant 12 on the line. However, I think the overriding concern
' 13 for all of us has got to be whether or not the plant is L .-
14 safe.
15 In addition, we're interested in, and the last 16 thing, we'll be interested in, how it got to be in the 17 shape it's in right now, and what shape it is in right 18 now.
19 MR. SISKIN: I'd like to answer that one, by the 20 way, if I might. There's nothing that I said that 21 implied that.
22 MR. NOONAN: I can't hear you.
23 MR. SISKIN: There is nothing that we are goin6 to
,_, 24 do that is going to be to any standard other than what 25 is safe. If there is two possible ways to solve a 1
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING j Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 !
251 1 problem, one by analysis and one by fix, we will g j 2 probably choose the one that can be done the quickest.
3 In either case, the result will be a safe and 4 satisfactory product. That is the only standard to 5 which we're working. That.is the only standard that 6 TUGCO has imposed on us.
7 MS. ELLIS: Okay. As far as the design issues that 8 are still open. I can give you an answer right now.
9 That probably means that you're going to go through here 10 and say on most of these, "Let's change them." Because 11 we have had CYGNA looking at'this stuff now for a couple 12 years.
i 13
. l We have been looking at it for two and a half, L . .J 14 almost three years. So I think that the fix, if it was 15 fast and easy, would have already been made.
16 So I think that what you're probably going to end 17 up with, if you take that approach, is coming in and 18 saying that it's going to be easier just to go out there 19 and take this support out, and do this, and to change i
20 it, or whatever.
21 I just wanted you to be aware of that. . And I think l
22 that this is going to leave unanswered, a very big i
23 question that the licensing board is going to be
,_ 24 interested in, and certainly we're going to be 25 interested in. And that is, whether it was done right GGDFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 i
t
252
- I to begin with.
. .[ 2 MR, SISKIN: All I can answer is whether it would 3 be right --
4 MS. ELLIS: I agree. And specifically we're 5 interested in finding out how much you know about what's 6 going to be known as the Walsh/Doyle allegations, and 7 the design issues of CYGNA. How long you have been 8 looking at this? Have you looked at all the findings 9 and so forth, all the motions for summary disposition, 10 the summary answers?
i 11 And also, are you going to be receiving routinely
- 12 things which we filed in the proceedings. For instance, 13 we just hand delivered today,' sort of a clarification on L _
14 our position of NC-1 incident, which I think is the 15 sort of information you should get routinely. I would 16 like to make sure that you can and will be getting that 17 sort of information along.
18 With regard to the change in this code case, it 19 was very disturbing to me to find out about this change 20 through the letter Mr. Noonan wrote to the applicants, 21 because it is the first we have known. I think this is 22 the sort of information that, very clearly, we should 23 have been provided with at the time the applicants filed 24 it.
(_
25 And I think there's probably other things like GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
253 1 .that. I don't think we should have to go through the
-v:
, , 2 normal hearings process to try to get discovery on 3 things which are obviously of interest in these 4 proceedings, and which are obviously pertinent and 5 material, and perhaps very important.
6 This is the sort of thing that I'd like to urge 7 that the informants see that we start getting on a 8 regular basis, at the time that they are filed.
9 Now we will be filing, we're asking you informally 10 now, but we will be filing motion for discovery, to find 11 out if there are other similar times when you have asked 12 to change code phases or change to certain years or so e f i 13 forth, and you have asked to use this or that, to try to
'. J 14 find out what you're doing.
15 And I don't think it's really -- I don't think it's 16 really very productive for any of us to have to go 17 through that sort of procedure. It also doesn't make us 18 feel too much like you're trying to be up front about 19 things. It makes it appear as though you have got 20 something you're trying to hide.
21 In regard to Stone and Webster, I want to make sure 22 I understood right, what QA program you will be using?
23 It was my understanding that you will be using Stone and
, _ , 24 Webster QA programs and procedures. Is that right?
25 We would like to have those immediately, and I GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
254 l 1 assume those are readily available. Okay.
_ ., 2 MR. SISKIN: I think any request for information 3 for that should be challenged to TUGCO, and we'll 4 provide them whatever they need.
5 MS. ELLIS: Well, consider it challenged. But I 6 think very clearly this is also the kind of information 7 that should be provided immediately, on an immediate 8 basis, because I see no reason whatsoever for it not to 9 be available. It's a change from what is in the NSR.
