ML20155F816

Transcript of 870107 Nrc/Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Mgt Meeting in Glen Rose,Tx.Viewgraphs Encl. Pp 1-100

ML20155F816
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/07/1987
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20155F822	List: ML20155F816 ML20195F942
References
NUDOCS 8806170063
Download: ML20155F816 (152)

Text

. . . _ .. ___ . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . . .. . . . _ _ _ - . . .

h I

liRC STAFP/CDSES :tAllAGE?!E!!T ?!EETI!iG .

JAliUAR'l 7, 1987

- GLE!! ROSE, TEXAS i

i 1

I 1

. Taken by: Carmen Gooden, CSR, RPR 1 Oatman @oodsn F **es m acnasecast 8806170063 870120 *^**"*

PDR ADOCK 05000445 "e ' "(sin 4amasse  ;

T PDR :. i

2 1 EgqCEERIQqE i

3! MR. COUNSIL: May I have your attention. He're l

4 i ready to go ahead and start. Members of the oublic and the 5 ,

media and as well as NRC, we're -- NRC, welcome to Texas; ,

l 6 ' media, welcome to NEC; NRC, welcome to Comanche Peak and our 7 l new engineering building.

i S Before going into the agenda or oooning remarks  :

9 by NRC, what I'd like to do is go around the table, if we 10 could, for the benefit of the stenograoher and introduce ourselves and what we are or do. l 11 12 I'm Bill Counsil, Executive Vice President of i

13 nuclear engineering and operations for Texas Utilities 11 Electric.

l

[3 ! I'm Larry Nace, Vice President, engineering i 16  ! construction, for Texas Utilities.

I'm Mike Soence. I'm Vice President of the 17 i

i is generating division of TU Electric Comoany.

19 John Beck, Vice President, nuclear engineering, 1

! 20 } TUGCO.

i W 21 ! Hubert Miller. I'm the Deputy Director of the ,

)

,? <

i i i i 22 l division of quality assurance and vendor programs, NRC. j i

3 I'm Dick Vollmer. I'm Deouty Director of the i 2; office of nuclear reactor regulations, NRC. )

l I

23 : Vince Noonan, Project Director for Comanche Peak.  ; 1 I i i 1

1 3 i i I'm Charlie Trammell, one of the project managers, 2

NRC nroject managers, on Comanche Peak.

I Larry Chandler, special litigation counsel in the 4 office of general counsel, NRC.

5 I'm Dick Camp, project manager of Unit 1.

t I

6 Don Reynorson. I'm project manaqcr of Unit 2. 8 l

7 Richard Calder, manager of engineerina projects. .

l S

I'm Owen Lowe, manager of civil, strucural,and i I

9 i mechanical engineering for Texas Utilities. l 10 Jimmy Darker. I'm the manager of engineering I 1

~

11 assurance, Texas Utilities.

i'! i l'm Ted Jenkins, manager of operations support, l l

U TUGCO. ,

I l II I Terry Tyler, CPRT program director, Texas Utilities) ,

15 John Krechting, Director of Engineering, Texas I l

j 16 Utilities.

!7 Peter Stevens, manager of electrical engineering ,

3  !

!3 for Texas Utilities.

s i W Bob Grubb. I'm site manager for Imoell Corporation.

~

Steve Stamm. I'm project engineering manager for l l

, li Stone and Webster.

I 22 j I'm R. Ackley, project manager for Stone and Webster.

23 Ed Siskin, Vice President, Stone and Webster.

l 21 l Bob Iotti, project manager, Ebasco.

25 Gil Keeley, manager, TUGCO licensing.

l

4 1 Ian Barnes, NRC Region 4, Comancho Peak group, i

2 Eric Johnson, NRC Region 4.

3 Bob Cloud. I'm a consultant.

4 . Jack Redding, TU Electric.

5 . Vincent Everett, Imoell project manager for i  !

i 6 equionent qualirications fire nrotection.

7{ Walter Fenoglio, TUGCO.

S David Fiorelli, Texas Utilities.

1 i

9 . Steve Karpyak, TUGCO. 1 I

10 ! John Guibert, SRT.

11 l Bob Wooldridge, Horsham Forsythe. {

i  !

12 l Tom Gosdin, TUGCO. (

i e

13 l Lance Terry, TUGCO.

l I

14 ! David Garlington, GDS Associates.  !

{

i l 15 David Boltz, CASE.

I l l

I 16 Joe Riley, law offices of Joe Riley, Waco. l

i

[ 17 Carolyn Holmberg, attorney in Waco.  ! ,

i i 1 15 David Real, Dallas Mornino News. i

, 4

} 19 . Gayle Reaves, Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I  !

i l

! l '

20 MR. COUNSIL: With that, what I'd like to do now j )

l I l  !

21 l is turn it over to Mr. Vollmer for any opening remarks and,  ;

i lincarticular, i 22  ;

if he could, any comments lua may have on the  :

! l 23 i announced reorganization of NRC. l t

MR. VOLLMER: Thank you, Bill. Going back, we had 21 f i

25  !

l a meeting in early December, as you recall, and we agreed i

y 5

1 to set up a bi-monthly management meeting, of which this is 2 i the first; and I guess because of the reorganization of MRC 3 l and the changing of clayers in the equation, this will be 1 even more imoortant. I look forward -- since I will not be 5 i with the headquarters indefinitely, probably leaving in i

6 April, I expect, I'd like to set up another meeting like i

i

' I 7 this, like in mid-!! arch, down here, at which time I would I

5 plan on bringing in Tom Early to try to make sure that we 9 have a common understanding of where we stand with the 1

10 j new alignment of NRR. '

l I

I As far as the reorganization goes, at this point 11 l l2 in time what you see is what you've got. There are a lot of .

I I

4 i

13 ,

places currently vacant, and that's simoly because decisions 14 have not been made for some of those cositions. The announce-i 13 : ments that have been made were made very oromotly af ter I

i 16 i Commission actions, so the last line-uo was -- for example,

- l l

17 ; inside NRC -- was the result of a press release and a letter 1 l

is to all employees out out by the chairman of the Commission l l

19 had made decisions on those names. Right now, that's where f

20 t it stands.  !

l

, 21 i Our clans are to try to have the organization staff; i l  !

• 22 j at the senior levels identified by the end of this month i

23 for Commission action. Until the Commission does take that  ;

24 action, those names and locations will not be made oublic.

25 There may be exceptions to that. For example,

. .. .. - . . ~.

l 6

)

i somebody may have been identified earlier as a firm position  !

l 2 in a certain area. The thrust of the Commission is to try I to make as quickly as possible, for our own sake as well as )

l 4 industry, the names known as soon as possible.

l 5 Uhat I'd like to do.is run over a counle of things '

r 6  ; which I feel I would like to get out of the meeting, and 7 certainly one is status. He have a lot going on, both from i the project's side as well as the :lRC 's side. I think it's 9 important that we hear what you're doing and important that 10 you get the feedback and understand what we're doing also. j i

I 11 In doing that, we need ,a good technical understanding as 12 l well as a procedural understanding or process understanding 13 of where the project stands, and I think one of the main l-1 reasons for that is to assure that our resources are lined l

j 15 un to give a review to what you do and what you're coming I j' 16 out with in the following few months so that we do an f 17 approcriate review for our process so we can carry out our a b SER functions and prepare our testimony to the extent that  !

t i i9 we need to. i

, 1 20 I think these meetings also should focus more on --

21 as time goes on, and I know we had a little bit of that this i

22 morning, or this afternoon -- focus a little bit more on 2' your olans for assuring that when the construction orocess 21 , is all wrapoed un that the plant fully meets licensing i

25 requirements, but also looking ahead to meeting the operational  ;

6  ; ,

i

7 I staffing requirements. This is an area where we've come down i

2 l to the uire on a few plants, and we're takina'more and more 3 ! the posture that plants that are coming in for licensing at 4

this point in time have to be squeaky clean and meet all our 3 requirements. And we don't think there should be excuses 6 i for not meeting exoerience requirenents, training requirements i

7 ! and all that.

3! So that's something that I would like to look i

9 I forward to, in meeting those.

I, Another thing I think is imoortant is to try to lo l ,

11 l get an early jump on any problem areas that you see coming )

( l 12 up with the project; also any problem areas that you see in l I3 i terms of NRC response to your initiatives. .

l 14 I Again, I think that type of communication will help,

}

13 . to minimize the staf f resources that we're having. As you a i

s  !

16 ' know, our staff resources are oretty scarce, and we will need!

. i I.,

to carefully look at how we scread them around to all projects.

b our aim, of course, is to do a high quality review

M i with this project and prepare quality SERs and quality 1 20 ! testimony, because we know that it's going to be given a l i

, 21 i thorough review by the Board and intervenors and so on.

4 ,

3 22 l It's part of our job. We need quality input from TUGC0 23 to do that job. j l

i 24 I I guess that's about all that I have to say, It

! 1 25 ; sort of fits the framework for where I see these meetings

! I l

- . . _ , . - . _ _ . _ , _ , - . . , - - _ - . . - - _ ~ -

l

'l 8 1 i leading. I 2 , MR. COUMSIL: One item of bustress befo e we get 3 into the agenda and so _ for th is that. edch soeaker , whether 4 you're asking a qNiestion or giving your orese4"J. tion, for l 5 the benefit of the stenograoher clease give your name when y t i 6 ! you first address whoever yea're addressing.  !

1 7 I'd like to keeo this somewhat informal also, i although it probably looks like a heck of a lot more formal i I 9 . than one would think. There's coffee in the back and there's . )

i  !

10 coffee on the table. Please feel free at any time to get 11.l cof fee or wander around or whatever. -

12 What we thought we would do in getting into the 13 meeting is, number one, to give you the CPRT status on what's l l 14 jbeenhappeningwiththeCPRTresultsreportsandsoforth, 13 ; and then we'll go into our own engineering construction and I 16 corrective action type orograms screening off CPRTs. J l l l

1; So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Terry  !

i l l I ;3 Tyler to go ahead on CPRT.

.  ; 1 j 19 l MR. TYLER: Good morning. Terry Tyler, CPRT i l  !

2 20 jProgramDirector. [

} i jj For the purpose of the briefing this morning, I'll i ,

i 22 I

status where CPRT is with regard to our last progress report 23 i that was submitted to all the parties in December, early 24 December 1986. In that status report we were projecting six ,

i 25 results reports to be aoproved by the SRT during the month i

9 P

] , of December. In reality, we approved seven. Those action 3

2 plan results reports that were accroved are as follows --

i 3 ,

and, Carmen, for your sake, the first number that I call out

,; uill be Roman. I 3

l Action Plan I.A.1 on heat shrinkable insulation ,

! i 6 lsleevesoncable.  ;

I

- Action Plan Results Report I.3.1 on flexible ,

s conduit, flexible conduit separation.

9l Action Plan I .B. 2, flexible conduit cable separation.

Action Plan I.3.4 on burial removal.

10 {

(

Action Plan II.C on the maintenance of air gaps j

l i

12 between concrete structures.

I 13 Results Report V.D. on plug wells.  !

l i

j ,; And, finally, VII.A.3 on document control. I g3 This brings the total number of results reports j 16 approved to date to 27 out of a projected 51 recorts. We i

E

- l still anticipate an additional 12 results recorts to be j i l

} g aporoved by the senior review team during the period between ! )

1 p) , now and ending March 1987. i i

2 ,

' l .

20 For anyone that's interested in that, I have the  ! l i

numbers and we'll be glad to share those with you at any time;

?

i .,., during the meeting.

i 23 l MR. VOLLMER: One thing you might indicate, if I

i l anything, since our December meeting when we wenh over a

.,3 I

' number of these things, if there have been any significant I 23

10 1 ; slips since then, could you . identify them?

2  ! MR. TYLE R: That's what I'm getting to. We were 3 ' projecting 13 results reports aonroved'during the period between January and March. One of those was approved in 5

December. We still anticipate the 12 remaining that we' called 6 for to be approved during the time frame between now and  !

i 7 March 31st, and we still anticipate the remainder of the I

t S i action plans, discipline specific action nians and collective 1

I 9 evaluations to be issued by mid-1987 in accordance with the 10 l program plan, with the status report itself.

j ti With the exception of Action Plan VII.A.9, which I2 deals with the adequacy of purchased safety-related material l I

[3 and equipment, investigations are essentially complete. We're t

11 in the process of evaluating the results, performing root

? o .

g3 calls where required, safety significance evaluations, ',

I j 16 ldeviationsidentifiedandcreparingtheresultsreports, j i i i

17 l With regard to Action Plan VII.A.9, the inspectionsj

I j p; are now under way, and we anticipate aporoval of that results '

! 19 i report and closure of that work by late Acril, early May of l I l  !

t l 20 l 1987.

With regard to Action Plan VII.C, which is the .

i s I s 33 hardware reinspection document review action plan, the 23 inspection documentation reviews are comolete. We're in the 21 pr cess of finalizing population reports and the final 23 summary report for that action plan, and it looks like that  ;

l 11 I l

l~ will be approved by the SRT sometime in March.

2! The last major action item within the CPRT program i

3 is the design adequacy orogram. The status on that is that i base scope reviews are complete, and based upon the design 5 adequacy findings and other findings, based on project reviews i i i

6 of the desion, TUGCo has initiated the corrective action ,

i 7 ,

program, which you're going to be hearing a lot more about , l I l S in the balance of this presentation today, i  !

9 l If there are no questions, that pretty much brings l

? I

)

10 , everyone up to date with where CPRT is, 11 MR. TRAMMELL: I'm Charlie Trammell, NRC. Collective 12 significance reports: Could you refresh my memory on those,-

i i

13 4 l when we can exoect them and what day we're going to be -- I 14 remember generally there was going to be one on construction, 13 VII.C, plus the other Series VIIs and Is. Was there going l

i 16 to be a collective significance on thar grouo?

i 17 MR. TYLER: There's going to be one collective  ;

i l E  ! .3 significance, Charlie. That's the end. What it all means,  !

i 19 collective evaluations program plan requires one on hardware, 20 i one on the QA/0C program and one on testing and one on j i  ;

, 21 design. So there will be four reports that will summarize f

? I l

7 22 l the CPRT findings in those areas.

23 MR. TRAMMELL: When would we expect to see the one 2.; lonVII.Canditsdaughters?

I 25 MR. TYLER: Mid '87 is the current anticipation i

l 1

12  !

l

! , for that collective evaluation renort.

l 2 MR. COUNSIL: Any other questions of-Terry?

3 I MR. NACE: Larry' Mace, Vice President, engineering 4 ' construction for TU Electric. I'm going to give a brief 3 . introduction into-the Corrective Action Plan and nature-l 6 l and contents thereof, and then let the members'of my staff ,

give you a more detailed briefing on what each plan consists l

i s ,

of, what the key issues are and what it is we're trying to do. ,

9 To set the stage for the Corrective Action Plan l 10 i development, I need to really go back to about spring of 1906, j l

gj en the project, between spring and summer of 1986. l I

I At that point the investigative phase of the -  !

12 I design adequacy program was drawing to a conclusion, and g3 i

g .; following general type of conditions existing. '

First and probably most important, the project was j

[3 t

I i

16 faced with a large number of -potential issues, many of which j

! were highly interrelated with respect to a common piece of

7 e '

i h hardware, and many others which had notentially broader i i ;9 implications to.many pieces of similar hardware.

i  !  !

! 29 i The original CPRT concent of individual specific l i

I

,g Corrective Action Plans, as you know, was that you could 2  !

.y . ,

! solve each problem by itself. Because of the numbers and  !

33 because of the interrelationshios, we had to step back and 1 3 ldosomeadditionalthinkingonthatsubject.

i The first thing -- and this is important to 33 j i

- - ~ ----y-- y - . . g ,+,,n. ym. ..,_-.--.r_~ ~ , - - ---g ..,,._,-,w-mwwv.ewewms-+--- r-r**gM+e www==m---.--+-v, we-+- -

13 i understand -- the first thing we did is step back and say, 3 Let's asssume all of the 3 ssues are valid. We need to 3 develop a programmatic approach to resolving all the issues

.; and not only determining their validity or not but oronerly 3 resolving them within the design and within the nardware in i

6 a progrmnmatic fashion.

-  ! In addition to that, it became aoparent to us that -

s we needed someone new to resolve these issues, someone who

,u -

9 had not been previously associated with the Comanche Peak in design, in order to restore credibility in the Comanche Peak design itself. We needed more on-project technical leader-

'l 33 l ship and we needed to take firm action to demonstrate the g3 l credibility of TUGCO's ability to maintain the design af ter j; the corrective action programs are comoleted and to safely  !

,3 { operate the plant when an operating licence was given. .

ig To accomplish this, we evolved the Comanche Peak I

g engineering organization from what oreviously existed, which g was an integrated TUGC0 production engineering organization, in into a project organization comcosed of separate architect

} ,

t i 20 engineer-led organizations with soecific scope of work i

- l assigned to each of the architect engineers and a very  !

, i i i  !  !

3 ,, elaborate, complex set of architect engineer interface  !

j

,3  ; orocedures. l 1  !

.,3 , TUGCO engineering itself withdrew from production

-- t  !.

! engineering tasks and assumed the role of a traditional 33 f

. I

14 j l utility engineering organi::ation which exercises design 2 control and which was responsible for coordinating and l

3. ; controlling thoso design interfaces.

4 We transitioned design resoonsibility from the 3 original general architect engineer to a new architect l

6 l engineer not previously associated with the design. We I

organized or otherwise cataloged the many potential design '

i s i asues into 11 packages which could be programmatically 9 l validated, and these packages are what we call the Corrective' in Action Plans that we're going to hear more about today, t 11 The first slide I'm going to show -- and inciden-12 tally, there will be several slides shown today, and copies i

13 of those will be available at the end of the meeting and l I

will be appended to the minutes of the meeting. l 14 15 This slide summarizes the 11 corrective action j

16 l programs, identifies the responsible lead contractor or ,

4 l-i architect engineer. It identifies key milestones associated ,

} l

13 with each plan. As I said earlier, more details of each of j

19 the plans will be discussed by later speakers. .

e i go This slide provides some of the information you I

>  ; . originally asked for, Vince, and the rest of that information i

j ., ,3 will be provided by the end of the month.

33 Now, there are two key products associated with g each Corrective Action Plan that have been causing some i

33 confusion, perhaps, to figure out how they relate to the

15 i formal results reports issued by the CPRT. These reports I 2 are strictly project reports.

3 The first oroduct is what we have been calling a

, generic issues report, and this is basically a summary of 5 ! the issues that relate to that specific design activity.

6 And remember, I said we're assuming that everything is i

accurate, whether it is or not. And then based on that-I S assumption, the GIR then also contains a plan of how we're 9 going to resolve those issues. The GIR is a-summary of the  ;

[o issues as we see them at the time we go to press and the 1

l plan for resolving those issues.

it

• 12 As you see from the slide, nine of the eleven 13 planned GIRs are, in fact, issued. The remaining two we la j expect to get out this month.

15 l The second key product is what we have called a I

j 16 final report. This is a management report, if you will, I

1; It says, Okay, we have executed the olan f ar enough that we I a

! ,s can summarize these findings. These are the conclusions i I 19 ! developed from executing that plan.

i

4

20 I should point out that we do exoect over the 21 course of the project that probably both of those reports i 22 will be revised from time to time. As procedures change, 23 for example, in the generic issues report, we will provide I l

the updated copies of those, such that it has current 3g )

25 l procedures.

! I i l

1

- - - , -m-r .- , ,- , _ _ , , _ . .., , . . - _ . _ , _ _ .. _, _s, , . , , .

16 I I'd like to point out that there is a typo in the i

2 slide: Large bore and small bore pice succorts, not spools.

\

3 ' My quality control --

! MR. BECK: We caught it.

3 MR. MACE: Also, I would expect the final report, 6 like I said -- I would exoect logically that would probably ,

7 I be revised on occasion also because we want to get the final recort on the street as soon as we have a clear enough

~

5 9 i understanding of what the issues really are, and rather than l

10 ; waiting until everything is absolutely finished and set in  ;

11 I: concrete, so we should expect those reoorts to be subject  !

12 ltorevision. But the GIR is the olan, and the final report I  !

13 is the result of executing that plan at the time it is j i

14 issued.

13 , As you'll see later on, each of those CIRs have I.

i 16 : several key object' res, and what we're really trying to do ,

l

' is three-fold in the GIRs.

