ML18114A818
| ML18114A818 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/19/2018 |
| From: | Kenneth Hamburger NRC/RES/DRA/FRB |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18114A814 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-3640 | |
| Download: ML18114A818 (294) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
NRC HEAF Phase II Information Sharing Workshop Docket Number: N/A Location: North Bethesda, Maryland Date: April 19, 2018 Work Order No.: NRC-3640 Pages 1-293 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 + + + + +
3 NRC HEAF PHASE II INFORMATION SHARING WORKSHOP 4 + + + + +
5 THURSDAY 6 APRIL 19, 2018 7 + + + + +
8 9 The NRC HEAF Phase II Information Sharing 10 Workshop met in the 02A14 Classroom of Three White 11 Flint, 11601 Landsdown Street, North Bethesda, 12 Maryland, at 8:34 a.m., Michael Cheok, Deputy 13 Director, NRR, presiding.
14 15 STAFF PRESENT 16 MICHAEL CHEOK, Director, Division of Risk 17 Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor 18 Regulation 19 THOMAS AIRD, General Engineer, Division of Risk 20 Analysis 21 THOMAS BOYCE, Branch Chief, Regulatory Guidance 22 and Generic Issues Branch 23 ROBERT DALEY, Branch Chief, Region III 24 STANLEY GARDOCKI, Program Manager, Regulatory 25 Guidance and Generic Issues Branch NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 1 NICHOLAS MELLY, Fire Protection Engineer, 2 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 3 KENN MILLER, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 4 Research 5 MARK HENRY SALLEY, Branch Chief, Fire and 6 External Hazards Branch 7 DAVID STROUP, Project Manager, Office of 8 Nuclear Regulatory Research 9 GABRIEL TAYLOR, Senior Fire Protection 10 Engineer, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 11 Research 12 MICHAEL WEBER, Director, Office of Nuclear 13 Regulatory Research 14 15 ALSO PRESENT 16 JENS ALKEMPER, FM Global 17 SCOTT BAREHAM, NIST 18 JANA BERGMAN, Curtiss-Wright 19 ROBERT CAVEDO, Exelon 20 FRANK CIELO, KEMA Laboratories 21 MARK EARLEY, NFPA 22 KENNETH FLEISCHER, EPRI 23 DANIEL FUNK, Jenson Hughes 24 FRANCISCO JOGLAR, Jenson Hughes 25 CASEY LEJA, Exelon NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 ASHLEY LINDEMAN, EPRI 2 DAVID LOCHBAUM 3 SHANNON LOVVORN, TVA 4 MATTHEW MERRIMAN, Appendix R Solutions 5 ALICE MUNA 6 FRANCESCO PELLIZZARI, EPM 7 ROD PLETZ, AEP 8 SUJIT PURUSHOTHAMAN, FM Global 9 ANTHONY PUTORTI, NIST 10 ROBERT RHODES, Duke Energy 11 BRENDA SIMRIL, TVA 12 THOMAS SHUDAK, NPPD 13 STEPHEN TURNER, Independent Consultant 14 BAS VERHOEVEN, KEMA Laboratories 15 BETH WETZEL, TVA 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 AGENDA 2 Page 3 NRC Request for Test Parameter Ranges &
4 Equipment Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5
6 Review of Phase II Draft Test Plan &
7 Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 8
9 Public Comment Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 10 11 Adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (8:34 a.m.)
3 MR. SALLEY: Okay, good morning. We'll 4 get started here with Day 2. I take it, I trust 5 everyone rested well last night, watch my Penguins 6 beat up on Nick's Flyers. Played well. That was a 7 very enjoyable hockey game.
8 So, let's get started today. We had a 9 busy day yesterday, we covered a lot of information.
10 Again, I want to thank Mark Earley for the NFPAs 11 presentation. A lot of that reference, there is a 12 lot of work that Gabe is going to be doing, looking 13 at stuff, like you, too, Nick.
14 And then Ashley in the presentation, Nick 15 read the White Paper for everyone. I think that's 16 very valuable, thank you.
17 And Bas, you'll give presentations to a 18 fire protection engineer like me was very eye-opening 19 about the electrical side. Much better handle on 20 testing than on the body protection side but it was 21 a great presentation. I learned a lot from it.
22 So, yesterday, like I said, it was a lot 23 of information that we were exchanging. Day 2 on 24 this workshop, we really want a lot of your 25 participation and we want to have a lot of good NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 active discussion today.
2 And again, it's forming how this project 3 moves forward. We've got a good mix of people in 4 here with utilities, the test labs. We got the NIST 5 folks, FM, NFPA, some of the regulators. So I really 6 want a good discussion.
7 Last evening when we were looking at this 8 after the meeting, Nick, Gabe and I were kind of 9 going over it. And we looked at the agenda, and what 10 we thought for today, to make it a little productive 11 and maybe a little quicker, was to flip the agenda 12 around.
13 So if you look at your agenda, what we 14 would like to do this morning is for the NRC request 15 for test parameters, ranges and equipment selection, 16 we'd like to start with that.
17 And I think with a lot of that discussion 18 we can actually answer some of the questions and 19 things that we got on the test parameter. So, again, 20 that's where we'd like to start, for the people on 21 the webinar, so that they know where we're at.
22 So with that, I'm going to turn it over 23 to Gabe, Nick and Kenn Miller and we'll get the 24 discussion going. So, Gabe, you got it?
25 MR. TAYLOR: So, just a couple of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 administrative things before I get started is, again, 2 we have the court reporter transcribing the meeting 3 so we would like you to use the microphone so that 4 both he can capture as well as the sure phone. With 5 the speaker right there we can pick up the audiences 6 communications a lot better for those on the webinar.
7 So please use the phone, introduce yourself.
8 That's the microphone. And on this one 9 you got to get pretty close, so you don't have to 10 kiss it but almost. So, I'll just leave this back 11 here in the back corner.
12 It's off. You have to hold those two 13 buttons down, it will do a countdown, three, two, one 14 and then it will go on. So it's off right now, 15 you're not being recorded.
16 PARTICIPANT: Not hot mic you're saying?
17 MR. TAYLOR: No hot mic, just this one.
18 (Laughter) 19 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So, as Mark said, we 20 want to get into the test parameters. And really 21 that's one thing we got feedback from Phase I, is a 22 lot of people thought that we should be doing 23 different things than what we did.
24 Part of that was, part of the real 25 reasons of what we did was because of what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 international group wanted to. Given the importance 2 of the aluminum impact, we need to have a little more 3 control on what we're doing here on Phase II.
4 So we felt it was important to understand 5 the parameters that we can change when we test. We 6 get feedback from the audience on what those ranges 7 for parameters should be, as well as the types of 8 equipment that we should be testing.
9 So the test plan, as Nick mentioned 10 yesterday, went out for public comment last year.
11 And we have those comments. And we've resolved most 12 of those comments, however, there are a few that 13 we're looking for feedback. So he'll cover that this 14 afternoon.
15 My point is that the test plan is still 16 flexible, so it's not final. There is a lot of time 17 for changes before we actually go to the testing.
18 So hopefully we get valuable feedback and 19 make the changes and do the testing that we need to 20 address the problem.
21 MR. MELLY: And again, we are doing this 22 one with the OECD. And I believe we have ten-member 23 countries who are going to be joining on.
24 So next week I will be also sharing a lot 25 of the insights from this meeting with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 international members to try and come to a resolution 2 of the parameters, what we're going to be testing at, 3 voltage current, duration, things like that.
4 MR. TAYLOR: And the NRC is the biggest 5 player in this program so we have the biggest weight 6 of directing the program where it needs to go.
7 Obviously, if the country donates equipment or money, 8 they're going to have some say.
9 But if we can influence them with a good 10 background or a technical explanation of why it 11 should be covered a certain way, I feel that that 12 should make it easy on Nick when he goes and tries to 13 negotiate the test plan and agreement on the 14 international folks.
15 Next slide. So, what we really want to 16 get out of this presentation, I kind of already went 17 over it, but feedback, lots of discussions, all 18 right. I'm not up here presenting like yesterday.
19 We went probably over 200 slides yesterday giving you 20 a lot of information.
21 Today we want to focus the discussion but 22 really hear from the audience and get feedback to do 23 what we need to do, as I mentioned earlier.
24 Understand the range of operating 25 conditions. You know, all plants are very, aren't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 the same. There's a lot of variations out there.
2 So understanding the different parameters 3 and configurations and the importance. So we'll look 4 for feedback on that aspect.
5 And then also, getting into the equipment 6 that we'll be testing. As I mentioned, there is 7 likely going to be some equipment donation from the 8 international participants, however, it's not going 9 to be as extensive as it was in Phase I.
10 Right now we're looking at two countries 11 that are going to donate equipment because they could 12 not donate monetary funds to the program. So, all 13 the other equipment we'll have to go out and procure.
14 So we're kind of working off a blank 15 slate. We're looking for feedback from the audience 16 on what equipment is typical, what aspects of the 17 equipment are important for procurement.
18 Next slide. A few weeks ago we put out 19 this document. And the real intent and purpose of 20 the needs and objective of the document was to a very 21 simplistic high level, identify what the hazard is.
22 You know, in general, common terms. As 23 well as the second part of the document, identify 24 parameters that we'd be interested in trying to 25 understand the range for current, voltages, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 durations, that sort of thing.
2 So, really, the whole purpose of getting 3 that document out there was to get the audience to 4 look at it, look at their plants, help understand the 5 range of equipment variations and bring that 6 information here so we can have a thorough discussion 7 on understanding those variations.
8 Okay, so if we look at the hazard, and I 9 took this from a presentation that's referenced 10 there, but it provides a general description of the 11 arc events and the different types of effluence that 12 comes out of it.
13 So, the things that we're interested in 14 is obviously the thermal effects. So that's going to 15 radiate energy out and potentially damage equipment 16 from the thermal aspects.
17 Also, this says copper vapor but 18 obviously aluminum vapor is the same issue. The 19 conductor vapor that can go out much farther than the 20 thermal aspects, as far as the damaging concern.
21 So the vapor that gets expelled from 22 these events is going to be important to understand, 23 both how far it can go out and the nature of that 24 vapor. Can it cause damage or shorting to other 25 electrical equipment that could cause functional NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 failures and then impact the ability to shut down the 2 plant or control the plant.
3 Also, another thermal aspect is the 4 molten metal that gets expelled from the event. So 5 you melt the aluminum, you melt the copper, it gets 6 thrown out, how far does it go. That's basically 7 another ignition source besides just the thermal 8 energy from the arc.
9 As Nick showed you yesterday from the 10 Turkey Point and the other events, pressure can also 11 have an effect on the plant. Breaking down barriers, 12 opening doors.
13 So, that defeats certain fire protective 14 barriers. So understanding that is also an important 15 aspect. And I think there's been a lot of work done 16 in that area, but also something that we're 17 interested in.
18 And similar to the molten metal but also 19 somewhat different, the shrapnel. So non-melted 20 material that gets ejected from the event and could 21 cause physical damage to equipment in the surrounding 22 area.
23 So, the goals of the program, we talked 24 yesterday when I was going through the different 25 matters, really we have a bounding method that's in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 6850 and we wanted to see if we can refine that.
2 Whether it's for aluminum or copper or anything else, 3 we want to see if we can make it more realistic, more 4 representative for the plants.
5 And then also, if we modify that base 6 model, can we then take that model and modify it for 7 aluminum, the effecting impacts of aluminum.
8 So that's really what we want to get out 9 of this overall program. And the objectives that we 10 need to complete to reach that goal are kind of 11 listed here.
12 Some of these we won't be talking about 13 today, but a lot of them we will. So the first 14 bullet is really the important thing, understanding 15 the test conditions, or making realistic test 16 conditions based on plant configurations.
17 So understanding the electrical 18 distribution. And we have Kenn Miller up here who is 19 the electrical to help us along with that discussion.
20 And also understanding operating 21 experience. A great operating experience in, because 22 it provides valuable information. Specifically, when 23 we talk about the duration aspects of some of these 24 events.
25 We're going to go through some of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 parameters that we can change. And the way that 2 we're going to go through it, is I'm basically going 3 to take one parameter, provide some background 4 information and have discussion. And we'll go 5 through that, through the different parameters.
6 And at the end, because the parameters 7 kind of play on one another, we had a general 8 discussion of all the parameters we support. But 9 again, it's a free for all, if you have questions 10 just ask them as they come up.
11 On the collection and measurement, and 12 also the developing application and measurement 13 devices, we're not going to get into too much 14 information on there.
15 If there are questions related to that, 16 please bring them up. But we've been working on 17 developing measurement devices, heat flux gauges and 18 whatnot for quite some time.
19 There was Sandia report that got put out 20 in 2014. I know the Japanese have been working on 21 measurement devices and Tony Putorti and Scott from 22 NIST have been working on that.
23 So I think we have what we need from 24 that, but if you want to have some discussion, 25 obviously we can it's just not going to be a focus of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 the lead presentation.
2 And then the last part, some more later 3 on, AMIs and the data and using that to improve the 4 models and revising the models, which are outside of 5 the actual testing program but it's an important 6 piece to consider how we're going to use the data.
7 Next slide. So, here's some of the test 8 parameters that I've identified for discussion today.
9 So the important ones are duration, voltage and 10 current.
11 And as we talked about yesterday, voltage 12 is not necessarily the system voltage that we're 13 going to be concerned about but the arcing voltage.
14 And we look at that, get into other things like bus 15 bar spacing and closure configuration, the impact, 16 the actual arc voltage.
17 Grounding configurations and X over R 18 ratios are also going to be important to understand 19 for the types of available fault current that you can 20 have in the system, as well as your DC time constant 21 for the ACs asymmetric portion of the current 22 profile.
23 And one thing I want to talk a little bit 24 about also is the arc initiation phase, phase angle.
25 So when you initiate the arc, again, on a asymmetric NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 aspect of the current profile, it may have some 2 impacts on the pressure from these events to run the 3 testing.
4 And then the last one I want to talk 5 about is arc location. For testing realistic 6 equipment, where should we initiate that arc.
7 So, should it be back in the bus bar 8 section, should it be up by the breaker slabs or 9 somewhere in between. And that's something where we 10 need some, a lot of the discussion because when we 11 get into the measurement aspect, we want to make sure 12 that we can capture the energy coming out of the 13 equipment. And we're going to be limited by the 14 number of instruments that we can put out.
15 So we can't like have a slab power all 16 over, we have to kind of position them where we think 17 the arc is going to come out of the cabinet. So 18 knowing the equipment and how the magnetics effect 19 arc, travel and movement and then being able to 20 position equipment where we can measure those, those 21 energies, is going to be important. So we'll spend 22 some time on that.
23 Next slide. Okay, so thermal energy.
24 That's an important piece for the thermal aspects of 25 the zone of influence.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 If you look at the IEEE type calculations 2 and the NFPA tables, the calculations really rely on 3 both arc voltage, arc current, duration as well as 4 the heat transfer coefficient as a simplified 5 assumption, or a simplified model to characterize the 6 energy. So, we'll start off talking about those 7 variable first.
8 Next slide. And also, what I've done 9 here is taken our test matrix. And we can come back 10 to this slide as needed.
11 But this is currently how we have it 12 broken, broken down. This is just showing the 13 electrical enclosures with the cabinet. Experiments 14 that we have tested.
15 We have two spares at the bottom which we 16 haven't decided what to do. Those could be, possible 17 used for pressure or they could be used for 18 additional replicates or something else.
19 And we haven't decided what to do with 20 the spare tests right now. But basically, if you 21 look to going toward the right material, we split it 22 up evenly between copper and aluminum.
23 Voltages levels. We have half of them 24 being low voltage, 480, and the other half being 25 medium voltage. Either 4160 or 6.9.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 The 4160 are likely going to be the 2 equipment that's donated from Korea. They've already 3 identified what equipment, and it's right between 4 here and the breakers. So unless they can be tested, 5 unless the enclosure is rated for a higher voltage, 6 it's likely that equipment will be tested at that 7 range. And then the rest is at 6.9.
8 Current. This is going to be a little 9 different from what you see in the previous test 10 plan, and I'll get into currents in some later 11 slides, why we've selected these, but we're looking 12 for feedback.
13 15 and 25 for low voltage and 25 and 35 14 kA, that's thousands of amps, for medium voltage.
15 And then the durations range from anywhere from two, 16 four, eight seconds for the enclosures. One, three 17 and five are actually for the bus bars.
18 Gaps. You can see that column is empty, 19 so we'll have some discussion there because, from 20 what I found, there is no standard that says this is 21 what the gap should be for low voltage or medium 22 voltage, it's basically up to the manufacturer to 23 design their equipment to meet the performance 24 requirements and various standards.
25 So, if there is any information to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 support a specific gap, for the enclosures, we're 2 more interested in learning that.
3 And then a lot of the energy, I think we 4 want to put the energy in there before we go test 5 them and understand what it is, but there is numerous 6 ways to calculate that. And it's dependent on, 7 highly dependent on what your arc voltage is. So I 8 didn't fill that one in right now.
9 MR. MELLY: Question.
10 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
11 MR. VERHOEVEN: Good morning, Bas 12 Verhoeven from KEMA. I was just looking at this 13 table and normally at low voltage panels the short 14 circuit current are much, much higher.
15 An earlier rate of 18, 19 kiloamps, 16 especially in the industrial area. While in the 17 medium voltage, the currents are a little bit lower 18 in the value that is here.
19 So how come you don't have higher short 20 circuit currents at low voltage amps?
21 MR. TAYLOR: So, I can get into that, but 22 if we can go forward a few slides, the current will 23 be done.
24 Okay. So, back up a little bit. All 25 right, go, okay, go forward. All right, so on 5.4, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 we don't have all the plants information that we need 2 to identify what the arcing, all the fault currents 3 are. You know, that's going to be specifically 4 classified as a need to, system needs and whatnot.
5 But what we do have is some information 6 on transformer powers, impedance to the transformer 7 and the system voltage. So you can do an impendent 8 bus type calculation, which is what I have done here 9 for some of the plant.
10 Do you see the sample is pretty small?
11 Only 18 for low voltage. Basically, what I did is, 12 for plants that I could find that information, I took 13 one or two buses and ran that calculation. And then 14 this is just a composite.
15 So, with a low sample number, I wouldn't 16 say this is highly representative but it's the best 17 that I can do to come up with kind of understanding 18 where the fault currents are.
19 So what, on the low voltage side what 20 this is showing is just a histogram of, the blue 21 would be your voltage fault current and then the 22 orange would be your arcing fault current, based on 23 the calculation IEEE 1584.
24 So based on the orange arcing fault 25 current, we picked basically a mean value of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 14.5. So that's where we got 15, and then 25 was 2 somewhat higher.
3 Obviously, the way that I did it, I 4 didn't include any motor contributions or anything 5 else. And that's implicit, but it's what I had to 6 work with.
7 So, you are seeing some multiple currents 8 that are much higher. But typically, when you go 9 from medium voltage to low voltage, at least from the 10 plants that I saw limited by the power of those 11 transformers being, maybe on the high end, 2 megavolt 12 amps, ratings of those transformers.