10 You know, we don't know what kind of criteria you 11 use, as opposed to what the applicants are committed to 12 use on site. And certainly I think this is the kind of f 13 thing that should go;out, possibly as a board t ._ 1 -
14 notification or something of that sort, because it is a 15 major change, or it could be a' major, change. We don't 16 know.
17 Ycu weren't specific.when you were talking about 18 things that have been resolved, because an analysis has 19 been done, excep't'in the way of the many outstanding 20 'issuen that are no longer relevant.
21 We would be interested in finding out specifically 22 whak you think those are, and what you think the 23 procedure has been to close them out. If they have been
__, 24 closed out or forwarded by the licensing board. Or in 25 what manner they have been closed out. And we would be GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
255 1 interested in the basis for your statement and your j 2 understanding of that. And also we want to warn you, we 3 may have a fight on this at some point.
4 I'd like also to find out, I don't know if I was 5 here or if it was really clear to me at the time, 6 exactly what you will be looking at as far as things 7 like the Richmond inserts in concrete and so on, in your 8 review of what's going on. And if you could clarify 9 that for us, I think it would be very helpful.
10 The Richmonds inserts have been quite a topic of 11 conversation. And things like use of A 307 threaded rod 12 and so forth have been debated quite a bit. And motions 13 for summary disposition have included information about L.-
14 them and so on. And we would like to know how all of 15 this is going to be factored in to what you're going to 16 be doing.
17 In regard to the -- mentioned that -- you said you 18 would be using what was originally committed to in the 19 FSAR, at least initially, and that at some point you 20 might want to change. I'd like to know what kind of 21 mechanism will be set up so that we can be made aware of 22 that change.
23 We want to avoid going off and charging in one
,__, 24 direction, if you have changed directions. I think it's
' ~
25 counterproductive for all of us. We need to work out l
l GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
256 1 some sort of mechanism, so that this can be readily
. .s
_ _ 2 available. So that we'll all know what's going on if 3 something like that does develop.
4 For any of you who are doing work which has to do 5 with N45 211 where this might be applicable, we would be 6 interested in finding out how you are interpreting N 45 7 211, specifically in regard to whether in your view and 8 in your review, you are considering that it is okay to 9 design a support, to modify it and construct it, before 10 it is reviewed by'the original design, before the change 11 is, reviewed by the original design.
12 I think I mentioned before we're interested in 6
- u. _
13 knowing who is looking at the adequacy of the design 14 QA and how that fits, and so forth, in the overall 15 program.
16 And generally, I guess as far as the pipe supports 17 especially are considered, we want to know how things 18 are going to be factored in, such as justification for 19 using cinchdown U bolts, Richmond insert connections, 20 justification of oversized holes, bore type connections, 21 this sort of thing. The various things that have been 22 mentioned primarily in the motions for disposition.
23 And also in the findings, these are some things g_ 24 we're going to be inquiring to, and need to be addressed
~
25 at some point in time. What kind of welding criteria is GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
257 1 going to be used, this sort of thing.
[j 2 Also -- one more question before I go on to this.
3 In the electrical area, we'd like to know who 4 specifically selected the AFW system. That's one of the 5 things that we're very much interested in. And th,e 6 specific criteria that was used for its selection.
7 And you will be glad to know finally, I handed Mr.
8 Noonan today, I believe he's given copies of it to all 9 of you, of code case which we -- our code interpretation 10 NSR, which we came across it interpretation Roman 11 Numeral 3'1-83-49R.
12 And what this appears to say, now I haven't really F"1 13 thoroughly reviewed this with Mr. Walsh and Mr. Doyle L_J 14 yet. Mr. Doyle hasn't seen it yet, in fact. But what 15 it appears to say is that there is no problem with the 16 cinchdown U bolts, because very simply you can't use 17 torqueing as a means of locking on that -- on these 18 particular items.
19 Also it raises a question which we'll be addressing 20 in some form at some time, regarding whether or not the 21 applicants, when they decided to use the paint as a 22 locking device, if you will, whether or not they did 23 what is recommended here, which is that the user should r, 24 satisfy himself with any other device than those 25 described in F4725, is capable of acting as a locking GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
258 1 device under false surface conditions.
- 2. ) 2 I think that's it. I appreciate you sticking with 3 se through all these questions. I had quite a few 4 today, and I appreciate the opportunity.