17 Number one, we're trying to

{'

i i is qualify existing hardware. Number two, where necessary, i

19 i we will modify existing hardware so that it can be qualified.i l 2

20 l In all cases we're essentially using today's standards in l  !*

, 21 ! that qualification. l

?  ! l 22 The third objective of the GIR, the plan inherent j i

23 in the GIR, is to improve our basic orocedures and specifica-l 2 tions such that cast problems, whatever they were, are not f 25 l

repeated during the remaining Unit 1 and Unit 2 construction.l

17 l

1 But over and above that, we're also developing 2 a more comprehensive creventative action, if you will, lessons 3

i learned applications designed to restore confidence in the 4 y credibility and integrity of TUGCO to maintain and operate 5 Comanche Peak units.

' I 6 Our longer-term actions include imoroving our 7 basic engineering organization, staffing the organization 5 ,

with raore experienced personnel, a general ungrading of the I

i 2 9 TUGCO nuclear engineering operations procedures. I 10 ,

It also involves inproved decian control, records 11 management, configurations management, training, new design (

l

/

12 procedures and the development of the internal engineering l 13 4 assurance crogram. .

is i  !

t I i la i Now, with respect to this longer-term TUGCO l3 engineering construction organization, we now number 218  ;

i I I 16 l nersonnel, which is really un from about 50 eight months ago.j i

! g i No exoect to reach a total of anproximately 450, close to l

! t i a 500 peoole.

i '

19 i In addition to that 219 TUGCO personnel right now, i

i l

3) ! it is also imoortant to understand on this job right now  ;

I  :

23 executing the Corrective Action Plans themselves we have a  !-

I i i >>

contractor engineering staff on site of about 2400 norsonnel;;

4  ;

23 off site, about 2,000 corsonnel; about 1900 craft; and l l

3; an additional 1300 on-site sunoort eersonnel. It's a very J 23 l massive effort to undertake these corrective action programs. )

! l

_.___,.I

18 1 Inherent in four of the corrective action programs

• i i 2 llistedunthere,whicharethemorebroaderdiscipline-oriented 3 ! corrective programs, the civil structural, mechanical, i 4 electrical and ILC plans, we have developed a feature which a 5 we have submitted a document to you on describing our design i

i 6 basis consolidation program.  !

7 This is our plan for executing the 100 percent l i validation of the basic discioline design, and it's not -

9 ' covered by the other Corrective Action Plans, and to 10 l essentially bring that design documentation up to. current- l 11 day standards. -

12 What I'd like to do now, unless there are any 13 questions at this point, is turn to -- let me cover testing 14 lalso. I want to do that under -- part of this design basis I

15 consolidation plan is to not only gather up and validate i

i 16 I

all the key design documentation but also to review past -

[ 17 testing on this plan and to validate the cast testing versus i:

h the current design, if you will. That will either confirm  !

5

! 19 I

lthatthetestingwhichhasbeendonethusfarissatisfactory' 20 to still demonstrate the current-day intent of the designer,

, 21 or it will identify additional testing that has to be done.

I i l

1 22 There are some areas we already know need additional testing, 23 such as thermal expansion testing, due to the pipe support j 2-1 work. The penetration replacement will require a lot of J

25 l electrical and control retesting, but the benchmarking of i '

. l l

i,

-- , . - . _ - , .-~.., . -_, _-_----,,--~.~_,,.-,..,.c ,_--,,r.

.m 19 j ; past test orograms with the current validated design is '

, part of that design basis consolidation program.

3 Any other questions?

MR NOONAN: Given this schedule to maintain, when 3

5 do you sue, as far as resumotion of hot function -- what t

I 6 ltimeframe?

- MR. NACE: I would exoect to see a olant heat-up ,

s ;i in the fourth quarter of 19 87. ,

i '

9  ! MR . VOLLME R : Larry, you indicated certain areas that were not covered by this GIR. It seems to cover a lot  ;

10 -

i f the -- most of the areas that we 've had any problems in.

11

' What are some of the areas that are covered differently?

12 i

13 MR. NACE: That covers virtually everything except i

i y what I call the general site environmental geotechnic, areas j 4

where there have been no issues on, and our review of what 33 f

i j

g lexistedat that time didn't reveal any questions either. {

j i j.

But virtually everything else in the olant that you can l gg think of is covered by those plans.

MR. VQLLMER: The second question is: In the i

} ;9 i  !  !

i .'0 lGenericIssuesReportwh;chtalksaboutwhat issueshavebeenj

, i raised in these particular areas, how broad and comprehensivei*

1 i i .,,

j a look was taken at bringing the issues together? In other g  ! words, what did you use as your reference data to identify I

! {

., t

.- j the issues that were included as issues in these reports? ,

.,. l MR. NACE: We have -- third party have a very  !

I  !

20 1 ' comorehensive library, if you will, on a comouter of externall 2 ; and internal issues that have been generated from Tera, ERC, 4

3 I

TRT and Cygna allegations. We have that complete library, 4 and that has been factored into each of the respective plans.

5 i You sc that's what I meant about the complexity l i

6 of what we were faced with this summer because -- let me give{

t i l

7 you a hypothetical case -- this is for the press -- hypotheti 5 cal only. You might be in a position where you're standing 9 in the plant looking at a relief valve, and you have a Tera- !

t to generated issue that questions the sizing of that relief 11 i valve. You have an ERC issue that questions a piece of 12 lqualitycontrolpaperassociatedwiththatreliefvalvo.

i 13 l You have a Cygna issue that questions the adequacy of the l <

14 l supoort that hangs that valve off the wall. And you may

}~

l3 have a TRT issue.itself that questions the adequacy of the i 16 wall. When you multiply that out by the numbers of the

;  ; i

[7 potential issues we were faced with, it became excruciatingly!

I 1 t i p, difficult to solve them on a ciece-by-niece basis. Rather, 19 ;. you'd have to steo back and treat it as if it almost was j i  :

i ;o an initial design process where you were eliminating I

• gi ; uncertainties and nailing things down in a more programmatic, 3 i i 2; j systematic way. j i

23 l So to answer your question, a very, very hard look i 73 at all the internal and external issues relative to the i

25 ' design in the olant.

i l

21 i MR. CHANDLER: Two questions on the same point.

2 One, given the extent to which results recorts have already 3

come out and the status of Tera's work and design, did you a find any areas where you may have had some inconsistent kind 3 of findings between, say, Tera's work and the ERC's work?.

6 i MR. NACE: Not to my knowledge, no. Now, both of I

those programs were statistical-based orograms of investi-I s ' gating. I haven't found anything that I could call inconsis-i 9 l tent. '

i 10  ! MR. CHANDLER: Well, inconsistent, possibly, in ,

. t ij  ! having, say, ERC find hardware-kind of activities acceptable 12 and Tera finding design-related areas unacceptable, or -- .

l 13 The other -- f I

14 MR. MACE: Nothing that would conflict.

15 MR. CHANDLER: -- issue: To what extent has Tora

!, 16 j taken a look at the Generic Issues Report?

I MR. NACE: Good question. I should have brought  !

17 ,

. I I

i is that uo earlier. At the time we submit those two recorts l 1

j 19 i to the staff, thirdpartyhasreviewedandconcurredinthose) -

)

5 2

l e

j t go i recorts. i l I og

~

MR. CHANDLER: So they're at least satisfied that  !-

I, l s

22 the issues identified in the Generic Issues Report capture 1; l the issues that have been raised of their activities.  ;

I .

i i 1

-, g l

~'

i MR. NACE: Yes, j 1

1 23 MR. CHANDLER: And that they also would be saying t

i l

22 i that the plan, if executed, will resolve their concerns.

The corrective action is the acorooriate course of action to be taken, in other words.

3 MR. MILLER: When you talk -- when the presentations are made on the various program areas here, I'd be interested 3

6 i in hearing in the general reviews that are being done in the l

_ I civil structural and mechanical and I&C areas how those  ;

reviews go beyond the reviews that were already done by the ,

3 c third party. To what extent are you going beyond that?

I i

• *

• E" Y' ' # ' '

10 l  ; . I I

was basically a 10 percont -- 20 percent? j I

1, MR. TYLER: Less than 10 percent. 1

)

g MR. NACE: Less than 10 percent cut of the design ,

. .I g on a very scientific sampling basis, a very sound basis. l i The Corrective Action Plans will be a hundred percent valida-  :

l a,  :

4  ; 1

, tion of that design, so whereas you might look at a given I 2 16 i l' 3

ares, if mechanical civil / structural has 75C safety-related I_

.l I 11culations, Ters probably looked at about 75. The ,

a b. -

Corrective Action Plan contractor is going to have to look i g

l at 750 to be able to stend behind those 750 calculations 20 . l or revise them to a point where he can stand behind them ,

~

I i or replace them.

} ..

! MR. MILLER: I assume to some extent there will 23 {

I be a sampling of approach taken, even within this hundred 21 i i percent where you're sampling less than all of the attributesI l

t

23 i of all the cales, in other words, line by line, calc by 2 calc kind of review.

3 MR. NACE: It is a calc by calc, line by line review 4

to determine wnether the calculation satisfies the objective.

3 Now, conceivably, it is cossible to take a look i

I 6 I at a calc, and let's say the objective of the calculation i

7 l was to determine whether a given force was less than six s i kips, and some place in tl.a calc he may have added two

{, .

I 9 i components of a force, two plus two and got five, and 10 ldecideditwassatisfactory.

i In the review of the calculation 11 that review could also decide that even though-two plus 12

! two is four, the results are still satisfactory. Just put l

13 a cover sheet on the calculation rather than revise it. But 14 lheisgoingtolookat100percentofthecalculations.

13 MR. TRAMMELL: I was reading your response.to i

I th Board concerns just recently, which was in a pacer addressing i

i i

17 ; a number of items they brought un about six months ago,- and I'

t

! 15 in that paper you described that the scope of the Design j 19 i Adequacy Program is 100 percent -- the scope was 100 percent --

i l  !

i o l and I read that footnote, I think, or some place in that j gi paper several times to try anc make sure I understood it.

i 33 ; So maybe I could give you an examole to see what your i '

33 lresponsewouldbe.

l l gg l Let's say that Stone and tiebster or whatever is I i

i i 33 i reviewing a design and they get into an area which is i

l 1

l i

l

l 24 l j l absolutely unassailable, they know who did the work, they've i i

2 seen his work. They've gone through his work. And so far 3 .' they haven't found anything. Would there be a point where

you would lay that aside and stoo, or would you go through

~

5 a hundred percent of that? I'm sure you're going to find I i 6

areas that are unassailable.  !

i MR. NACE: There may be areas like that. We have  !

l  :

s not yet set any boundaries as such, but the principal thing i 9 we're trying to strive for here to restore that credibility 10 l in the design is to be able to get a new organization in l -

g; ' here who can say, Yes, I am confident that that design will 12 perform its intended function. So he has to at least test 13 the water on that situation you've described. lie may very 1

g .; ! well reach the point to where he makes the decision you described and can document that decision and stand behind it, 15 j j 16 and we encourage him to do that; but we want him first and

- foremost to be able to stand behind the design.

l 3 MR. TRAMMELL: One other point, if I could -- ,

5 19 . MR. COUNSIL: Vince has, over the last 18 months l 4

i r 20 lorso,admonishedustoimprovecommunications, not only with

,, I f the NRC but obviously with the intervenors, on this docket, -

1  !

i 3.,

! and we have in the last year been striving very much to do 23 lthat. In each of these reports the day I sent out the letter i

21 to Vince transmitting that recort, we attempt that very same 25 day to hand deliver copies of the report and so forth and l

l

25 1 l all orocedures associated with that report how we're going t  ;

2 to carry out such reviews , and within ~that same few days, 3 {asweget them packaged un, we service the entire service 1

list to try to hopefully improve the communications so  ;

5 i everybody knows exactly what we're doing. )

1 6 MR. TRAMMELL: Very worthwhile.  !

7! MR. NOONAN: I think I'll comment a little bit i ,

S about that. We did get a lot of complaints early on from 9 , the intervenors about that problem, and I know recently, 10 speaking to Ms. Ellis, I believe that has improved signifi-11 cantly. That has really helped. ,

12 MR. COUNSIL: We're trying.

13 MR. NOONAN: She now feels that it will come to 11 very quickly.

i i

13 MR. NACE: I'd like to proceed next to more detailed I

16 ! discussion of each of the Corrective Action Plans and John l

[ 17 ' Krechting, our Director of Engineering, will discuss i

i 15 mechanical and the HVAC Corrective Action Plans. I i l j l9 i MR. KRECHTING: I'll start off talking about the  !

1 5 20 mechanical plan. I'll talk a little bit about over the

, 21 source of the issues, the issues that we're going to be

! l i 22 evaluating as part of the mechanical Corrective Action Plan, 23 sources of issues that came from the Design Adequacy Program 24 that was operated by Tora and by the Construction Adequacy 25 Program that was run by ERC.

1

26 I'd like to just briefly give you an idea here

, by title of the major issues that have been identified in

i the GIR that you talked about that have been identified by either Tera or ERC, and I'm going to indicate here in

, l parentheses who the contracting organi::ations or architect 6

engineer is who is responsible for resolving this issue as 7

part of this mechanical Corrective Action Plan.

3

. Now, this particular plan, mechanical one, is ,

9 probably the most complicated from the standpoint of the number of people that are involved, so I think it's important i 10

,3 that we understand that up front and that you have an under-i .y j standing of who's involved resolving the various issues ,

j ),

l i

13 The issues, as you can see, Seismic Qualification  !

y of Seismic Category 1 Equipment. That's Impell's responsi-

i

, bility. Here again, I'd like to emchasize what Larry said. l l l a. I

g In outting together this Corrective Action Plan, we have made!

i i g the assumption that the issues identified by the third party I j

h i are valid, okay? We will, as part of this corrective action l 79 program, determine whether, in fact, they are valid from the

standpoint of are the licensing commitments met and is there g ,

~y !anysafetysignificance, obviously, if the licensing  !.

I '

, j

$ ,, i commitments are not met, we will take the aoprooriate i

.. j

.,~ 3 fcorrectiveactionwithintheprogramitself. ,

} l I High Energy Line Break issues. That's'being 1

I

, , . addressed by Ebasco. I

_a .

27 1 Overpressure Protection cf Safety-Related Pining i

2 and Equipment, Stone and Webstor.

3 Specification of Mechanical Comoonents as Related 4 to Pressure Soundary Integrity, Stone and Webster.

5 Determination of Heat Loads for HVAC Equipment l

6 ; Sizing is Ebasco. ,

1 7 ' Control of Welding Process, Stone and Webster.

i ' Internal and Turbine Missile Evaluation, Ebasco, t ,

9 Fire Protection issues, Impell.

[0 System Design, SNEC. ,

11

' Piping and Configuration, SNEC. I l

12 I I'd like to point out that the bottom three items f l

13 '

are ERC issues.

All the ones above are identified as part  :

I la of the DAP, or Design Adequacy Program. The three bottom 15 ; issues are issues that have been identified as part of the i 16 Construction Adequacy Program of ERC. '

17 MR. NOONAN: Those piping issues: Are those ones f

$ 1s that ERC defined and they were not included in the Stone and 19 Webster pipe and piping support stuff?  !

i *  ! l 20 ; MR. KRECHTING: Yes, they are. They're not relatede l l

l

, 21 to pipe stress and nipe analysis directly, okay? This l*

i l 1 ;2 '

particular one is an issue where they found a full element ,

l 23 that had the arrow -- it was installed in the reverse ji direction from the flow diagram. And also some questions l

25 were raised as to whether certain valves were installed  :

I

28 i in the proper flow direction.

2 This issue here is somewhat related to the pipe 3 l stress. There was a question of during the bending process

of pipiag, had you exceeded the minimum wall criteria that 5 [ was in the specification for the bending. There is certain f

6 1 thinning allowed during the bending process, and there was

- a question as to whether the allowable thinning was exceeded.!

s i So we're addressing that as a soecific issue; one, to I

9 determine whether there was any -- if we did not exceed l

! l go the allowable bending or the wall thinning, then obviously 11j it's not a stress issue because the stress is based on a l

12 given wall thickness.

13 MR. CHANDLER: While you're on that subject, John, j y could you just briefly define the first issue, seismic g3 i qualification?

I 16 { MR. KRECnTING: Yes. Seismic qualification is .

i l l

g- l essentially an issue of documentation.

Is there adequate )

l 4 $

' \

is documentation to justify that we have the seismic qualification

]

i. p) I as required by the licensing commitment. You know, there are i i l A 20 issues in there, but it's basically a documentation issue.

.,- ; So we are doing a review -- Impell in this case is doing a 2

4 2 .,g review of all the seismic qualification documentation to ,

23 ensure that, in fact, the documentation'is adequate to l

l 24 support the design. l i

35 I MR. VOLLMER: Some of the issues up there have t i

i 1

i 29 1 raised in my mind a generic question. When a generic 2 communication comes out of the Commission, let's say, for 3 l example, information dealing with some of these areas, how

.: is that handled in the process? t 5 j MR. NACE: We have a formal procedure within NEO, ,

6 I first of all, of logging the recelot of those, tracking the  !

! action and determining the action necessary as a result of I

i 5 ? a bulletin, circular, notico, and feeding that into the ,

9 i design process. In addition, our contractors also have 10 seoarate company programs of tracking that, so we really 11 cover those in two different ways.

12 MR. VOLLMER: And you get some sort of feedback 13  ;

on that?  !

la MR. NACE: Yes, we do. On that same line, you 13 know, we're also running in parallel -- with all of the i 16 reports we've talked about thus far, we're running in

l l'

I parallel with 5055 E reporting requirements. The collection 17 1

i ;3 of 5055.E preventative action is also included within 4 .  !

! 19 i this nrogrammatic approach to discipline. I i

i i

20 MR. NOONAN: What do you do about the information

, 23 that comes out of the Commission? You said circulars or

? i i  ;; l bulletins, i

23 MR. NACE: Information notices --

>; j MR. NOONAN: Included in that. I l

l 23 MR. KRECHTING: There's not a question these are I

l l

I

__ _ . - , , - _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ . . . - , , -, ._,_._ ._ _. _ . _ . _ _ _ , . . __J

30 the issues that have come out of the third carty review.

. I'd like to go on. He need to talk now about what are our program objectives? What do we want to do widi this corrective action orogram?

As Larry talked about, it really characterizes two a narts of the corrective action orogran. There are soecific issues that we just sau that come out of the third carty, and there is also a hundred cercent validation effort that is being cerformed by the various contractors in the area o to, in fact, ensure that the licensing ecamitments at Comanche Peak are mot.

12 And how that validation is basically being donc

!.! is the lead contractor, whoever is responsible, identifies 11 the licensing commitnents. What are the commitments? What do we have to meet to meet our licensing commitments? We

, then identify the key design carametera, if yo2 will, that ,

l suonort or ensure that we meet those licensing commitments . 1 1

Once he's identified those key carameters, he will then I review, as necessary, the calculations , the design snecs,

.? the drawings, to ensure that, in fact, the olant, the design l

l

.. of the nlant, okay? The documentation sunoorts the design )

l i

.; criteria which, in fact, then succorts the licensing I

commi tme nts .

,, He will then go one sten farther and he will

. assure that what is built out there, what is actually in

31.

the niant, is also reoresentative of the desian so, in fact, 2 we have out there the design to back it un all meets our i licensing commitments.

Now, someone asked a question as to what is the 3 detail? Do you have to review every calculation necessarily ;

6 l to do that?  !!ot necessarily. You have to look at the 7 calculation, but maybe I can give you another example.

S Let's say there was a calculation that was done to allow us i

9 ,l to soecify, to ourchase a pumo, and it had a certain head 1 i

10 l r?quirement and flow requirement as cart of the design. Now, 11 as cart of the testing program, once it's installed out there ,

12 ; and the plar:t has comoleted its testing program, we can go I i 11 ' back and we can determine whether, in fact, that pumo in 5

la that actual system, in fact, delivered the design flow and

, 15 ! head that was required. If it did, that's better than any i

16 calculation. So one would look at that calculation and say, l l

17 I don't nave to look at it line by line, annotate it, put J

i is a ciece of aaper on it, whatever, and say it is verified l i

19 ! by test orocedure such-and-such. '

4 i t i l 20 l So that, in fact, gives you a hundred percent, l

, 21 if you will, in this particular area of validation, but the j

% l l i 22 ' man may not have necessarily had to do a line-by-line review j

23 of the calculation.