13 I don't know what the experience is here 14 but typically that's current on the higher end of 15 those transformers.
16 MR. MELLY: And that's exactly the type 17 of information that we were looking to collect is, 18 with plant experience, what are your fault current 19 levels for these low voltage pieces of equipment, 20 medium voltage pieces of equipment.
21 MR. VERHOEVEN: Yes. Also, to give a 22 comment. When we test the buses that we get from 23 KEMA, and we test low voltage circuit breakers, 24 normally the current value is, for normal circuit 25 breaker testing, are in the values of 60 kiloamps, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 18, sometimes even 100 to 30 kA for industrial 2 circuit breakers.
3 And I can't imagine that this is an 4 industrial implication.
5 MR. FUNK: I guess my input would be, 6 this is probably not unrealistic. And I do agree 7 most 480 volt systems, or even 600 volt systems, the 8 standard rating would typically be 42 kA, 65 and 85.
9 That would be a tide test.
10 But nuclear plants are a somewhat unique 11 from a broad perspective of all industry in that 12 they're medium voltage to low voltage step down 13 transformers tend to be small. Typically ranging 14 from 750 kVA to 1.5 MVA. It's pretty normal.
15 So, I think that maybe explains the 16 difference that you're looking at it.
17 PARTICIPANT: Okay.
18 MR. FUNK: Which means the gear typically 19 will be subjected to fault currents. Hopefully, 20 considerably below their rating.
21 Maybe Shannon or some other utility folks 22 can weigh in on that.
23 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I can speak to --
24 MR. FUNK: There will of course be 25 exceptions, but I think Gabe's approach is not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 unrealistic.
2 PARTICIPANT: Yes.
3 MR. FUNK: Yes, let's go over here real 4 quick. Shannon Lovvorn from TVA.
5 MR. LOVVORN: Yes, Shannon Lovvorn, TVA.
6 I would agree that the median looks about right to 7 me. Our low voltage fault currents range around the 8 16,000 amps or maybe some 18 or some lower.
9 The switchgear is typically feed off of 10 like a 1000 kVA transformer for us. So that's, I 11 think for us, I think you're in the right range.
12 MR. MILLER: I guess the other factor 13 that can affect that too is, I'm thinking about the 14 plant I was at, I think our 480 volt system was 15 solidly grounded as opposed to the 4 kV and 13 kV.
16 So that can tend to drive the fault currents up on 17 the lower voltages. And I can't remember what our 18 numbers were but --
19 MR. LOVVORN: Yes, we're on, our 480 20 volts are delta ungrounded.
21 MR. MILLER: Ungrounded, okay.
22 MR. FLEISCHER: Ken Fleischer from EPRI.
23 So, since I anticipated a workshop, I brought several 24 nuclear utility diagrams and I've already spot check, 25 I've seen 750 kVA up to about 1.5 MPA. We can --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 MR. MILLER: For transformer size?
2 MR. FLEISCHER: For transformers for a 4 3 kVA to a 480.
4 MR. MILLER: Yes.
5 MR. FLEISCHER: I can continue to look at 6 them and we can maybe adjust those number ranges but 7 that seems to be right spot on with what Dan Funk was 8 just saying.
9 But, I did bring drawings so that we can, 10 if we need to fact check something that may be 11 available on a one line, just let me know and I can 12 do that here.
13 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, thank you. While 14 we're here, let's just go to the next slide to show 15 the medium voltage.
16 And I did it for 4160 because if you look 17 at the times, I mean, that's about 85 percent, 18 somewhere around there, have 40, or excuse me, 4160 19 volt gear. And maybe about only a third of the 20 plants have 6.9 kV here.
21 So 4160 is much more common in plants for 22 medium voltage on distribution. So I put it up that 23 way just to see if there's any difference between the 24 two.
25 Again, the sample size is not that great NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 but similar to what I did for the low voltage. And 2 just a histogram showing voltage fault and arcing 3 fault.
4 One thing that is different here is that 5 you saw a much bigger shift from voltage to arcing 6 fault in the low voltage. And that's primarily 7 contributed to the IEEE method.
8 There is a calculation for low voltage 9 and a calculation for medium voltage. And that 10 approach is based on a statistical analysis, or a 11 regression analysis, of the data that they had to 12 develop those models.
13 So, because this is a histogram, you're 14 still getting a reduction from your voltage to your 15 arcing fault, but it's not enough, at least for this 16 case, to make it drop bins. And my bins are 10,000 17 amp width for the bins.
18 So you can see I didn't put the mean and 19 median for the voltage and the arcing fault. And you 20 see the arcing fault currents does reduce but not by 21 as much as you saw in the low voltage.
22 The low voltage is almost half of the, 23 the arcing fault current was almost one half of the 24 voltage fault current.
25 So, again, not that many samples. I took NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 one, maybe two buses, two buses. And I took two if 2 I saw a difference in the power rating of the 3 different transformers, whether it was a startup or 4 a rad or whatever the transformer was.
5 Typically there wasn't too much 6 difference. So in those cases I only take one 7 sample. But that's for the 4160.
8 Next slide. This is for 6.9 kV. So 9 again, slightly higher but not by really that much.
10 Right around 30 kA on the mean. And there is some 11 change here, just it jumped in when you went from 12 voltage to arcing.
13 So, when we looked at what we wanted to 14 test for this, 25 and 35 is what we picked. We 15 wanted 25 to be, we wanted one point on the medium 16 voltage to be in line with one point on the low 17 voltage side.
18 So 25 is the common voltage between the 19 two, or common term, sorry, 25 kA current between the 20 two. And then we picked one higher, which is 35 in 21 this case.
22 Again, this doesn't take into account 23 motor contributions but, again, it is a non-24 conservative assumption but then, again, it doesn't 25 take into your opinions on your source. Which is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 opposite.
2 So, another factor of the real system 3 response, somewhat undetermined. It really depends 4 on what motors you have running, what your system in 5 HEAF test for your power source.
6 Where is the handheld? Sorry about that.
7 But with the information that I had 8 available, this is at least one way we can get a 9 basis or at least a discussion here and get feedback 10 from that.
11 So I know it looks like Kenn is looking 12 through some diagrams, if you guys want to look 13 around while I kind of go back and talk about that, 14 at least you know now where we're coming from on the 15 current problem.
16 So if there's not any questions, I'm 17 going to go back to where I left off. We'll hit this 18 again.
19 (Off microphone comment) 20 MR. TAYLOR: Nick, can you go back?
21 MR. MELLY: Back to --
22 MR. TAYLOR: Wherever I left off. I 23 guess the HEAF plan --
24 MR. MELLY: Here, yes.
25 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. So again, 1525 low NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 voltage, 2535 for medium voltage. And then the 2 durations, we need to spend some time talking about 3 this. Some of the limits are based on what available 4 energies from KEMA and other ones are based on OpE 5 for these types of events.
6 Obviously, if the breakers work that's a 7 sign your talking cycles and not seconds. And if 8 they worked on designed you wouldn't have the HEAF.
9 And there's also been a lot of research 10 done from NFPA and IEEE and others, on the shorter 11 end. So it's another reason why we're focused on the 12 longer durations. We have slides on that as well.
13 One thing before we go, EPRI's report on 14 review, the testing in the OpE, as well as the other 15 report on the mean, it did identify that there is not 16 that many events in low voltage, and right now we 17 have it split 50/50 between medium and low voltage.
18 So I think one thing that's up for 19 discussion is, should we reduce the focus on low 20 voltage and still run some test on low voltage but 21 expand the number of tests that we do at medium 22 voltage since it seems, from the information that 23 we've been reviewing that there is more medium 24 voltage type events occurring in the plant that have 25 a safety significance, or a potential safety NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1 significance.
2 So, I want to just think about it right 3 now, but I want to come back to that because, as I 4 said, this is fluid, we can make changes now. But 5 once we get an agreement signed with the 6 international group, we're then limited to what we 7 can change.
8 Because the test plan actually goes into 9 the agreement and it gets signed. And to make 10 changes to that, from then you have to get all the 11 countries agreement.
12 MR. MELLY: Seventy-five percent of the 13 project group.
14 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. You got to get 75 15 percent of the project group to agree to that change.
16 So, right now the majority of the testing 17 is in that project. There are some, actually, Nick, 18 can you go to the website? Pull up the website with 19 your test plan.
20 MR. MELLY: Which website do we have it 21 on?
22 MR. TAYLOR: Just go to, it's already 23 pulled up unless you closed it.
24 MR. MELLY: Here we go.
25 MR. TAYLOR: So, the test matrix that I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 showed, it just takes Nick's test plan and puts it in 2 this form. But you can see the blue and the orange, 3 the blue cases are what's going to be sponsored with 4 the international group, and the orange cases are the 5 ones that the NRC are going to have to fill in on 6 their own. Just from a financial standpoint.
7 We couldn't get enough interests for 8 contributions for an international group to cover 9 everything. And because, as Nick mentioned 10 yesterday, aluminum is more of a U.S. interest than 11 most international countries, they elected not to 12 focus on aluminum as much.
13 So, I guess, just for your awareness, 14 that's where this came from. And we do have a little 15 more flexibility on some of the tests. You can go 16 back.
17 MR. DALEY: Hey, Gabe?
18 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
19 MR. DALEY: I just got to ask a question, 20 maybe it's premature, but where are you seeing the 21 aluminum? Where are we seeing that?
22 Are we seeing it in both 480 and 4160 or 23 are we seeing it primarily in one application as 24 opposed to another and are we seeing it in newer 25 plants via older plants?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 And the reason I'm asking is, because the 2 separation issues that older plants are much 3 different than newer plants, so I'm really kind of 4 curious what you want to look at, from both an 5 aluminum and a copper.
6 MR. MELLY: So I can take a shot at 7 answering that. Based on the NEI survey, we can't 8 tell whether it is in older plants or newer plants 9 because the plants were anonymous. Just numbered as 10 they were given to us.
11 MR. DALEY: Okay.
12 MR. MELLY: However, in terms of the 13 pieces of equipment that we've seen in them, it's all 14 over the board. I was expecting to see it more in 15 the low voltage equipment based on the OpE that we've 16 seen, however, it was in many pieces of medium 17 voltage equipment.
18 And in many plants, it's used primarily 19 as the enclosure material for the bus ducts 20 throughout the entire plant.
21 So, from the NEI server that we did 22 receive, we saw more aluminum than we expected.
23 However, only 52 plants were involved in that survey.
24 MR. MILLER: Did they break it down like 25 aluminum used as bus work versus just enclosures or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 --
2 MR. MELLY: Yes, they did. For, in terms 3 of the bus ducts that they used, they gave us whether 4 it was the conductor material within the bus duct or 5 the housing.
6 In terms of the electrical cabinets, if 7 aluminum was involved in any piece with the closure, 8 conduct or for the cradle units themselves, that was 9 also included.
10 But in terms of vintage of plant, we 11 don't have that information. No.
12 MR. DALEY: Yes. I'm just trying to 13 think, I'm really getting ahead of ourselves, but I'm 14 trying to think, where is this going to go, right, 15 and the effects on different plants when you got 16 certain plants that have separation for all the 4160, 17 really good separation.
18 Some plants have minimal, you will have 19 40, you might have 4160 switchgears separated by 20 rooms by you might have some of the other division 21 kind of roaming through that. And then there is some 22 of them where you got 4160 that are in the same room 23 and you're separated by distance, right?
24 MR. MELLY: Yes.
25 MR. DALEY: So you're really dealing with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 three different factions there. So, in the 4160, I 2 mean, to me it's just a clearly, from a fault 3 perspective in how the fault is going to affect 4 things, it seems to be the, it seems to be more 5 important.
6 And the other thing, now this conductive 7 property, the conductive vapor in that, that would 8 probably just be talked a little bit more about 9 because that could affect everything.
10 MR. MELLY: And, Bob, I think we may be 11 giving you a call when we start the pilot plant 12 discussion for the selection of plants when we get to 13 that stage, because these are the exact things that 14 may come up in that discussion of how we select which 15 plants we're going to try to evaluate the risk impact 16 of this, where is this going.
17 MR. DALEY: Covering a broad spectrum of 18 types.
19 MR. MELLY: Yes.
20 MR. TAYLOR: While I have it up here, 21 also on the bus duct testing, the majority of it is 22 aluminum. So you can see the NRC is picking up a lot 23 of that cost. So feedback on that has been very 24 important for us to make sure that we get the right 25 bus ducts configuration and whatnot.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 And so we have, Slide 8 will into this, 2 but right now, for your awareness is, we're breaking 3 it down by bus material and by enclosure material.
4 So copper bus fuel enclosure, copper bus aluminum 5 enclosure, aluminum bus steel enclosure and then 6 aluminum bus and aluminum enclosure.
7 So, I think we feel that those are up in 8 the plans, but obviously if there's one of those 9 cases isn't it, we would want to test it. So 10 feedback when we get to those slides, on that aspect 11 and the importance of the testing matrix.
12 Can you go to Slide 10? So, what I just 13 showed turned into a table form. We had a couple 14 spares that we could do. You know, possibly do a 15 longer duration. Again, it's flexible.
16 But everything at 4160, no changes in the 17 current. So that could be something that we could 18 change, we could use multiple currents. And it's 19 just a variation of bus and duct material.
20 Again, gap spacing, I don't have any of 21 that information. So I'm not sure there are 22 standards out there that says it should be five, 17 23 years apart, whatever it is. So feedback on that.
24 Design specs. Again, it's solely 25 representative of --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 MR. MELLY: And the one thing that we 2 also need to discuss when we're talking about the bus 3 ducts, is whether the conductive material is 4 insulated or not insulated. That can have effect on 5 where they place the arc and how we place the arc.
6 Because we are dealing with a limited 7 segment of bus ducts that we can put in the test 8 enclosure itself, we need to be able to determine how 9 to hold the arc in place. If it has the insulated 10 material on the conductors themselves, we've seen in 11 testing that has been done for the Cooper event that 12 we can hold the arc in place.
13 However, if there is no conductive, 14 there's no insulation material, we may be just 15 creating a rail gun and having all of the energy go 16 out directly one end of the arc travel down towards 17 the end of the bus.
18 So that's why the test plan currently had 19 a hard break in the conductive material to try and 20 hold the arc in place. However, we'd like to know 21 whether your plants have the insulated material on 22 the outside, inside the plant and kind of get a feel 23 for how that is across the fleet.
24 MR. TAYLOR: And no bus bars have been 25 procured yet so we're open on what the configuration NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 1 is. Question from Mark Salley?
2 MR. SALLEY: Yes. This is a good place 3 as any to jump in here, but going back to this 4 original testing we did with the internationals and 5 the GENESIS on how this all came together, we knew 6 one of the biggest expenses was going to be procure 7 nuclear grade equipment to basically destroy it in 8 the testing.
9 And when we had the original agreement 10 with the countries, the concept that we went in with 11 was, hey, find a plant in your country where they're 12 putting in some new switchgear, they're upgrading, 13 updating something, get that old equipment. It's 14 going to be scrapped anyhow, so let us use it for the 15 testing and that will be a whole cost saver.
16 So that's why you saw a lot of that 17 equipment in there, for example, Korea were the first 18 ones that were on it, and those original cabinets we 19 did were from Korea.
20 Again, Gabe and I through Zion Solutions 21 were able to procure the duct that was tested, the 22 bus duct from Zion.
23 But when I, I guess the plea or the 24 question I'm throwing out here is, we have some 25 plants that will be going into decommissioning, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 as you guys are doing upgrades to the plant, we'd be 2 open to say equipment donations that you could or if 3 you'd want to put into this program. So, again, keep 4 that in, we can work through EPRI, and equipment that 5 you would maybe be doing an upgrade, would be 6 scrapped out, could be used or for plant safety 7 commission, we'd welcome that equipment.
8 MR. TAYLOR: Thanks, Mark.
9 MR. SHUDAK: Tom Shudak with NPPD. So 10 the comment I keep hearing coming up is, what we have 11 as our plan configuration, will it be one that has 12 insulated aluminum buses.
13 So, we really don't know what's out 14 there. We have an anonymous survey out there. You 15 keep bringing up the point, we need to know that 16 information, not all plants are represented here in 17 this room.
18 Is there another effort to gather that 19 information from industry to make sure we get the 20 testing right, as far as that configuration?
21 MR. TAYLOR: I will let Mark Salley 22 answer that question.
23 MR. SALLEY: You know, as far as going 24 through that information, we've kind of backed off 25 there. And we would look to NEI, as we did with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 1 original one. Or to EPRI or EPRI and NEI together 2 working in that.
3 So, again, that's where we would look for 4 that to come from.
5 MR. TAYLOR: And not that it's that 6 important, but process wise, what process these could 7 be used to get that information. And really, I don't 8 think where we're suited by, I'm not sure that we get 9 the support to go out and issue a 50, for a type 10 letter or a temporary TI for the inspectors to go out 11 and look for it.
12 So we're really trying to leverage EPRI 13 or NEI to help us understand what's out there.
14 MR. SALLEY: And again, that's the 15 purpose of today's meeting and having your attendance 16 here, is to learn what's out there and what we should 17 be testing. So, again, that's a big part of today.
18 We've done similar things with cables.
19 If you remember years ago, looking at cables, what 20 was the typical thermoset cable out there. We did 21 the biggest bang for the industry, our data, and it 22 was raw asbestos fire wall III. I think that was in 23 like 80 percent of the plants.
24 So, again, those were the things we 25 learned so that our research is applicable. So, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 1 again, that's a key point of you all being here at 2 this meeting here today is to help us guide how we do 3 this testing.
4 MR. TAYLOR: And I guess the other option 5 would have been a bulletin but, you know, those are, 6 take at least a year. And then trying to keep this 7 within the GI program being timely response is also 8 something that we're trying to work with.
9 Question in the back with TVA.
10 MS. WETZEL: So when do you anticipate 11 the agreement to be signed and the test to be locked 12 in where we can't provide input?
13 MR. MELLY: The agreement right now is 14 currently held up with lawyers. There is some 15 viability issues in signing with that many countries 16 and the NRC internal ability to accept testing, 17 liability and indemnification clauses within an 18 agreement.
19 We were hoping to have the agreement 20 fully signed in hand towards the end of summer.
21 August time period. That is when the test plan will 22 be included on it.
23 Small changes can be made but they will 24 need to be discussed with the entire group. And 25 small changes I consider to be, if we decide to put NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 insulation on the bus bar materials.
2 After, if we receive more information, we 3 would have a meeting with the international members.
4 And it's a very collaborative working group that we 5 have established for this testing program.
6 We usually do not run into any 7 controversial issues where we can't breach consensus 8 agreement. So I don't see it as a huge stopping 9 point to make changes as we move forward.
10 Like we say, I mean, testing, we have the 11 spares in there because we're bound to have other 12 cases where we just see something we do not expect.
13 So, I don't think it's going to be a hard stop.
14 That said, we still are under an 15 agreement. But the end of August is what we're 16 shooting for to have the agreements signed by the 17 member countries.
18 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, thanks, Nick. Can we 19 go to the next slide then.