5 MR. NOONAN: Mrs. CAAA, I want to pick up on one 6 thing you mentioned about the CYGNA. And you said that 7 you worried about that we're not going to have the 8 independence any longer. I'm just not quite sure what 9 you mean by that. Would you explain it?
10 MS. ELLIS: Well, independent has a lot of 11 different contsotations. I guess one of the things that 12 we have begun to believe over a period o. time, is that F-- 13 in a way, when you have a contractor or an outside
- u. -
14 auditor coming in, I guess in a way, what they see is 15 dependent on a lot of things. It's dependent o.e what 16 they're told their mandate is to do, of course.
l 17 Inside that context, a lot depends on how deeply 18 they look at things. For instance, CYGNA did not 19 immediately identify some of the problems which were 20 later. identified in the hearings process, a lot of 21 them.
22 For instance, when Jack Doyle started cross l
l 23 examining on some of the issues and said, "Have you i
,_ _ , 24 loeked at this?"
l 25 And they said, "No, we have to go look at that."
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING l Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 i . - . .- - _ - - -., .
259 1 This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. From
,m L.j 2 that point on, once they start getting this kind of 3 outside information, in one way you are decreasing their 4 independence, because they're getting feedback from 5 other people, and these people are more or less --
6 telling them there's a lot of things they should look 7 at.
8 This is the aspect of independence I'm talking 9 about. At this point in time with CYGNA, I think it's 10 important.that they have input from everybody. And that 11 they see all of our pleadings, so that when we finally 12 do go to hearings again, they will be able to adequately o 13 address all these things and have these resolved.
c._
14 I think it was unfortunate the way it all developed 15 before. And part of the problem was that Mr. Doyle 16 hadn't had a chance to look at the documents until he 17 flew in on that Saturday before the hearings began on 18 Monday. And we'd like to avoid that if at all l
19 possible. Not just with CYGNA, but also with the new l
\
20 consultants and the new people that come on board with 21 the applicants. l 22 MR. NOONAN: Okay. I understand. And I guess the 23 only other comment I'll make is on the code case. That 24 was filed on docket, so there should be a copy to PDR.
'__,l
'~
25 I recognize -- might be hard to get a -- send it there.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
260 1 I'll make be sure it is, m
LJ 2 MS. ELLIS: This is one of the problems -- our 3 problems. If you hadn't written your letter, we 4 wouldn't have known to look in the PDR. We don't just 5 run down to the PDR every week and see what's new.
6 And also there's no PDR in Dallas that has all the 7 information. Some of it is sent to to UTA, but 8 certainly not all of it. A lot of it isn't.
9 We have to go to 80 miles, one way, to Glen Rose to 10 be able to find it.
11 MR. NOONAN: Okay.
12 MR. BECK: Mrs. Ellis, I just want you to know L
13 that we're getting our copy of the transcript Monday.
u..-
14 And we will be looking very carefully at your remarks.
15 I got writer's cramp trying to keep accurate notes, but 16 we will be giving very, very careful consideration to 17 everything you had to say today. And we appreciate you 18 sticking with us through this long two days, very much.
19 And I think Bill would like to respond to one 20 question you had early on.
21 MR. COUNSIL: Well, actually it's three. You asked 22 if I'm going to 'be here for the long term, God willing, 23 I will be.
g_ 24 You also made the statement, that you would hope 25 that the crafts get to learn who I am. And I hope also GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
.. . .- .: . :.^' ..
261 1 they do, and I'm working on that. And I would hope that F
.. ; 2 somehow in the future I could gain their trust.
3 You also mentioned something, that you hoped that 4 the programs which we're. developing here today, we 5 talked about today, so forth, will be carrying on over 6 in unit two, and I'm also working on that. They will 7 be.
8 MS. ELLIS: Thanks.
9 MR. NOONAN: I guess if there are no further 10' questions -- again I want to thank everybody for -- like 11 John said, sticking with us for two long da*ys. And if 12 there are no further questions, I guess that's'it.
F i 13 MS. ELLIS: There's one more thing I would like to LJ <
14 say for the record. I want to say again that the 15 presentation here today and everything, I know it's been 16 an awful lot of work. There's still a lot of questions 17 we have, but we realize the amount of effort it takes to ~
18 put something like this together.