1 2 So that is the judgment and the decisions to ensure j 4

23 that we have this hundred cercent evaluation that the ,i

. 1

32

~

1 contractors are-doing and are, in fact, documenting. So 2 there will be documented proof that all these key desian 3 parameters to meet the licensing commitments are, in fact, 4 i satisfied.

I e

5i So that is really the essence of the orogram.

6i Now, we have identified the concerns, or at least 7 ,

we have some concerns, about a third narty. Again, we assume i

S lthattheyarevalid. We will do exactly that same review.

9 We will identify what is the commitment?, what is the design l

10 l criteria?, and we will decide whether that is a valid concern; I  :

11 lasidentifiedbythethirdpartyornot. If it~is, we will i i

12 ! correct it. He '.till identify the concerns. We will identify!

l 13 the corrective action. We will obviously implement the

( ~

\

14 corrective action to make sure the hardware out there either  ;

i f

needs to be modified or replaced to ensure that it does, 15 i ,

t I 16 . in fact, meet licensing criteria and the design criteria. 3

I I

17 ; MR. MILLER: John, let me interrupt. I don't 5  !

1 i ts ' imagine that the second steo you mentioned, which is identify-5 j 19 , ing key design carameters, is identified in your Corrective .

Is l t 20 Action Plans. That's something that is documented as you go ,

I'

, 21 through the reviews. So for us doing inspections, for

?.

> 2; example, we would go and look at your process records, if 23 you will, to see what you have identified as key carameters --

l 24 MR. KRECHTING: Right. You --

1 25 MR. NACE: Let me try to answer that, John. This l I l l

i

33 1 project was started, basically, in ths early to mid-sovanties.

l 2 ! As was the practice at that time, generally the design 3 criteria is reflected in the drawings, soecifications and i 4 project documents. What we're doinc is -- I forget the  !

5 number -- but every design area we are pulling key design 6 criteria out and identifying it in a controlled design 7 criteria document, and we will control that from this coint .

S forward as configuration control. That's part of the effort.

9 MR. MILLER: And that documentation is being 10 developed and would be support for your final results reports; 11 I assume.

12 MR. NACE: Yes. It's also the key link to the l l 1

7 13 past test records that I talked about earlier. We're  !

( l I

. Il relatively far along at this point in time in formalizing 15 those design criteria documents. That's one of the first i 16 things we want to formalize. I  !

, l 17 MR. KRECHTING: Another real key to this program [  !

f 5 l I i IS '

is to now identify the oreventative action, and if, in fact, -

[ 19 we have a oroblem, we want to know why we had that problem, is I 20 we want to correct it so, in fact, it will not happen again.

, 21 So we want to identify the preventative action. That could i

s 22 l be, as Larry mentioned, procedural changes of how we do l I It could, in fact, be specification changes for I

23 l business. l 24 j installation specifications to ensure that the accrocriate '

]

23 l inspection critt_;ia and insoection attributes are part of '

i e

l

34 that soecification. But whatever it is, whatever the concern j

i

,,  ; was or the cause, we will identify that, identify a orevents -

~

3 {tiveactionand,ofcourse, imolement that oreventative action. i That's really key here in my mind because we want 3

t ,

t make sure that, like I said, if there are problems out  ;

6

there and we do identify them, that, in fact, they will not i

i happen again and that we have assurance of that.

! That rolls into, really, what is out long-term  !

9 an as part of the corrective action orogram, and really 10 ,

{ is part of what we', TUGCO, want to do so that we are assured,1 1 .

I 3.,

' once this plan is done and we have this plant licensed, that i l

I we have within our house programs and crocedures to ensure 13

4 that we continue to maintain the plant. So we want to implement a preventative action plan into our own engineering . 1 l a.  ;

l procedures as required to assure the sane or similar problems do not occur again.

I _'

! We also want to develoo -- and, in fact, are in.

h i

i  : the process of doing that -- develonina a strong management ,

,  : 19 ' I t

i j

j ' team and a staff of qualified engineers trained to all the  ;

O 2

aoolicable nrocedures to take advantage of the lessons learned' I

i 21 i I

} t.

1 and to orevent reoccurrence.

22 1 l

.., a, l Larry mentioned numbers in the engineering and

. 6

construction area of 218. A hundred and ninety-four of those Decolo are now in the TUGC0 engineering organization. We i  ;  ;

i 1

I l

I  !

35

are ac',1voly recruiting. Ne are recruiting experienced, ,

2 knowledgeable engineering ceoole. In the last eight months 3 ,

or so we have hireu anoroximately 100 ocoole.  : low, some of those ocoole are clerical, but 50 or 60 exoerienced enaineers 3 into our staff. He have allocations for 350 neocle, and as 6 I said, we are actively in the crocess of hiring exoerienced

- coople.

S So we feel that all this wraoped together, the  ;

9 identifying of the issues, if we have oroblems we will, in l 10 fact, correct them and we will identify why they hapoened.

g, We will establish preventative action programs, and we are 12 l developing experienced staff here so that the lessons we do i

g3 learn from this will, in fact, not hapoen again. I

,; And that's the mechanical Corrective Action Plan.

3 Does anybody have any questions? -

i I'd like to then talk about the HVAC Corrective 16 l g Action Plan. The sources of the issues in the HVAC area l ; ., come essentially from the Design Adequacy Drogran Tora- ,

i g9 , sconsored effort.

I l

! 'O Now, what you saw in the last slide is, you saw

.33

!somethingthatwascalledliVACheat load calculations, and 4 i 3

we said it was going to be done by Ebasco. Well, it's 33 going to be done within this program. There are two issues

here. There is the issue of duct sunoort and duct design.

,3 lTheseissues, again, are essentially focused on analysis and

36 1 the design assumntions and methodologies used in the 2 '

analysis, control of design documents and differences between 3 the as-designed and as-built duct systems. This effort is

-1 the resoonsibility of Ebasco. Ebasco is, in fact, the 5 organi::ation that is addressing these issues.

6 The second part of it is INAC system functional  !

7 design. This would be the functional design of the INAC i

i ! systems, be they required flow rate, heat load, heat removal i i 9 !capacityoftheequipment. And for this carticular issue, i

10 i the issues again that have been raised by the third party l l l 11 l are centered along the assumotions used within the calculatichs, 12 imoroper or incorrect use of inputs, incomolete inventory 13 of heat load sources, inaccurate imolementation of calculatiori 14 lresultsintoequipment specs.

15 Again, I emphasi::e that we have assumed that these

,, i

! 16 're correct eithin our corrective action program. So these ,

i I 17 are the issues that have been raised by the third earty. He j i,  !

h will, in fact, determine whether they are valid in relation-I 19 j shin to the design criteria and the licensing commitments

, l I

~

20 j at Comanche Peak.

I l

, 21 MR. CHANDLER: When you say you're assuming they're I 22 correct and then you're going to investigate whether they are j .

l l 23 correct, I assume you're saying you're taking it as a given 21 that someone has raised an iseue. Whether or not it's valid 25 lornot is something you will determine. '

37 1 MR. KRECHTING: Ycs, that's correct. Of' course, 4

2 f the third party issues, they have to concur with the final 3 resolution and agree that, in fact, it is or is not an issue.

i similar to what we talked about in the mechanical 5 orrective action program, really two parts. There are 6 tae issues. We're going to look at those. And there is,  !

7 again, the hundred percent validation, if you will, of the 3 l design to, in fact, convince ourselves and assure ourselves ,

I 9 that there are no areas out there where we do not meet our 10 licensing commitments.  !

11 Now, for the ducts and the duct supports, right 12 now we are in a hundred percent verification of the seismic 13 Category 1 HVAC ducts and duct succorts for Unit one to

'l 14 ensure that, in fact, we meet the licensing commitments. ,

i 15 That is in process. Every succort is being reviewed in this l l

}

16 lparticularcasebyEbasco.Wewill, in fact, assure ourselves i

17 that the supports do meet the licensing commitments.

1 i is Ue will then also cerform the hundred cercent -- -

2

{ 19 . load i

t

} also, we are per. forming a hundred cercent as-built heat 20 ! calculations for all HVAC systems that orovide cooling for 4

, 21 safety-related equipment. Now, this is cart of the overall

?

i 22 hundred cercent validation of the HVAC functional aspects.

2.1 They are looking at all the heat load calculations based j I

21 on the as-built equipment that is out there in the plant, ,l i

25 calculating the heat loads and veritying the functional design  ;

l l

- - - . - - _ . _ - . _ _ - . . _ . . . , _ - . , _ , - . . ,- , -i

38 -

i of the systems.

I Again, as we talked about in the mechanical 3

3 ; correctiva action orogram, once we identify any concerns --

a concern here, again, being, Is there a situation where, 5

in fact, the licensing commitments are not met? -- we will 6 identify the corrective action, we will implement that l 1

l corrective action and, again, identify any preventative {

S action and implement that preventative action so, in fact, i

! i 9 if there are problems, they will not occur again. i L ng term plan. Here again, it is very similar.

10 t 33 j You'll see it in all these corrective action programs; we gg talk about it. The long term plan is, again, just to assure 13 through the procedures, specifications, training end staffing 34 with trained and experienced ecoole that, in fact, we will i not have -- in fact, if we identify any problems, that they l a.  ;

I 16 l will not hapoen again.

l t g Any questions in the HVAC area? i l MR. 11 ACE: John, I'd like to take a break at this n ,

I l 19 ; point in time. He'll take a 15-minute break and come back i i

} 'O and assume the agenda.

i l (A break was taken.)

I  !

i g ; MR. IIACE: I'd like to resume. Ne'll return to 1

3

~3

the agenda. There was an omission on the agenda that we

! I g ; passed out. It will be corrected on the record copy of the l i I 3 agenda.

e j

i

39 i

1 The next item to discuss is the civil / structural 2  ; Corrective Action Plan, and that will be done by Mr. Owen 3 i Lowe. Mr. Lowe is the manager of civil and manager of 4 mechanical engineering.

5 MR. LOWE: The civil / structural program is the  ;

I 6 i first one I'll address. The sources of the civil / structural i l

7 , issues are primarily the Design Adequacy Program, with some 5 . contribution from the Construction Adequacy Program and the  ;

9 TRT exercises, as well.

10 I won't read off this whole list, but the way we 11 structured the olan provides 100 cercent validation of all 12 of'the civil / structural design issues packaged in this way l

13 for purooses of consolidating and making sure that we cover j 14 all of the individual issues in a comorehensive way, i

15 The apcroach to the program is very similar to l I

16 i what was described for the mechanical Corrective Action Plan )

I l

17 i in that Stone and Webster is providing a review of all of i i

I

, t l i

is the existing Category 1 calculations -- and there are about l f 19 2500 of those calculations -- on a systematic basis, and l 2 l I 20 Will either endorse, amend or replace those calculations. l l

, 21 MR. CilANDLER: When you use terms such as validation l f

i 22 and review, can you define those terms?

I I

23 MR. LONE: I'm not trying to use those in a specific 24 way. Validation is, in my mind, a review of a calculation i

25 ! and taking whatever necessary steos there are to understand '

40 1 l the content of it and feel comfortable with it or, in fact, l

.t .

2 : create a new calculation, if that's necessary.

3 MR. CliANDLER: Before we were talking, you mentioned e

4 a hundred cercent validation, and now with your understanding:

3 4 of that term, does that mean, then, that you're going to be  ;

.i <

6 l going back and reviewing a hundred percent of all calculations?

I l

7 MR. LOUE: Yes.  !

4 3 MR. TRAMMELL: Another question, just to be cleat 9

l on this point:

You used the ohrase just a moment ago, I i

10 l "hundred percent validation of design issues," and I want to i

11 make sure I'm clear in my mind that we're not talking about 12 just the issues but a hundred percent of the design.

13 MR. LONE: I should have stopped before "issues";

\

14 lhundredpercentofthedesign.

i

),

15 MR. TRAMMELL: Thank you. '

i  ;

.i i 16 MR. VOLLMER: I have another generic question here t

, i l

[ 17 lwhichcerhapsLarrywillwant to answer. The questian is:

i l 3

i is ' As we go through this process and you raise or find an j 19 ; issue which may have some real significance, how do we get --

3  !

2

20 how does that get fed into our orocess?

i 21 l MR. NACE: First of all, we're obliged under 5055.E --

^

^

3 23 MR. VOLLMER: I understand that.

t 23 MR. MACE : -- to keen you inforuod on those issues i 2; which relate to those types of deficiencies. He have been 23 using a rather liberal policy of keeping you informed. That i

41 1 is the only prescribed way that we have thus far.

2l MR. VOLLMER: How does that haonen? Can you give 3

me an examole? If you find something which you think has a some significance since, again, our crocess, we're using 3 resources instead of planning for the review process, so l

6 j there may be some soecific project -- croblems. There may i

7 be some more generic problems. How quickly do we get on 5 board for those?

l 9 MR. NACE: The potential 5055 ds we are kecoing 10 j you infermed as they develop, within essentially a two-week 11 period. And I think Vince will contirm the record that we

(

12 l have a substantial number of open ootential reportable i

13 l items that we have not yet put to bed with resoect to are 14 or are not really reportable. So that's what I meant by i

15 j liberal reporting. We're trying to keep you infortaed as the i

I 16 issues develon; those that could conceivably have safety 17 significance in the plant.  !

i l i is MR. COUNSIL: Jimmy Barker has the number that we

10 ,

submitted in 1986, i l

20 } MR. BARKER: Yes, Dick. No submitted during 1986

, 21 83 items that we categorized as potentially reportable under i ,

i 22 l5055.E, and of these 33 we evaluated 21 to be recortable 23 , under the Regulation 5055.E. We've evaluated 25 not to be 24 reportable under 5055.E, and we're still evaluating 40 more.

23 MR. VOLLtER: Were these 30 or so -- these were

42 i

i submitted to us as cotential?

' '!R . 3ARKER: Yes.

3 ,

MR. VOLLMER: That really answers my question about --

4 MR. NOONAN: I was going to maybe ask Ian to talk 5 I to us about how the 5055.Es are handled on our side of the i

i 6 ! fence, how you keep track of then.

I l 7 MR. BARNES: We have our own tracking system out or.l S a computer. We hand then out for follow-up inspection and ,

9 track the items separately by applicable unit. He also 10 l notify URC staff by putting them in our daily recorts.

11 MR NOONAN: Ne get cooies of all the 5055.Es that 12 come in our office. j 13 MR. MILLER: Essentially, the way you're describing 11 the SNEC review constitutes another third-party review, l i

15 if you will. In other words, Tera has passed through this, t

I 16 l through the design, on a 10-percent basis, and what you're f

, i i

17 saying is that SNEC is going through it again. j i i i

i 15 MR. NACE: Mell, yes. The third party -- there's e .

19 been third, fourth, fifth and sixth parties and --  !

l i  :

20 MR. MILLER: But it's another --

, 21 MR. NACE: -- there are a lot of Decole reviewing i i  !

2 22 ldesignorreviewingtheplantandraisingquestions. This l i i 23 ! is an exercise to assume anything that's been raised in the l

21 l past is valid, systematically resolved that issue, and 25 meanwhile look at the rest of it and fix it. This is ,

v - = y r. n>- - - * .

r y , ,- , - - r -.- v v ,,

l l

43 1 differant than a reviewer.  :

I i

2 I MR. MILLER: My next question is: I know you're l i I 3

only part way through this now, but have you found significant I 4 things -- has SWEC in this expanded review, if you will, 5 ,

found additional things of significance? Tera found many i

6 ; things that documented them in the DIRs, and the question t

{

I I i 7 lis: Are you finding anything new, or is it repetition of f i

S things that were already identified on a general basis in 9 i the reviews by Tera?  !

10 MR. NACE: There has'been nothing new discovered 'l l

11 as a result of kicking off the corrective action programs 12 that we have not already known about as an issue at this 13 point in time. I would caution you that the effort has 14 l really only been a hundred percent of it, if you will, for 15 about two months now. There has been no new 5055.E potentials, i 16 , if you will, identified thus far in the Corrective Action Plan 17 program reviews.

i i 15 We have got to take some confidence that because i i -

j 19 l of the multitude of people who have been reviewing the designs

!  ! (

i 20 in the past -- whether it's Tera, ERC through the hardware, '

I

, 21 lCygna,whatever--we'vegottotakeafairdegreeof

$ 1 2

22 confidence that the vast majority of the issues in the plant l 23 are already on the table.

2: Now we have to resolve them. We want to resolve  ;

25 ! them in a manner in which our credibility and our integrity I .

I

44 i

1 are --

2 j' MR. NOONAN: I might add, looking at your schedule, 1 l the way things are nrogressing right now -- in fact, schedules 4 are really being maintained pretty well. By soring of this 5 : year you .9hould have a pretty good handle on any new issues --

I i 6  ! MR. NACE: Yes, f l  !

7l MR. NOONAN: -- I would think, justlooking'atwhatl l

S l I see on my side. l 1 i

' I 9l MR. NACE: Yes.  !

10 MR. TRAMMELL: Owen, let me interrunt just a second' 11 before you leave that. Even though you're showing me an 12 identification of issues here that came from some source, 13 that is not all you're looking at in your civil / structural.

la That's the impression you get when you look at these little 15 slides. These are the issues and what you're going to do,

? 16 but you're going to do a lot more than that.  !

i 1

-4 17 MR. OMEN: What you can characterize this list as

. i i is is a convenient packaging of all the issues, and any issues f 19 l that we find will fit into one of these slides. The 1 I

r 20 l Corrective Action Dlan is connrehensive. Mith a counle of

, 21 excentions that Larry mentioned earlier, this is a very

?

i 22 comorehensive review of the civil / structural arena, j 23 MR. NACE: And if in the crocess of review we find l

21 something that won't fit into oz.e of those buckets, we will 25 l create another bucket. 1

45

! MR. LONE: The objectives of the orogram, similar i

2  ; to the mechanical in carticular and other programs as well, 3 the key is the identification of.the~ concerns and establish-4 ment of the corrective action in the short term. Corrective-5 '

actions in my mind already matured, both' hardware and I l

6 procedures, nake inmediate changes to make corrections of j 7 l the discreoancies we find, and then to go on ahead and develoo l

5 and refine our crocedures in the short term, such that we 9 ; will not make the same errors t;.at we have found that orevent to j any further development or promulgation of the situations i

11 ; that we find.

12 MR. CHANDLER: Excuse me just a moment. Both you 13 and John before you have on the Program Objectives in the

.\

11 second sub-bullet there, Identify Corrective Action. Am I 15 correct, thouch, in understanding that as cart of that you i

i 16 I will be doing a safety significance evaluation of the concern 17 } identified under the first bullet?

I 3

z (

I 18 ' MR. LOME: Yes. i f 19 MR. Cl!ANDLER: And that you could --

t

! 20 i MR. NACE: If I could interruct. By law, under

, 21 5055.E we're required to do it, and that's exactly what we'll i

1 22 do.

23 MR. CHANDLER: Right. When you come down to the 24 corrective action under the second sub-bullet, you cottid, if 23 you decide that there is no safety significance, determine

.. , , , m--- , -

v -,.r ,,,,--r --,----.,----,+-..-.,.f. - , - . - , , - ~ - - - . - - + - + - + , --e.~ =  % - < - , , - * -

k 46 1 not to initiate corrective action. He said with a question i

2 mark.

3 MR. NACE: I find it very difficult to find an 6 example of identifying the need to fix something and not doing 5 : it, i i i i 6 MR. CHANDLER: You first have to pass the 5055.E {

l I 7

threshold then? i I

5j MR. COUNSIL: There are instances where we have i

I 9 i not had a recortable incident, let's say, as far as a weld  !

10 i as an examole. It was not safety significant; however, in 11 our internal reviews with our contractors and so forth, there i

12 were better ways in which to exoress the specification of that

, 13 j weld, such that any remaining question in the future could i

14 j be eliminated. And we have, in fact,done that, and we are i

15 j doing th-:t in numerous areas where we are specifying a change I 16 i to a spec, or whatever, even though there was nothing safety

[ 17 significant, i

• i is MR. CHANDLER: Let me turn it around a little Pit ,

2 l 19 ,

differently. The first major bullet savs Meets the Licensing )

i I a l

20 Commitments. If you found sonething that did not meet a '

, 21 j licensing commitment but was not safety significant --

I

? '

3 22 MR. COUNSIL: I don't think there's any such guy.