20 Okay, so for the first parameter, one of 21 the most important, in my mind, well, arc holders is 22 very important too, but one of the also more 23 difficult ones to predict from the HEAF standpoint, 24 is the arc duration.
25 So, one thing that we wanted to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1 understand was, your clearing times for your 2 protection systems. And if you look at the needs and 3 objectives document that went out, we tried to break 4 that down to understand what was more current for a 5 typical case and then when you're needing a breaker 6 or your protective equipment fails to clear on the 7 first clearance protector, device point.
8 Such that the fault would travel upstream 9 and then you have a second protective device to clear 10 and what the clearing times for that are. For both 11 voltage fault as well as arcing type conditions. So 12 that's one aspect of the duration that we're 13 interested in.
14 The other aspect that might have more 15 weight is actually the operating experience that 16 we've seen. The IN has information on the aluminum 17 events. And I think there has been presentations 18 that have discussed the duration of other events in 19 the duration.
20 So, because those are really, those types 21 of events are really what the frequency is being 22 contributed to for the Bin 16 type events, we're 23 looking into a lot more on that.
24 But we wanted to understand if the 25 systems worked as designed, what are those starting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 1 times for voltage and arcing fault currents.
2 So next slide. Just to reinstate what 3 we're planning on right now, and this is flexible, 4 low voltage four and eight seconds, medium voltage 5 two and four seconds. We can go longer on the low 6 voltage because of the system, the energy that we 7 have at KEMA.
8 And then the bus bar is one, three, four, 9 potentially up to five seconds at medium voltage.
10 But most of the majority is medium voltage bus bar.
11 Testing right now is one to three seconds in 12 duration.
13 So, some information --
14 MR. MILLER: We have a question.
15 MR. LEJA: Thank you. So, one thing that 16 comes to my mind is, if you go back a slide, for the 17 480 volts, or low voltage switchgear, we're saying 18 four and eight seconds. And I can't think of where 19 the eight seconds come from.
20 The only incident that comes to my mind 21 is Fort Calhoun. And that situation you had a bad 22 design, so misaligned status.
23 And also, you had zone select interface 24 jumpers that were not being disabled. So you lost 25 all protection in the incident.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 Other than that, I've never seen a 2 coordination diagram where you would actually have 3 eight seconds before the second level protection 4 would pick it up. So maybe two, three seconds, maybe 5 even four seconds at some plants. I haven't seen it.
6 But eight seconds seems very excessive.
7 And I don't think anybody really supports it. So for 8 the realism scenario that we try and represent, I 9 really don't think it's representative.
10 And in any statistical analysis, when you 11 have an event like Fort Calhoun where it's so off the 12 wall, you know, everything else is four to eight 13 seconds, maybe 12 seconds and you have an event 14 that's 42 seconds, you were to remove it because it's 15 anomaly, right?
16 So I'm thinking, if we're trying to be 17 real and trying to really represent what's out there, 18 I don't think there's anything there that supports 19 eight seconds. And that's just my opinion but I 20 don't know how anybody else feels about it. Thank 21 you.
22 MR. FUNK: Yes, along that similar that 23 Gabe gave, we've talked about this, and Nick and I 24 too, that for a properly designing system, we really 25 wouldn't anticipate exceeding the two second range NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 1 even with your backup protection under most 2 conditions. But again it is, as he just mentioned, 3 statistically based because there is no way to know 4 exactly what the fault current is.
5 And so, coordination folks work under the 6 concept of a range of available currents. You get 7 your voltage for your theoretical max all the way 8 down to an overload condition and we're just not good 9 enough to predict exactly what's going to happen for 10 every scenario.
11 So, what strikes me with the testing 12 that's been done so far is it's performed on a basis 13 that your primary and secondary protection will 14 either fail the function properly or were improperly 15 designed to begin with, based on normal 16 considerations.
17 Is there any value in performing some 18 tests that, number one, is through primary protection 19 work property or the primary protection failed and 20 the secondary protection was relied upon?
21 In other words, you would limit the 22 duration approximately two seconds. I mean, you 23 could work a range on that but that kind of concept.
24 Or is there, the problem with that is, 25 well, you don't get necessarily great results as far NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 1 as maximum information gained on equipment suffering 2 catastrophic failure, I agree with that. And with 3 limited equipment, you want to maximize that.
4 I think that my concern, to sum it up is, 5 every test we've run and projection for future 6 testing is we assume loss of both primary and 7 secondary protection, which has happened. I'm not 8 going to say it hasn't, but it's just the unusual 9 case versus the normal case.
10 MR. TAYLOR: Kenn had a question --
11 MR. MELLY: Before we get there I wanted 12 to touch on the eight seconds question. We do have 13 international experience where we do have one low 14 voltage event that occurred in Germany that lasted 15 the 8.5 seconds.
16 We do understand that these are anomaly 17 events but the frequency is fairly low on these 18 events, which brings you into the model. We're 19 looking for more information on that event in 20 particular.
21 And we do know that the low voltage 22 events, we've been discussing it is, they are rare 23 because you have to defeat so many levels of 24 protection to get one of these long events. So we 25 see that in the frequency in that when we had done NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 the split for the low voltage versus medium voltage 2 equipment, you see more of these higher arcing faults 3 in the medium voltage because you don't have to fail 4 these many levels of protection.
5 One of the reasons for testing at the 6 eight second range for the low voltage equipment, is 7 because it does give us the larger energy profile.
8 We've seen in the operating history for Robinson, for 9 instance, we have had the ten second to 11 second 10 range of duration for that medium voltage case.
11 And we cannot replicate that at the KEMA 12 facility. We're limited by the duration that we can 13 go for medium voltage 3.5, four seconds, kind of 14 stretching our generator there.
15 So there were several reasons why we went 16 to eight seconds, but that's why we're here today.
17 We want to discuss the selective values and take note 18 of, we do understand that eight seconds may be fairly 19 excessive for the low voltage cases, however, we have 20 seen these off the wall events in operating history.
21 MR. DALEY: Do you want me to, I'm going 22 to put on my regulatory hat here to respond to, Dan.
23 I think you're right, Dan, I think we have to, yes, 24 you have to be realistic with it.
25 I just look at this whole encompassing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 1 thing and I see where the major effects on it. You 2 know, we go back to one of the first slide 3 presentations we had and it talked about fire 4 protection and it talked about single failure, right?
5 Okay, but you're talking, when you talk 6 about those two things you're talking two different 7 events, right? Fire protection you don't assume that 8 something is just going to fail.
9 So, I think the idea that doing a 10 realistic, some type of realistic arcing failure for 11 fire events seems to make a lot of sense, because in 12 the end, I think that's where it will be from a 13 regulatory perspective.
14 Now, the single failure, you assume a 15 single failure so having something, having a fault, 16 this type of fault with a breaker, or at the breaker, 17 is kind of, it's kind of an all-encompassing event so 18 then you get into the situation, okay, I can go this 19 long with it and how does that effect other 20 divisions, right, if there --
21 And like I said, I'll go back to what I 22 was saying earlier, you're dealing with a lot of 23 older plants in that regard because, later vintage 24 plants. I'm a BWR guy so I think BWR-5, BWR-6 just 25 ain't, you're not going to get there.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 1 So, that's kind of my thought. So, I 2 agree with you, Dan, I think you should have a lot 3 more realistic ones but you should probably put some 4 bigger ones in there too.
5 And for the conductive stuff, for when we 6 actually get to the point where we do the conductive 7 cloud, the cloud of death --
8 (Laughter) 9 MR. DALEY: -- then we probably need some 10 longer durations in there.
11 MR. SALLEY: Yes, Dan, and if I could 12 just put one thing up, we have the fire forum last 13 week where I gave a presentation on this and a couple 14 guys grabbed me afterwards and said, hey, could you 15 just bring one thing up in the meeting, and I said 16 sure.
17 And one of the things they told me, or 18 they thought was a vulnerability to look at, is when 19 they're switching over to standby generators, that 20 that would be a time when we could see these longer 21 durations. They just asked that I bring that up, so.
22 Again, I don't know if it is or not, but 23 that was something I thought about.
24 MR. FLEISCHER: Ken Fleischer with EPRI.
25 So, there is a technical explanation, theoretically, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 1 as to how you can get to eight seconds and beyond.
2 It's governed in more of our White 3 Papers, and none of the OE, there is not sufficient 4 data in the OE to confirm any of these events 5 occurred.
6 But, with the available fault current in 7 a three-phased voltage fault with protection being an 8 instantaneous element and an overload element, you 9 should trip instantaneously.
10 Now, if you get to the point with an 11 arcing fault and the current is below the 12 instantaneous setting, now the instantaneous setting 13 cannot see that so a couple things can happen. Now 14 you have to start writing up the time curve until you 15 hit your inverse, overload element.
16 Which could take anywhere from one second 17 up to 15 minutes, depending on where you arrive that 18 curve. Similarly, even if that breaker failed, your 19 next upstream breaker, that current, again, cannot be 20 seen by the short-term instantaneous, or short-time 21 delay or short-time delay element, again, waiting for 22 a thermal element to pick it up.
23 And so that's why I can see these occur.
24 However, the OE just doesn't have the sufficient data 25 to confirm it so that's why these were that long.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 But I do still support that we should 2 really scrub our OE, understand the best we can and 3 develop realistic tests.
4 MR. LEJA: So, just a response to that.
5 It is true that it could take from one to 15 seconds 6 depending on where you are in the thermal region.
7 But, again, for sake of realism, I looked 8 at coordination plots with the fault currents that 9 they're simulating and I couldn't get there. I 10 couldn't get to four seconds. I'm saying, yes, you 11 could get from one to 15 seconds.
12 So yes, you could get there in one to 15 13 seconds, however, the fault currents that we're 14 simulating is just not realistic. So, again, it's 15 the realism scenario, you know.
16 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, and I agree.
17 MR. LEJA: And another thing about Fort 18 Calhoun is, if we take that into consideration and 19 say, you know, this piece of equipment was mis-20 designed and this install and we're testing it 21 because it could happen, then what's stopping us from 22 taking the protection in the turbine and having the 23 turbine explode and say, hey, this could happen as 24 well. So I don't want to go that far.
25 I think we will get a lot more out of it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1 if we had it at two and four seconds. The reason I 2 am saying two seconds is because that's kind of what 3 the gear is rated for so I think we'll get agreement 4 and people will be very interested in those results.
5 And also, also because if you look at 6 relay coordination, I was actually looking at that 7 last night as well, could we get there, could, 8 because normally when we do relay coordination you 9 just want to, you just want to have things 10 coordinated, you don't really worry about this arc 11 fault arc kind of stuff.
12 But if I was worried about it and 13 somebody gave me a project and told me to redo the 14 relay so that we do get down to some reasonable 15 amount of separation.
16 So let's say we want to get down to those 17 two seconds, we could get there. If you're talking 18 about higher than that, I mean, get down to like 19 three seconds I mean, I don't know if it's going to 20 happen, so, I think we could get down to two seconds 21 and that's why I think it would make more sense to do 22 it at two and four seconds versus four and eight.
23 Because I'm having issues articulating 24 myself but maybe I'll get better. Thank you.
25 MR. TAYLOR: Any other comments to our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 conversation, but do we have a response or --
2 MR. MELLY: It was a suggestion we go to 3 two to four because the currents that would be 4 associated with having a fault that sticks in for 5 that longer duration, 15 seconds, are not the fault 6 currents that we are proposing for our test program, 7 they're the ones that are riding more like the Fort 8 Calhoun and the 5 kA range.
9 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So basically from 10 your coordination curves you looked at, for these 11 durations, this is what the fault current would have 12 to be to get that duration. Is that kind of 13 summarizing what I missed?
14 MR. MELLY: At the fault current that you 15 are receiving you wouldn't --
16 MR. LEJA: The duration would be much 17 shorter and much less.
18 MR. TAYLOR: It would be much less of 19 course. Which would be much less than four seconds.
20 Which is not realistic compared to what, I don't 21 know.
22 MR. FUNK: Yes, I would agree with that 23 but I do, the equipment, I think there is some force 24 to suggest that testing between one and two seconds 25 also has value, which would assume loss of your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1 primary trip function which, in a lot of cases would 2 be differential trips which are measured in a few 3 cycles and they're reliant on maybe a less sensitive 4 or a current relay back for something along those 5 lines.
6 So I think that adds to this realism that 7 I know that I have been looking for. One to two 8 second range I think stays within the rating of the 9 equipment and it provides maybe a realistic data 10 point.
11 These other cases we're talking about are 12 the created events. So, not to belabor the point, 13 but I think there is value in seeing what we would 14 expect to happen. What's more closer to the median 15 than the extremes. Thanks.
16 MR. MELLY: I think the, well, the reason 17 that the one to two seconds were even lower, the .5 18 seconds that's recommended in the guide or the metal 19 clad switchgear.
20 And the reason that's not showing up in 21 the current test program is because those events are 22 not what I would consider to be part of this higher 23 in the arc fault damage zone bin.
24 MR. FUNK: Okay.
25 MR. MELLY: These are the ones that are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1 going to go into Bin 15, where you just have the 2 internal cabinet damage creating an internal fire 3 rather than breaching the cabinet and have externals 4 under the influence of damage.
5 MR. FUNK: They won't be a HEAF.
6 MR. MELLY: They won't be considered a 7 HEAF and that's not going, that's what I do not 8 intend to be in the HEAF frequency bin.
9 So that's more in line with what happened 10 at Turkey Point where you have the 32 second, or 32 11 cycle event, .5 second event.
12 Also, the Cooper event was right on the 13 threshold. That was a one second event. And these 14 are the events that they're questionable, they're not 15 HEAF events because you do have damage but you don't 16 have the type of damage that we're looking to get 17 towards modeling.
18 If I had endless amounts of resources, I 19 would love to put in the one to two second range so 20 we have those events as well.
21 However, we're talking about the 22 destruction of a piece of equipment, extreme 23 refurbishment, a full day in the test lab and the 24 full apparatus of test equipment and measurement.
25 Which is why we were focusing more to get what we see NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 in line with the Bin 16 bin.
2 MR. LEJA: And I agree with that. I 3 agree .1 second, .5 second testing would be a waste 4 of your money. IEEE C37.20 says, .1 seconds to one 5 second.
6 MR. MELLY: Yes.
7 MR. LEJA: But I still find value in two 8 seconds.
9 MR. MELLY: Right.
10 MR. LEJA: Because I haven't really seen 11 much tests at two seconds, because that's what we 12 expect gear to be rated for. So that's why I see 13 value in that.
14 MR. FUNK: I understand, Nick. And, 15 again, I understand the tradeoff of "a waste of test" 16 because you don't expect to see the substantial 17 results.
18 Be aware though that that's out of line 19 with the frequency calculations right now. That's 20 the misalignment I see.
21 Because they're all included. Even those 22 events that would now be your, a Category 1 or even 23 a Cat 2 that you've defined in this meeting.
24 So we would need, or my recommendation 25 then is, okay, kind of a new baseline we're working NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 1 from here so let's go re-scrub the events and get the 2 frequencies that are in alignment the way we're 3 defining this testing.
4 MR. MELLY: That's exactly what we plan 5 on doing with the collaborative work with EPRI on the 6 HEAF program.
7 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. That's one of the 8 reasons why we're working tightly with NFPA and 9 everyone here to try and come up with the definitions 10 because, you know, I think five, six years ago there 11 was talks about, well, let's define a MEF and let's 12 define a LEF. Or a low and a medium and then high.
13 So trying to take a definition that, with 14 the categories that we've proposed right now, you 15 know, Cat 1, well, that wouldn't be included in the 16 HEAF. It may not even be included in 15.
17 Cat 2, maybe it's 15, maybe it's 18 somewhere else. And a Cat 3, really what we're 19 interested in here is the high energy arc fault type 20 bin.
21 So, trying to work with, to formalize 22 those and then, as the comment was, tie it into 23 frequency, make sure everything is consistent in the 24 PRA model.
25 Okay, so what I hear, two to four seconds NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 1 seems, was one proposal out there. Is there any 2 other feedback on the duration from the group? Okay.
3 MR. PLETZ: Hi, Rod Pletz from American 4 Electric Power.
5 I don't have a good electrical 6 background, my background is classical fire 7 protection. And what I'm used to seeing is during a 8 typical fire curve you'll get to a peak HEAF release 9 rate and that will be sustained at some point and 10 then it will drop off.
11 When we're looking at the duration of 12 these HEAFs, is there a point where we're going to 13 see that energy level peak out and then the duration 14 of this event we're just going to see more product 15 thrown against the wall, basically, and should we 16 limit our duration to when we're going to hit that 17 peak energy release rate?
18 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, so I'll go ahead and 19 try and take a stab at that response. Yes, I think 20 for most of the testing that we've done, and what we 21 see, it's pretty constant, the energy release rate.
22 The one caveat being the aluminum. If 23 you look at the test, was 23 the finish equipment?
24 MR. MELLY: Yes.
25 MR. TAYLOR: If you look at Test 23 and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 1 you look at the timeline, you had the initiation of 2 the arc up to about, right around one second. And 3 the energy seemed to be pretty constant through 4 there.
5 And then right around one second you had 6 a large increase of what's going to be expelled and 7 the energy that's coming out of that event.
8 We haven't got down to what caused that, 9 was it because you got up to a certain temperature, 10 did something change internally in the cabinet that 11 caused that additional energy release. But that is 12 one case, that I'm at least aware of, where the 13 energy wasn't constant and you had a change during 14 the event.
15 I don't know if, Nick, had anything else 16 on that.
17 MR. MELLY: In terms of the energy 18 release electrically, if you want to talk about the 19 transformer breakdown where right now at KEMA we have 20 the energy to look at the current constant throughout 21 the event. Whereas in the plant you have the degree 22 --
23 MR. TAYLOR: If you're cutting from a 24 generator?
25 MR. MELLY: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 1 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So I guess the point 2 that Nick brings up, if you look on your medium 3 voltage bores and you're being feed from a generator 4 during unit aux, typically if you don't clear that 5 fault, as the EPRI document, you can back feed from 6 the generator into the fault and the generator will 7 wind down.
8 Versus how we test the KEMA where we 9 basically have a constant current for the entire 10 duration that we need. So you don't have the decay 11 of the current.
12 I don't know if KEMA has anything else on 13 their setup. Or Tony.
14 MR. MILLER: Yes, question.
15 MR. PUTORTI: Yes, the other change that 16 we saw during the experiments, as far as the ZOI and 17 the threat to surrounding equipment was, if you went 18 long enough to breach the exterior of the switchgear 19 then there was a change in what we would see as the 20 threat to the surrounding equipment. So that would 21 be one point in time where there was a change.
22 MR. VERHOEVEN: Bas Verhoeven from KEMA 23 Laboratories. With regards to the current that we 24 make during the test, we normally arrange our systems 25 in such a way that we have a super expectation on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 1 short circuit generator. That means it will not, it 2 will maintain the steady state current.
3 In normal power networks, they say the 4 feeding power is sufficient to have a constant short 5 circuit current. That's why we can make it.
6 If you would like to see decaying current 7 to reasons, just ask because we can do it. We can 8 set the machines in such a way with the citation that 9 the current can decay.