19 And also I want to thank again tha members of Mr.
20 Noonan's staff. And we know that there's been a lot of 21 work put in behind the scenes on all of this, to come up 22 with the SSER 11, and all the preceding ones and so 23 forth.
__, 24 I know also the design adequacy problems are really
' ~
l 25 sort of overwhelming sometimes. And we appreciate those GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
- 8 245 1 steps that are going on and that will be going on
_ _ 2 throughout the whole design effort or review of design 3 effort.
4 And about procedures. Will these procedures be in 5 place just for this review? Are they going to be there 6 from now on? Are these going to be procedures for the 7 site to use exactly? What kind of status will these 8' procedures have, and what place will they have in the 9 plant?
10 One. thing too, I believe someone with the NRC, I 11 don't recall now who mentioned that test results can be 12 r e,li ed on in some instances. I'd like to put out a word i i 13 of caution there. 'A lot depends on the type of tests, L J 14 who did them, whether they are under fire in our 15 hearings process, whether they have been accepted by 16 everyone, including us. And because some of the test 17 results are definitely still very much in question, we I
18 won't stop questioning those, of course.
19 And another aspect of it is whether or not they j 20 have been tested under all conditions. And you have to 21 look at things like how the cycle goes, and this sort of 22 thing.
23 So I think -- just a word of caution then. If you
,__ 24 do rely on tests, in the event of QC, you can be sure we
' ~~
25 will be looking at those pretty closely, too. So you GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
246 1 need to be ready to answer those kinds of questions,
._ 2 because that's something we will be talking about. .
3 okay. In discussions earlier about NRC interface, 4 I think that it was mentioned, John, that the NRC might 5 vant to come to examine documents. We would like to 6 get in on some of that. I just wanted to point that 7 out, that, you know, as I mentioned before, yesterday, I 8 think that if we've got no other way to go, we'll 9 definitely file whatever interrogatories request for 10 documents, whatever, formally within the formal hearing 11 process. It will take a little longer.
12 And eventually when you guys get down to the wire r
i 13 and want to get your license, you're going to be sitting
. J 14 there waiting on us to review documents, I'm afraid. I 15 think you need to rethink your attitude on some of that.
16 Throughout all of the reviews that you will be 17 doing, we'll be interested in knowing if you're looking 18 at the FSAR commitments at the time the work vas done, 19 rather than as they currently exist. We want to be sure 20 that you're aware of that so you will be able address 21 that also. Because that's an issue that we'll certainly 22 be looking at as well.
23 When you're looking at, in regard to like pipe
__ 24 supports or cable tray supports, or whatever, who and 25 how will they be checked to make sure that all the GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 460 6100. (817) a6n.ponA
247
- 1 CMC's, NCR 's, whatever, have been incorporated? So 2
that what you're looking at is in complete package. The 3 whole process there will be important to us.
4 Also we'll be interested in finding out if when you 5
did review things, if adequate calculations and 6
justification existed when the supports or whatever's 7 involved were first des.igned. And we would like to know 8 exactly how that process will go -- will be handled, who 9 and how it will be handled? Who will be handling it and 10 how it will be?
11 One thing with regard to generic implications, and 12 Billie Garde mentioned this, too. About the very minor 13 discrepancies that you might not really be looking at 14 them as closely as we would like for you to look at
'15 them.
One of our concerns, such as mathematical errors 16 is that in the hearings process? We have been assured 17 that the applicants went through like nine iterations or 18 so.
19 And it's our contention that if you go through 20 something like nine iterations, and you have nine 21 different people checking this, by the time you get-22 through with it, you shouldn't have many math errors. t 23 One or two might pop up occasionally. Certainly nothing !
_, 24 to the point of what we have seen here.
i I
' ~
25 And we would especially like to call your attention GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING s
Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
248 1 to CASE's first motion for summary disposition that we
_ _ 2 filed. And in that, we went through and pulled out, 3 Just from the CYGNA report, some errors that were 4 pointed out by CYGNA, in percentage like 70, 72 percent, 5 something like t' hat, which is outrageous.
6 And this is something that we're very definitely 7 interested in. How this could occur, went through all 8 these different iterations, and where does that leave us 9 as far as confidence in the rest of the plant? How does 10 this impact on the overall competence, as far as the 11 other things which haven't been looked at as closely, as 12 possibly pipe support, cable supports, and so on.
i l 13 In that regard, we would like also to find out if 6 J 14 these discrepancies, even though you do consider them 15 inconsequential, if they will be identified and set 16 forth in the report similar to the way CYGNA did in 17 their written report. And we would like to urge that 18 they are, that they should be.