23 I'd be hard oressed to find an examole of that.

24 MR. CHANDLER: Well, the example that Larry Nace 25 gave earlier, which was if somebody processed from two and

47 I two and came up with five, you could still possibly slap 2 a cover sheet, I think was the'way you out it, on the package I

3 I and say, "For the followine reasons, this is nonetheless 4 accentable."

5 i MR. NACE: That's true. But at that ooint you're l

6 lnotintoasafety-significantsituation. I orefaced it. I ,

l 7 4 said the objective of the calc was to orove that the combina-I 3 l tion ot' two loads was less than six.

No added two and two

.I 9

landgot five and said, yeah, it's okay. It should have been 10 four, but it's still okay. So that would not be -- it would.j That act by 'itself would not 11 not have safety significance.

12 be a.5055.E reportable deficiency, but it's part of the 13 necessary exercise of restoring the design documentation 14 to validate, if you will, the physical plant. .

I l5 i MR. CHANDLER: So my misuse of the term safety j I 16 significance, really. I understand.

- 1 l

,' 17 ' MR. TRAMMELL: So uhat I heard from this is when l 7

l i 15 we're Lll through with this process, the PSAR and the olant 19 are going to aorce with each other.

f 20 ,

MR. NACE: And the design documentation, yes, sir.

, 21 MR. COUNSIL: And you will have assurance that we will continue to do that #or the next 40 years with the I 22 23 configuration management that we are develooing as a result 24 of this entire process, 2.2 . .iR. ONEN: And for our other orograms, as John l

40 g

described, our long-term plan is to ensure that we have i i

! imolemented oreventative action into TUGCO's engineering ,

i crocedures and to develop those new procedures or enhance 3

)

crocedures that exist to ensure that we don't have recurrence-l 3

of problems that have been found and corrected, and also to i i 6 develop a qualified staff, as we have discussed in the j j

- l orevious subjects.

i 3l i MR. TRAMMELL: One question. You have issued your j

l .

9 { final report on large bore oipe succorts, your comoany has, l I 10 - and yet you're doing a civil / structural review. Should I gi hold my breath while you're doing your work, or what should I g .y do with that final recort on large bore pipe supports?

13 MR. LOWE: You should proceed with confidence to y review the reports on large bore pipe supports on the

! assumotion that we have done some up-front work in the 15 I 16 civil / structural arena to assure ourselves that we are

!  ;- l oroceeding properly in the pine stress and oice suncort arena.

; I l gg f MR. NACE: Can you put that in the category of i gg  ! high confidence?, I

i l 20 MR. TRAMMELL: I think that's in the report to some!

.~ , ,

degree. I haven't reviewed it that thoroughly. l 3  : 1 I

MR. LOWE: Socaking of oipe and pipe supports, l

1

,3.3 I let's talk about the Corrective Action Plan there. . Sources i

.g cf the issues for the oipe stress and cipe supports are l

.a

,. : external, including NRC and Cygna, and the Design Adequacy l

49

[ , Program and Construction Adequacy Program. i g f You car. categorize tha issues really in general 3

terms as affecting pipe stress calculations, nice succort 4

design and oice succort installations. .An examole of the 5 ,

oice stress calculation would be the question of whether ,

1  !

6 l procer damoing was used and also several issues on assumotiond 7 l and methods used during the analysis. Pipe suoport design, i

s I correct use of a pipe support comoonent, is an example of the 9 kind of issue raised. And an installation. question might be

!, i 10 i raised in terms of a welding configuration or the question of' l

it an as-built versus as-designed pipe suoport. _

12 The objectives as for the other orograms are to 13 i identify the cotcerns, imolement corrective action to qualify la the hardware by review of the hardware. In pipe stress and 15 pipe supports, in carticular, we're talking 100 percent review.

j-16 lIfthehardwarecanbequalifiedbyreviewandreworkofthe l 17

! calculation, it is. If it can't be qualified under the .

l

!t l 1 i exoanded rule that we're working with, it will be replaced.

is j 19 i The preventative action is similar to previous i l '

1 programs in that we will identify and change procedures as t

i  !

go l

~g

, necessary to avoid repetition of orevious problems found.

1, I i 33 l Long Term: We intend to make full use of SWEC's 33 good work in develooing procedures for pipe stress and pine 24 sup orts and to roll many of the detailed procedures that 33 Stone and Webster has developed into our TUGCO program for

50 j ,

long-term use, and also to develon our own staff canable

of carrrying on and supporting the clant in the area of oico ,

3 ! stress and pine supports.

If there are no questions on pipe stress and pine 3 suoports, I'll go on to' cable tray supoorts, i

6 MR. VOLUiER: In that area do we -- this work is ,

1 l proceeding under the original 1.icensing commitment, i.e.,  !

s i damoing, things like that. You've not found the need to try l I

i 9 ltoutilizesomeofthemorerecentcodecasesanddamping i

10 and inspecting the rods and things like that? It's just a g3 question.

g3 MR. IJACE : Let me refer that question to Ed Siskin 13 of Stone and Webster. Generally we're using and have been g4 ,

using the original requirements. We have requested and l a_

- TUGCO has gotten NRC approval to make a number of changes j

1 j 16 i to reflect more recent requirements. One of the changes that i

3 was approved was the use of some more recent code cases, i '

i g Another requirement was levied uoon TUGCO unless we identified g those cases where they are used. There is another example i

i 20 ! where we are using a more recent code case, as well, and 11RC I

is aware of it as are third party and so on. There were i .,; !

~

{ . l some ambiguities in the original codes where techniques to g3 be used were not specified where there was a subsequent code change or code case where an aacentable link was defined,

.a3 we've used that one to avoid any potential confusion or l I

51

concern. But as we said originally and as Mr. Counsil has 2 continued to detail, we're doing it to the original acoroved 3 FSAR. Where there is any variation, ue are requesting and 4 getting an accroval before we proceed.

3 . !R . MILLER: Is there any way to briefly characterize 1

6 l the degree to which you will have to make hardwa*e changes in this area? If not, you can say so.

5 MR. NACE: Just talkine about the large bore pioe 9 supports on Unit No. 1, there are on the order of magnitude 10 of 10,000 supoorts in that ponulation. The current projection

~

gi is to make approximately 4100 design changes to that population I t 12 of 10,000.

l

[3 There is an additional issue relative to shimming f

i y loftheboxframes,whichwearemaintainingtheoriginal i

15 criteria and we are reinspecting and reshimming as necessary .

16 l the box frame supoorts. I can't remember how many of those

- are large bore in Unit 1.

! [s , Dick, do you remember?

p) MR. CAMP: I can't recall the number. 4 20 MR. NACE: On the order of magnitude of 15007 Is 25 that reasonably close?

i

?

3 33 MR . CAMP : Yes. ,

23 , MR. N ACE : 1700 box springs in Unit 1. Those are being reinsoected and reworked as necessary to conform to 33 25 the original criteria.

~_ _. __ _ - , _ _ _ - . . . _

52 1 MR. LOWE: We should coint out, Larry, that some >

{

2 of those changes are not as a result of design deficiencies-3 but are to provide more efficient sunoorting systems for us ,

4 I over the life of the plant.

5 MR. MILLER: Did you have some numbers on the small.

6 bore?

I 7l MR. NACE: I don't have them with me. If you would; i

5 3 refer to the most recent update of the 5055.E, it has a i I

i 9 ! current status on it.

i I don't have them with me. 4 10 MR. LOWE: The next subject I'd like to address 11 is cable tray supports. The source of issues here are 12 External (Cygna, NRC, Audits), and the CPRT and the Design 13 and Construction Adequacy Programs.

14 The issues here involve the cable trays themselves, 15 generic supports, unique or special supoort designs and 1

i 16 some specific technical issues. I I

17 l I can characterize the issues in terms of application I

i is of loads, interpretation of how loads should be apolied, 5 l l 19 questions on soe'cific use of cable tray components and methods

• I 1

2 I

20 of analysis and design.

i

, 21 ! Program objectives, similar to the other programs, j

?, I i 22 ! are to identify any of the concerns in hardware deficiencies, 23 to implement corrective action to make those hardware 1

2t !deficienciesrightandtoensurethat in the future similar i

25 hardware installations will be done procerly. That is the

53 I short term preventative action.

2 Cable Tray Sur: arts. Followina.our civil / structural l

i 3 ' arena, as far as TUGCO goes, we are enhancing our TUGCO l

i 4 ,

procedures in the civil / structural area to put ourselves in i

5 - the position of preventing future problems. And we are ,

6 also staffing up in the civil / structural area to have a l t

7 capability in-house in our engineering department to continue !

i i S j in support of the plant.  ;

I l 9 Moving on to conduit suonorts, sources are similar:i 10 Cygna external is the primary source of the external issues.

11 We have also developed some issues from our internal review 12 and also third party in the form of the Construction Adequacy  ;

1 13 Program and Design Adequacy Program. The kinds of issues 1 14 involved here are conduit spans, the qualification and 15 application of the ger support designs and also the  ! l I

l 16 supports that have unique one-time applications. f l '

• l 17 Examples of specific technical issues are those j i

i i 18 typical of the civil / structural arena, application of loads, a t l 19 interpretation o'f lead combinations, use of catalog components, '

t i i and for the spans themselves, the oroper apolication of span j

~

20 j 21 , lengths.

5 22 This program can be characterized, I think, as a 23 validation of the existing criteria, a comolete and thorough .

24 review of the criteria documents used to do the original l 25 installations and a very careful review of exceptions to thoso

54 I

1 , original design criteria such that we know coupletely what 2

j the impact of any change to those criteria might have been. >

I  :

3 ' The supcorts in particular that are affected by I  ;

4 changes to the criteria resulting fron our review are looked 5 '

at on an individual basis, and the as' installed configuration {

i i 6 ' is compared to whatever revised design rules we may have i i

7 : developed.

I 5 l MR. MILLER: Your design basis consolidation 9 program calls, I think, for the creation of these design I

10 validation packages, 7. guess. These are complete; is that 11 .right? These are -- as I read the plan, unless I didn't read l

12 it right -- it sounded as if that was the first step in the --

13 I MR. MACE: Let me answer that. This is a separate i

14 Corrective Action Plan. It got under way before the discipline i

i 15 plans. This pla: 4 results in the packages of design information I I t, It would be 4 l relative to each of the supports and systems.

17

I an adjunct to the design validation packages you're talking a I.

i 15 about, but not necessarily an integral part of it. It's a  !

i l z

} 19 I supporting set o'f documentation that qualifies the hardware 1 l

• t I

20 in the plant.

, 21 1 MR. MILLER: So that would apply to the mechanical, I

?

5 22 l the civil / structural and the electrical I&C discipline reviews 23 that you're doing.

24 And the timing of that would be when? Those would 25 l be completed as the first sten in the review of those areas?

55 l l

1 MR. NACE: In the DVPs?

2  ; MR. MILLER: Right.

1 I

3l MR. NACE: The packages are created in the crocess i

3 of the review, such that at the time you've finished the 5 review you're given a system, if you will. You have a 6 package.

f' 7 MR. MILLER: I see, and they come together at that l j 3 i point.

i 9 MR. NACE: That process is described in the .! i i l 10 l

enclosure to the civil / structural Corrective Action Plan 11 involving the design basis consolidation program. That 12 program applies to civil / structural, mechanical, electrical 13 and I&C. The other programs are more specific in nature )

14 but do oroduce the package of the design information that l l

15 j qualifies the final hardware configuration in the plant, i

'2 16 and it is all used as a basis of configuration control and

I 17 design control from that point forward. I I

i 15 MR. LOWE: Similar to the other programs, short-ter$

5 l

j 19 goals are to ide'ntify any of the concerns and initiate i

I 20 immediate corrective action, and also short term to revise

, 21 whatever procedures are necessary to ensure that the installa-i l 3 22 tions as they are continuing do not repeat past deviations. l 23 In particular, in the conduit support program, 21 conduit installation program, many of the lessons learned 25 on Unit 1 have been applied to the Unit 2 program.

56 1I The long term olan is similar to that of other l

2 l programs, as well, in that we are working the revised crocedures 3 l into our discipline specific procedures within TUCCO engineering, I

4 ! and that we are staffing up with qualified people to address i

3 conduits and conduit supports.

6 If there are no.further questions, we will go on j i

7 to electrical. ,

1 Sl MR. COUNSIL: Before you start, I would like to  :

9 just acknowledge one thing that we did not put on the slide.

l 10 The slides obviously are very limited, but up front where we 11 say where the issues were identified, so on and so forth, 12 we have only listed those that gave the most issues, if you  ;

i 13 will, and I would like to acknowledge that CASE has given la us a number of issues and they're all listed in the generic 15 technical issues report. Whether it came from Mrs. Ellis, I 16 ' CASE, Halsh-Doyle or whomever, they are referenced and i what transcript it came from, so on and so forth. We're 17 1

! Is i going to cover them and answer them all.

5 l 1 19 Mr. Boltz, I wanted to make sure you understood i

2

20 that.

, 21 MR. NOONAN: I guess I have one question before 4

i 22 you leave. One thing at NRC we felt is very important is 23 for the Walsh-Doyle people to sit with the Utility and the 24 Stone and Uebster people, and I guess I'd like to know what 25 the latest status on that is.  ;

I

57 1 MR. COUNSIL: I'll take that. As a matter of 2 fact, I just talked a little bit about it on the break.

l 3 : We have made such an offer. It's difficult, because I a understand both Mr. Walsh and Mr. Doyle are working and 5 they're in the New England states. He have offered at any ,

6 time to meet any day except on Christmas Day. That includes 7 holidays, weekends, any time. And we have also offered to S , pay for their transport here. And Stone and Webster,-Ebasco, i

9 so forth, and us, we are standing by, and hopefully at some 10 future date, we will be able to hopefully resolve many of 11 these issues before going to the ASLP for resolution. ,

i 12 MR. TRAMMELL: One other point of clarification, )

,- 13 since something Owen said brought this to mind. Does a I 14 Corrective Action Plan apply equally to both units?

15 MR. NACE: Yes.

I I 16  ! MR. TRAMMELL: So it's not a good look at Unit 1

1 i

! 17 ! and see what you need to do to Unit 2. You're looking at i !3 both units.

5 l l9 MR. COUNSIL: We're looking at both units, right.

s i

I 20 MR. CHANDLER: Is there a process, a formal listed 21 in place to assure that what needs to be carried 4

l process, 4

22  ! from Unit 1 to Unit 2 and vice versa is accomplished?

l 23 I MR. NACE: Part of the corrective action program 33 is to do the necessary reviews of Unit 1 and to carry those 23 ! lessons learned into Unit 2. There is a -- defined activities I  !

58 1 ' in Unit 2's schedule to confirm that all the necessary 2 , preventative actions in Unit 2 programs have been initiated i

3 i and implemented.

t 4 ,

So the answer is yes.

5 MR. CHANDLER: Does it account for differences in 6 Unit 2 from Unit l? I 7 MR. NACE: Yes, it does, and there are some key ,

i 5 ; differences. An examole beina -- I guess the best example 9 being in the conduit program. Unit 1 was originally a field la run program, and Unit 2 was engineered from the start. So 11 in implementing the plan, we deal with those differences, 12 but the end result is you apoly the plan to both programs 13 and end up with qualified hardware.

14 MR. CHANDLER: And when the CPRT signs of f on the l

15 corrective action program, those matters are accounted for. i i

} 16 MR. NACE: Yes.

i 17 MR. TRAMMELL: Owen, I have one more question.

$ Is Can I take one more? As I was leaving the office yesterday, l I

19 I saw on my desk'a paper which I didn't bring with me and  ;

< i

! 20 haven'treadhavingtodowithfactorsofsafetyorsomethingl l

21 like that on concrete expansion anchor bolts. I don't know l

i

? i 3

23 what it is. Is this something that you'd like to highlight j i

23 as something we need to direct our attention to, or something' 24 that -- I don't know what it is. Is it something that you'd j .

25 like to discuss?

59 1

MR. NACE: Do you know what the paper was, Charlie?'

2! MR. TRAMMELL: It had something to do wi?,." concrete '

i 3 lexpansionanchorbolts.

4 MR. CHANDLER: Uas it Comanche Peak?

5 MR. TRAMMELL: If you doa't know what it is, forget 6 l it. It must not be very important, but I'll read it when I l l

I 7 -

l get back. 1 1

Sl MR. LOWE: Let me just make a general statement l

?

9 ! on concrete expansion anchor bolts. As you know, there has 1

10 lbeenconsiderableactivityintheindustryonexpansion -

I 11 . anchor bolts. What you saw may have been part-of that 12 activity.

13 MR. COUUSIL: You asked how we're addressing others, 14 so -- there was a review done on the Susquehanah plant on 15 Hilti bolts where I believe Susquehanah had done some i 16 testing on Hilti bolts and found out the factors of safety

\ \

[ 17 lasspecifiedbyHiltiaredifferent than the actual con- ,

i  ! l i is figurations. We are addressing that, and I believe that was

' I l i

} 19 lsubmittedasa5055.EinreferencetoPart1fromSusquehanahi j i )

20 MR. NACE: It is a potential 5055.E on our docket l

, 21 , right now.

? I 2

22 l Mr. Peter Stevens, manager of electrical engineering, 4 23 will address the remaining Corrective Action Plans.

24 MR. STEVENS: I'd like to start with the electricali i I 25 lCorrectiveActionPlanandthesourcesof,thoseissues.

i

, _ _ _ _ _ . ~ , _ _ . _ _ _ . . - . . , _ . _ . _ _ .__,. _ ,, _ - - ._. _ . _ _ _ , __ _

60 1 The sources of the issues are much like all of 2 i those other programs you've creviously heard about: The I

Design Adequacy-Program by Tera, the Construction Adequacy 4 Program by ERC and such external sources as the NRC, the TRT, l

5 Cygna, INPO, which is an industry organization that has [

i i

6 j helped us find some, and we have also found some ourselves.

7 lI In identifying an issue, we might expand that review to ,

5 lencompassotherareas that we're wondering whether we're  ;

I 9 comfortable with those, and we've identified some of those 10 . other issues. -

11 The issues: There is a list of them there. I have i

12 tried to categorize them and put them in certain areas so 13 they can -- that is not the number of times we saw something 14 l come up. It's not the soecific issue. It's the general I

15 ; area. There's calculations adequacy that deals with i 16 l assumptions and references, inputs, criteria, methodology, I

! 17 landtheaccuracyandverificationofthosecalculations i  !

i is at the end.

4 . I i 19 >

Electrical Separation: That whole area deals with j

! 20 the adequacy of the criteria, and it's not necessarily 4

, 21 whether the criteria itself is adequate but how we disolayed

? l 5

22 lthatinadesigndocument, and I think that's shown in 23 Bulletin 3 under the adequacy criteria design details and 24 the design and/or as-built discrepancies. That's those in-25 spection discrepancies we find do not meet the criteria that

G1 1 i we previously set out. Those are ERC hardware-type related 2 ; issues.

l The installation seccification: Ue've taken a look-3{

.; at the specification, and we're trying to make sure that it 3 , really deals with all of those areas that we need to deal  ;

I 6 i with presently, and that is that we have the proper design, t

7 . we have the insocction criteria and we have those attributes !

i s that they need to inspect.  !

9 The heat shrinkable tubing: That was mentioned g) earlier. That's one of the ISAPs, both in documentation 11 and physical inspection.

p2 The electrical butt splices adequacy: That is one 13 of the ISAPs also.

5 11 Class lE lighting: We are doing -- presently we l

g lneedtolookatthefaultanalysisclassificationofthe i

j 16 lClasslE lighting and installation and workmanship, and that i

17 comes out of ERC.

i i n Just so we're clear on this, some of those issues 19 go beyond just ERC ISAPs. They may have come up from the --

i r 20 MR. CHANDLER: Yes, ISAP is ERC. TRC is hardware-3; frelatedConstructionAdequacyProgram,andthedesignadequacy I l i 33 listheremainderofthoseissues,orself-initiatedorfrom l

33 one of those other external sources.

l 24 MR. MILLER: Was the heat shrinking -- is that l 33 Raychem splices or --

G2 l I

MR. STEVENS: Yes.  !