10 And also, the voltage level, let's say 11 that is for the ignition of the arc after has 12 occurred. And also, the current value. That's all 13 part of means we can handle. So don't be too limited 14 in your design of what you would like to see tested, 15 we can make quite a bit. In terms of current values, 16 the supporting voltage and the expectation occurs.
17 And also the borings where we switch on, 18 in design way with regards to the DC offset. So 19 don't bother too much with our capabilities, we can 20 adapt according to your needs. So let that be your 21 primary goal.
22 MR. FLEISCHER: Ken Fleischer from EPRI.
23 Then I would like to emphasize that that's something 24 we consider, and I can see Gabe putting it on the 25 board.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 1 Because the difference between an 2 infinite bus feeding a fault and a decaying voltage 3 from a generator where its exciter switchgear breaker 4 has been open is a tremendous difference. Yes, the 5 arc is sustained, yes, damage is occurring, but I 6 anticipate that the actual energy, totally energy at 7 the end of the extinguishment of the arc, will be 8 significantly different and the damage should be 9 different.
10 So, that's a capability that we should 11 consider.
12 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, I think, as far as the 13 NRC world, we're open to making those changes but 14 again, to make a realistic from representative.
15 However, the question is, okay, how 16 should we set it up, how should we have the equipment 17 be, setup to model the plants.
18 MR. MELLY: And that will go in for 19 medium voltage rate.
20 MR. TAYLOR: For that case, yes.
21 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, it would be for 22 medium voltage, you wouldn't see it at the 480.
23 To emphasize, think about this. Ashley 24 has talked to me a little bit about this for some 25 other aspects of the testing, but remember, the gear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 1 that you probably are going to get is going to have 2 multiple cubicles.
3 And as I've seen in the other tests that 4 I have reviewed, the entire switchgear is not 5 entirely damaged, there are other cubicles that can 6 be used. So one of the options would be, is to do a 7 decay test and set that configuration up for a decay 8 test and then setup an undamaged cubicle for the more 9 infinite bus test.
10 So that might be how you can arrange your 11 test configurations on one piece of switchgear with 12 multiple cabinets, as long as they're not destroyed 13 for one of the tests.
14 MR. MELLY: Yes. And in the first series 15 of tests that we did we did try to utilize as many 16 cubicles as possible during the test phase.
17 So for instance, we had cabinets donated 18 from Japan which had multiple cubicle units. And we 19 essentially worked backwards through that cubicle 20 doing, I believe four tests per cubicle trying to 21 maximize the testing within the same compartment, 22 varying the parameters.
23 So we are looking to potentially do that.
24 It really comes down to what equipment we buy, how 25 much it needs to be refurbished and how quickly we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1 can accomplish that.
2 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and the other thing 3 that the German regulator is interested in is 4 prorogations to adjacent cabinets. So if we do get 5 damage, we're limited to use of that second cabinet.
6 I think it's a valuable comment of 7 comparison. So that's something that we should 8 consider.
9 MR. MELLY: That also brings into 10 question, so, one of the goals for this test program 11 is to really limit variable so that we can have a 12 consistent data collection process.
13 So by changing the cubicles, we need to 14 change the arrangement of the instrumentation. And 15 that brings into play trying to predict where the 16 affluent is going to release from the cabinet. Which 17 in testing is difficult.
18 MR. LOVVORN: Shannon Lovvorn, TVA. I 19 guess somewhat of I hear in the feedback is, we're 20 talking about a lot of different permutations here 21 of, some of us are wanting to take a realistic case 22 and then I think the NRC is somewhat interested in 23 the failure case where the device does work as 24 expected.
25 Even in Kenn's definitions of a HEAF NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 1 yesterday was suggesting that there is an adequate 2 design or some sort of failure that contributes to 3 the event.
4 And so, I guess I'm okay with 5 understanding that phenomenon and how much damage 6 that can be, but we also need to be looking at, there 7 is a lower probability of that and putting a 8 probability number on to that kind of failure, if 9 we're going to take that larger damage.
10 So, I guess, that's why the duration 11 discussion seemed pretty difficult because we all 12 kind of had a different mindset of what's realistic 13 and what we're trying to accomplish. I think there 14 is different permutations of what you can consider.
15 One is that your system acts as design.
16 I mean, I shouldn't have a HEAF really but if there 17 is some sort of failure then hopefully there is some 18 sort of probability that we can put on to that.
19 Because, the presentations last week in 20 the fire forum, we all know that fire risk is 21 dominating the risk picture. And part of that is 22 because of over conservatism in the, what I'll call 23 the immaturity of these models. So, we just need to 24 be thinking about that.
25 MR. MELLY: So I'm going to, let me grab NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 that one real quick is that right now we currently, 2 this ties in with the definitions, the frequency in 3 all these pieces.
4 As the current Bin 16 frequency, or where 5 we want it to go, I believe that every one of these 6 events here, where you see these longer duration 7 HEAFs, the ones where we would consider these 8 damaging events with the zone of influence, every 9 single one of these did have a protection level 10 breakdown allowing it to occur.
11 So that reliability of the component, the 12 failure of the component, will inherently be captured 13 by the frequency of the events that we use for the 14 input to the model. And that's currently the way 15 that we're trying to handle it rather than going the 16 approach of putting the reliability number somewhere 17 within the equation itself.
18 MR. TAYLOR: I think that's a good 19 comment and breakers and tracking devices are highly 20 reliable. And so we were thinking along the same 21 lines but then to get that conditional probability of 22 becoming a HEAF becomes typical.
23 So I think what Nick said, it seems 24 reasonable that if we can have a good definition of 25 what these events are we can develop a frequency from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 1 the fire events to characterize the frequency and 2 then the data from this just characterize the hazard 3 that we have kind of continuity.
4 MR. MELLY: And from the OpE I think I 5 only, I can only off the top of my head remember one 6 single event in an ISO phase where there wasn't 7 levels of breakdown where there still was huge damage 8 states. But primarily, every single case that we've 9 seen in the HEAF bin did have failures of protective 10 levels.
11 MR. MILLER: And we did want to have an 12 understanding of the extent of damage when we do have 13 a HEAF like that.
14 MR. MELLY: Yes.
15 MR. MILLER: And we know there's been 16 failures and it's a lower probability, right.
17 MR. MELLY: Yes.
18 MR. MILLER: So part of this is 19 understanding that sort of influence of that high 20 energy event rate.
21 MR. MELLY: Yes.
22 MR. VERHOEVEN: Bas Verhoeven from KEMA.
23 The topic that has not been mentioned so far, at 24 least not to my knowledge is, is that if you have an 25 arc in a cabinet, and let's say the cabinet remains NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 1 closed and it stays within that box, at some point of 2 time it will burst somewhat out. The doors will open 3 or it burns through the cycles. That means that the 4 arc and the flash will go into different segments.
5 Is there thoughts being discussed of 6 having the cubicle also inside the space, the volume, 7 that is mimicking the, let's say the control room of 8 the switchgear or is that just an open space where 9 basically the fumes can go out because it will be a 10 secondary buildup of pressure if that's a confined 11 area?
12 MR. MILLER: Like with the one event 13 where the fire door, the fire barrier door was 14 breached, I guess that's what you're referring to?
15 MR. VERHOEVEN: Yes.
16 MR. MELLY: So we haven't discussed that 17 right now because that is one of the goals is to 18 understand the pressure.
19 So, the current test plan has us 20 measuring the pressure of just the internal enclosure 21 itself. And we have been discussing ways to try and 22 extrapolate what the room pressure increase would be 23 from that pressure reading. We don't have a good 24 handle on whether that's going to be possible or not.
25 During the discussions we have had with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1 KEMA, as well as in the PIRT, there was the 2 possibility of creating a mock room around the 3 electrical enclosure and measuring the pressure rise 4 of that room so that we can extent it to plant 5 specific room designs so you know your, what the 6 pressure rise in that room would be so it can 7 challenge fire doors.
8 Another challenge there is fire doors 9 typically aren't pressure rated, so making that 10 connection is another effort. It's something that we 11 are considering putting in limited number of tests so 12 we can get a room pressure rise increase. Again, 13 that's going to be up for discussion within the next 14 weeks.
15 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I think it comes down 16 to the balance point of what's worth the cost on the 17 effort on the NRC side versus how big of an impact it 18 makes on the safety side.
19 MR. MELLY: Right.
20 MR. TAYLOR: So we haven't come up with 21 a decision. We have been thinking about, I know 22 Steve Turner has some information he shared and is 23 available, and the literature on different ways that 24 they tried to model pressures. So there might be 25 some analytical approaches to model it but I'm not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 1 sure of how much are those, approaches are.
2 Do you want to add anything?
3 MR. TURNER: They are hard to do. At the 4 minimum, it's very cheap to do. At least stick one 5 microphone out at 15 feet and one microphone out at 6 20 feet and you get data, the acoustics are all 7 terribly off, but you get some idea if you can see 8 that in some results from a February 2017 test that 9 we did. We got that data.
10 MR. MELLY: Yes.
11 MR. TURNER: So, just those microphones 12 are cheap.
13 MR. MELLY: And we're also similarly 14 starting that from scratch on the pressure 15 measurements because during our first attempt, in the 16 first test series when we measured the pressure, we 17 had a lot of interference, electrically, to our 18 measurement devices, so we weren't really relying or 19 we can't rely on the pressure measurements from our 20 first series to try and extrapolate.
21 And that's why in the OECD report you see 22 that we've reported the pressure on the same graphic 23 that we did for the electrical energy. And you see 24 a direct comparison, or spikes in the pressure 25 readouts, both on, the power turns on and when it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 1 turns off.
2 Which we would not expect when we turn it 3 off. That huge jump and spike that we were getting 4 in the pressure readings if it was just based on the 5 pressure itself.
6 So we were getting interference. And a 7 lot of that actually has been reduced from testing 8 that we've seen from Steve and the Japanese.
9 KEMA, in their facility, had moved from 10 a fiber optic measurement device which has given much 11 cleaner results. And I think that it's true pressure 12 reading that they received in their later testing.
13 So, that's one thing to keep in mind if 14 you have reviewed the pressure that we have collected 15 from the first series.
16 MR. TAYLOR: So, from what I hear, I 17 think getting back on topic, we're talking about 18 duration right now. I heard a proposal to change low 19 voltage to the four seconds. I didn't, does that 20 seem reasonable for the group? So I think that's one 21 change we should make.
22 The other thing is, I didn't get much 23 traction on the proposal to try to do the lower 24 duration event, to have a second or whatnot. Is 25 there any more discussion we wanted to have on that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 1 aspect?
2 MR. FLEISCHER: For the low gear?
3 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. For the low voltage.
4 Or even medium voltage.
5 MR. FLEISCHER: I have some input on 6 that. In a way, this is still on topic but bear with 7 me.
8 One of the comments that I was, had 9 offered up, and I think it's in the EPRI comment is 10 that, probably the first thing we should do before we 11 take off with all this testing, right, is to 12 demonstrate that the gear that we're going to use, we 13 understand its capability and its ratings and that we 14 go ahead and take on the compartments which should 15 not damage anything else and you shouldn't worry 16 about, propagation of the arc outside its cubicle is 17 to do a full standard C37.27.7 test.
18 The right size arc wire, the duration of 19 only half a second protective device being used to 20 limit the fault and all that and do a standard test 21 in conformance with that IEEE standard, and then just 22 say this gear has been certified suitable for use for 23 this exploratory type testing. And so therefore 24 that's my traction for the .56 seconds.
25 Yes, I do believe we should do it, but it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 1 would be part of the certification that the 2 switchgear is healthy to continue with the testing.
3 MR. MELLY: I'll take that one. We may 4 be able to do that for the low voltage cases.
5 For the medium voltage cases, we will not 6 be able to do that because of the current contract 7 that we have with KEMA, that will be essentially 8 doubling every medium voltage test that we have.
9 Which is expensive.
10 So based on our current restrictions and 11 budget that we have moving forward, I don't know if 12 we have the money to do a full another 16 or 32 13 tests.
14 MR. FLEISCHER: We're going to have that 15 many switchgear components? I was think of 16 certifying one as one design.
17 MR. MELLY: Yes. We may be able to do it 18 if we buy one standard design for the other tests.
19 For the donated pieces of equipment, I do not know if 20 we can do one for them.
21 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, so donated equipment, 22 we don't know exactly what we're getting from 23 Germany, but from Korea we're getting 5 kV Magna-24 Blast with the protocol track and breakers and gear.
25 MR. MELLY: Also, I don't think, for the, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 1 are you discussing the metal clad switchgear standard 2 with the, where we're not going to be ejecting the 3 hot gas out the front with the cotton waste stabs and 4 things like that?
5 MR. FLEISCHER: I'm trying to digest the 6 question. I'm just thinking of the IEEE C37.20.7 7 test for metal class switchgear. Yes, it would be 8 the medium rolls.
9 MR. MELLY: That's the guide on arc 10 resistance?
11 MR. FLEISCHER: That's the guide on the 12 arc resistance certification.
13 MR. MILLER: Yes, with the cotton.
14 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, those are cotton 15 targets, I do remember that.
16 MR. MILLER: That's right.
17 MR. MELLY: And if it failed that test, 18 what would we consider?
19 MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that would be bad 20 now wouldn't it.
21 MR. MILLER: What's the purpose of that 22 though? We're basically confirming that the 23 equipment was built to the original, per that --
24 MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
25 MR. MILLER: -- out there.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 1 MR. FLEISCHER: And so, as we learned 2 from Bas yesterday, only 25 percent of those, if you 3 don't test them, you don't know. It might not work.
4 What's the purpose of the test? The 5 purpose of the test is to demonstrate to us, and our 6 stakeholders and the utilities, this test going 7 forward is using gear that was sufficiently designed 8 and rated, and verified rated, to be able to, for the 9 test going forward.
10 MR. MILLER: But wouldn't that apply to 11 ever piece of gear that we are, going to do the test?
12 Do we need to do that for all?
13 MR. FLEISCHER: No, I don't know if we 14 need to do it for all of them, but I do understand 15 now the challenge. If we have different pieces of 16 gear and it's a mixed bag, I understand the 17 complexity and the cost impact.
18 I guess I was a little more idealistic 19 that we would procure, until today I didn't know, but 20 when I was thinking these comments through, I figured 21 we were going to design and procure maybe a GE Magna-22 Blast switchgear breakers for all of the medium 23 voltage tests. And you would just take one of those 24 switchgear and verify that it was arc resistant for 25 the IEEE standard.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 1 MR. MELLY: But I'm also more worried 2 that if I did that, let's say I reached out and I 3 said, this is the most common piece of equipment that 4 is in 20 plants and I'm going to go do the test. And 5 then I run the certification at KEMA and I come back, 6 this is not, it didn't pass the test. Is there 7 implication for those 25?
8 MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's a good push 9 back.
10 (Laughter) 11 MR. FLEISCHER: The thing is though, is 12 that then we'd have to look to see if it's a 13 production issue versus a design.
14 MR. MELLY: It could open a can of worms 15 though if we --
16 MR. FLEISCHER: It would.
17 (Off microphone comment) 18 MR. MILLER: Can I speak? But that's not 19 the purpose of this testing either, we're not trying 20 to certify the equipment that's built per the IEEE 21 C37 standard, meets the standard, we're looking at 22 stuff beyond that.
23 MR. FLEISCHER: So is --
24 MR. MILLER: So I'm still not seeing the 25 purpose of what, of doing what you're saying.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 1 Because that's not the purpose of the testing.
2 MR. MELLY: It's the baseline.
3 MR. FLEISCHER: Kenn, correct, it's not 4 the purpose of the test. What it does is it verifies 5 that the equipment we have chosen to do the test 6 would have survived a standard arc fault at .5 7 seconds or less. That's all.
8 Just that the piece of equipment we've 9 chosen is robust enough so that the results we get 10 know that under ideal conditions of all protective 11 device sparking, it was okay, now we're taking this 12 beyond its rating --
13 MR. MILLER: So at baseline --
14 MR. FLEISCHER: It's a baseline.
15 MR. MILLER: -- this test.
16 MR. MELLY: Do the plants have that 17 certification right now certification right now on 18 pieces of equipment that are installed?
19 MR. FLEISCHER: I don't know. I don't 20 think they all have it.
21 MR. MILLER: Well --
22 MR. FLEISCHER: It's a guide, right?
23 IEEEs are a guide, so this is voluntary.
24 MR. MILLER: Kenn, I mean, when plants by 25 equipment per a spec, they get a certain indication NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 1 that it meets the requirements of the spec. well, it 2 is.
3 I mean, that's the whole purpose of 4 buying something per our spec. You get a certificate 5 of performance.
6 MR. CIELO: Yes, you might get a 7 certificate of conformance or you might get a COC.
8 You're not going to get what Bas was describing 9 yesterday.
10 Which is a certification from an 11 independent test lab that it met 100 percent of the 12 requirements of whatever the standard is. Which is 13 a full type test, which is an independent test.
14 Which means that the manufacturer submits 15 that piece of equipment, in our case, to our test 16 lab. Our test engineer and our test team verify the 17 device to the drawings.
18 They actually do a physical verification 19 against the drawings and then they run it 100 percent 20 to the requirements of the standard without any input 21 from the manufacturer. It's to the standard.
22 We pick the circuits, we pick, you know, 23 in accordance with the standard, all the voltages, 24 the amperages, all those test parameters, every piece 25 of equipment that we use in our test labs is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 1 verifiable backed NIST, in the U.S. anyway, because 2 of our ISO 170.25 certification.
3 So we can vouch for every piece of 4 equipment that we use to measure all of the, the 5 results basically. And so when it passes 100 percent 6 in accordance with the standard, then a lab like KEMA 7 Laboratories would issue a certificate. But that's 8 not necessarily what you're getting when you get a 9 COC.
10 MR. FLEISCHER: On the interest of time 11 I was going to try and get it back to Gabe here. So 12 my thoughts are, why don't we just put it as a 13 parking lot, a breakout session if you will, as a 14 consideration.
15 And if it's viable or there is a way to 16 make it work, that would be great. But it's 17 essentially, it's a baseline.
18 The other thing to your question, I now 19 know what you're asking. When you do a purchase spec 20 for a piece of switchgear, you're going to put in the 21 design standards.
22 MR. MILLER: Yes.
23 MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
24 MR. MILLER: This is all the standards 25 that they're testing against.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 1 MR. FLEISCHER: Right. But you may not 2 --
3 MR. MILLER: They're putting, GE is going 4 to say this breaker will meet those requirements.
5 MR. FLEISCHER: Right. But you may not 6 put this testing standard in. In other words, you're 7 only going to get what you put in your specification.
8 So I think the answer to your question 9 is, probably a lot of the early nuke designs probably 10 weren't aware of this testing and probably didn't 11 have this done. So their certification search is to 12 a design standard as opposed to a testing guide.
13 MR. MILLER: Yes. So, to me, I would 14 attribute this to an assumption on our part with the 15 beginning of the testing. Otherwise we're talking 16 about a lot more testing and scope increase of what 17 we're doing.