19 In regard to the cable tray supports and the pipe 20 supports, we have some problems with some of the people 21 which you have involved. Now when I say this, it's not, 22 I hope that these people won't take this personally.
23 But Doctor Anti and John Fenree, I feel really
__, 24 are too close to the project. They have filed extensive
~
25 affidavits and so on. They reviewed the pipe support l
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100. (817) 460-2048
249 1
1 design area. They have been very, very closely involved 2 with all this, to the point where even intentionally, 3 unintentionally whatever, they have a vested interest in 4 the outcome.
5 And we think that perhaps you should rethink some 6 of your procedures and set up where you have them 7 following very closely on some of these things.
8 I noticed on the cable tray supports that you're 9 going to sample the as built in unit one and a hundred 10 percent of the as built in unit two. We would like to 11 know how that criteria came about? What was the 12 criteria for making that decision, or why was that
' chosen?
i 13 LJ 14 In regards to the self-initiated evaluations, we're 15 interested in where you got or will get your loads and 16 your load combinations. Which design procedures will be 17 used, where they came from: Are they the ones that they-18 were designed to, or are they current procedures? What 19 are you looking at when you're using these in your 20 analysis or your review? And I will get to this in a 21 little more detail in a minute.
22 In regard to concrete design, will the Richmond 23 insert summary disposition motion that I answered, 24 specifically, also be included in that? If so, how and
' ~
25 who will be looking at it? And in what manner will it GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro a64 6100. (A17) 360 204A
l 250 l l
1 be-addressed? l
__ 2 With regard to samples, and in particular I wrote 3 this note, was looking at the piping and supports. As
)
4 far as the sampling basis, who will make the 5 determination of' how this is done? How will it be 6 handled? What specific criteria will be used to 7 determine the sampling, and will it be procedura11 zed?
8 And, if so, what procedures and so forth?
9 And, Mr. Siskin, especially we were very concerned 10 ;o hear you speak so many times of expediency. We 11 realize the applicants are in a hurry to get the plant 12 on the line. However, I think the overriding concern 13 for all of us has got to be whether or not the plant is 14 safe.
15 In addition, we're interested in, and the last 16 thing, we'll be interested in, how it got to be in the 17 shape it's in right now, and what shape it is in right 18 now.
19 MR. SISKIN: I'd like to answer that one, by the 20 way, if I might. There's nothing that I said that 21 implied that.
22 MR. NOONAN: I can't hear you.
23 MR. SISKIN: There is nothing that we are going to
,__ 24 do that is going to be to any standard other than what 25 is safe. If there is two possible ways to solve a GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Maten a60 61no. (A17) a6n_onna
251 ,
i 1 problem, one by analysis and one by fix, we will
_ _ 2 probably choose the one that can'be done the quickest.
3 In either case, the result will be a safe and 4 satisfactory product. That is the only standard to 5 which we're work'ing. That is the only standard that 6 TUGC0 has imposed on us.
7 MS. ELLIS: Okay. As far as the design issues that 8 are still open, I can give you an answer right now.
9 That probably means that you're going to go through here 10 and say on most of these, "Let's change them." Because 11 we have had CYGNA looking at this stuff now for a couple
~12 years.
i
- 13 We have been looking at it for two and a half, L J 14 almost three years. So I think that the fix, if it was 15 fast and easy, would have already been made.
16 So I think that what you're probably going to end 17 up with, if you take that approach, is coming in and 18 saying that it's going to be easier just to go out there 19 and take this support out, and do this, and to change 1
20 it, or whatever.
21 I just wanted you to be aware of that. And I think 22 that this is going to leave unanswered, a very big 23 question that the licensing board is going to be
_ _ , 24 interested in, and certainly we're going to be 25 interested in. And that is, whether it was done right l
l GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING i
Maten 560.6100. (A17) 360 snuA
- 252 1 to begin with.
_ _ 2 MR. SISKIN: All I can answer is whether it would 3 be right --
l 4 MS. ELLIS: I agree. And specifically we're 5 interested in finding out how much you know about what's 6 going to be known as the Walsh/Doyle allegations, and
- 7 the design issues of CYGNA. How long you have been 8 looking at this? Have you looked at all the findings 9 and so forth, all the motions for summary disposition, 10 the summary answers?