1 2 '

MR. MILLER: And this is the issue that's been I raised in one of the informational notices that came out I recently? Or is this something beyond that --

5 ! MR. STEVENS: No, that was out of the --

i 6 MR. MILLER: --

that was'self-initiated or self- ,

1 I

7 identified?

S No, it was a TRT issue.

MR. STEVENS: .

I i 9 The program objectives: You've seen this slide l  !

! l 10 ' on all the other previous ones. I'd just like to highlight ,

)

11 it. It is important. We do intend to demonstrate that the l

12 plant design meets the licensing commitments. We also want l l

l3 to make sure it's going to work the way it is supposed to I l1 and we can keep it going for a long time for reliable power.

15 During this program we hope to identify any concern, i 16 whether it be on the table on the previous slide, presently, II

, or whether it exists out there anywhere else. We are looking i l i 15 for the -- once we find any concerns, we will identify a

! 19 corrective action and implement that corrective action, and f i , t l then hopefully, through out inputs from out different contrac1 20

, 21 : tors, we'll put some of the preventative action into TUGCO i  !

3 22 l procedures for the long run, which is the next slide.

l 23 The long term plan is, once we're operating, that 21 we'll have a preventative action plan implemented into the 25 TUGCO engineering procedures to ensure that the same problems

63

! that we've had, or any similar problems, don' t exist at that 2 time. And we're gcing to develop a strong management team, i

3 l a good staff of qualified engineers. And on that point, I'd

like to say that we've been recruiti..g. That was previously 5 mentioned, but we have made some oretty good strides. In our i

6 ! area we had three to start off with in this area, and we are . '

t 7 now up to 14 good, qualified people. That's eight months S ! and 14 people. That may not sound like great stridos to those ]

9 of you in the audience, but it's pretty good strides for us.

I 10 ; We feel pretty comfortable with that. And they will be  !

. \

11 trained to all the applicable procedures to take advantage ,

I 12 of the lessons learned to prevent reoccurrence. l l i

13 On to I&C. k I l r i la I didn't mention on the electrical, and I might i

15 ought to mention now on the I&C, as well. On the electrical $

l 3

16 l the corrective action, as you saw on the slide that Larry puti l 3

17  ! up earlier, is being handled by the Stone and Webster effort.',  !

2 i )

! i

! n Most of the corrective action review and validation under j 19 the design basic consolidation program is being done in the  ; l 2 20 Doston office, but the installation and implementation work

, 21 ] here on the site will be done here on the site by Stone and ,

l 4 1 1 5 22  ! Webster engineers. The same is true of the I&C plant. ,

23 The source of the issues: Again, it's Design l

23 Adequacy Program with Tora, Construction Adequacy Program 1

23 ; with ERC. Theze are some external sources: NRC, TRT, Cygna, I  !

64

INPO. And then, again, internal sources -- insocctions, 2

evaluations, reviews -- that we have done internally.

3 The identification of issues: They are'both design 4 and hardware related. ERC helped us uncover several concerns 3 i or issues. The instrument installation / inspection requirements, I

6 l the tubing and instrument support designs, the cost-accident 7 elevated temperature effects on tubing configuration -- that f 3 , one originally came out of a review that we were working 9  ;

with IMPO on, when INPO came in and helped us -- torquing i

10 {ofsupportfixturesandhardenedwashers. Hardened washers 11 ,j actually folds over into another corrective action, which was 4

12 { the civil / structural area, which was Owen Lowe.

1 13 ; The DOP instrument setpoints: This came out of i

l'4 The documented basis for the process setpoints, the fTera.

i is compliance with Reg. Guide 1.105 and the ISA standards, and I

16 a concern for inaccurate vendor data and calculated errors.

17 MR. VOLLMER: The post-accident issue: How is that i

i is ' different from your equipment qualification can? 4 E

i 19 MR. STEVENS : This is relating to the tubing i

20 configuration and expansion where the piping is done in the

, 21 pice stress analysis, but the tubing is handled through the

?

5 22 instrumentation. It is very similar to the pipe support i

23 pipe stress expansion.

24 The program objectives, again, are to demonstrate 25 l that the plant meets the licensing commitments, and that's I

, --_-__..,_,_.,_,-,_,-.m,,-~., ,._,-.m. . , _ . , , , _ _ _ - - - - , . . -

1 65 j through an identification of any concerns, identify corrective 3

l action, irplement corrective action, identify creventative i

3 ! action se that when we're operating we can keen anything from I

4 j haopeninef again, and implement that preventative action, i

5 The long term plan, again, is just like everyone i

6 else's. I'd like to reiterate it one more time. It's to-l l implement the preventative action plan into the TUGCO t s engineering procedures so that when we're operating, TUGCO .

i I

9 can ensure that the same or similar problems do not occur i

I 10 again.

Ne intend to develop a strong management team and i3 12 qualified engineers.

In this area I believe we have one I

13 engineer and supervisor in this area, and we now are up to N

g4 16, so we've made even better progress in that area.

g3 MR. TRAmiELL: I have a question on that one. I'd i 16 be interested in knowing how it was that Hansel brought you

! ;- some issues in the design area. I mean, I know he can, but

! 6  :

j g3 I his basic charge, as I understand it, was to see if or I f ;9 lconfirmthat the plant had been built the way the soecifications i 20 said, irrespective of design, didn't really get into that.

-33 He just took the construction drawings and went out in the 3

i field to see if you built it like they.were told to build it.

33 So how did he get in and bring you design issues in the I&C

.g area? Are these out of scope-observations or something any smart person would see as he went through the plant? liow .

25

}

66 1 did that happen, do you remember?

'1R . STEVENS: I'm not sure it would be either one

- 3 l of those categorizations you just mentioned, but when you find a discrepancy between a design document and a hardware con- ,

5 i figuration, you initiate right at that time a problem report.l t

6 I Now, he's identified for us that the hardware doesn't meet 7

1 the design, but it's very possible the issue is really design . I t

S related and the design is not what we want; the hardware is. '

9 t Am I answering your question? I see a troubled 10 , look there.

i liR. NACE: Let me try it. It's likely to come up 11 {

12 in probably two principal ways. Principal way number one is 13 through the direction process controls that were in existence.

l 14 The hardware system item got installed, say, the way it really 15 {shouldhavebeen,butthedesigndocumentationwasnotkept I

16  ! current. So ERC, in their ef forts, would look at the hardware I; ! and say, lley, it's really right, it just doesn't happen to ,

i I I i !s be what the drawing is, and your oaper trail of how you got i f lo from Version A of the drawing to what's installed is not 1

f 20 I what it should be.

, 21 Another way in which that type of feedback can i l i

22 generally occur is in the event of, let's say, an ambiguity i 23 'in specification requirements, you can maybe stand in the 1 '

field and see two or three dif ferent ways in which something 24 25 is installed and convince yourself that with the direction I

l 1

1 I

- - - , . - - , . . . - . - , . . , . . , . - - . - , . . . - . , - . , . =

l

G7 1 given it is logical to get to these two or three different 2 { ways of installing it; however, what you really should do 3 I is decide which of the ways is best and give that right type 4 of direction to the craft.

5 Those are two general ways in which that cross talk 6 ! can occur.

7 > Terry, you might have some other feedback on that. !

S MR. TYLER: tie ll, the only other area that comes 9 to mind as to how you can get back into the design is to look 1

i 10 at how it happened, which could be direction or an inprecise ,

l 11 critoria in a direction snec or something like that that )

, l \

12 l allowed the construction error to occur. So the identification 13 of a problem in the field as non-complying hardware, you've 14 l really got to look at what caused it, which nine times out of 15 l ten gets back into the design-type documentation itself.

I 16 It's in the evaluation of those findings that you ,

1 I

17 l are able to come out with what the true cause is. That's how I

i 15 the cross talk is taking place. All ERC did was identify I i l l i 19 l the physical non-complying hardware. It's been our evaluation 1  :

I I 20 on the project site that has led back to what the causing l

21 lfactorshavebeen, the dialogues back and forth with ERC on i

3 22 ] what the possible root causes of those that were safety 23 significant could have been.

21 l MR. NACE: I might point out that that dialog-*

l '

23 i and feedback is cart of the CPRT program plan attempt.

63 j MR. TRAM 1 ELL: Thank you.

y tiR . STEVENS: The Equioment Qualification Corrective Action Plan actually predated some of the other ones. He 3

undertook it to ensure that the evolution of the olant design 3 ; requirements and the industry criteria through the years 6  ! are clearly reflected in the documentation.

I i

- I Equipment qualification: The real ourpose is to 3 make sure that we have the documentation that provides that ,

9 reasonable assurance that when a part is called on to do i

10 its job, safety function, it will do it.

I gj  ; So that's really what we're doing. Impell is the i .2 contractor for the equipment qualification Corrective Action I

g3 Plan, and most of that work is being done here at the site. j i i

}

j; Source of issues: Design Adequacy Program, Tera; j i

l 15 j some external sources, NRC, TRT; the 10CPR50.49 audits of i i  !

i 16 i ther utilities. We've been lucky to take advantage of i i

. i

! j- an invitation to go up and see some of those audits at other j

,t j j .

I h utilities and see what is really being' audited so we can

9 develop a true auditable documentation package for Comanche

~

t.

$ 20

, Peak equipment qualification.

i

~;

And another source is internal, and that's inspec-i l i , . , ,

tions and evaluations, j i

! The identification of the issues is identification .

43 l

4

! and classification of requirements, such as an EQ master

-> l.

23 l list, sub-conponent tagging. l

I 69-1 1 Environmental conditions and requirements, a i i

2 i central document file for those.

3 Environmental -- it should have a slash in there --

1 environmental /scismic documentation. It 's both of those. r, i

5 : Design changes, design basis documents , installed configuration i

6 versus testing configuration.

7 , Generic regulatory concerns. I think we can deal 1 i S

with some of those issues you broucht un earlier. We vant ,

i 9 ! to make sure the equipment qualification documentation  !

10 package identifies that we considered the information in the ,

11 bulletin or circular and how we resolved the issue that was 12 presented to us.

l 13 MR. MILLER: Is this an area that was previously 11  ;

addressed and now you're reviewing it, or is the EQ area 15 ,

an area where you're doing the work the first time right now?

I I 16 j You're generating the master list now, you're going through 17 ! the full process.

! h MR. NOONAN: Let me respond to that. The staff has j

19 a safety evaluation written, completed a number of years ago, i I 20 . on the EQ area. The staff had apnroved the orogram and had I l

, 21 written off on the program, so this is not that initial phase i

3 22 That work is all done. It was done back in the '82 time 23 frame.

I 21 MR. NACE: A better way to characterize this 25 program is, as you know, that the standards of expectation l i

70

] on EQ have been escalating over the past years. Nhat we 2 ; were concerned about is that we had a 1982 certification, i

3 if you'will, and we wanted to make sure that when y'all came

in here we had a 1906 '07 documentation trail.

3 MR. MILLER: So you've seen the inspection reports 1

l 6 ; of recent. vintage; gone to school on those.  ;

7 ; MR. NACE: Yes, we have. Now, there are also some S : Tera issues and other issues, as Peter has identified, that t

' i 9 were factored into this program, as well. ,

10  ! MR. VOLLMER: Comanche Peak originally was the firsk 4 i .

11 Category 1 plant on the EQ. Category 1 olants now in operation?

12 MR. NOONAM: This is the first plant. a B'ck in '77 13 we decided Comanche Peak would be the leading plant for 14 ; Category 1.  ;

2 l l

g3 MR. VOLLMER: My question is: Has that created j 16 j a problem in the EQ area, and are there Category 1 plants g7 now operating?

i  !

! h MR. NOONAN: I'll answer that, and I'll say no.

j 19 I guess one clarification that I need here Since ,

i l

! go the staf f has really comoleted the review on this work and

.s

- i we have closed it out with an NCR and now you're doing this

4 s 23 additional work, from my point of view I'm looking at the 23 , staf f only doing -- just kind of looking at what you're doing l

34 and saying whether or not it has an imoact on our safety 23 evaluation c. not. I'm not looking at this as something we l

=

71 I

go back to square one and re-do all the work we've done ]

3- previously.

3i MR. NACE: Ne have found no reason to do that.

.; What you'll find in the proof of the pudding here is this 3 . is very largely a documentation upgrading to the current I

1 I standards of expectation. ',

6 i i

MR. VOLLMER: Also through Category l?

s MR. COUNSIL: Dick, I'd like to say it was. I k l 9 i think it was . }

10 MR. STEVENS: Under the information notices jg bulletin and circulars, it's not that they haven't been 12 dealt with in the equipment qualification area, but one of 33 the documentation problems that we found other plants to have y was ready access to how you close that out so that it's g3 documented in the package so that it shows that what actions *  ;

16 l you took as a result of that bulletin right there in the  !

2

g.  ! package. Now, that's a documentation enhancement, but it

i

! n sure does help the engineer a lot, too.  !

i p; The last one is maintenance and surveillance

! ;g ; requirements in order to maintain the qualification for the i

prescribed qualification life, certain maintenance require-3 l i gy  ! monts and failure analysis and trending. To maintain -- the  !

33 qualification is normally a tested program, but to maintain that confidence in that testing program, should you have 33 33

, infantile failures or failures during the life, you can trend I

72 g those and analy::e those to determine whether you need to go i -

2 t

back and requalify.

3 Again, the program objectives are the same as those

; other orograms. It's to identify the concerns, identify 5 ,

corrective action, implement that correctiv s action, identify

! )

6 j a preventative action and imolement that oreventative action.l .

7 For the long term, when we're operating we hope to f s , implement that preventative action into the TUGCO engineering' 9 l lprocedures as required to ensure the same or similar nroblems I

10 fdonotoccuragain,andtodevelopastrongmanagementteam i;

i and a staff of qualified engineers trained in all those I

go aoolicable procedures to take advantage of lessons learned. l

' \'

13 ! Presently, in the equipment qualification area we I

i g4 have one TUGCO engineer, and we are presently projecting g3 we need a staff of 11. We have not made very good progress.

i 16 These people are specialists, so they are a lot tougher i I

i; , to g e t , but we're trying to find them anyway. l

! , i l p, MR. liACE: And if we don't find them, we'll grow }

I i i 19 , them and train them.  :

( I l

i jo MR. STEVENS: That's correct. We'll develop them.

>; I MR. COUNGIL: One other item before we take a break,

~

I i, t I

i .g Me have been concentrating on engineering and engineering 23 ! procedures and construction procedures here today; however, l .

.y ;

I want you to all understand that there are certain specifica-23 l tions and ways of doing things and so forth that are being ,

I

s 73 translated into the operating and maintenance procedures in

, addition to thar, as a result of specification c.anges or 3 ; whatever. So it is going into the maintenance crocedures and the instrument control procedures and in the training 3 programs for those technicians in the plant in addition.

6 After the break Austin will want to confirm it for you that  ;

i

- ' he's been a little busy, too.

3 MR. TRAM?tELL: Peter, there was a mechanical slide i ,

9 I earlier which talked about seismic qualification, and I see f

, you have seismic here, as well. Is this the same thing?

10 '

3; MR. STEVENS: Yes. The seismic qualification is - I I  !

12 as it was encompassed, it's an interface, I guess you'd call j i

j3 I it, in the mechanical Corrective Action Plan, as well as the ;

' I

4 Impell equipment qualification.

MR. JO!!NSON: Eric Johnson. Before we leave, I'd 1 :.3

)

3 ;3 ,

like to get one commitment, that as you go through this g proc?; e you're going to be coming upon the necessity to do ,

i ,

3

g some rework. Ne know the pipe supports -- we're going to be '

~

9 inspecting that. He have already made our plans for that. i

i i y :i We need somehow to be informed as you do this other rework , ,

., ; , so that we're not reading a report at the end that said,

~

I 3 i l 4 ,, you know, we had these things and we had this rework, because

.. t 1

l there is an awful lot going on and we want to be able to l 33 l l l pin down what is the rework that's coming out of' these 1 l

.a

!. programs specifically as dif ferent from the ISAPs and dif ferent ,

74 1 from the normal maintenance that we can olug ourselves into 2 to do our inspections.

3 MR. NACE: I guess that falls on me now. I think 4 perhaps what I'm hearing from two different questions is 3 , perhaps the assumotion that we've been making, that by our I i 6 / liberal use of the 5055.E circuit, we wou?c. keen you informed; I

7 of key things that had to be done, but Ian, he lives here, 5 and we will keep him informed. One of the things --

t t

9 MR. JOllNSON: Yeah, 5055.E is a notification, but i 10 i when you, you know, actually start the work. Next week we're 11 .i going to be replacing X pipe supports. We can olug ourselves l

12 l into that and observe that going on and make resource adjust-I L3

)mentsso--

14 MR. NACE: I guess that's a matter of coordination 15 ; that Ian and I have to work on, but, for examole, on the i

I 16 ! containment penetration work relative to an earlier 5055.E, 17 that work is ongoing right now.  !

l I

' l i ,

$ 15 MR. JO!!NSON: Me know that, but as you start other i

$G 19 things so we can make sure that we have the right --

MR. COUNSIL: We should be able to work that through 20 l  ;

! l i

21 our engineering construction fragments. We've been holding l l 4

i I' I i 22 i work out for the last two months and fragmented all key work l 23 l that we know of today, when it's scheduled to begin and end.

I gi ! So we can make that available to you.

I MR. NACE: If there are no other questions, I'd 25 l

1 75 1 I like to take another 15-minute break, and then ue'll come i

2 ; back and finish the cresentation agenda.

3 i I'd like to remind everybody that we will have 4 , lunch.available in our cafeteria at 12:30, 3 (A break was taken.)

6 MR. MACE: The final item on the agenda relates to ;

I '

7 operator training status and qualification maintenance, and I

i S i that will be presented by Austin Scott, our Vice President, I

• 9 nuclear operations. [

10 l MR. SCOTT: In trying to put this together to make j 11 some sense, I worked it all into a sheet, and I was going to 12 speak from those notes; but once I got the notes prepared, I

13 it occurred to me that if I started speaking from them, I la . would leave you a lot more confused as the numbers started I

i 15 to pile on top of one another. So I made a copy of my notes,

~i 16 and I'm going to use those as a transparency. I wanted to i

' l 17 i l

5 l get them done up in some fancy shape like my engineering ,  !

, i l i 13 ~ colleagues, but I didn't have enough money. '

j 19 Here in glorious print is the operation status, j i

20 We've got about 93 operators on what we call on-shift that j i

, at are assigned to the operations Decartment. Thirty-seven i l

) 22 seniors carrying licenses, twenty-four reactor operator  !

23 licenses.  ;

24 It breaks down this way: Shift supervisors; there l 25 are six in place now. Twelve assistant sh!ft supervisors. , j l i j i

I

_ . , , _ . ~ - _ . ~ . . . . , . _ - , _ . ~ . , . . . , -

b 76 1 They have their license qualification status. Twenty reactor!

'l 2 operators, And 35 auxiliary operators, of whom four carry 3 current RO licenses.

4  ;

In the support outside, on-shift -- this is in the 5 training and engineering business -- we've got this many '

6 f(indicating). Ops managers: This is the management of the I t

I l l 7 ' Operations Department. Engineers. Shift technical advisors:

3 l Those are degreed individuals, five carrying current SRO l

i 9 I licenses, and three in training, which I'm coming to. And 10 in the training department seven seniors and one reactor 11 operator with current licenses.

12 l Current license class in orogress to be examined 13 in July '87: Six operators, four staf f and three shif t 14 technical advisors. We are going to continue to upgrade 15 our licensed participation on-shift beyond where we are now.

j 16 l Requalificationtraininghasbeenfullyimplemented!

• 9 1 i j

17 l since 1993. Each person is on a training shift every six j t

i h weeks. I'll tell you in just a few minutes -- I've just j 19 changed that, and we've dropped and gone from six shifts to l

1  !

20 ! five.  !

That's going to make our training syllabus a little  !

21 more rigorous there. Actually, that's the next bullet.

, l 3  :

) 22 ! Five shift rotation starts this month. We'll be putting in j i l 1

23 ,

a training shift each week. That rolls each shift out into l l l  ;

21 the schoolhouse in the simulator for one full week out of  !

l 25 five -- out of six, excuse me. l

, i

77 1 Our program has been reviewed. We had to do some 2 recent tweeking of our rcqualification orogram. The MRC 3 requalification exam results have not been what we wanted.

I We figured out what we did wrong, and we're going to wrench 5 that around where we can stay current.