18 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, okay.
19 MR. DALEY: I got this microphone about 20 20 minutes ago so this will probably sound like a non 21 sequitur at this time.
22 I just got to keep on going back. I see 23 this, we got to know what the end of this is and 24 what, keep the end in mind of what we're looking at 25 and look at it in terms of, I'm just thinking right NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 1 now. I'm thinking your design basis event and then 2 your external events.
3 So you got your design basis single 4 failure type thing which has specific events, 5 specific portions of this could potentially affect 6 that. And then you got your 805 portion which is a 7 totally different animal.
8 You're dealing with probabilities. I 9 mean, some of the same things in deterministic, and 10 the Appendix R plants are going to be similar but 11 you're dealing with probabilities too so you're 12 looking at that.
13 And then you got the deterministic 14 plants, the Appendix R plants, which would be some of 15 the things that you're looking at in 805 as a subset 16 of that.
17 And then the last thing, and I haven't 18 given a lot of thought to this is, is you got the 19 seismic type event where you got, where you would 20 almost half to be dealing with a non-1E bus that's in 21 proximity to your Class 1E buses. Which is not that, 22 that's not that uncommon particularly with older 23 plants.
24 So, anyway, I just think you got to have 25 the end in mind.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 1 MR. CHEOK: So, this is Mike Cheok. A 2 quick comment. And you know I am always interested 3 in everything I just heard.
4 So the beauty of risk analysis is you do 5 couple all the consequences with the frequency. So 6 when you do PRAs you have large, medium and small 7 LOCAs. Loss of coolant accidents.
8 And each one of these things come with a 9 frequency. And for the large LOCA you have a much 10 smaller frequency.
11 Enough even for a loss of offsite power 12 so you have different durations, how long you lose 13 your offsite power. And obviously, the longer you 14 lose offsite power the smaller the frequency.
15 And you know, the other extreme is 16 seismic PRAs. You know, you do the different hazard 17 curves, you have the smaller earthquakes all the way 18 to the large earthquakes and obviously the frequency 19 curves would be, you have a lot smaller frequencies 20 for the large earthquakes.
21 So I think the discussion here is a very 22 good discussion and the results, I think one thing we 23 have to be very careful about is when we're 24 discussing tests and results and when we have the 25 results that we want to display, let's say for a four NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 1 second duration or even a eight second duration, we 2 always have to couple that with a frequency. We 3 cannot just go out and tell people the zone of 4 influence is X without saying this was a very 5 infrequent event that is coupled with several 6 different failures and probably with a frequency of 7 ten to the minus eight or whatever.
8 So I think we all have to keep the 9 consequences on the damage states where the 10 frequencies in our test and in our communications of 11 results and things like that.
12 MR. SALLEY: It's a good point, and I'll 13 give it back to Gabe, but you say, Bob, with the 14 earthquakes. Look how we do earthquakes, right.
15 We have our design basis earthquake, 16 which is what we expect to see in the plant, and we 17 do that and then we have our safe shutdown 18 earthquake. If you want to draw a parallel to this 19 with the short durations, what we expect to see with 20 the equipment and when it does work, that safe 21 shutdown earthquake is what the HEAF is.
22 So, again, going back to the definitions 23 I think is going to be key. Here you go, Gabe.
24 MR. TAYLOR: I think this is a great 25 discussion, exactly what we want.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 1 MR. MELLY: Yes.
2 MR. TAYLOR: So, next slide.
3 MR. TURNER: I got one more comment on 4 the --
5 MR. TAYLOR: Steve Turner.
6 MR. TURNER: As far as talking about half 7 second duration and one second duration, I think one 8 of the things we're missing in this presentation is 9 we look at our Phase I test, there is a huge data 10 bank of half second tests out there that's in the 11 IEEE and FDRA flash tests.
12 There have been hundreds and hundreds of 13 tests at half a second and one second. The weakness 14 it has is it barely touched on them. But I would 15 recommend that you guys go back and grab the IEEE 16 papers and write that up in some way to convince 17 these people that at least it will cover half a 18 second and one second is kind of covered and we're 19 just going to focus on this new bin for the really 20 bad stuff.
21 And as far as going back and doing the 22 test and saying, look, it passed, my view on those 23 tests have always been, and you saw it in his video 24 yesterday, the first one of those I ever saw that 25 passed I said, geez, if that's a success I'd hate to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 1 see a failure. Because it still looks pretty 2 dramatic.
3 Those flames can still come out and stuff 4 can still get lost. And so, it's just not a very 5 appealing thing to say, look, this passed the test.
6 And the other thing is, the thought may 7 be that if you do that easy test first you can do a 8 test in it again, you probably can't. It's going to 9 damage it enough, you won't hit it again.
10 MR. MELLY: And again, one of the videos 11 we saw yesterday was a pass of the test because it 12 didn't come out the front facing where the personnel 13 would be, which is how that test is designed.
14 However, for our zone of influence, I'm still worried 15 about the back and the top and where the cables are.
16 So, running that standard test, if it's 17 to a cabinet design to have a detachment plate or 18 something along those lines, I'm still going to be 19 worried about my cables, my other equipment and 20 things like that.
21 While I do still care about personnel, 22 it's generally not in the PRA calculation.
23 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, the next slide. And 24 I think I've gone through this enough but the longer 25 versions ties into our energy and the thermal aspects NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 of that.
2 Obviously, that type of modeling is going 3 to be different from expelling the molten materials, 4 the shrapnel, the pressure, things we also need to 5 consider.
6 But I think that's what a large scale 7 testing, how good we can capture that through 8 document it via video as well, on thing I didn't 9 mention yesterday is, in the first series of tests 10 we're going to bring up Sandia's, the plan is to 11 bring out Sandia's video equipment and they can 12 actually track particles and run them into their 13 computer and they can get you miles per hour, where 14 it's going, what it's bouncing off of. So we want to 15 give that a shot and see if that works. That might 16 help us on a non-thermal aspect.
17 Again, to characterize better the ZOI.
18 MR. MELLY: I think we've covered this 19 part.
20 (Laughter) 21 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, we've heard a lot of 22 discussion, maybe I should have showed this on the 23 second slide.
24 (Laughter) 25 MR. TAYLOR: But if there is anything NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 1 else, we want to talk about duration right now, 2 please, please do bring it up. If not, we will go on 3 to the next topic. Unless we need a break.
4 MR. SALLEY: Yes, why don't we take a 5 break, Gabe, 15 minutes. Okay.
6 MR. TAYLOR: All right. So, let me just 7 check the webinar real quick before we break. And it 8 shows no questions coming in.
9 MR. SALLEY: Any more out here?
10 MR. TAYLOR: It doesn't look like we have 11 any questions on the webinar, so let's go ahead and 12 take a break for 15 minutes and we'll come back at --
13 MR. SALLEY: 10:30.
14 MR. TAYLOR: -- 10:30. So almost a 20 15 minute break. 10:30 we'll be back.
16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 17 went off the record at 10:11 a.m. and resumed at 18 10:32 a.m.)
19 MR. SALLEY: All right. How do we turn 20 this on? Okay, so we will pick it back up and, 21 again, thank you, this is kind of what we envisioned, 22 organized chaos.
23 I mean the discussion is great, you know, 24 we want this input. Also we're reaching out to our 25 folks on the webinar, you know, you all are part of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 1 this, too, so we got young Tom there on it, so please 2 feel free to type any of your questions in and bring 3 it in, so we want the people on the webinar to be a 4 part of this process, too.
5 So with that, Gabe, let's go until 12 6 o'clock.
7 MR. TAYLOR: All right.
8 MR. SALLEY: At 12 o'clock we'll take 9 lunch because the discussion is going to be a good 10 break point and we'll pick it back up.
11 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So the next parameter 12 is voltage. Obviously, we are looking at low voltage 13 as 480, the most common in U.S. plants although there 14 is some 600s out there.
15 And then medium voltage, 6.9 is a lot 16 more common in European plants, so, you know, there 17 is a big push from the group to go at 6.9. Also, 18 some of the later U.S. plants were putting in 6.9 19 safety buses, but there is a lot of variation.
20 6.9, as I mentioned earlier, about half 21 of the plants in the U.S. have it, right around a 22 half. 4160 is much more common in U.S. plants.
23 So if the plant is medium voltage, 6.9, 24 they test it at that, however, if donated equipment 25 doesn't go there we'll go to 4160, but, again, it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 1 another topic for discussion.
2 If we want to do something 4160 or some 3 other 7.2, 12, 13kV, that is up for discussion, but 4 that would be something that Nick would have to take 5 back and negotiate with the international, so just a 6 little background on where we are with that.
7 I have some slides that might help the 8 discussion along, so we can go to the next slide. So 9 we talked about this a little bit yesterday, but what 10 I did is I went back to the Phase I that the NRC ran, 11 those test results, and the orange is the system 12 voltage, so it was either 480 that we ran for the low 13 voltage or, it's a little hard to see, but we ran 14 6.9, 7.2, one 4160, and then two 10kV tests in Phase 15 I.
16 So the orange is showing the system 17 voltage and the blue is showing the arcing voltage, 18 so the voltage collapse during the arc, and you can 19 see, although we have some variation between 4160 and 20 the 6 or 7, 6.9 or 7kV, and even 10, the arc voltage 21 doesn't change too much, too dramatically.
22 And some of the reasons behind that could 23 be the bus bar spacing has an impact on what the arc 24 voltage is. So just to make that clear, when you are 25 looking at energies it's not the system voltage that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 1 you're concerned with it's the arc voltage that goes 2 into the energy calculation.
3 Next slide. So just another way to look 4 at this. What I am comparing is in the blue is our 5 arc voltage and the orange is basically the distance 6 between our buses in the gear.
7 So based on that trying to see if it 8 tracked, and in general it tracks, but, again, there 9 is some variation that doesn't align with, you know, 10 a correlation on just distance between the buses.
11 Next slide. So there are some methods 12 out there to predict what your arc voltage is based 13 on your spacing. So this method here, without 14 getting into too much detail, comes from the CIGRE 15 document.
16 And basically based on your spacing it 17 predicts a voltage per unit distance, or voltage in 18 this case, kilovolts per centimeter. So the gray is 19 basically that model and the orange is our medium 20 voltage test and the blue is our low voltage test.
21 So if you look at the medium, you know, 22 the medium, the general tendencies that the model 23 tracks and however there is some spread for, more so 24 for low voltage than medium voltage, and on the 25 medium voltage side it tends to over predict the arc NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 1 voltage compared to what we are seeing in the 2 testing.
3 Next slide. This is showing the same 4 information but now instead of distance, what I 5 showed in two slides back, I am showing what the 6 CIGRE document would calculate as your arc voltage, 7 comparing it to blue, which is what we actually 8 measure the arc voltage.
9 And so it is an important parameter, but 10 just because you have a certain systems voltage 11 doesn't mean you are going to get a certain arc 12 voltage.
13 I think distance does have impact, but 14 there is some scatter there. So being able to 15 predict that is a complication that we are going to 16 run into.
17 Next slide. Okay, so that's really what 18 I had on voltage for background discussion. So as 19 far as our testing, you know, I want to hear, get 20 some feedback on, you know, is 480 reasonable, and 21 then the approach for 6.9kV for the medium voltage 22 gear.
23 Are there other aspects of the testing, 24 the system lineup, the power supply that we are using 25 at KEMA that comes in and impact the arc voltage.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 1 So I want to go ahead and open it up to 2 the room if there is any feedback on the voltage for 3 the test.
4 MR. FUNK: Gabe, yesterday you and I 5 briefly discussed, you know, fully being able to 6 characterize the supply system. Can we get the 7 characteristics for the KEMA generators so we can 8 actually do a model with those, an impedance model, 9 and that way we can predict voltages, the degradation 10 in voltages with the new software that's out there?
11 It's pretty easy to do.
12 So if that is available it would be of 13 interest I think for some of us to get access to 14 that, maybe just build it into the test plan.
15 MR. CIELO: Yes, this is Frank. When you 16 say "characteristics," I mean it's not just a 17 generator, it's everything in between, too, right?
18 I mean because we can --
19 MR. FUNK: Yes, absolutely.
20 MR. CIELO: And that would be for the 21 entire lab? I mean I am not sure what you are 22 asking.
23 MR. FUNK: Not really. You know, in the 24 electrical world when we model this we model the 25 generation or the source and that's usually done with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 1 the transient and the sub-transient reactants, cable 2 length, and standard distances between the phases.
3 It's not very difficult to do. So you 4 black box it and you should be able to characterize 5 it for us. You need the transformation.
6 MR. VERHOEVEN: Bas Verhoeven from KEMA.
7 It will be very difficult because our generators are 8 not normal generators.
9 MR. FUNK: That's why I am asking, I 10 understand that.
11 MR. VERHOEVEN: And like I said earlier 12 that we have a way with our excitation to counteract.
13 But I don't really see the point of adding that into 14 a model because most of the times the network is a 15 very strong source with a certain impedance, of 16 course, and that is basically the reference that you 17 can calculate and that we make sure that our 18 generators will mimic exactly that part, that's why 19 we have that excitation.
20 The only part is when you were referring 21 to that you have let's say being fed by the generator 22 itself, that then drops down the frequency. That's 23 something different. But for average short circuit 24 calculations the system voltage are basically the 25 impedance, in that case, the maximum short circuit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 1 value, and that's what we can adapt for strong 2 networks, low networks, with very high DC offset or 3 small DC offset.
4 MR. FUNK: Yes, I partially agree with 5 you but maybe not completely. When we do a model you 6 have a starting point, be it an infinite bus or a 7 generator, once again the model of the generator, 8 those standard parameters you would use, and I 9 understand that your generator is different, so doing 10 so in a conventional manner is maybe not as 11 realistic.
12 But as a starting point the black box 13 needs to be the voltage or typically an MVA available 14 from the system and an X to R ratio which when 15 married up within the in-house part of the 16 configuration cables, et cetera, which we should be 17 able to characterize, that's what gets you the, as 18 Gabe had on his screen, the voltage, the X to R 19 ratios, and the current.
20 And with those three parameters then you 21 can move forward with an electrical analysis, so 22 characterizing that shouldn't be completely 23 impossible.
24 I mean if you are going to offset it with 25 your equipment then you know what you are offsetting.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 1 So, again, to do a short circuit model, to look at 2 all the different quantities that are of interest, 3 being able to characterize the generation source I 4 feel is important.
5 It's not absolutely critical, but it 6 would sure help when we went to pair up past events 7 with test results as we try to define what categories 8 things are in and using a predicted model, the 9 software out there, eCAP, EasyPower, there's a 10 million of them, they all work the same way and they 11 are all sort circuit calculations conducted in 12 accordance with IEEE.
13 So I guess that's where I leave this that 14 we want to be able to replicate IEEE modeling to 15 correlate the test results to what we have seen in 16 our past events and without that information from the 17 test then we cannot do that.
18 MR. VERHOEVEN: Yes, well maybe we have 19 to take this offline a little bit, this discussion.
20 MR. TURNER: Let me try one quick one.
21 We measured the generator voltage and then we 22 measured the test object voltage, so we get a pretty 23 good idea of what the I squared R losses are from the 24 generator to the test object.
25 That's something, we get those white NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 1 forms to go along with things. We generally just 2 report the test object voltage, but I think maybe 3 with those two things you ought to be able to come up 4 with some sort of -- it would be the black box but 5 just based on the voltage you're dropping the I 6 squared R losses.
7 We lose about 50 percent sometimes of the 8 power just in I squared R losses from the generator 9 out to the test object.
10 MALE PARTICIPANT: Would that give it to 11 you?
12 MR. FUNK: No, probably not.
13 MALE PARTICIPANT: No?
14 MR. FUNK: The I squared R losses -- I 15 understand the I squared R losses. What we are 16 looking for is to characterize the impedance of the 17 system because that's what drives for the medium 18 voltage and high voltage AC systems, the entire 19 analysis and also the functioning to some degree of 20 the protective relays.
21 I agree, let's not get bogged down in 22 some detailed discussion here, but it's something 23 that I think we would want to pursue a little further 24 offline. Thanks.
25 MR. VERHOEVEN: Like I said we can do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 1 quite a bit with our generators in terms of settings.
2 Basically it's the situation in your system, how it 3 is, what is the impedance there, short circuit 4 impedance, and the transients and sub-transients that 5 we see, offsets and so forth.
6 MR. FUNK: Right.
7 MR. VERHOEVEN: So basically that's the 8 value that you should use in your calculations of the 9 short circuit in your system and those values we use 10 to set our machines so that we mimic your situation.
11 So it's basically the other way around I 12 would say. It's your system designs or dictates what 13 is happening and in case it results in a short 14 circuit code and duration depending on the voltage, 15 and let's say for the test itself we set our machines 16 in a such a way that it will represent that situation 17 because we have impedances to that we can play around 18 with the DC offsets.
19 MR. FUNK: I understand. You're saying 20 let's reverse engineer the black box and you can do 21 that. I think that's reasonable. I think that's 22 reasonable. Please understand I am trying to foresee 23 where ultimately the utilities are going to be. They 24 are going to have to try to make their case based on 25 your test results which aren't precisely what their NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97 1 system has.
2 So the closer we can draw that lane, the 3 stronger argument, technical basis, they'll have for 4 applying the results however this may work out. I 5 hope that makes sense.
6 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So on voltage 6.9kV 7 is there any discussion or proposed changes from that 8 approach for medium voltage?
9 (No response) 10 MR. TAYLOR: Anything from the webinar?
11 (No response) 12 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, what about 480, we're 13 comfortable with testing at voltage? I see heads nod 14 yes, so -- and one thumbs up, okay.
15 MR. MELLY: And this is one difference 16 that we had. In the version that went out in June 17 the medium voltage was designated as 4160 with the 18 international interest more on 6.9.
19 We have moved it to that and we felt 20 comfortable doing it because when we looked at the 21 first series of tests between our 4160 and 6.9 the 22 actual arc voltage did not differ very much between 23 those two ranges.
24 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So I'm not hearing 25 anything, so we'll get to the next topic, current.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98 1 You've already -- Back up. All right, so this is our 2 test ranges at the rate pressure 15/25 for low 3 voltage, 25/35,000 amps for medium voltage. Go to 4 the next slide.
5 MR. MELLY: Can we, just so -- We did 6 show already we have the end values of how many 7 plants we have collected this information from.
8 As we have said previously we don't have 9 a very good avenue to go out and actually request 10 additional information, so this is an area where we'd 11 be looking for more information to kind of enhance 12 our histograms and the analysis that we have here.
13 It would have to be done through EPRI, 14 NEI, a voluntary, or any plant in the room, or other 15 information to enhance our dataset to make sure these 16 values are appropriate.
17 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and on that, you know, 18 I have one question for the utilities, I am not that 19 familiar, although I have been at plants where I have 20 seen the arc flash labels on the equipment saying 21 this is the category of PP and this is the energy 22 from this equipment.
23 Has the utilities gone out and done arc 24 flash studies for their equipment that you are aware 25 of?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 1 MR. LOVVORN: Yes.