11 And also, are you going to be receiving routinely 12 things which we filed in the proceedings. For instance, 13 we just hand delivered today, sort of a clarification on u - .
14 our position of Mc-1 incident, which I think is the 15 sort of information you should get routinely. I would 16 like to make sure that you can and will be getting that 17 sort of information along.
18 With regard to the change in this code case, it 19 was very disturbing to me to find out about this change 20 through the letter Mr. Noonan wrote to the applicants, !
1 21 becar"a it is the first we ha've known. I think this is j i
22 the sort of information that, very clearly, we should
~
23 have been provided with at the time the applicants filed 1
__ 24 it.
25 And I think there's probably other things like GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
253 1 that. I don't think we should'have to go through the
. . 2 normal hearings process to try to get discovery on 3 things which are obviously of interest in these 4 proceedings, and which are obviously pertinent and 5 material, and perhaps very important.
6 This is the sort of thing that I'd like to urge 7 that the informants see that we start getting on a 8 regular basis, at the time that they are filed.
9 Now we vi11 be filing, we're asking you informally 10 now, but we will be filing motion for discovery, to find 11 out if there are other similar times when you have asked 12 to change code phases or change to certain years or so r i 13 forth, a_nd you have asked to use this or that, to try to L J 14 find out what you're doing.
15 And I don't think it's really -- I don't think it's 16 really very productive for any of us to have to go 17 through that sort of procedure. It also doesn't make us 18 feel too much like you're trying to be up front about 19 things. It makes it appear as though you have got 20 something you're trying to hide.
21 In regard to Stone and Webster, I want to make sure 22 I understood right,.what QA pro 5 ras you will be using?
23 It was my understanding thac you will be using Stone and
,_ _ 24 Webster QA programs and procedures. Is that right?
25 We would like to have those immediately, and I GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
,-m--- ----..,._-----y-,,__ --- _ - - _ _ _ - - - - , , _ , - . _ _ _ -
254 1 assume those are readily available. Okay.
_ , 2 MR. SISKIN: I think any request for information 3 for that should be challenged to TUGCO, and we'll 4 provide them whatever they need.
5 MS. ELLIS: Well, consider it challenged. But I 6 think very clearly this is also the kind of information 7 that should be provided immediately, on an immediate 8 basis, because I see no reason whatsoever for it not to 9 be available. It's a change from what is in the NSR.
10 You know, we don't know what kind of criteria you 11 use, as opposed to what the applicants are committed to 12 use on site. And certainly I think this is the kind of 13 thing that should go out, possibly as a board c -
14 notificat. ion or something of that sort, because it is a 15 major change, or it could be a major, change. We don't 16 know.
17 You weren't specific when you were talking about 18 things that have been resolved, because an analysis has 19 been done, except in the way of the many outstanding ,
20 issues that are no longer relevant.
21 We would be interested in finding out specifically 22 what you think those are, and what you think the 1
23 procedure has been to close them out. If they have been
_, 24 closed out or forwarded by the licensing board. Or in 25 what manner they have been closed out. And we would be GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100. (817) 460-2048
255 1 interested in the basis for your statement and your i
_ , 2 understanding of that. And also we want to warn you, we ,
I 3 may have a fight on this at some point.
1 4 I'd like also to find out, 1 don't know if I was l 5 here or if it wa's really clear to me at the time, 6 exactly what you will be looking at as far as things 7 like the Richmond inserts in concrete and so on, in your i
8 review of what's going on. And if you could clarify 9 that for us, I think it would be very helpful.
10 The Richmonds inserts have been quite a topic of 11 conversation. And~ things like use of A 307 threaded rod 12 and so forth have been debated quite a bit. And. notions i 13 for summary disposition have' included information about t J -
14 them and so on. And we would like to know how all of 15 this is going to be factored in to what you're going to 16 be doing.
17 In regard to the -- mentioned that -- you said you 18 would be using what was originally committed to in the 19 'FSAR, at least initially, and that at some point you
- 20 might want to change. I'd like to know what kind of l
l 21 mechanism will be set up so that we can be made aware of 22 that change.