6 i Any questions on that before I move on?

7 MR. VOLLMER: As far as qualifications, what about ,

5 ocerations exoerience? j

! l 9 ! MR. SCOTT: That's the next slide.

10 ,

MR. CHANDLER: Let me try your numbers one more _

11 time. The number of shifts you said you had cut from six 12 , to five? ,

I i

13 i MR. SCOTT: Yes.

i MR. CHANDLER: You then said you're going to have 14 l 13 , training one week out of six?-

I 16 MR. SCOTT: Well, let's see. If I've got five 17 shifts, that means that four are doing something and one is .

l I 1l 1 1* training. I'n going to be sure I get this right. It was '

{ 19 one out of five. I was right the first time. No mumbo-jumboI

- i 1

i .

I f

20 l I was going too f ast there in figuring out whether that's

(

, 21 one in four or one in five.  ;

i 22 ! MR. VOLLMEM: And these will be eight-hour shifts?

23 MR. SCOTT: Yes, I'm sorry.

21 MR. VOLLMER: Your schedule would be --

23 , MR. SCOTT: Yes, we're still with eight. We're

78 I looking at 12, but we have not made a decision yet.

2 Now, operating clant exnerience is another issue.

3 The commitment that we've made is to have at least one senior I reactor operator licensed individual on each shif t at the 5 time of fuel load who has six months of hot ooerating experience 6 on a similar or same type of niant. Beyond that, each shift i 7 I supervisor and assistant shift supervisor will have at least 5 i six weeks of hot coerating exnerience at greater than 20 l

9 I percent power in a plant similar to this one. And each I i

10 e shift supervisor will have startun sud shutdown exnerience. j s

i 11 Now -- forgive me -- I've used these individuals 12 there -- this may get a little bit confusing as we go down i

13 the line. But these are the shift supervisors, and they're l

l 14 in a matrix as to how I stand in getting their training. 1 15 Here's the six-month column.  !! ave you done the six-month I

! 16 training hot on a plant similar? Have you been six weeks i l

17 : above 20-percent power? And have you had a startup or a l i

i is shutdown?

19 Now, we committed to this in a letter to you in l

20 fMarchoflastyearandarecontinuingtoworkourwaythrough.

, 21 a ]it. Ne are essentially there with about two weeks to spare. -! ,

22 lUithourfiveshifts,withoursix-monthproblem, that's l l

l 23 l not very hard to get. That's easy to get. As a matter of l

i l.

21 l fact, it's just a matter of freeing uo these individuals  !

25  ; to get them out to the plants to do it.

I

79

' 1 The six weeks above 20-percent power is also 2 relatively easy to get, and we have had very good cooperation' 3 l from the plants that are similar to ours. . I've written i several letters to my colleagues at the other plants. They ,

5 have really given us an excellent background, our people an ,

6 excellent background, and let them participate to a greater 7 i extent than we might have expected during that period. So S i I'm very pleased with how the hot operating experience is .

! I 1

9 ! rolling out, when you see we're starting to fill in those 10 blocks. ,

11 Startuos also not all that much of a' problem, but 12 shutdowns are. Trying to find a shutdown is like -- it's 13 hard to catch. I've got commitments for four this year, but 14 that one is one that caught me by surprise. I didn't think 15 it would be that hard to figure out a shutdown. It turns out I

I 16 l We know when we're going to start them up; and we ain't sure I

j 17 l when we're going to shut,them down and that sort of thing.

l l .

i i li That's a littic bit of a problem. -

i -

) 19 li The commitment is to, before fuel load, we'll l t .

1-I'm going to -- I've cleared it with Bill l 5

i 20 ! continue on this.

, 21 - Counsil. We'll just keep on going and do as much as we can;  !

9 '

4 2 22 keeo this program in effect all the way to fuel load. We 1 1

23 won't stop once we make some minimal commitment. We'll keep i i

l '

21 going. j n

1 25 i Now, additionally, this is above and beyond these I l

e

. - - , - -.,,..-,n.,r ,--n---,--,e . . - , - . . , ..-,--,,n.....,<-.,r.-.- m ~.en.c , . . . ,

00 1 (indicating) . Ne've gotten 58 ocerators out to 12 olants 2 in '86 for a total of 526 operator weeks of excerience, j ' These are reactor operators and so forth that are not shift I supervisory ecople. We've had very good cooperation from 5 our colleagues in the region and other areas in allowing us 6 to put our people into their plants to observe there. l i

7 By the end of '07 we'll -- as I said, we'll be S there, I think, by the end of '07 -- I'll be able to make I

the minimum NU:1 ARC commitment, but we'll continue to go right $

9 t

to on, j 3

1 1 11 l As I said, we have commitments for shutdown j I

12 lexperienceatfourplants.

i i  !

13 I In addition to that, we were able to make a deal  !

l

!, i la ! with the Braidwood plant, Commonwealth Edison, and on Monday l l

3 of this week 13 pecole -- four reactor operators and 14 ,

! l

? 16 auxiliary operators -- showed up fc_ work at Braidwood to I l- assist them in their hot functional test program in Unit 2.  ;

i i

i ;s They came uo short of coerators, and we were able to fill in.

I 19 They needed 40.. We ware able to get nretty close to 20, and ! l 1 <

i 20 those people will be up there abcut eight months, we think. I I i 21 In other words, what they've decided to do is use their I i

? i

• 2; operators in their low power testing and ours, among others, 1

23 : that they've gotten from their own system to do the hot l I

7; functional testings. It's an excellent chance to get some  ;

1 25 hands-on auxiliary operator training, which is one that was  !

l

\ l l

l 1

l

81 1 an area that has given me some heartburn in trying to figure 2 l out how to let our folks do more than just sort of watch 3 things happen.

4 I hooe to be able to embellish on that a little bit

• 5 ; and get some more experience as this orogram unwraos.  ;

I

' i 6l The other thing we've been neavily participating in ;

7 , is radiation protection technicians and sueervisors at other ,

S plants. You can see we started modestly with five techs 9 , and one supervisor in '83. We worked un to where we 10 participated in outages at Parley and Calloway this year l

11 with 22 techs and three suoervisors for eight and-ten weeks, 12 respectively, on an outage. We're getting very good at this, j 13 I'm about ready to go into the rent-a-tech business and 14 start charging money for this instead of just using it to 15 pick up the operator experience.

I 16 In '87 we exDect to participate at Farley and

{

17 Calloway again to about the same amount of eartipipation we l I i !s had last year.

j 19 That pretty much in a nutshell is what I have going 1

2 20 for me in operator training, but I will be happy to respond

, 21 ; to any questions.

? I 1

22 MR. VOLL!1ER: The numbers look correct, but there 23 was a generi letter -- I think it's August or something of 24 '84 -- which outlines what the Commission requirements are I

25 in terms of staffing and operation experience and so on.

82 1 These numbers, I guess, fill that particular --

2!  !

MR. SCOTT: I believe that to be the case.

3 l MR. VOLL'ER: And MUMARC commitment, I think, is 4 along the same lines, as I recall.

5 MR. COUNSIL: It went further than that, as Austin '

t 6

l indicated. Our STAS are also SROs.

1 t 7 MR. SCOTT: That's right. l

't S MR. VOLLMER: I understand that. You said you meet' 9 the minimum NUMARC commitment. Are you trying to get more l

10 than the minimum in case -- ,

11 , MR. SCOTT I'm going to go as long as I can, just 12 keeo on going. In other words, I don't intend, unless I get --

l 13 and I can't imagine why we would totally stop the program, t l

14 I'm going to continue this thing until we get ready to -- we 15 have to bring them all home and start testing our own plant l 16 4 or operate our own olant.

. I E

17 , MR. VOLLMER: He're about to license this one plant

I i is which, by sickness and other problems, lost a couole of people

I l 19 with this type of exoerience, and it's going to be a difficult t 6 I i

~

20 l period for them to develop the qualifications.

, 21 MR. SCOTT: This is enough to coerate two olants

?

1 22 ! right now.

23 MR. VOLLME R: I unders tand .

1 21 MR. SCOTT: So I f eel like I've got my bets hedged 25 on that oretty well.

t

I 83 1 MR. COUNSIL: Are you saying there's somebody out 2 there thdt might need our helo?

3 MR. SCOTT: Hell, they better cet me cuick because

, the price is going uo, as I said, i MR. VOLLMER: Hell, there has been a caveat, as 6 ! you probably know, in some of the -- I think in the generic j i

7 letter -- that says if there is something beyond the licensee's 5 control, that some consultant help can come in, but it's sort 9 of our position that that plant, as well as yours, has been 10 around for long enough that there should be enough margin -- ;

, j 11 l and I think you're developing that margin -- if something l t  :

12 l happens.

i 13 l MR. SCOTT: Well, I think so too, but it's something i ,  :

14 lwe'regoingtocontinuetowatch.Ihavetokoeomyfinger I 13 j on the pulse of my folks up there and see what's on their --

l 3 16 you know, that they don't all walk off and leave me.  :

I  !

' 17 MR. VOLLMER: Another question in terms of qualifica-  ;

I l

! h tions are INpo accreditation. Uhat sort of crograms --

f 19 1 MR. SCOTT: We're working towards IUPO accreditation, j I

20 and all of the processes are in place. It's a little hard I i

, 21 to do before fuel load. We're committed to be fully i

1 22 , accredited '.iithin six months after fuel load, and we'll make l

!' I 23 that. But we took a look at what would hacoon if we tried l 2; ltogetaccreditedbeforethat, and it turned out that would I

^

23 be a problem. So we're continuing to -- we've got consultcnts l i

l l

l I

l I

84 g

in a task development -- in that stage, and -- ,

MR. VOLLMER: That would be for all 10 programs --

f MR. SCOTT: All 10 programs, that's right.

3 4

MR. VOLLMER: Six months after fuel load?

5

$ MR. SCOTT: 'That's right. Ne're committed for six t t

6 months after fuel load. ,

- MR. COUNSIL: No've committed that to.INPO even s , though the requirement is 13 months af ter. .

I I

9 I '4 R . NOONAN: Austin, I'dliketochangethesubjectl

! I g)  ! a little bit and have you kind of talk to the staff a little

. r

g j bit about what you're doing to maintain your equipment in the I

gg plant. I know you're doing some work on the steam generators, 33 Just briefly, for Mr. Vollmer's benefit, maybe you could 34 talk about the things you're doing out there to make sure ,

15 : it's ready to go.

l

! 16 { MR. SCOTT: We opened up the Unit 1 primary system 4 i i

last summer to cicar some items that we had in there, and it's g-I l is now -- the nuclear steam supoly system, the crimary side, in ! is dry: with forced air through it. Me had it all wiped down f:

I i i i 20 comoletely. The head on the Unit 1 is on, but not bolted.-

l The secondary side, the steam generators are in 33 l l i i ,,

, l cold,wetlayuo.

33 The auxiliary steam is dry and -- let's see if-I

.,, j can -- I've got water running wherever we can run water and 33 , dry where we can't, in general, in the secondary systems.

SS 1 Condensato we've been fooline with in order to test the 2 main condensers after their changeout. The feed and conden-3 sate is a cartially wet-cartially dry-type of thing, and all i the cooling water systems, uith the exceotion of service 5 l water Train 3, aza to and running -- I mean, Train A; excuse i i  !

6 I me. We've been up and working on those.  !

i 7 The safety-related systems -- SI, CVCS, R!iR &nd i

S so forth -- are essentially all in dry layup. Containment i 9 l spray happens to be full and vented, but most of the rest  !

i l

10 l of them are dry, with CCW running in the Rl!R heat exchanger.

11 That pretty well is it. Almost all of the cooling 12 water systems are running. And I guess that's about it.

13 Search water is running -- it's not running. It's shut down.

14 We're doing the maintenance work. I'm sorry.

15 : We've used this time productively to do a lot of l

I 16 inspecting and maintenance. Ne've got eroblems we're trying

[ 17 to sort out on the secondary side with the main condenser i h vacuum system. The critters got to us very badly in those 19 i

We're 3

1 l closed-loop systems and about ate the whole pump.

2

20 i working on that.

l

, 21 j We're working very hard to solve some issues with 4

i ;;  ! the cooling water systems. We're finding we live next door 23 to a very unfriendly lake. Some of the stuff in there is 24 ; really giving us fits, and the microbiologically-induced i

25 corrosion and some of the other -- the clams -- critters.

i 86 1

Ne're trying to find a satisfactory additive to our systems 2 to make sure that we are adequately coated or protected for 3 the long haul.

Ue're usino this time very productively. In some 5 of those systems, other *.han not being at ooerating temocrature, 6 ) we are getting a flow and we are getting the coating that we 7 ! will see under normal operations, and I think we can learn  !

, f S from that and hocefully take some precautions now. ,

9 ! Turbines are getting rolled once a week, and in ,

t i i rotor cooling water 10 l layuo I had a problem with the stator ,

11 system in the Unit 1 unit, which we 're having to work on now.

12 That's being dried, put in dry layup.

13 Instrumentation and control We are on essentially 11 a normal surveillance program, operation and checking and 15  ! surveillances. We're pretty much up to speed on that. ,

! 16  !

We're working on -- most of our I&C work is being 1 l j 3

1; i readied to support the Unit 2 testing.

I f 1 i is That's about it unless you can think of something l 1 '

19 that --

}

I 20 MR. TRAMMELL: I have a question about tech specs.

i 21 There's been a oroblem from time to time on the accuracy 1 , ,

3 1 l

] 5 22 i

of tech specs, which has been an issue on some other plants. ,

l 23 It looks to me like this is a place where you can probably 21 eliminate that kind of eroblem because -- for example, you 25 could try the tech soecs that you have, and you've got time 1

87 1 to go through these things and look for these bugs that have' 2 crooped uo. Are you doing that?

3 , MR. SCOTT Absolutely.

t MR. TRAMMELL: Have you created a let's oretend 5 , tyoe of thing and gone through your tech soecs to see if they t

6 work, and surveillances and such as that? j 7 MR. SCOTT: Most of the I&C stuff we've done. Somej t

~

5 of the others we haven't done, but I'm very anxious to get l

9 ! to tha t . I'm a little bit in a quandry about where to start.

4 a

t, to l We started with the basic tech soecs with 21 proposed changes ji to it now, so our book is a little bit -- I'm not really sure 12 what the status of it is.

13 MR. COUNSIL: It's in your hands as far as the --

i 14 MR. SCOTT: I couldn't get my tech specs quick

]

15 enough to suit me. I'll be hapoy to do that. That's exactly ,

1 i 16 what I intend to do, is to have done -- I mean, if there's l l

I t time for it -- to have done our surveillances 100 percent 17 t

i i i t h before we get started so there's nothing left --  !

s i 19 MR. TRAMMELL: I'd be happy to have you make that i I 5 20 l pitch because we certainly want to have them as squeaky clean

1 J l j ji as possible. '

?

1 ja ; MR. COUNSIL: We put licensing on the lead. All l

23 ', right. The composite team -- there will be a composite team l 1

gg fofSROlicensedoceratorsplusengineeringtore-initiatea 25 ! re-review of what we submitted to you some, I think it was, l

! I

38 1 evo and a half years ago after the initial review. We have 2 lhadnocommentordiscourseonwhatwassubmitted,sowe're 3 doing it again, and that will be uodated and sent to you in 4 addition. At that point we must start that dialogue,and --

5 MR. SCOTT: I support that.

7 6 MR. TRAMMELL: But things are changing now,.too.

7 The content is changing. Those initiatives, fire protection ,

5 matters, are coming out and going in the SSAR. I think these t

}

9 are all improvements, but nevertheless, we do need to -- l 10 i MR. SCOTT: I think that would be an excellent ,

11 initiative.

12 l MR. VOLLMER: To get back to what you said about I I i

13 the condensing. You said you had some problems with pumos '

i 1 -1 j in that system, microbiological. What about condenser tubing?

15 Any problems there?

"t I

16 l i MR. SCOTT: All brand new. He just knocked it all l l i

\

. I 17 l out, and it's sitting over there across the road in the --

l l

i i i is the cooper nickel is all out. Ne have titanium in there now.

. i l 19 MR. COUNSIL: We're on a program starting in 1985  ;

I

20 to eliminate all copper from the secondary systems at i l

, 21 ~! Comanche Peak. It had nothing to do with anything else. It I I I

?

1 22 was the elimination of cooper to prevent denting of steam 2.1 generator tubes in the future. So, consequently, we have i l i

21 gone to welded, integrally welded, titanium tube sheets 25 and tubes in the condensers, the auxiliary condensers. The l

I i

~ - ________________________-__._-__.__m_- _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ . ________-.m.-

89 1 moisture separator reheaters are stainless steel.

3 j MR. SCOTT: To answer your question, no, neither 7

3

$sideofthemaincondensers, the tubeness that we took out, i looked bad. They looked fine. We have most problem with the dead lakes, as you might have guessed. Where you can't 3

i 6

flush is generally where the critters find and give us the I

. most trouble. So that's what we're fighting now.

g MR. COUNSIL: Just to embellish a little bit, Aus tin',

9 on the engineering side of the house, approximately 14 months lj 10 fag we brought in a Stone and Webster environmental division.

3 ; ,; They have a great deal of experience in these little critters 1

3y ; that grow and die in the systems. Consequently, we are putting I -

in a treated water system here for many of the, like, fire  !

g3 i

I j ,; j protection, things of that -- two fire protection 500,000-gallon tanks treated. Also we're looking at all the other l a.

i 16 lsystemsastowhatinadditionwillremovethesethingsfrom  :

i

.. the water pipe systems, water systems.

8<

l So they're on board. That's not listed as a

;9 , corrective action.  !

l l l 3 '

~O MR. VOLIJtER: I understand.

• i

tR. COUNSIL: It's a different issue entirely. l 1:

3 j i

3 ,.,

MR. NACE: I'm just wondering how it will show up in the toch specs. Critter surveillance, probably, 33

i

, l MR. SCOTT: Let me caution everybody. We very

.I  ;

33 , sloppily throw everything in the critter bin. There's more I i l

l l

90

to it than that. There's some chemical problems, some I

oxygen problems, some oli problems, and other things. I don't want to leave you with the imoression that it's all just the 3

litt l e guys. He've had the best luch so far, it acocars, 4

3 ; with Hydrazine. We had Hydrazine overywhere. The pH and 6 oxygen scavenging from !!ydra:ine looks very promising .to us.

l So we've got it everywhere you can imagine so far.

I 3

As Bill said, there's a lot of folks working on 9 this. It gets c. little bit dif ficult because you get four 10 pe pie and you get five answers as to what is best, and then 33 you get the inter-disciplinary strife between the chemist and the metallurgist. I didn't realize they were all that 12 much at each other's throats, but they are. So then it's 13 g4 really hard to figure out who to believe. We hopefully will g3 get an injection system into the service water intake structure l

I 16 fr ur bio side-slimo slide -- if you're ready for that.

I 3-

! That's a good word. It sounds terrible. That way we can --

j if we try one and it doesn't look like it's the right one,  ;

h l

1 i ;9 i we can go to another one, that sort of thing. Once we get i  !

j 20 i the injection system in. John Krechting is trying to put

.,. I

, a byoass around the cooling water condenser to keep that --

j .,,,

_. I so we can keep flow through the thing.

Ue're using time very productively to learn about 33 i

I feel like what we're learning now is going to l the plant.

be almost a one-to-one correspondence into the case of 25 l i

l 1

. - _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _- . _ . _ ~ __

91 i

operation. That's something that we're looking very hard at '

i ,

j ; in Ooerations, lookinc into that first year, because once we i

3 l get going, we want to stay goinc. So we're lookinq very hard' 4

at what we can do to insure that now that we have a little bit 3 ) of time.  ;

l 6 MR. TRAMMELL: Is the fire protection systen still {

7 looming, as it was thought to be quite a problem for a while, ,

S ,

a year ago? Is the fire brotection system problem beit.g  :

I 9 resolved? I think you're replacing some pioe and --

4 10  !!R . SCOTT: We're replacing it and trying to stay 13 ahead of the game. Sometimes that's hard.

12 MR. VOLLMER: This is the fire protection system.

13 MR. TRAMMELL: It's a materials oroblem with the y piping.

-f I MR. SCOTT: The critters ate the pioe. Then the 33

] 16 i guy brings the pipe down and he starts to put it in, and 17 it's already got critters in it, so we have to stop and

I

/

I i is figure out how to do that. These are tenacious little things.