2 MR. TAYLOR: Shannon is saying yes.
3 Anybody else? Okay, so there are some plants that 4 have gone out there. That might be a reasonable area 5 to look to see if you could open those analysis up 6 and see where the currents are going out, because to 7 do that you are going to come up with a voltage fault 8 and you're also going to follow the IEEE, assuming 9 you follow the IEEE guidance to do those analyses 10 you'd have the arcing fault current.
11 You know, one thing that differ there 12 though is the duration they are assuming the 13 protection works. So that might not be as 14 applicable, but, you know, that might be a useful 15 source of information to help confirm or deny where 16 we are sitting there.
17 And if there is even databases available 18 for your equipment maybe that is something that may 19 work with EPRI or NEI or whoever to at least compare 20 with what we were working off of to make sure we are 21 in the ballpark.
22 You know, we want to be, again, a 23 realistic representative and the more information the 24 better we can be at achieving that. So that's a 25 request.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 1 I don't know if there is any formal way 2 we can follow up on it, Mark, but, you know, again, 3 please feel free to contact myself or Nick if you do 4 go back and look at that and say, oh, my gosh, we're 5 10,000 amps too high or too low or whatever.
6 MR. MELLY: And we can send out a meeting 7 summary after this to the participants with almost 8 the request action item below list and things like 9 that. Tony has a question.
10 MR. PUTORTI: Since you are making that 11 request and following on the previous discussion does 12 it make sense to ask for a sample circuit that might 13 be appropriate for low voltage and medium voltage and 14 then provide that to keep the match up for the 15 experiments?
16 MR. TAYLOR: So as far as the 17 characteristics for the sample circuit --
18 (Simultaneous speaking) 19 MR. PUTORTI: Something that is 20 representative of the plants.
21 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I mean we could make 22 that request. I think it would be worthwhile, you 23 know, knowing there is a lot of variability.
24 But I think what where we are looking at 25 and based on some of the EPRI stuff is the medium NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101 1 voltage boards coming right off of the step down 2 transformer from the generator and then offset load 3 extender right below your load extender, your regular 4 load extender.
5 The other thing, too, that we haven't 6 really got into, Mark brought it up, is your easels 7 for the safety-related boards, you know, if there are 8 any voting concerns there that tension could cause a 9 longer duration type event.
10 Again, that's on duration, but, you know, 11 that would be the other area where there might be 12 some interest to get the circuit characteristics 13 there to support this testing.
14 So I wouldn't -- That's I good point, I 15 wouldn't make that offer. When we get those 16 characteristics from the plants then we can make sure 17 that the test generator is set up to mimic those.
18 MR. SALLEY: Gabe, we have a question on 19 the webinar by the way.
20 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Let's let Kenneth 21 Fleischer from EPRI --
22 MR. FLEISCHER: Ken Fleischer from EPRI.
23 This just hit me so it's more of a brainstorm comment 24 on standby EDG. It's a worthwhile comment, but we 25 talked about realism here and I don't think any of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
102 1 the OE we saw there was a diesel that was on the 2 system and it is so infrequently on the system that 3 I am wondering if it should just screen out from a 4 probabilistic standpoint.
5 It's a thought. Keep it on the board for 6 now, but that's just a thought I had on the standby 7 diesel.
8 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, thanks. Tom, on the 9 webinar?
10 MR. AIRD: This question is from David 11 Lochbaum. The question is with NRC seeking voluntary 12 info from industry how will the NRC ensure any info 13 provided is representative of overall industry and 14 not a non-representative best case?
15 MR. TAYLOR: So I think to respond to 16 that we'd have to work with some of the experts at 17 the NRC to run it by the electrical group. I am not, 18 I wouldn't consider myself to be one of those 19 experts.
20 But we're working with either in research 21 with Kenn's group or even out in the regions with the 22 inspectors that have the background and have the 23 experience to confirm the information that we are 24 receiving would be probably the most reasonable 25 approach to addressing that concern.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
103 1 I don't know if Mark or Nick has anything 2 else that --
3 (Simultaneous speaking) 4 MR. MILLER: Now I would assume if we're 5 going like through NEI and EPRI they would be doing 6 that for us, too, right? I mean they would 7 filtering, or checking data for us, also.
8 MR. SALLEY: Yes, I think you covered it.
9 And, Shannon, I was just thinking of Kent Bryan at 10 TVA when he would solve these types of problems the 11 word he would also use was garden variety and I think 12 that's kind of what we are looking for is that, you 13 know, middle of the road garden variety thing.
14 Again, I'll fall back to request this 15 Firewall III cable. We knew from all the questions 16 we asked when we looked at that when we were testing 17 that cable that was getting pretty much 80 percent of 18 the plans for the thermoset.
19 So, again, we'd be looking for that same 20 type of input and, again, the steel line, would be 21 that garden variety circuit that we have been looking 22 for.
23 MR. MELLY: Yes, and to reiterate what 24 Mark said is that we will be getting that garden 25 variety but that's also why we are testing at the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
104 1 current ranges that we have selected so that there is 2 the potential when the model does come out it will 3 have this, the dynamic zone of influence where you 4 can use what's applicable to your plant-specific 5 lineup with the research that we are conducting so 6 that you can create a plant-specific modeling state.
7 We can't cover it all in our test 8 program, that's why we would like to be right in the 9 middle of the road with a range so that it can be 10 applicable generically.
11 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, so good feedback on 12 that. Thanks for the question. We can go to the 13 next couple of slides. I have already gone over how 14 I develop these and what we are basing it off of, 15 but, again, any additional information to help 16 support that by all means please provide that to me 17 and Nick.
18 And, you know, we'd probably have to have 19 a discussion whether we can have a follow-on go-to 20 meeting or a webinar just to when we receive that 21 information and further discussions moving forward to 22 kind of remain the collaborative environment and to 23 make sure that we are understand the information that 24 we are getting and that we are using it appropriately 25 to modify the test plan moving forward.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105 1 So that's just a thought that came into 2 my mind. I don't know if the group thinks that this 3 reasonable to have a call in the future, but I think 4 it would help us out.
5 Next slide. Okay, so let's go back one.
6 Any additional discussion on fault currents, where we 7 are currently at in the information we have at hand, 8 so it's 15K and 25K for low voltage, 25 and 35 for 9 medium. Anything to add from the audience here?
10 MR. MELLY: Is there anything on the 11 webinar?
12 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.
13 MR. MELLY: Okay.
14 MR. TAYLOR: So that's what we'll go with 15 for the time being until we have any information to 16 go otherwise. So the next question is on the system 17 connections and to the generator they can configure 18 and either be Y or delta connected.
19 Most of the testing that we did in Phase 20 I was delta. However, there can be wye connections 21 made at KEMA, so as far as the plants and the uses 22 here, you know, which one do you think, or what 23 combination of the two do you think would be 24 appropriate, and that's something that we haven't 25 specified yet in our test plan.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
106 1 Obviously, there is a lot of transformers 2 that are delta, wye, primary, secondary, vice versa, 3 so looking at where the faults are is there any 4 opinion on one over the other, one configuration over 5 the other?
6 MR. MELLY: And just as a note from the 7 testing in Phase I, the ground it seemed to use was 8 primarily related to the test, the limited test we 9 did in wye connection was because we were testing at 10 a high voltage for a long duration and the generator 11 and the setpoints we were looking for were more 12 easily obtained using the wye configuration.
13 MR. LOVVORN: If I can just say that, you 14 know, for those that are frustrated that the Y would 15 be representative of the medium voltage connection 16 and the delta would be representative of a low 17 voltage connection.
18 So if I was going to pick for my plant 19 I'd say wye on the medium and delta on the low, but 20 I don't know if that's representative of the 21 industry.
22 MR. MILLER: Another plant I was at it 23 was wye for both.
24 MR. FLEISCHER: Kenn Fleischer from EPRI.
25 I can go back through my drawings, but if I recall at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
107 1 medium voltage there is both, there is a lot of 2 combinations of delta and wye.
3 So to get down into low voltage I see a 4 more commonly grounded wye. There are a few systems, 5 I know of one plant that is delta, and there is I 6 think maybe a few others, but I would think that 7 unless we can assure ourselves that there is no 8 difference in the arc performance or damage between 9 a wye and a delta I think we should test both 10 configurations, particularly at the medium voltage 11 level.
12 The low voltage level, unless I find a 13 greater preponderance of delta systems in the U.S.
14 nuclear power plants maybe we can just limit it to a 15 grounded wye, and when I say "grounded" that may also 16 have some impedance.
17 MR. MELLY: And one thing to note is that 18 when we did have the, hold the PIRT this was one of 19 the lower importance rankings to the eventual damage 20 states.
21 We didn't see it as being a very high 22 factor in any of the tests that we ran as the 23 eventual damage state, so it is a lower ranking for 24 the PIRT and I think on what I am hearing is I think 25 we agree that it's going to be a lower importance in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
108 1 here.
2 MR. MILLER: It's more about the amount 3 of all current.
4 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. So just to reiterate 5 I think maybe that might be a secondary or even 6 tertiary parameter and to make sure that the KEMA 7 equipment can be set up to achieve our durations and 8 our currents and then see, you know, whether we can 9 support wye or delta for those.
10 And if we can't get a combination of 11 both, we should attempt to do it to provide the 12 comparison, but, again, it's not a, from what I am 13 hearing it's not a primary important parameter.
14 MR. CIELO: Yes, this is Frank from KEMA.
15 Yes, once you decide on what you want to do then it's 16 a matter of, then we'll take that and we'll see how 17 we need to configure the lab to be able to do that 18 and we'll tell you if we can or cannot achieve it and 19 then you'll be able to judge from there.
20 MR. MELLY: Yes.
21 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So we can go to the 22 next slide then I think. So moving on for the wye 23 connections and grounding, what I saw was just the 24 reactive or ungrounded, you know, what's the 25 preference, and maybe I'll start out with KEMA, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
109 1 know, what's your capabilities for grounding the 2 system, the power generation system?
3 MR. CIELO: I would want to have some of 4 our facility people be able to answer that question, 5 but, again, I think also I'll just reiterate what I 6 just said.
7 I think the way we work is you will come 8 to us and say this is what we are trying to 9 accomplish, this is what we need to do. We'll work 10 with you with given the limitations of our equipment 11 and the lab and so forth and we'll tell you what we 12 can and cannot do.
13 So there is so many different 14 possibilities here, so many different configurations 15 that we could use, and, you know, at this point we 16 don't see any limit.
17 The biggest thing that we are worried 18 about is the thermal effect on our generators because 19 we're not going to put that, you know, mocking up the 20 test cell is one thing --
21 MR. MELLY: Yes.
22 MR. CIELO: -- doing anything to our 23 generators is a completely different story. That's 24 a completely different story.
25 MR. MELLY: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
110 1 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So from the audience 2 I think we have a comment in the back. That would be 3 Robert Rhodes from Duke.
4 MR. RHODES: Yes, this is Robert Rhodes 5 from Duke, or Bob. Harris has, and I'm a Harris 6 person so I am plant person, not a testing person or 7 a theoretical person, we've got wye and it's high 8 resistance grounding which limits your fault current.
9 We had the high energy fault on the ISO 10 phase and the output was just exactly what was 11 expected by or explained by KEMA. It went out, we 12 had faults on the ISO phase, it blew the main 13 transformer, it fed back because it's a high 14 resistance ground with a grounding transformer, did 15 the same thing on that grounding transformer and blew 16 that out.
17 The bus stayed intact except for the 18 piece that got ripped down through the neutral 19 grounding transformer because the vehicle or the 20 enclosure got destroyed.
21 So that resistance -- And I believe there 22 is a lot of resist of grounding schemes in the 23 industry that would tend to limit your ground fault 24 and change your whole characteristic on a solidly 25 grounded system and your results are going to be all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
111 1 different.
2 And I would warn the testing people 3 because when they did this on our ISO phase it fed 4 back into the generator and we blew out our hydrogen 5 seal, so I would be very concerned about your 6 equipment because I don't want to damage your 7 equipment.
8 It didn't hurt us very long but we had to 9 replace our hydrogen seals, but there you are.
10 MR. LEJA: While the microphone is here.
11 I can't speak for the entire fleet, but for the sites 12 I am comfortable with or know well, usually on a 13 medium voltage you always have a grounding 14 transformer or a resistive, a ground resistor, on the 15 low voltage it would usually just be solid ground.
16 But I have seen that throughout, not just 17 Exelon.
18 MR. DALEY: Yes, I was just going to say 19 that I think Duke, the Duke plants are a little 20 different. I agree, they do have a high resistor and 21 I think that will affect how these events carry on.
22 But I don't know that that's very -- I 23 mean for the plants that I have seen it is not clear 24 to me that that's the trend in the industry.
25 I think you see some type of resistive NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
112 1 grounding or you see some solid grounding out there, 2 I think that's more prevalent than a high resistance 3 ground like you guys have, but that's just from the 4 plants that I have seen.
5 MR. FLEISCHER: Ken Fleischer from EPRI.
6 Yes, there's going to be all kinds of grounding 7 schemes, but also HEAFs can also be initiated phase 8 to phase which then takes that out of the picture.
9 So I'll see if I can do a little bit of 10 work and maybe kind of get a representative of what 11 I am seeing through the various U.S. nuclear power 12 plants trying to bin that up for info, but, again, I 13 think that if we look at a HEAF from phase to phase 14 the grounding schemes will take us, that will not be 15 too much of a big factor.
16 MR. MELLY: And we are initiating phase 17 to phase in every case.
18 MR. FLEISCHER: Right.
19 MR. RHODES: One more comment. This is, 20 again, Bob Rhodes from Duke. One other thing I have 21 noticed through the years is when you see the high 22 energy arc faults the arc faults tend to find or seek 23 out the weak points in the system and the weak points 24 in the system may be the bus bars but more likely 25 they are transformers, bolted connections, things NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
113 1 like that that go and the test seems to be ignoring 2 all of that.
3 So I would at least look at that impact 4 and see how you see it, because if you look at the 5 Robinson fault it was the cable over the bus that was 6 completely destroyed and the conduit that was steel, 7 you just had a gap in the conduit, it's not there 8 anymore.
9 So the weak point, wherever that point 10 is, not necessarily a bus bar being the weak point.
11 MR. TAYLOR: Anyone have anything on the 12 transformers?
13 MR. MELLY: Transformers were Mark's 14 planned phase --
15 (Simultaneous speaking) 16 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I think right now we've 17 kind of excluded that from the scope of this work.
18 I think internationals, Germany, in particular, is 19 interested in that.
20 MR. MELLY: Yes, there has been several 21 discussions of testing transformers at the higher 22 voltages. It's a little bit outside of our scope 23 right now, we're just trying to limit it to what was 24 currently, what we saw as more dominant risk from the 25 OpE that we have looked at, it being the bus, or the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
114 1 electrical enclosures themselves as the initiating 2 points.
3 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, so go ahead and --
4 MR. AIRD: Gabe, there is another 5 question from the webinar.
6 MR. TAYLOR: Sure.
7 MR. AIRD: This one is from Preston 8 Cooper. He says from the original arc flash 1584 9 equations the grounding is basically broken into 10 effectively and non-effectively grounded systems.
11 Are we wanting a more detailed view to 12 the effects of grounding?
13 MR. TAYLOR: I'm not sure if we have come 14 to a decision on that. I kind of threw it out there 15 to add the, you know, realism to the event, but, 16 again, I think it comes down to realism from your 17 plants and what type of fault currents you can get 18 and duration.
19 And from what I am hearing from KEMA they 20 can basically configure their system to meet those 21 parameters and for, you know, ground, phase to phase, 22 as EPRI brought up, you know, the grounding is 23 probably not as big of an impact.
24 So from that discussion, you know, I am 25 kind of concluding that we're probably not going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115 1 evaluate the grounding versus non-grounding in the 2 test parameter, but on, you know, the representative 3 side, but that's really what the discussion was 4 focused on.
5 MR. MELLY: And another additional factor 6 to keep in mind as you look at the test matrixes that 7 we have developed and how we are focusing a lot of 8 the discussion here today is that you see us trying 9 to limit our test variables and have direct 10 comparisons between tests so we can draw one-to-one 11 comparisons.
12 With such a limited number of tests as 13 well as the difficulty in collecting data, especially 14 the measurement of the heat flux, the slugs, ensuring 15 that we are within the line of affluent, or the plume 16 of the arc itself, we are trying to ensure that we 17 can have comparable results which is why we are 18 trying to do replicate testing, limit the number of 19 variables.
20 So if we can through discussion or 21 consensus deem that one parameter is less likely to 22 have an impact it's of benefit to exclude it from the 23 test scope.
24 MR. TAYLOR: All right. Any other 25 feedback on that one? Ken?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
116 1 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, actually I'm getting 2 this idea from you, Nick. I think the brainstorming 3 whiteboard we got going on here is good.
4 I think at some point what we may want to 5 do is bin these into what the priorities are, which 6 are the most important, what's your absolutely must-7 do's for the test to get meaningful results, and 8 which are the secondary and tertiary level items that 9 if we can do we will and if we can't we don't. I 10 think we should probably bin this at some point.
11 MR. TAYLOR: That's a good suggestion.
12 I think I agree. Let's get through this and then see 13 where that takes us and if we have to come back over 14 lunch you can come back to this to do the binning, 15 that's fine, but we still need an hour or two to get 16 through Nick's test plan and comment resolution.
17 MR. MELLY: We may be able to handle that 18 during the test plan discussion, because right now we 19 have a large slot to discuss the comments that were 20 received on the test plan and we're kind of knocking 21 them down one-by-one as we're going around this 22 discussion right now.
23 So I see us -- Right now we're moving at 24 a good pace.
25 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I think this is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
117 1 most important part of this whole workshop so I would 2 like to spend a lot of time working on this 3 discussion.
4 MR. MELLY: Yes. And the binning I think 5 we can do during lunch.
6 MR. LEJA: So this is kind of going on a 7 tangent I guess, and I'm not PRA person, but I can 8 understand the fact of frequency for like the 9 frequency level PRAs.
10 So for these medium voltage systems you 11 do your tasks how you do your task phase to phase, 12 but when you develop your frequencies I think that 13 should be one of the things you guys kind of consider 14 as this resister systems if it's phase-to-ground 15 fault it's going to limit the current and typically 16 that's how most faults start, it's phased to ground 17 and then it flashes over.
18 Not to say it's not going to flash over 19 if you have that resister ground, but it's probably 20 something that you should keep in mind when you 21 develop your frequencies for PRA.
22 So it's less likely that it will be a --
23 it'll be phase to phase fault if you have that 24 grounding resister or grounding transformer. I am 25 amenable to hear which is typical. I believe it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
118 1 difficult.
2 MR. MELLY: I agree and I think that's 3 something that we need to keep in mind when we do the 4 re-review of the OpE for the binning and the 5 frequency as to how much information can we get on 6 the events that have occurred, type of grounding of 7 the system, the duration, the current.
8 For a lot of these the information that 9 we have is coming from the LERs which typically focus 10 on the plant response rather than the electrical 11 characteristics of the event itself.