23 We want to avoid going off and charging in one
_- 24 direction, if you have changed directions. I think it's
' ~
25 counterproductive for all of us. We need to work out GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Maten 360.61nn (A17) 360.90ER
256 1 some sort of mechanism, so that this can be readily l
_ _ 2 available. So that we'll all know what's going on if
=
\
3 something like that does develop. j 1
4 For any of you who are doing work which has to do l 5 with N45 211 whe~re this might be applicable, we would be 6 interested in finding out how you are interpreting N 45 7 211, specifically in regard to whether in your view and 8 in your review, you are considering that it is okay to 9 design a support, to modify it and construct it, before 10 it is reviewed by the original design, before the change 11 is reviewed by the original design.
12 I think I mentioned before we're interested in i
13 knowing who is looking at the adequacy of the design L J 14 QA and how that fits, and so forth, in the overall 15 program. -
16 And generally, I. guess as far as the pipe supports 17 especially are considered, we want to know how things 18 are going to be factored in, such as justification for 19 using cinchdown U bolts, Richmond insert connections, 20 justification of oversized holes, bore type connections, 21 this sort of thing. The various things that have been 22 mentioned primarily in the motions for disposition.
23 And also in the findings, these are some things
_ _ , 24 we're going to be inquiring to, and need to be addressed
~
25 at some point in time. What kind of welding criteria is GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metra 460 6100. (A17) u60_snaa
257 1 going to be used, this sort of thing.
_ _ '2 Also -- one more question before I go on to this.
3 In the electrical area, we'd like to know who 4 specifically selected the AFW system. That's one of the 5 things that we're very much interested in. And the 6 specific criteria that was used for its selection.
7 And you will be glad to know finally, I handed Mr.
8 Noonan today, I believe he's given copies of it to all 9 of you, of code case which we -- our code interpretation 10 NSR, which we came across it interpretation Roman 11 Numeral 3-1-83-49R.
12 And what this appears to say, now I haven't really 5 i 13 thoroughly reviewed this with Mr. Walsh and Mr. Doyle L J -
14 yet. Mr. Doyle hasn't seen it yet, in fact.. But what 15 it appears to say is that there is no problem with the 16 cinchdown U bolts, because very simply you can't use i
17 torqueing as a means of locking on that -- on these 18 particular items.
19 Also.it raises a question which we'll be addressing 20 in some form at some time, regarding whether or not the 21 applicants, when they decided to use the paint as a 22 locking device, if you will, whether or not they did 23 what is recommended here, which is that the user should
__ 24 satisfy himself with any other device than those i
' ~
l 25 described in F4725, is capable of acting as a locking GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 460-6100. (817) 460 ?na8 L
i l
258 1 device under false surface conditions.
( _ _ 2 I think that's it. I appreciate you sticking with 3 se through all these questions. I had quite a few 4 today, and I appreciate the opportunity.
5 MR. NOO N AN :- Mrs. Casm. I want to pick up on one j l
6 thing you mentioned about the CYGNA. And you said that !
7 you worried about that we're not going to have the 8 independence any' longer. I'm just not quite sure what 9 you mean by that. Would you explain it?
10 MS. ELLIS: Well, independent has a lot of 11 different connotations. I guess one of the things that 12 we have begun to believe'over a period of time, is that
' in a way, when you have a contr. actor or an outside 13 u -
14 auditor coming in, I guess in a way, what they see is 15 dependent on a lot of things. It's dependent on what 16 they're told their mandate is to do, of course.
17 Inside that context, a lot depends on how deeply 18 they look at things. For instance, CYGNA did not 19 immediately identify some of the problems which were 20 later identified in the hearings process, a lot of.
21 them.
22 .For instance, when Jack Doyle started cross 23 examining on some of the issues.and said, "Have you
, _ _ 24 looked-at this?"
25 And they said, "No, we have to go look at that."
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100 (817) 460-2048
259 1 This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. From
, , 2 that point on, once they start getting this kind of 3 outside information, in one way you are decreasing their 4 independence, because they're getting feedback from 5 other people, an'd these people are more or less -- -
6 telling them there's a lot of things they should look 7 at.
8 This is the aspect of independence I'm talking 9 about. At this point in time with CYGNA, I think it's 10 important that they have input from everybody. And that 11 they see all of our pleadings, so that when we finally 12 do go to hearings again, they will be able to adequately i
l 13 address all these things and have these resolved.
t J 14 I think it was unfortunate.the way it all developed 15 before. And part of the problem was that Mr. Doyle 16 hadn't had a chance to look at the documents until he 17 flew in on that Saturday before the hearings began on 18 Monday. And we'd like to avoid that if at all 19 possible. Not just with CYGNA, but also with the new 20 consultants and the new people that come on board with 21 the applicants.