' 3

} 19 No, the fire protection system, we're right in l I

! 20 the middle of trying to work our way chrough that. It's very gg difficult, very difficult to sten your way through that i

) 33 thing, and you'll see this afternoon hose jumoers running -

a 23 back and forth if you go back and look at the plant. We 1

1 24 have to work very closely with the oroject manager to make J

. i 5  !

23 l sure we've got hose stations chargeable while we cut out i

I l 1 1

92 I sections of pice over here. And that's a nightmare. That's-4 2 hard on both of us.

I MR. TRAM!! ELL: Is this a maintenance activity being j 3

4 done by the coerating staff?

a , AR. SCOTT: No, Grinell is in doing it. Dick can #

l 6 ) talk to that better than I. can.

! MR. CAMP

The original construction comoany.  !

t l

s' MR. SCOTT: Ne're in the business right now of i 9 sort of lining stuff uo, lining it up for the constructors

{

10 j and doing a little bit of maintenance on our own, and that's 11 about it.

12 A lot of preventative maitenance. Our preventative 13 maintenance is all in olace. We're just working our way

\

la f through it. It's slow.

1 l

.That's all I can do there, Larry, unless I break 15 l i 16 into songs, jokes and snappy patter.

J.

l j i i; i MR. NACE: I'm in a very embarrassed position

? I I

i is right now. We laid out an agenda, and yesterday Bill Counsil, 2

19 . said that we'll.never get through that today. I picked a l l

~

l, i;

20 convenient time to break for lunch called 12:30, at which 1

i 23 j time there will be a caterer for lunch for everybody, and I  !

5 2; lo and behold, I'm told we're done ahead of schedulo.

! 23 MR. TRAMMELL: I have some questions.

2 MR. MACE: Charlie Trammell is going to save me. ]

24 l l l

MR. TRAM!! ELL: I just have one remark. In line 23 l

l

93 1 with what Dick Vollmer said earlier when we started this 2 meeting, I'd like to make a pitch for some items which we 3 i have not discussed. tie've only touched on tech specs and 1 i what we probably need to do on those, and I'd like to touch 5 on some other items to give you the feeling of MRC on these 6

matters. That concerns ooen items which are in the SER which i i

7 { we would like to see closed, and unresolved items that we 3 would like to see resolved, and confirmatory items which ,

9 we would like to see confirmed. And, most particularly, i

10 ! license conditions, where ve see no reason at this point f I

11 in the newer plants that are being born today and next year  ;

i 12 why there should be any license conditions at all. The  ;

13 license should be clean as a whistle, and absent some  !

I I i  !

14 ! extraordinary circumstance, which I don't know of now, we i

! i 15 would like to see all licenso conditions taken care of.  ;

l 16 So as a matter of -- we don't have to deal with l 17 it now, but I don't see why -- we're goina to turn to these  ;

l s is soon -- and I don't see why they aren't capable of being

! 19 And as Dick Vollmer said, the license should be

' l resolved.

20 I squeaky clean, particularly at Comanche Peak, when the  ;

, 21 licensing time arrives. l l 3  ! {

$  ! '!R. NACE: We might comment that open items, in 22 -

l l

23 l are a little bit broader than what you listed there, l general,  !

24 l Charlie, because we have a rather lengthy list of coen items I

25 which are past NRC inspection findinas or rast 5055 E types, l

94

, n I which we think are ready to be closed right now. We have l i

2 put - together a team of people to pull together the documenta-; '

3 ! tio n , proof of the pudding, on those issues so we can work  ;

i ' within in starting that closing process.

5 John Beck wants to talk about the-licensing issues, 6 but we do have all those items scheduled on our equipment  !

I.

7 follow-up program, and we are working to presently close l S : those.

I As you might expect, some of that is imnacted by i

9 l our corrective action business because we don't want to close 10 a particular SER item or open unresolved items on the licensing ,

o 11 docket before we have done encugh un-front work on our basic, 12 SAR conformance reviews.

]

I g

13 John, I don't know if you want to add anything else.

14 i MR. MOONAN: Let me just interject this point. I

! i 15 l agree with what you said, but I think also what's needed is i

I

,I 16  ! dialogue between Staf f and your people on all the issues to I i

. i l 17 l make sure that we both tackle every issue. Right now that i l I h hasn't hanpened. We don't have that dialogue going. I'd like j 19 ; to initiate that, at least for this part of the year, to '87.

1 i a +

20 l When we get later on into the process, we are starting to

, 21 worry about closing them. Let's make sure we know exactly

?

i 22 we both have the same list.

23 MR. KEELEY: Could I qualify that? TUGCO licensing ,

. I 21 We have had some conversations with Annette and we have had

. l 25 a counle of meetings and comnared our list, and Annette also 4

I l

95 has the list and is updating that. We intend to continue 1 l I

2 tha t , as you say, this year.

I 3 i MR. NOONAN: But I would like to see that and make 4 > sure, at least from my oerspective,I know Nhat we have -- I '

3 understand what you're saying, but I think I need to make i 6 sure that develops. l

- 1 MR. COUNSIL: Some of them, you know, that's also I  ! )

4 5 ' probably slipped memory, as time is marching on. We have 1 9 closed some during the ceriod of last year. For instance, i t ,

i 1

10 = to give an environmentally qualified wide range integration )

l 11 for accident conditions, that was one of the open SERs.

j 12 Shift advisors is gone away. There are many of them that ]

4

, 13 have been resolved, and we've just got to look through the la list and make sure our list matches your list. But I believe  ;

15 j a great deal have gone, except in the Region IV area where ]

/

i 16 iI we have open pipe issues, and we're working on them. )

i I

17 j MR. VOLLMER: How about, for example, TMI action

[

i i

! is items? l 1 5 j $ 19 MR. NACE: TMI is gone, signed off a long time ago.

i: '

I 20 MR. NOONAN: I think we need to go back and make 1

4 21 sure of that. I don't want to find out at the end of the

! i 72 year that we missed something.

1 23 MR. VOLLMER: There's always one that puffs up i l 21 l their head at the last minute. Since we do have the time to 25 do it now, it should be done.  ;

1 1 l

9G I MR. COUNSIL: I don't disagree. The other thing, 2 too, is -- we've reques ted this in the east, too -- if any  ;

l 3 ! types of insoections that you desire to receat or oartially 4

repeat, through audit or whatever, like environmental qualifi-5 cations, we would like to know that, too, wherever that list 6 happens to be, so we can get it l'n schedule. l l' i i 7 Are there any other questions or comments?

S There are two other things that we'd like to do 9 before --

10 , MR. NOONAN: I was going to -- what I'd like to do '

l 11 is -- maybe the CASE representative --

12 l MR. COUNSIL: That was one of the items I was just 7

i 13 going to do, is offer Mr. Boltz, if he would like to make

, s 14 any comments as CASE representative in the meeting.

15 I 'tR. BOLTZ: I'm sorry, but Austin is just too hard' I i I 16 i an act to follow, so -- l 6

MR. COUNSIL: The other is, I'd like to see, so we j

17 l j

i  !

i 13 can make arrangements right after lunch, how many oeople would h 19 like to go on the tour of the olant.

. 20 MR. VOLLMER: As far as the tour is concerned, I i , 21 would like to take a look at sone of the areas that have been 3

4 2

22 problems and changes have been made. I think that would i

t 23 be heloful to me. I don't know about the rest of the folks; I 21 maybe they've seen these.

25 And the second thing I was going to mention is, l

J

. . , _ _ , , ,,n, . .--,.-_ ,., ..,,--- ..-- - ,.-------

f

-97 1 if it's anpropriate, if there's any feedback you have on 2 l whether$rnot the process seems to be working from your l 3 standpoint vis-a-vis the coordination with MRC, if there 4 are any things that you think we're falling short on, need  !

5 to be done, resource-wise or whatever.

i 6 MR. COUUSIL: I have a concern.

l i .

7 MR. VOLLMER: I suscected you had one concern.

S MR. COUNSIL: Really, it's just a concern. The I I 9 I concern is this: There have been at least two -- when I i 10 { started of f the meeting we announced the reorganization of l 11 NRC, and there have been at least two reorganizations l l

12 announced in the last several months, and judging from the  !

13 organi ation as I see it, and who's in line and so forth, l 14 and going where, we're losing a lot of continuity on the I i

15 l oroject. In fact, just about everybody that has had anything i

' > l 3 16 .

' { to do with Comanche Peak, with the singular exception, I J

17 j believe, of Mr. Sniezek, and we don't know what's happening i

i 15 to Mr. Moonan,and Snie:ok having been involved in, I guess, ,

! 19 1 l the HITS Panel way back in --

I 20 ! MR. VOLLMER: Contingent 55 Panel, i

, 21 MR. COUMSIL: -- it looks like we've lost all 1

2 22 continuity on the project as to what has transpired in the 1

23 early years on through, straight on through. But, you know, 24 l I have no comolaints about NRC and URC reviews or anything.  ;

l 23 MR. VOLLMER: Che two organizational announcements i

J

90 I i that were made -- I think there was only one change made 2 ' between the first and the second. The second was a little I 2 3 l bit more in detail than the first, and the one change in the 1 l second was that Mr.Snie:ek was not going to be Director of 5 the Of fice of AEOD but would take my job and' I would leave ,

6 URR. Otherwise, I think all the names are the same in the  !

i 7 second announcement.

I SI As far as the second comment you have, we feel that 9 it's important for us to try to provide whatever continuity 10 we can. We will do that. He're not.-- ,

11 MR. COUNSIL: I think you're --

12 MR. VOLIMER: History here is not something we want -

13 to lose, and we will capture all that we possibly can. All 14 I can say here is that we 're concerned about it, too, and 15 will try to make sure that the oroject doesn ' t lose because I 16 of it.

17 MR. COUNSIL: I think you're wanting to have i

i is another meeting like this, say, in March, cerhaps longer, j, '19 and that will help if we can get 'Mr. Early and Mr. Sniezek 5 20 here and whoever else is going to have something to do with i

21 Comanche Peak, and perhaps get a more detailed presentation 1 i

1 22 on everything that is going on. That would help.

23 And I think it behooves us, as members of the 1 l

1 i

24 management team of Texas Utilities, that' we 're going to have l l

\

\

l 1 25 to get to Washington also to assist in that transition, too. ;  !

l I l

• -a-- wy=e-' --e, - w - ,-

yw-*y- '

-- ^

t "P M - --+ 4 .o -g- y-y ,

99 i Gil, any concerns? Everythine's going well?

-i 2^ tiR . NACE: A couole of administrative items. There 3 ,

are copias of the overheads used. They're in.two piles here;i 4 ' one is the high-cost engineering oile, and.'the<other is-

~

5 Austin's icw-cost, hand-produced pile. There will be a cooy-l l I 6 appended to the record. .l

-7 l I would suggest for those peoplo going on the plant. _

S > tour that we meet briefly back in this room at 1:15 and then ,

t f

9 proceed to the site.  !

10 - The meeting is adjourned.

{

11 12 13 1

14 15 i I 16 17 ;

i f i

i 15 i j 19 -

I

2 2

20

, 21 s 1 c i 1 0

22 l

23 2.

L e

, , , . , - - - - - . . . - + - , , . - - , . , , , _ ~ , , - .- ,--,,,,,,,-.,-,-,..,n..-,-.w,n , - , - . ., n. , , , , - - , , - , . - - -

100 STATE OF TEXAS X I

COUNTY OF TARRANT I I, Carmen Gooden, certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of Texas, certify that the foregoing oroceedings of the NRC Staff /CPSES Management Meeting January 7, 1987, was reported stenographically by me, and that it is a true record of the proceedings.

Given under my hand and seal of office on this the 13th day of January, 1987.

, s -

0

,) i 4Nm( - _

ds'rmen Gooden, Notary Public and i certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas.

Certificate No.: 2353 Expiration Date: 12-31-87 Notary Expires: 10-87 T

lawun @ooden a menscuss coum ms cica. reus =te ustmo(em e66:e

---? -

r- e f-,.r 2- p-%=+y , ,w 9 g--y y .. -= c--yey-.. -p-t 4p-9 ey

.f7-

N i

-Q~2, bhb_ bb.

bAvia (wid/rsd 6 Q S f a c,ar u Owpo %oG Z. C. k 5. E.

.~i'd'R.~Rt 13am Rkcuoc_.Gep .

ON .

h' b h e/k > k w 'y Ai n A L ~I~5AA>! TodeO J NM If$ lAloc{ e Ak %H<, ef af i 3A duid'd TMf C#7/-[A'~

~5 m n Knnnwr, 'T%'cco gv$ c. Viare, s - l e e s D IT li h 'e s

\NhH~liR P.NOGrLlo TV6co .

\/Ia o& 2UeetAt .h s.,f doc.K.TEo oN 4 "T~ LA E kei-

/2 L . Cc oao Rc4 ,

i Deo 4an6 67/

&le ke'ely:

MAr . m sco 7

E . J . 3 is nora ma'E i aessrre W. L ' khskA S'hvN)mm s t. B& w e e usike R.L Cr>4 llCmpsll l

6.N. dohASm U S N A.C. , R. W l *[. AAW6S orwRc, se'V

4. OfANOtER M&e /06c.

,;C.7Tamm$ NAC

& sa 4/f[c AJ/'M

fiehrd Vinme< iv'/7cfinex IAt&fC T V u u aie- /V/z&/6/AMrr

J e w to. k c r u , awmc i lpe.H A tt D. SkNef._ 7g)El E C 72 i C-l 4 D yne<= ru erec,wb

. W. 6. 0 00M 3it Tu 21scTac 2 &~ 6f y 7~6'ttt'a ,

i Af/sfl25~hd 7~MO

,\ R C C~ der TUGCO o

) Owen hw e To6co l ilk m L . Radc<

7'e sl oyJe akE n s 7t{aco TlACA j a-

'; /ERRY b. I YLES TO. EtscTaic_, I 4

' Job n Es WiflICM7'jstJ/-- T74 66 0

9 6. SVeveas T U 6 Ce>

i O

i i: 1

'l1 e

i

NRC STAFF /CPSES MANAGEMENT MEETI?iG JANUARY 7, 1987 GLEN ROSE, TEXAS PURPOSE

1. To update NRC Staff on CPSES CPRT status.

2. To inform NRC Staff on CPSES Corrective Action Programs and Schedules.

3. To update NRC Staff on CPSES Operator Training status.

AGENDA l

1. Opening Remarks W. G. Counsil j

2. CPRT Status T. G. Tyler

3. Corrective Action Plan (CAP) L. D. Nace Introduction

4. Mechanical CAP J. E. Krechting

5. HVAC CAP J. E. Krechting

6. Civil-Structural CAP O. W. Iowe

7. Large & Small Bore Pipe Supports CAP O. W. Lowe

8. Cable Tray Hangers CAP O. W. Lowe

9. Conduit Supports CAPS O. W. Lowe

10. Electrical CAP P. B. Stevens

11. Instrument & Control CAP P. B. Stevens

12. Equipment Qualification CAP P. B. Stevens

13. -Operator Training Status and A. B. Scott Qualifications Maintenance NOTE: 1) Lunch will be available in the cafeteria at 12:30.

2) A plant tour will be conducted for interested personnel after the meeting.

- - - - + - g - - - . e ,,. -r-n -

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTOR AND KEY REPORT MILESTONES LEAD GENERIC FINAL l

CAP ISSUES CONTRACTOR REPORT REPORT CIVIL STRUCTURAL SWEC ISSUED 6/15/87 MECHANICAL SWEC 1/20/87 7/1.'87 )

IMPELL l EBASCO ELECTRICAL SWEC ISSUED 7/15/87 INSTRUMENT & CONTROLS SWEC 1/15/87 8/1/87 1

L ARGE BORE PIPE SUPPORTS SWEC ISSUED ISSUED SMALL BORE PIPE SUPPORTS SWEC ISSUED 7/15/87 l CABLE TRAY HANGERS EBASCO ISSUED 2/1/87 IMPELL l HVAC EBASCO ISSUED 5/1/87 CONDUIT SUPPORTS EBASCO ISSUED 3/1/87 TRAIN A, B, C > 2" CONDUlTSUPPORTS IMPELL ISSUED 6/1/87 TRAIN C < 2" EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION iMPELL ISSUED 5/1/87 l

y u -a -. u. _

sums aus - uma MECHANICAL CORRECT VE P

ACT ON PLAN

=an mum - mes

- - a - --. as .- -a- e - - - ---e - u -, -.a l

I l

1 mmm sus imm immu  ;

SOURCE OF ISSUES 9 DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM (TERA) 4 CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY PROGRAM (ERC)

I E

- J - -

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES S SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF SEISMIC CATEGORY l EQUlPMENT (IMPELL) e HIGH ENERGY LINE BREAK (EBASCO)

S OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION OF SAFETY-RELATED PIPING AND EQUIPMENT (SWEC)

O SPECIFICATION OF MECHANICAL COMPONENTS I PRESSURE BOUNDARY INTEGRITY (SWEC)

G DETERMINATION OF HEAT LOADS FO.9 HVAC EQUIPMENT SIZING (EBASCO)

G CONTROL OF WELDING PROCESS (SWEC) 9 INTERNAL AND TURBINE MISSILE EVALUATION (EB ASCO)

G FIRE PROTECTION (IMPELL) e SYSTEM DESIGN (SWEC)

G PIPING AND CONFIGURATION (SWEC) l 9 PIPING AND BEND FABRICATION (SWEC)

G TANK LINER RUST (SWEC)

P

_ . - . - . . _ _ - , ~_____m_~., , . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ - , ~ . - _ , . . _ _ . , , _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ - . . . - . _ . _ . _ _ , . _ _ _ - _ . _ . . _ _ . . . - _ _ . _ _ , _ . . . .

I i

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 9 DEMOlJSTRATE THAT THE PLANT DESIGN MEETS YHE LICENSING COMMITMENTS BY:

O IDENT;clCATION OF ANY CONCERNS 9 IDENTIFY CORRECTIVE ACTION G IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION l

4 IDENTIFY PREVENTATIVE ACTION l 9 IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION l

I M M -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ . . . . _ . -__,_-m_-_.._.,,.

i l

LONG TERM PLAN

$ IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION PLAN INTO TUGCO ENGINEERING PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED TO ASSURE SAME OR SIMILAR PROBLEMS DO NOT OCCUR AGAIN. -

S DEVELOP A STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM AND A STAFF OF QUALIFIED ENGINEERS TRAINED TO ALL APPLICABLE PROCEDURES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LESSONS LEARNED TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE.

M -

8

. . , ._._. ...,_ ___-.___.___-._ . -~.-- - _. _ _,__ , - _ __

. . . BI HVAC CORRECT VE ACTION PLAN I

_,,,__,_,-,.._,,,,~,,,,,,--..,-~,.,,,...,_,,n-,

I l

ea M M SOURCE OF ISSUES S DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM (TERA)

. . M M i

- w-- +- w-y-w ,, w w - ,,--.---.-.7, -

-e-_,,,,w--q.-p-..gv. m wyy--ww _,w w,y ww e w w w.v gywa,e-.y-,syg-w we,wm,=wwe.,

i I

a m m u IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES

$ DUCTS & SUPPORT DESIGN O ISSUES ARE FOCUSED ON ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS, CONTROL OF DESIGN DOCUMENTS, AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AS-DESIGNED -

AND AS-BUILT DUCT SYSTEMS.

9 HVAC SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 1

9 ASSUMPTIONS

$ IMPROPER OR INCORRECT USE OF INPUTS

$ INCOMPLETE INVENTORY OF HEAT LOAD SOURCES S INACCURATE IMPLEMENTATlON OF CALCULATION RESULTS INTO EQUIPMENT SPECS

- - s - s - m.-- --- e - -- - - - e + - - w-- - ---- -- - ------

8 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

$ 100% VERIFICATION OF SElSMIC CATEGORY I HVAC DUCTS AND SUPPORTS FOR UNIT 1 TO THE LICENSING COMMITMENT 4 PERFORM 100% AS-BUILT HEAT LOAD CALCULATIONS FOR ALL HVAC SYSTEMS THAT PROVIDE COOLING FOR SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT S IDENTIFICATION OF ANY CONCERNS

$ IDENTIFY CORRECTIVE ACTION l e IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION

]

$ IDENTIFY PREVENTATIVE ACTION e IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION u . . .

t

-n-- ,r,-*-- --,--s-a-.w.---ee

LONG TERM PLAN 9 IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION PLAN INTO TUGCO ENGINEERING PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED TO ASSURE SAME OR SIMILAR PROBLEMS DO NOT OCCUR AGAIN.