12 I know that now that these events are 13 happening if we can go out and collect as much 14 information, for instance the Cooper event, Turkey 15 Point, the Robinson, we have a wealth of information 16 on what actually occurred, specific information on 17 the duration, the current, the voltage, the 18 configuration, if we can go back and collect that 19 through the OpE of the previous, of the past events 20 it would really help in nailing down the frequency 21 and nailing down the OpE and how it correlates to 22 what we're trying to do.
23 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and I agree with that 24 discussion. Just to clarify though, you're basically 25 saying that if you have a high resist of grounded NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
119 1 system the arc would stay phase to ground and it 2 wouldn't flash over, was that the --
3 MALE PARTICIPANT: I think it was less of 4 a chance.
5 MR. TAYLOR: Less of a chance.
6 MALE PARTICIPANT: But it probably will 7 flash over.
8 MR. MILLER: This is Kenn Miller. Less 9 of a chance of the initial line to ground fault.
10 (Simultaneous speaking) 11 MR. TAYLOR: Becoming a phase to phase 12 fault is that --
13 (Simultaneous speaking) 14 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Okay, I just wanted 15 to be clear on that. But, yes, I think that is 16 something that we can look into. Next slide. Nick?
17 MR. MELLY: Oh, sorry.
18 MR. TAYLOR: You know, one thing that I 19 think is important, and I have mentioned this 20 multiple times already, you know, today is where do 21 we put that arcing wire to start the arc.
22 It has an impact on, you know, where it 23 will transition if it will move, or, also more 24 importantly, we need to collect data external to the 25 equipment to characterize what type of thermal source NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
120 1 is coming out from the event as well as our 2 photography and videography to capture where any of 3 the molten material is going and the vapor, the 4 conductive cloud, cloud of death, whatever you want 5 to call it.
6 So if you look at the guide, the IEEE 7 guide, it tells you basically put it as far away from 8 your incoming power source as possible, so that's one 9 way.
10 I think a lot of the reasoning behind 11 that, and I don't have it, so, you know, the 12 background behind is that basically the magnetics 13 that was going to push the arc away from the source.
14 So we have various locations where we put 15 in Phase I, and this is actually a diagram out of the 16 Phase I test report. In the back section of the 17 cabinets we could always put it somewhere on the bus 18 bar, so we could put it on the horizontal or the 19 vertical bus bars.
20 Next slide. And this is was in a low 21 voltage piece of the gear, or we can put it on where 22 the stabs are on the front of the gear to initiate 23 the arc.
24 So those are kind of the locations. I 25 think there has been some OpE for where you have bus NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
121 1 cables coming in to the back of the gear, there has 2 been some failures there, and, obviously, you see 3 failures at the stabs where the gear goes into.
4 So, you know, those are two places we 5 want to focus in on, but also the bus bars in the 6 back there has been some OpE on failures there, 7 right?
8 MR. MELLY: Yes. Yes, and there is some 9 challenges associated with both. So if we went with 10 the approach putting it into the arc location of the 11 front of the cabinet, which we did in a few cases in 12 the first test series essentially the breaker 13 misalignment, the stab misalignment going in and 14 things like that, we can initiate the arc in the 15 front of the compartment except the instrumentation 16 becomes somewhat of a challenge in that orientation 17 because the door will swing open, sometimes throw the 18 door and our equipment stands, which would be located 19 directly in front it, will take the brunt of the 20 impact of potentially the door swinging open and 21 knocking them out, whereas in the back of the cabinet 22 or the sides of the cabinet we have less of a risk of 23 impinging on our instrumentation stands.
24 So I know Tony has been giving this a lot 25 of thought as to how to collect repeatable datasets NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122 1 and this was a challenge for if we do the front.
2 MR. PUTORTI: In Phase I if you take a 3 look at the experiments we used on the equipment that 4 was donated by Japan we were actually able to have 5 the same HEAF result four times.
6 We placed the arc wire on both of the 7 connections in the rear of a switch gear which was on 8 the secondaries of the breakers where the voltage 9 connection was between a bus bar and the cables that 10 would be exiting to the load and we were able to, the 11 HEAF exited right out the back in all four of those 12 that we did.
13 So that was an example of a scenario that 14 we favored because it would allow us to know exactly 15 and hopefully be able to repeat again where the HEAF 16 products would exit the enclosure and we would be 17 able to put our instrumentation there to characterize 18 it well.
19 MR. MELLY: Yes. In the front 20 compartments there was a lot of, it was a little 21 chaotic, either the door blew open and the energy 22 came out the front or we would breach internally 23 compartment-to-compartment or the exterior wall and 24 it was somewhat of a guessing game as to the location 25 of the arc agenda.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
123 1 MR. FUNK: One quick comment, and I'll 2 put Mr. Earley on the spot on this a little bit, but 3 I believe in the most recent issuance of IEEE 1584 4 they found a definite distinction between the energy 5 that was emitted form an arc created on a vertical 6 section versus a horizontal section and they have 7 changed some of their guidance based on that.
8 So that, again, I apologize I'm not as 9 familiar with that as I should be and maybe I'll, 10 again, put Mr. Earley on the spot to comment on that, 11 whether that should be considered for our testing.
12 MR. EARLEY: Yes, that is true that the 13 results from the vertical and horizontal test did 14 yield some different results.
15 MR. FUNK: Thank you.
16 MR. TAYLOR: So any other feedback on 17 that or is -- I mean in the vertical orientation was 18 it more severe than the horizontal or -- I don't even 19 know.
20 MR. EARLEY: I believe that the vertical 21 was more severe.
22 MR. TAYLOR: So that would be, you know, 23 something we would need to consider. Is there any 24 other feedback on where we should initiate the arc?
25 You know, one additional comment was that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
124 1 when we did do the finish piece of equipment we put 2 the --
3 MR. MELLY: This wasn't there.
4 MR. TAYLOR: No, this has been --
5 MR. MELLY: No, that's our --
6 MR. TAYLOR: You had the incoming power 7 supply from KEMA coming here, we put the arc down 8 here.
9 MR. MELLY: Right in the center.
10 MR. TAYLOR: Oh, in the center?
11 MR. MELLY: Yes.
12 MR. TAYLOR: Somewhere in here on the 13 gear, so for that cubicle let's say, and all three 14 phases tied together initiated the event and it 15 quickly promulgated up into the back part of the 16 gear.
17 MR. MELLY: So it promulgated from the 18 front of the switch gear towards where you had more 19 aluminum material and the horizontal bus bars and 20 then you see the entire, from the video you saw the 21 ejector coming out the side following the magnetic 22 path.
23 But, again, that was -- We initiated the 24 arc in the front cubicle and it promulgated up to the 25 top.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
125 1 MR. FLEISCHER: Ken Fleischer from EPRI.
2 Yes, I like this more detail and thoughtful 3 discussion where you put the arc.
4 I can't remember which report, or test 5 report I read where some of the arc initiation was 6 just not in accordance with any operating experience 7 we have, removing the 24 inches of arc chute to try 8 and get an arc to work was just in my mind not 9 realistic.
10 So what I recommend we do is not place an 11 arc somewhere where it is just not conceivable that 12 we can even initiate an arc there, if that makes 13 sense.
14 MR. MILLER: Keep the original 15 configuration of the equipment.
16 MR. FLEISCHER: Right, right. Yes, I 17 understand we have to cut a little bit into an 18 existing gap that's in the insulation between maybe 19 a bolted connection to get a good wrap of the wire, 20 but not go into a part that's already got insulation.
21 It's kind of like I think the discussion 22 about the non-safe bus, is it insulated bus or is 23 not. You're not going to initiate an arc where the 24 insulation is covering the buses.
25 MR. MELLY: Right. For our series of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
126 1 testing what we plan to do for the Phase II, we did 2 not alter the cabinets in any way besides removing 3 the initial insulation at the arc connection point.
4 The only thing that we had that was a 5 little strange in the initiation of one of our tests 6 was in Tests 4, 5, 6 and 7 the Korean cabinet donated 7 equipment we had a lot of difficulty in maintaining 8 the arc itself, or initiating the arc where we had 9 extinguishment immediately a few milliseconds after 10 the test.
11 So Test 7 we have coined the Frankenstein 12 test because you'll see bolts in there just as trying 13 to have enough material to vaporize initially to 14 maintain the arc.
15 That was the first series of tests that 16 we ran and it was a very trial and error. It did not 17 quite work and we have learned a lot more as we have 18 moved forward.
19 MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, I'm glad you 20 reminded me of that. And I am okay with 21 experimentation, so maybe one thing we can do is if 22 we decide to a test that is what I call experimental 23 or exploratory and it's not expected in real life 24 let's make sure we just very clearly state that in 25 the final test report so that in the future the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
127 1 utilities can say, hey, this was not representative, 2 this was an exploratory test.
3 MR. TAYLOR: I definitely agree.
4 MR. MELLY: Yes, we agree.
5 MR. FLEISCHER: The other thing we can do 6 is, and if you say you're going to get to this later 7 we will, but I also, I'm having a hard time getting 8 my head around the size of the arcing wire using for 9 medium voltage.
10 MR. TAYLOR: I was just talking to Ken 11 about that.
12 MR. MELLY: Yes.
13 MR. TAYLOR: So if you look at guide, the 14 IEEE C-37.20.7, it has two different wire sizes in 15 there. I believe it's six and 24 --
16 MR. MELLY: Ten and --
17 MALE PARTICIPANT: Twenty-four is the 18 medium voltage and ten for the low voltage.
19 MR. MELLY: Ten K strand.
20 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, ten for the low 21 voltage and 24 for medium.
22 MR. MELLY: And the ten is K strand wire.
23 MR. TAYLOR: And the ten is K strand wire 24 meaning that it has a lot more small strands to make 25 up that ten gauge conductor.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
128 1 So, you know, moving forward we want to 2 understand, all right, the arcing wire is only there 3 to create the conductivity in the plasma and really 4 all we need is enough material to get the arc to 5 initiate and then maintain it to allow the event to 6 occur for the duration.
7 So Kenn Miller actually reached out to 8 IEEE to understand what's the basis, what's the 9 reason behind the different sizes, and we haven't 10 gotten a -- They forward it on to their committee.
11 Maybe some of the individuals here on 12 that can try to get some basis, but if there is 13 anybody in the room that has some information, you 14 know, we're interested to learn more on that.
15 MALE PARTICIPANT: Do you have any 16 background on that?
17 MR. FLEISCHER: No. I can go back to the 18 standards and see if I recognize anybody, but what I 19 offer up is that I am not saying take exception but 20 it would say, hey, we're going to initiate an arc for 21 IEEE C37.20.7 and then we use a different wire size, 22 I would just say if we're going to use a different 23 wire size and a different wire type let's just 24 outright say that it's going to be a deviation from 25 the standard or not.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
129 1 Yes, I'll take a look, Kenn. I will go 2 look into the standard, who's on the standard board, 3 and see if I recognize anybody from my past non-4 nuclear IEEE life. There might be someone on there 5 I know.
6 MR. MELLY: Yes. And when we did look 7 into it we noticed that there was a specific callout 8 as to why they used the ten gauge K stranded wire to 9 initiate the arc in low voltage because they had a 10 greater success of maintaining the arc for the 11 duration, the desired duration, and there was no 12 explanation as the reduction in the wire size for the 13 medium voltage.
14 I assume it's just because it's much 15 easier at holding the arc in, but because we did see 16 that explanation as for the holding for the desired 17 duration our initial thought was we went with that 18 for all the tests because that was one of our main 19 parameters of interest.
20 MR. TAYLOR: And that's in the 2017 21 edition of that standard. They put that in in an 22 annex.
23 MR. MELLY: Yes.
24 MR. TAYLOR: So I think moving forward, 25 and Nick and I have talked about this a little bit, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
130 1 is that we plan on using what the standard, or guide, 2 I guess, says to use for either medium or low voltage 3 but we still want to hear back from that standard 4 committee to see what the basis or logic is.
5 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, and I'll try and 6 look see if I can find something.
7 MR. MELLY: Yes.
8 MR. TAYLOR: We appreciate that.
9 MR. FLEISCHER: I'll get with you by 10 either way.
11 MR. MILLER: Yes, I've sent an email to 12 the chair working for them but I haven't heard back.
13 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, so go ahead and the 14 next slide, Nick. Another picture I have taken out 15 of the press report, again, trying to get the same 16 thing, where do put the arcing wire.
17 This is just a medium voltage piece of 18 the gear, so you have the bus cables coming in the 19 back making connections to the bus bars within the 20 enclosure in the middle section and then you'll have, 21 this is a medium voltage, you'll have two sets of 22 breakers in this case up front.
23 So we could potentially put the arcing 24 wire right at the bus connection, the bus cable 25 connections to the gear, we could make shorting in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
131 1 the bus section of the gear in the middle region, or 2 we could make the arc connection in where the stabs 3 are, where the breakers are located.
4 So those are possibilities. We are 5 looking for feedback and --
6 MR. MELLY: And this is the test that 7 Tony was talking about. We had very good success of 8 getting similar arc conditions when we initiated it 9 in the rear of the compartment than we did when we 10 tested it in the front cubicle.
11 MR. TAYLOR: And I know I am probably 12 stealing a little bit of Nick's thunder here, but 13 moving forward we do plan on including breakers in 14 the enclosures.
15 They may not be functioning and we might 16 not have them racked in but they are at least there 17 for their mass and thermal characteristics --
18 (Simultaneous speaking) 19 MR. MELLY: Yes, that was one of the 20 resounding comments we received from internationally, 21 NEI, EPRI, is that the picture that was depicted in 22 the test plan did not have an actual breaker unit in 23 it.
24 We have changed it so it does and we do 25 plan on putting non-functional breakers in so we have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
132 1 the thermal mass, the fire load potential, as well as 2 the pressure influence.
3 MR. TAYLOR: And breakers are the most 4 expensive piece, so the non-functional piece is 5 important. If we can get something that is the right 6 size to put in there we will.
7 Obviously if we can get a one-to-one 8 match that's what we'll use, but we just have to 9 watch on the budget side because if we're going to 10 have to spend, I don't know, X number of dollars on 11 the gear and then we got to spend ten or 20 times 12 that just to get breakers, you know, it's going to 13 limit the amount of test that we can do.
14 MR. MELLY: Which is another reason why 15 we planned on not testing at the breaker unit itself 16 so we don't have to buy repetitive pieces of breaker 17 equipment.
18 MR. PUTORTI: Tony Putorti from NIST.
19 And in Phase I these enclosures and cabinets did have 20 breakers.
21 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, next slide. So this 22 is just the same piece of gear, just the schematic of 23 it, so, again, in this case that's where they put the 24 arcing wire.
25 Is there any feedback from the group of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
133 1 proposed or suggested locations that initiate the 2 arc?
3 (No response) 4 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. On the webinar, Tom, 5 do we have anything?
6 (No response) 7 MR. TAYLOR: All right. Again, if you go 8 back home and something comes in your mind please 9 email us on that, otherwise I think you know those 10 are the three locations that we were interested in.
11 OpE shows that events are occurring there 12 and we'll probably pick, we probably won't just do 13 one, but, you know, maybe two and possibly three, 14 but, again, we want to weigh, you know, how 15 repetitive we can get the, I'll call it effluent, the 16 energy coming out for our measurement gauges. Next 17 slide, Nick.
18 MR. MELLY: One more point there is that 19 some of the parallel work that is being done by Japan 20 as well as their testing agency CRIEPI, which is the 21 parallel of EPRI in the U.S., they are doing a lot of 22 testing as well to look at the energy levels to limit 23 the amount of energy and they are doing predominantly 24 most of their testing in the breaker cubicle itself 25 or very close to the breaker cubicle because they are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
134 1 more interested in the threshold amount of energy 2 that is initiating an ensuing fire which they are 3 using as one of their damage states.
4 So by initiating at the breaker unit 5 itself you have a higher chance of starting the fire 6 in that breaker unit which is why they are doing the 7 testing there.
8 So we had been working with the 9 international community and we are going to try and 10 leverage some of their testing experience through the 11 use of IAs and other avenues so there is data that we 12 might be able to obtain from that arc location given 13 their test series.
14 MR. TAYLOR: All right, next thing is bus 15 bar spacing and I show you that it is important for 16 arc voltage, or it's one of the parameters that 17 influences arc voltage.
18 The standards don't specify, at least I 19 am not aware of any, and typically spacing that I 20 have found is IEEE has some tables in 1584 that gives 21 you either a range or a single point value for 22 different types of equipment for bus bars.
23 So from that, you know, six inches, four 24 inches, or one inch about for the different types of 25 classes of gear. And then I also found a White Paper NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
135 1 from one of the, one company that had some 2 information as well. It was similar to what was in 3 1584 but it was, you know, typical bus bar spacing.
4 So I think it's really going to depend on 5 what type of gear that we choose will depict on what 6 the spacing is, but if there is any opinions in the 7 room of, you know, this is the type of spacing we 8 have in the plans or we bought this gear because of 9 this rating we'd be interested in knowing that now or 10 moving forward such that we can procure our gear that 11 was representative.
12 MR. MELLY: The other important aspect of 13 the spacing itself is that the way that we have set 14 up the test plan that we'd want to compare the copper 15 results versus the aluminum result, the spacing can 16 be different based on the sizing that you need, 17 copper versus aluminum, we don't want to do a this 18 exact same size copper versus the exact same size 19 aluminum because they are going to be differing in 20 the field.
21 We want to potentially buy equipment that 22 is spec'd out for either material and there will be 23 slight differences in the spacing, depending on what 24 material you are using.
25 MR. LEJA: So I understand, you're going NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
136 1 to be limited to the spacing based on the kind of 2 gear you're able to get, but I would probably just 3 note it in the report and maybe reference that table 4 and just say based on, you know, this is standard, 5 and here's what we tested, just so people have a 6 comparison and could maybe have done something that 7 might have skewed the results a little bit.
8 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I think that's very 9 reasonable. Okay. Not hearing anything, nothing 10 from the webinar, we'll go to the next slide then.
11 All right. Bus insulation. We can test bus bars 12 with insulation or without. I think there's been 13 some recent event where they had insulated buses in 14 their bus duct. But not only bus duct, even in the 15 gear, do you guys experience insulation on the buses 16 or is it typically non-insulated or a bare bus or bus 17 bars? So that's the kind of feedback that we're 18 looking for because, again, we have prepared 19 equipment, we could go either way or we can get a 20 cross-section of insulated or non-insulated.
21 MR. FLEISCHER: One plan I'm intimately 22 familiar with, the non-seg bus, it is insulated.
23 It's that Norrell type insulation. But the fault 24 that they had was another one of these maintenance 25 errors. Apparently, they had done an inspection, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
137 1 where the bus goes horizontal and then goes to a 90-2 degree with bolted connections, they forgot to put 3 the boot back on. So that was exposed, and that was 4 where the arc occurred. So, therefore, my one 5 experience with an arc on that would be an exposed 6 area of an insulated bus.