22 MR. NOONAN: Okay. I understand. And I guess the 23 only other comment I'll make is on the code case. That
,__, 24 was filed on docket, so there should be a copy to PDR.
25 I recognize -- might be hard to get a -- send it there.
GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100 (817) 460-2048
260 1 I'll make be sure it is.
. . 2, MS. ELLIS: This is one of the problems -- our 3 problems. If you hadn't written your letter, we 4 wouldn't have known to look in the PDR. We don't just 5 run down to the PDR every week and see what's new.
6 And also there's no PDR in Dallas that has all the 7 information. Some of it is sent to to UTA, but 8 certainly not all of it. A lot of it isn't.
9 We have to go to 80 miles, one way, to Glen Rose to 10 be able to find it.
11 .MR. NOONAN: Gkay.
12 MR. SECK: Mrs. Ellis, I just want you to know 13 that we're getting our copy of the transcript Monday.
J ,
14 And we will be looking very carefully'at your remarks.
15 I got writer's cramp trying to keep accurate notes, but 16 we will be giving very, very careful consideration to 17 everything you had to say today. And we appreciate you 18 sticking with us through this long two days, very much.
19 And I think Bill would like to respond to one 20 question you had early on.
21 MR. COUNSIL: Well, actually it's three. You asked 22 if I'm going to be here for the long term, God willing, 23 I will be.
_ _ , 24 You also made the statement, that you would hope 25 that the crafts get to learn who I am. And I hope also GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100 (817) 460-2048
I 261 1 they do, and I'm working on that. And I would hope that
_, 2 somehow in the future I could gain their trust.
3 You also mentioned something, that you hoped that 4 the programs which we're developing here today, we l 5 talked about today, so forth, will be carrying on over 6 in unit two, and I'm also working on that. They will 7 be.
8 MS. ELLIS: Thanks.
9 MR. NOONAN: I guess if there are no further 10 questions -- again I want to thank everybody for -- like 11 John said, sticking with us for two long days. And if 12 there are no further questions, I guess that's it.
i 13 MS. ELLIS: There's one more thing I would like to
- L J 14 say for the record. I want to say again that the 15 presentation here today and everything, I know it's been 16 an awful lot of work. There's still a lot of questions 17 we have, but we realize the. amount of effort it takes to 18 put something like this together.
19 Ar i also I want to thank again the members of Mr.
20 Noonan's staff. And we know that there's been a lot of 21 work put in behind the scenes on all of this, to come up 22 with the SSER 11, and all the preceding ones and so 23 forth.
24 I know also the design adequacy problems are really
'__,l
'~
25 sort of overwhelming sometimes. And we appreciate those GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100. (817) 460-2048 1
262 1 efforts, too.
. . 2 And I have one more question. And that is, did 3 Paul chen's back finally give out from carrying all 4 those boxes around?
5 MR. NOONAN: I don't think so.
6 MS. ELLIS: We missed him today.
7 MR. NOONAN: Fine. I guess I'm finished. Thank 8 you very much.
9 ________________________________
10 (END OF MEETING) 11 12 13 L
- l 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
__ 24 s
25 GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469 6100, (817) 460-2048
,, ,%.--.- . _ . . .-.,.y_,e . ,
263 .
1 STATE OF TEXAS ( ,,
2 COUNTY.0F TARRANT (
3 I, Jayne Ames, a Certified Shorthand Reporter for 4 the State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and 5 foregoing contains.as true and correct transcription as _
6 possible of the meeting held before me, and was ,
7 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me and under my 8 supervision.
c.
9 I further certify that the above and foregoing as 10 set forth in typewriting is a true and coceect ,
11 transcript of the proceedings had at the time of 12 taking. -
I 13 Certified to on this the 17th day of June, 1985.
14 1e 4 1.. . . . . ._____s6_.
JA #B AMES, CSR, RPR ttu_.
17 Cerbi.f ation Number: 1902 18 Expiration Date: January 1, 1986 1106 W. Pioneer Parkway, Suite 400 19 Arlington, Texas 76013 Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048 20 21 22 23
_ _ , 24 25 GODFREY & AMES COURT REPORTING Metro 469-6100, (817) 460-2048
.