9 DEVELOP A STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM AND A STAFF OF QUALIFIED ENGINEERS TRAINED TO ALL APPLICABl# PROCEDURES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LESSONS LEARNED TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE.

t

. - - - ,_. - - - - - , _ , - - - , - . . . - , . , , . - . . . ~ , . . - - _

l l

1 M M g m l l

1 l

l l

CIVIL STRUCTURAL

- -- - - ---. -,,y- . _ . . ,. _ , , , , , , , , , , _

.s a - . _u -

SOURCE OF ISSUES S DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM

$ CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY PROGRAM

$ TRT l

" " m m I

--p,g---,-w , ,f,__gy,w9m p9,%ggy g, ye- w geyq w y ye. we

l l

lDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES S REACTOR CONTAINMENT CONCRETE DESIGN l 9 REACTOR CONTAINMENT CONCRETE INTERNALS l

$ OTHER SEISMIC CATEGORY I CONCRETE STRUCTURES e SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURAL STEEL O PIPE WHIP RESTRAINTS & JET IMPINGEMENT SHIELDS S REACTOR CONTAINMENT LINER S FUEL TRANSFER TUBE SUPPORT AND OTHER LINERS S MISCELLANEOUS SUPPORTS S PENETRATIONS SLEEVES AND ANCHORAGE

$ CONNECTIONS AND ANCHORAGES

$ COMPUTER CODE BENCHMARKING G TESTING PROGRAMS

$ TORNADO DESIGN

$ HEAVY LOAD DROPS l 9 GENERIC TEQHNICAL CONCERNS S SEISMIC ANALYSIS l

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 9 DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PLANT DESIGN MEETS THE LICENSING COMMITMENTS BY:

G IDENTIFICATION OF ANY CONCERNS 9 IDENTIFY CORRECTIVE ACTION G IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION 4 IDENTIFY PREVENTATIVE ACTION O IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION l.._- __ _ .___ _ _ _ ..._.. _ .-. _ _- - - - - - - - - - -

MM u m LONG TERM PLAN 9 IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION PLAN INTO TUGCO ENGINEERING PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED TO ASSURE SAME OR SIMILAR PROBLEMS DO NOT OCCUR AGAIN.

9 DEVELOP A STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM AND A STAFF OF QUALIFIED ENGINEERS TRAINED YO ALL APPLICABLE PROCEDURES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LESSONS LEARNED TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE.

0

-.-____,-..,-..__,,.,,-_,._-,-_-,..,___,,.,-,,..,__.n,_n-,_ __ , , , , , - - , - , - . , , , , , ,

6 l

l l

M M M _ l l

l l

l l

PIP NG AND l l

PIPE SUPPORTS 1

i l

CORRECTIVE 1

l ACTION  !

PLAN

-. - - - - _ ---..---. -, ..--,_.___..----.,,n,-..n_ __.,,,,-.- _ ,_ ,--n-_ _ ,,,,, .

SOURCE OF ISSUES O EXTERNAL 9 DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM 4 CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY PROGRAM

- . .- . . - - - . , . ~ . , - _ - , - , . _ , , , _ - - . - . , - _ - . . --,--- ,. ...-__..-,_ _ _ _ , . - _ _ . .

_ _ _ - . ~ - . _ - . . . . . . . , _ . . . - _ _ .

- m e - - + .-.. - a IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 9 PIPE STRESS CALCULATION ,

I i

O PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN O PIPE SUPPORT INSTALLATION l

l l

mum nun um -f

- - _ _ - ~ - - -__-_. . _ - - , . - - - - - . , . .-- . . - . - . . . , . . .- - , - . _ ,,.-,-, -...--.-_ . - , ___-,-_ ..,,,.n---

i 1

l 1

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES G DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PLANT DESIGN MEETS THE LICENSING COMMITMENTS BY:

9 IDENTIFICATION OF ANY CONCERNS e IDENTIFY CORRECTIVE ACTION G IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION O IDENTIFY PREVENTATIVE ACTION 9 IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION l

l

l 1

mm u m l 1

LONG TERM PLAN S IMPLEMENT PREVENTATlVE ACTION PLAN INTO TUGCO ENGINEERING PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED TO ASSURE SAME OR SIMILAR )

PROBLEMS DO NOT OCCUR AGAIN. l 1

g DEVELOP A STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM AND A STAFF OF QUALIFIED ENGINEERS TRAINED TO ALL APPLICABLE PROCEDURES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LESSONS LEARNED TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE.

mm a m 6

__- . _ . - ----,- _ -.. ... - ._..- ._ ~ ._.- .,,,,,_,,__ ___ _

____-,,.--,.n.,-.-,n.

CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS CORRECTIVE I

ACTION '

PLAN

--**Ne---www--y a ww m e s ww-m-v es = = = ww---wwwFwem e-w w w -T -T--"Dm-pg-

l l

l l

l SOURCE OF ISSUES l 9 EXTERNAL (CYGNA, NRC, AUDITS) ,

1 i

I 9 CPRT (DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM, CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY PROGRAM) l l

l I

l l

l e  !

l l

1 1

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES S

CABLE TRAYS S GENERIC SUPPORT DESIGNS l l

l' 9 UNIQUE SUPPORT DESIGNS l

9 SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ACTIONS l i

1 1

" " num um.

L__ _ _ . _ - _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 9 DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PLANT DESIGN MEETS THE LICENSING COMMITMENTS BY:

e IDENTIFICATION OF ANY CONCERNS e IDENTIFY CORRECTIVE ACTION 4 IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION

$ IDENTIFY PREVENTATIVE ACTION 9 IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION l

- M d

I LONG TERM PLAN

$ IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION PLAN INTO TUGCO ENGINEERING PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED TO ASSURE SAME OR SIMILAR PROBLEMS DO NOT OCCUR AGAIN. -

G DEVELOP A STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM AND A STAFF,OF QUALIFIED ENGINEERS TRAINED TO ALL APPLICABLE PROCEDURES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LESSONS LEARNED TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE.

1 4

wa -

- + --- w a _w--- 2 ws. --- - -.na,, e - 2 - m - a

)

i l

l I

l CONDUIT SUPPORTS

-.- ------.---,_-,. - , - - - - , - . _ - _ , - - - , _ _ _n._ __,-

- - - - - - - - - - - - . ._,,.a _,. -_ - --s - __

a m m a SOURCE OF ISSUES 9 EXTERNAL (CYGNA, TRT) .

$ INTERNAL G THIRD PARTY REVIEW

- m . .

6

E m u m l

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 9 SPANS 9 GENERIC SUPPORTS 9 UNIQUE SUPPORTS 9 SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ISSUES 1

m m m u

l l

l - .

l l

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 4 DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PLANT DESIGN MEETS THE LICENSING COMMITMENTS BY:

G IDENTIFICATION OF ANY CONCERNS e IDENTIFY CORRECTIVE ACTION 4 IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION G IDENTIFY PREVENTATIVE ACTION O IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION l

(

=w w =--y =e--+--we---e wegw+*wW umrde'e'-N--TwN--'N7- - - - --%Wwmv'en-'ww9"v--sW- Tu-mm Nev' PmTtr- aon=r WN-em N- hw @W_ -N"

a - - -- v .s._. m_ -- _. - - - - - . _a _-_.-,2- ,. __. _-._ 2 LONG TERM PLAN

$ IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION PLAN INTO TUGCO ENGINEERING PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED TO ASSURE SAME OR SIMILAR PROBLEMS DO NOT OCCUR AGAIN. -

S DEVELOP A STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM AND A ' AFF OF QUALIFIED ENGINEERS TRAINED TO ALL APPLICABLE PROCEDURES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LESSONS LEARNED TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE.

L, . .

m

_. _ ___ .._. _ _ _ _ , ______. __ .__.__ __ ,_,.___. . _....___. _ _ _ __ _ _.. __ _ , -m..,

_- -- ----- --- -- - ..m ..m-_ m -i- h----h- a- v' - - --- - - - - ^ - ' -" "D -^1-- " -- 4 ""'-' --M ^~" *- 4* " -

ELECTR CAL CORRECT VE ACTION PLAN

- , - , y, ,- ,, ,, - -,-------,-,-- ,,.----m._v-, -,, ,--- .,--__-n, , _ _ _ ,__,,_wm, ___,-_m

SOURCE OF lSSUES

$ DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM (TERA)

$ CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY PROGRAM (ERC) e EXTERNAL SOURCES, E.G., NRC, TRT, CYGNA, INPO, & INTERNALLY

i. . . .

l

. %.s.

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES G CALCULATIONS ADEQUACY G ASSUMPTIONS & REFERENCES 9 INPUTS & OUTPUTS 9 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA G METHODOLOGY ADEQUACY G ACCURACY & VERIFICATION

$ ELECTRICAL SEPARATION

$ ADEQUACY OF CRITERIA l 9 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 9 LICENSING COMMITMENTS 1 9 DESIGN DETAILS l 3 DESIGN AND/OR AS-BUILT DISCREPANCIES I

$ lilSTALLATION SPECIFICATION l 9 HEAT SHRINKABLE TUBING

@ DOCUMENTATION

@ PHYSICAL INSPECTION G ELECTRICAL BUTT SPLICES ADEQUACY G CLASS 1E LIGHTING G LIGHTING CIRCulT FAULT ANALYSIS e CLASSIFICATION O INSTALLATION / WORKMANSHIP

l l

)

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 9 DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PLANT DESIGN MEETS THE LICENSING COMMITMENTS BY:

G IDENTIFICATION OF ANY CONCERNS 9 IDENTIFY CORRECTIVE ACTION G IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION 4 IDENTIFY PREVENTATIVE ACTION O IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION

l MM M M LONG TERM PLAN 9 IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION PLAN INTO TUGCO ENGINEERING PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED TO ASSURE SAME OR SIMILAR PROBLEMS DO NOT OCCUR AGAIN. -

$ DEVELOP A STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM AND A STAFF OF QUALIFIED ENGINEERS TRAINED TO ALL APPLICABLE PROCEDURES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LESSONS i

LEARNED TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE.

1 M

d

.~--w----,-ty- - - - - - - ... -- ... , - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - * - ..---------,,-.-we== ww-

t I&C CORRECT VE ACTION PLAN I i

l l

l l

M _

d

7 SOURCE OF ISSUES 9 DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM (TERA)

S CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY PROGRAP/I(ERC) 4 EXTERNAL SOURCES E.G. NRC, TRT, CYGNA, INPO.

4 INTERNAL SOURCES E.G. INSPECTIONS,

, EVALUATIONS, REVIEWS, ETC.

1 q_

I

.-- - - - . . . . , - - , , . _ . . - - - _ - . , . . , , , , . . . . . . -,,_n_--n..._._,---..

e

- M M Mm IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES 9 INSTRUMENT INSTALLATION / INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 9 TUBING AND INSTRUMENT SUPPORT DESIGNS S POST-ACCIDENT ELEVATED TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON TUBING CONFIGURATION 9 TORQUING OF SUPPORT FIXTURES 4 HARDENED WASHERS S BOP INSTRUMENT SETPOINTS 9 DOCUMENTED BASIS FOR PROCESS SETPOINTS 4 COMPLIANCE WITH REG. GUIDE 1.10 5 AND ISA-S 6 7-0 4 9 INACCURATE VENDOR DATA AND CALCULATED ERRORS t

, . _ . - - . . . _ - - , , , _ . . , yy... . - _ , . _ , . - ,_ _ - , _,_ _,._,_._,_,_m,,, , ,, _, , . _ . , ,,,.,w, _ ..ww

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 9 DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PLANT DESIGN MEETS THE LICENSING COMMITMENTS BY:

O IDENTIFICATION OF ANY CONCERNS l

e IDENTIFY CORRECTIVE ACTION O IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION l

9 IDENTIFY PREVENTATIVE ACTION ,

O IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION l

f i I

- ._ - . _ - . _ . . . _ _ ~ _ _ . _ . .

l mm u m.

LONG TERM PLAN

$ IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION PLAN INTO TUGCO ENGINEERING PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED TO ASSURE SAME OR SIMILAR PROBLEMS DO NOT OCCUR AGAIN. -

G DEVELOP A STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM AND A STAFF.OF QUALIFIED ENGINEERS TRAINED TO ALL APPLICABLE PROCEDURES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LESSONS LEARNED TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE.

am a m

._ _ _ - . , _ . , _ . . _ , _ , _ . , , _ . _ , _ ._,,_,m,

, _m , g., _ na+ aasu-n ,

- ,aa = m,. .a,as --. ---w- s- - --- - - -

--n - -- - - - - - w ---

M M M M M EQUIPMENT P

QUALIF CATION CORRECTIVE f

ACT ON l PLAN M W M M N. _

J 4

J T

i

- - , - - ,- , . - , . . . , , ,-, , .,.a.,._,_,,,,,..,,.,,,,_

SOURCE OF ISSUES

$ DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM (TERA)

$ EXTERNAL SOURCES, E.G., NRC, TRT 10CFR50.49 AUDITS OF OTHER UTILITIES

$ INTERNAL SOURCES, E.G., INSPECTIONS I

e

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES

$ IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS S EQ MASTER LIST

$ SUB-COMPONENT TAGGING

$ ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS S CENTRAL DOCUMENT FILE

$ ENVIRONMENTAL SEISMIC DOCUMENTATION 9 DESIGN CHANGES g DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS

$ INSTALLED CONFIGURATION VS TESTED CONFIGURATION

$ GENERIC REGULATORY CONCERNS

$ IEN,IEB, AND lE CIRCULARS FROM 1979 l

@ MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE I 9 EQ REQUIRED MAINTENANCE

, , 9 FAILURE ANALYSIS AND TRENDING , ,

I J

---

....-..._._,...-_._...,-_.--.n___--___-,_.,,,n,,., , , , . - _nn_,.,_ _ ,

l l - - _ _

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 9 DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PLANT DESIGN MEETS THE LICENSING COMMITMENTS BY:

G IDENTIFICATION OF ANY CONCERNS 9 IDENTIFY CORRECTIVE ACTION 4 IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION 4 IDENTIFY PREVENTATIVE ACTION O IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION 1

i

'I

l l

i

. l. . .

LONG TERM PLAN

$ IMPLEMENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION PLAN INTO TUGCO ENGINEERING PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED TO ASSURE SAME OR SIMILAR PROBLEMS DO NOT OCCUR AGAIN. .

9 DEVELOP A STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM AND A STAFF OF QUALIFIED ENGINEERS TRAINED TO ALL APPLICABLE PROCEDURES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LESSONS LEARNED TO PREVENT REOCCURRENCE.

1

_._m. _ --- - - - - - ~ _ . . - , , . - . - . , . - . _ _ _ - _ _ _ , , . . . . , - - - - , _yy -, .

m -w em , _ _yq

6

• m-

' C. . ts ouv- Seuss.

I i l San 5 7 5 .., s. E e u ria. o y e un s. L c.a . e :

I u z, e?. c..,.,,  ;

i i % T E.d I u f i 0 ad .

04 3rveS7 (. $ rt t > 7 1 mpg wile M (T I.4)

11. 4557 s ,e epr surra # sea.s ( ie s a., / a. . s.,)

(( w u r. a. . P . ~ m.s o- . / n . ..)

E}

y . . . . . , .,-o, (4.of o.a ~ ) i t?T h[#,

T PPe s.r 5 ops -44.sw ar (t s.e ) (.'acwevs s es t ry 70 3 oft da4*iarr s (s n4)

E l' 51 A's (1 84 )

y vs aius (1. i s. / i . s )

I C..ta. e 'Er, u es w ru r fa . . . 6,',

r. ovr u ns.s l l

i 4 sr.5, t ry.+ .  :~ w 2, a g ,m j 3 5 T4 's J l

i I

_2.4 , 4 5, u r,, "In . .e c.

! l Has 4 << ~ s ,pe - 6, i+93 j E n e.L

. ., g ,:q3 ; 3% : .,u (. ti w <<l 7,es % 4 a i=.4) s L.144- e vg l <_ , tic + ,.. A s +,4w) Jm is t ,

, p.4 ,. A y ees % e )hd I ak skiff t <g [D ==< e t k. .

P , p k,, ra n <<<ia-a; -

~ x. z. .

3 l I

l l

l i'

l I

i

l CurreM 3, 4 L ea s ke o pera Ws **J nd 4 silt.e3 Cyrea s a re .+ 3 <-a;J see J h airls+ is s h e k. p bes W 3, rkis e m pert e.u.4 is esL44.le) h c4 - k a . # bp 4 to .. A s ,

l t Ar,iAvie g e 24 recre e 4 -

AP T c A ; < 14 = s aJ S.pwisus 4.<, puharakJ .+ eMe pl 43 as f,ile w s

• lj i 4 e r, f- Arld 1% 9 s<e l s (o.43<)

f.} YdOb / J forv.

g Call.w)3. >3 fa.'s/ J 2 = r <. ie seeLa (e.h y )

• M in ' 3 ?.f

{ Feels) so Tubs / 2 f o r v. 7 s r< k s (o h $r)

Wel4 Cra4 k. il GLs / 1 Swrv. 7 -e, h s (t+=,br) l ,

I';

197d Feloy ( fesLsl l 1. y v, G Nerks (c. Fey) 19 t 3 F.rlt3 .c GL s / I f., r v. 4 -se ks (o Ayr) l l

P laa s M in t *t l a st. J< pu k a 7 4;os s& Farley a ) Ca tio e <3

%3 fask s h) J % =previsers 4 s<els, it- 7 -io j i

l -

i I

I

, 1 i,

f i

l l

l l

1

' l i

l

C 7 0 ser s .s te ?wf fas t* tLt t =' G W C,4 m , j k -e%f is b kwe a+ lens k e%s 13o ll4# ss/ !sJlvi/ al i

on g a s. L. skidf a f N === # .[ Mi Lee 4 w ie hes G H.s

t. . f- ep<-.4.%$ <4 rre le = <.4 m a.  : 4-, yye y le - +. 6 644 s k!#4- 1 r #* vi s ev- 4) assisfa E sk//k s.pe. vis m f, k s et af leas h G w e e k.1 Lef s pe -s k.e c aree /w w of'  ? 3d%

)

p e =4 t t .

F4 A s k,'# F s o re </se - will k<ve e bbr / t4w A4s* <m r t le -c.e .

Q e.r::

W sg ?reyess.:

gj c 3., 5/ u_ 1/ D

$I  ;

S kIff T pervisc.os - 347 %

1,. J.%

(.L 7

e Da s A 4" . I w/4 4  ;

!. l

• Det s G M(A L.i c.4a s e -

G e ss e + +- */ ar el e= s Fa< le )

G i t3&lt A s s4. S Li# + L.7,, vise s . arrit Id I i \

w/A 7 1434,, 3 f, Iq% 1.1. I 1 CA o.S ,

1 o.1 i Da vi s

• 1

? *'# * * ,w % f. Ele =.s t

• k* Nemo s e b e n=4 W f.f "{A *) ,

A se.s e 3 J u k.

M w k. 9.L 1 l

M ill e /". / w/A i 1.J. $ lM. o.1 u . it. . f-. .' A J'. d i A uf J o' Nwa l C y e==a k c">sykle.s ce *

[9 o f era ks 5 k e ve f. ' . . , - ' , , . "

=

o h ha u'= ) e fera k e nfr*l4- e4 e +~ t% y I n-. h

\ W a. be h \ es- J' L ie o (Wa N J et La l E u7te k k%

• N e=. ) e[ #177, 44I $L.I/f $ = 7 c ' . ; e**1 AJ 4 8J /s he-. Y

~d) 5 k; /+7. re. ve's e s s t.w l l k t. 4 /s to tst 1Gr w u a4 4 8. C e.s--. ~ .'/-c A, D *.e.'h.=.ew N Lett ket % spNl q) het > k hhe .d ga pgw tl me C L

• h* 65 f kI l1,

- _ . - . . - . -. - - . . - _ _ _ , . - _ _ - - _ - _ , _ . -_ .