7 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I think if we just 8 add on, I think if we did test insulated buses, we 9 could either test it where a connection is where 10 there's an insulation and there's a boot. You might 11 have to get the arc to stabilize. But also I think 12 there was recent testing done where they removed 13 insulation within the bus bar and caused a three 14 phase there, so that's another approach we could 15 take. And with the insulation removed, I think it 16 helps stabilize the arc so it doesn't, you know, 17 shoot down the bus bar. And that's one of the 18 reasons why Nick put in the test plan for the 19 uninsulated cases we have a cap so that the arc 20 didn't just shoot down to the end. I think there are 21 some cases where the arcs are stabilized and haven't 22 moved that far.
23 But, again, from a testing perspective 24 and to setup the instruments, we kind of have to make 25 some modifications to make sure we can get the arc NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
138 1 where we want it.
2 MR. MELLY: Right. Because if you 3 remember the video that we showed of the bus duct 4 that we did test, you saw this just plume just 5 shooting out looking like a rocket engine. And if 6 we're trying to refine the current model for bus 7 ducts, it's this cone in a downward direction and we 8 see in the modeling, as well as the OpE, is from 9 these events where the bus ducts hung overhead.
10 That's why the gap break was there because if we 11 didn't put that we were worried it was just going to, 12 the arc was going to migrate and move all the damage 13 downwards.
14 We have learned a lot from the Cooper 15 testing that was done. And they were able to 16 stabilize the arc and center the cubicle or center 17 the enclosure and get much more damage consistent 18 with what you would see in the FAQ method, so we are 19 trying to move forward in that respect.
20 MR. DALEY: Ours were variable.
21 MR. TAYLOR: That one comment was 22 utilities would have bare conductors.
23 MR. MELLY: Does it matter whether it's 24 an external or internal? Like for the Cooper tests, 25 the Cooper bus duct was outside versus a lot of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
139 1 bus ducts that we're worried about postulating for 60 2 to 50 are internal.
3 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Not hearing any 4 feedback, it might be reasonable, I'll put this on 5 the table, to test some bus bar, bus bar 6 configurations with insulation and another segment 7 without and then have a comparison. So does that 8 seem reasonable to the group? I'm seeing some yes, 9 some yes nods in the yes direction. All right. So 10 that might be something we want to change then, Nick.
11 MR. MELLY: Okay.
12 MR. TAYLOR: While I'm writing this, what 13 about, for test bus ducts, what about gear? Is there 14 configurations out there in the plants that have a 15 lot of insulations on the bus section of the gear, or 16 are they mostly uninsulated?
17 MR. MELLY: If you go back to this 18 picture of the Japanese equipment, this was insulated 19 bus bar material internal to the cabin. When we did 20 initiate the arc, we removed, roughly, an inch of 21 insulation around and connected the arc and wire at 22 that location. Tony.
23 MR. PUTORTI: So there were a couple of 24 experiments on these enclosures where we did remove 25 the insulation when it was in, let's say, a middle NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
140 1 compartment.
2 MR. MELLY: Yes.
3 MR. PUTORTI: When we did the four on the 4 rear, the bolted connection was uninsulated, so we 5 put the arc wire on the uninsulated portion.
6 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. I'm just looking at 7 time and I think we got enough time to get through 8 this. Was there any other feedback on insulation 9 characteristics? All right. Not hearing any, if you 10 do find that the gear is insulated or commonly 11 insulated, please let us know. I think we have a 12 path forward for the bus ducts.
13 Okay. The next couple of slides are 14 looking into the pressure influences. So where the 15 thermal is more of the energy, from the pressure it's 16 more the arc power. Some of the literature we've 17 looked into emphasize the DC time constant has a big 18 role in how the pressure effects from the event occur 19 or propagate. Asymmetric current to a point has some 20 impact, but also looking at the volume of your 21 enclosures and your openings, given a door opened or 22 just the ventilation, also have an impact on pressure 23 because you need some type of containment to get 24 pressure obviously.
25 So, you know, I think, Dan, you had a lot NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
141 1 of feedback on the asymmetric nature of these time 2 currents or these current profiles and looking at the 3 DC time constant and the asymmetric nature of these 4 profiles. Is there any influence or interest in 5 exploring those aspects of these events from a 6 pressure standpoint?
7 MR. FUNK: I guess we could. You have 8 characterized it well so we at least know exactly 9 what we've got. To be honest, the testing is pretty 10 benign in this regard to the offsets and the time 11 constants are really low, and you don't include any 12 feedback from motor contributions, etcetera, 13 etcetera. So I guess that's my feeling on that 14 particular part of this.
15 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Anybody else have a 16 --
17 MR. FLEISCHER: Just help me understand, 18 DC time constant, are you saying DC offset which is 19 part of the asymmetrical current? Okay.
20 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I think it's the same.
21 No, I think I'm referring to the CIGRE report, 602, 22 and they identified that the time constants, how fast 23 you decay.
24 MR. FLEISCHER: Right. So it's a DC 25 offset. It's the standard asymmetric half cycle to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
142 1 the first --
2 MR. TAYLOR: The decay --
3 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, okay, all right.
4 I'm used to it referred to as DC offset, but CIGRE 5 may call it different, but it's the same thing.
6 That's all I needed to know. Thanks.
7 MR. TAYLOR: Is there anything on the 8 webinar or in the room on that? It seems like it's 9 not a high priority. All right. Just quickly on the 10 equipment, a few things I want to go over on the next 11 slide with Germany is planning. They're still 12 working with their utilities. Korea already has 13 lineup of what they want to provide us. All their 14 equipment will be procured or donated, so if there's 15 any plants out there that are upgrading or modifying 16 their plant and then it gets representative 17 equipment, you know, feel free to contact Nick or I.
18 We can see if we can help arrange for that donation 19 of equipment and get it into our storage facility up 20 in Pennsylvania before that.
21 MR. FLEISCHER: Kenneth Fleischer from 22 EPRI again. If it's going to be really impactful to 23 do that based on the testing we talked about, we want 24 to make sure that all the donated equipment, we get 25 the vendor manuals, as Kenn Miller and I talked NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
143 1 about, to get the vendor manuals, the factory test 2 reports, everything that's related to that equipment 3 so that we have something to at least review to make 4 sure that what we got is what we got.
5 MR. MELLY: Yes, we're going to reach out 6 and get as much information as possible about the 7 donated equipment. There have been challenges in the 8 past, either language barrier or vintage of procuring 9 that information from country to country. We're 10 going to, I think with this round of equipment that's 11 going to be donated, it's going to be much easier to 12 obtain that.
13 MR. MILLER: This is Kenn Miller. I 14 know, too, when we were getting stuff from the Zion 15 plants, you know, that plant was already down and 16 being demolished and we couldn't get much 17 information.
18 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, a lot of the 19 documentation has been removed for, you know, non-20 safety or non-required to maintain. I want to put 21 that out there because that can save us a lot of 22 expenses and, if you save us expenses on that aspect, 23 that means we can potentially do more tests or more 24 analysis or more in other areas. So I want to put 25 that out there, but I think, you know, Kenn's comment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
144 1 on being, you know, getting equipment that's very 2 similar so we have some repetition is also something 3 we have to weigh. And, you know, if we go out and 4 procure equipment, I think that's what we tried to do 5 is try to pick out we want this manufacture, this 6 model number, we want X number of those types of 7 equipment. We'll probably be going to basically 8 salvages equipment or refurbished, as that's what 9 we've done in the past.
10 MR. MELLY: There are potentials to have 11 challenges with proprietary information, as well, in 12 publishing those vendor manuals and things like that.
13 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I guess my point is 14 it would be a shame on us not to ask at least.
15 MR. TAYLOR: All right. Next slide. So 16 real quick, without getting into too much detail, 17 Korea is on the left. I guess they're 5 kV rated 18 breakers. We're not sure of the gears rating, but 19 we're assuming it's also rated to 5 kV. As for the 20 vendor manuals, we got a generic manual from them 21 that's not specific to this set of what they have 22 procured here, so I think Nick has asked them a 23 couple of times to get more detailed information on 24 that. But we know we have -- is it two or four?
25 MR. MELLY: Four.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
145 1 MR. TAYLOR: Four sections of switch 2 gear, so four cabinets and four breakers. These are 3 the vertically racked-in medium-voltage breakers from 4 Korea.
5 And then on Germany I'm not, we met with 6 them a few weeks ago. They just switched plans with 7 what utility was donating, so they didn't have all 8 the information available yet. But right now I think 9 they're donating four low-voltage switch gear 10 sections and four medium voltage.
11 MR. MELLY: Yes, with the knowledge that 12 this plant is shut down. The difficulty in getting 13 equipment out is that the entire plant is dark, and 14 they said there's rats everywhere. So they're trying 15 to get a company to get out the equipment now.
16 MR. TAYLOR: Nick, do you know if these 17 are air breakers, docking breakers --
18 MR. MELLY: I do not know.
19 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So that's the only 20 information we have to collect, but in these two 21 countries they could not donate money, so this was 22 the alternative to include their participation. And 23 both have worked with us in past projects, so it was 24 valuable to continue that collaboration.
25 All right. So this is something to think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
146 1 about, but, if we go procure equipment, what is 2 representative, what's realistic, and what should we 3 go out and -- and this isn't a complete list. This 4 is just things that I've run into in the past. You 5 know, you have the Gs, Allis Chalmers, the 6 Westinghouse IT ADDs, other manufacturers obviously.
7 But, you know, if I wanted, today, to go out and 8 procure 30 pieces of gear or 30 sections of gear to 9 do these tests or however many we need, where should 10 I focus in on? What's representative of the plants?
11 So do we have comments on that right now, 12 or we can wait until after lunch to give you guys 13 time to think about it. I think it's very important 14 for us, when we go for a procurement, to get the 15 right equipment.
16 MR. MILLER: This is Kenn Miller. I'm 17 familiar with the GE Magna-Blast and Westinghouse VS 18 switch gear.
19 MR. TAYLOR: All right. And then on low 20 voltage, my list was, there's going to be a lot more.
21 But the common ones I've run into is, again, the 22 Westinghouse, GE's. There's going to be other ones.
23 Next slide.
24 MR. FLEISCHER: The previous one, the GE 25 Magna Blast and Westinghouse were the most common for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
147 1 the fleet that I represented.
2 MR. TAYLOR: Magna or Megne?
3 MR. FLEISCHER: Well, actually, GE Magna 4 Blast.
5 MR. TAYLOR: Magna?
6 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
7 MR. TAYLOR: All right. Next slide then, 8 please. All right. And then the other thing that's 9 important, you know, we talked about it a little bit 10 today is you have the arc, you have your source term 11 from the arc, but then to damage things outside the 12 cabinet you need to get through the cabinet. And 13 looking into enclosure thicknesses for the burn-14 through times, you know, what's typical? And I 15 think, from the information we had yesterday, it 16 seems like they're changing to make the minimum 17 requirements to meet certain standards.
18 The only thing I could really find out 19 there on material thickness was from the IEEE 20 standards, and it's the C37.20.1 and also C37.20.2, 21 so 20.1 is low voltage and 20.2 is medium voltage, 22 and they have the same information on the minimum 23 steel thickness of the enclosures being 1.9 24 millimeters thick for the enclosure and then 25 partitions between the primary circuits would be 3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
148 1 millimeters. So that's the minimum that's specified 2 in that standard. I don't know what's out there in 3 the plants.
4 So feedback on that would be, I think, 5 important because one of the reasons why is the 6 finish test that we did, we didn't have a complete 7 lineup of gear and all we had was a section. And 8 where the arc occurs, the partition seemed to be very 9 thin. I don't know if you have a measurement of 10 that. It wasn't representative of what we see in a 11 lot of the other equipment.
12 MR. MELLY: We did not have a measurement 13 of the thickness of the partition at that point, and 14 it was a thinner material, as it was going to be 15 buttoned up to another section. Additionally, 16 something that gave us another indication was that we 17 did use a thicker steel material to button up where 18 the incoming power supply would have gone, and we've 19 also vaporized that. But it was a question mark in 20 our minds as to what was the importance of the 21 various thicknesses for the external cabinet walls, 22 given that we saw an immediate breach and larger 23 damage state from this equipment. So it's something 24 that we're going to be focusing in on, and we want to 25 really get feedback on what's out there because we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
149 1 know it could be across the board.
2 MR. TAYLOR: We're getting close to lunch 3 here so not much discussion. So another thing, you 4 know, maybe after lunch we can come back and hit on 5 it. But we'd like to at least, you know, be 6 representative in this circumstance because it does 7 have an impact on the energy that can get out of the 8 enclosure.
9 And ventilation, again, we might be bound 10 by what the manufacturer used for the equipment that 11 we procure, but it does have an impact on pressure 12 and we want to be representative. So any feedback on 13 ventilation, we'd be interested to learn more on that 14 if there are a lot of variations or if we should 15 just, you know, with the equipment we select, use 16 what's provided. Obviously, I don't think we should 17 be out there modifying the enclosures to meet a 18 certain ventilation but we want to have some feedback 19 on that.
20 And the last thing before we break is on 21 bus duct. We've just spent a lot of time on the 22 enclosures, and I think that's where a lot of our 23 testing is, but, from the informal survey that went 24 out, it seems like there's a lot of bus ducts with 25 aluminum on them. So I already talked about the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
150 1 configurations that we planned on doing, the bus 2 versus enclosure configurations, so we're looking for 3 feedback on that, as well as what is your bus bar 4 configurations, square bus bars like we tested in the 5 previous program, testimony six, rectangular, 6 circular, or what's your bus bar configurations? I 7 don't think we're getting into ISO phase buses, so 8 we'd be looking more on the medium-voltage bus bars 9 and not the ISO phase going down to your main 10 transformer. And then the rating or the size of 11 those buses.
12 So I think now we're almost close to 13 breaking here. Those are the things maybe we go pig 14 out during lunch, come back and have this discussion, 15 unless anybody wants to bring something up right now.
16 So we'll have the gear we should be procuring, 17 enclosure thicknesses, bus duct configurations, and 18 come back after lunch and have a discussion on that.
19 And then we'll get into Nick's test plan response.
20 MR. SALLEY: Okay. So before we break 21 for lunch, are we losing anybody this afternoon?
22 Bob, Shannon, Greg. Well, thank you guys for 23 attending. I really appreciate it. We'll soldier on 24 without you after lunch, but we appreciate you being 25 here.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
151 1 Before we go, though, Frank and I were 2 talking, there was a number of questions about the 3 facility generator. Dan, you had a lot of questions 4 about it. And one of the suggestions and actually an 5 offer that Frank and Bas are making here, if we 6 wanted to do a day trip or an afternoon to KEMA to 7 see the facility, if you think that would help, we 8 could potentially set something up. Ashley, I work 9 through EPRI with you and Victoria, with NEI and 10 Mark, if any of your folks think it would be 11 worthwhile seeing it, if you could briefly get back 12 to me. Frank would be gracious enough to set a field 13 trip up and we could go and you could see the 14 facility, see what they're doing. If you think that 15 would be of value, how about getting back to me and 16 letting me know from there?
17 MR. CIELO: We'd answer any questions 18 that you have, show you anything, you know, have our 19 facility people there and our test people available.
20 Yes, I mean, it's not that we don't want to provide 21 the information. We can provide the information, but 22 we want you to be able to put it in a context of the 23 lab and how the lab actually works and how we 24 actually function. So we would, you know, we would 25 absolutely like to, if you guys -- NRC is going to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
152 1 spend all this money, taxpayer money, and you're 2 going to invest all this time and this effort and 3 it's that important, I mean, I think you'd really 4 want, I would think you'd want to see the lab and 5 you'd want to see what the lab is capable of doing 6 and how it functions and to meet some of the people 7 that are actually doing the testing. So that's an 8 open invitation, and I'll leave it up to Mark to let 9 us know when that is and we'll work it out.
10 MR. SALLEY: All right. Mark, for the 11 NFPA folks, if it's of value on that, and we'll talk 12 to Victoria for NEI and see if there's value. We do 13 this trip a lot. It's a day trip. It takes what?
14 Three and a half hours from here? It's right up by 15 our Region I office outside of King of Prussia and 16 can do it in an afternoon. So we'll put that out.
17 So with that, it's almost 12:00. Let's 18 break for lunch and be back here by 1:15 downstairs 19 and let's pick it back up at 1:30 in the afternoon.
20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 21 went off the record at 11:55 a.m. and resumed at 1:28 22 p.m.)
23 MR. MELLY: Okay. Starting up, we wanted 24 to discuss, as we're going to get started again --
25 MR. SALLEY: Before we get started, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
153 1 discussion we were having was pretty good, so we're 2 not going to try to stick too much to the agenda now.
3 I think it's more important to get the information 4 exchange. We want to get that, Gabe, we got a couple 5 of tables up here that, hopefully, when we rank some 6 of these and bin some of these, we'll be able to take 7 that away and we'll include that with this meeting in 8 some of the information as we move forward.
9 Also, in the same idea of that, as we 10 look at it, we had a thought over lunch that, you 11 know, this is similar to what the week-long PIRT 12 exercise did, and we have that result and we got that 13 report published. So when we're done with that, Nick 14 is going to pull out the PIRT and, just for 15 curiosity's sake, this is what the internationals 16 have been working on, we'd like to see how this group 17 ranks the same things as, you know, what's important, 18 what's medium importance, low importance, and just 19 see if we're getting alignment between what we've 20 done a year or so ago with the PIRT versus what we're 21 doing today. So, again, we'd like to do that this 22 afternoon.
23 So with that, Gabe, I'll turn it over to 24 you and pick it back up.
25 MR. TAYLOR: From this morning's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
154 1 discussion, I think it's important for us to go and 2 kind of rank some of the parameters so we know what 3 to focus in on or what's most important for the arc, 4 arcing events, and also get into this because I 5 understand, if you haven't had a chance to look at 6 the PIRT report on this, to understand what they 7 thought was important. That might help us with our 8 ranking here.
9 Before we do that, Kenn Fleischer brought 10 up some information. He looked at 28 plants over 11 lunch to get information for their transformers from 12 the unit aux. And from what he found, it's not a 13 complete of all the plants, but it's a sample that 14 kind of gives you a representative, hopefully a 15 representative snapshot that a delta to Y, there's 16 about 20 plants out of the 28 that has that 17 configuration. Six of the plants had delta-delta, 18 two of the plants Y-Y, and he didn't see any Y-deltas 19 there, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, it 20 just might not have been included in the sample.
21 So, again, just for the background and 22 the follow on from the discussion this morning, so 23 what that might tell us is that we maybe we need to 24 spend more time looking at the Y configuration since 25 there seems to be more of a population in that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
155 1 configuration versus the delta. So when we look at 2 the split fraction of events, if we can modify the 3 test plant to be representative of that, that might 4 help us out. So I appreciate that information and 5 we'll take that back as we go and change the test 6 plant.
7 Okay. So with that, I think, Nick, can 8 you go over quickly the PIRT results and findings 9 from that effort?
10 MR. MELLY: Right. And what you're 11 seeing here is the summary table. It's in Chapter 3 12 of the PIRT, essentially trying to look at all the 13 phenomenon on the three scenarios that were ranked 14 during the study as to what were the most important 15 characteristics. They have put together level 1 16 phenomena as the highest importance, level 2 and 17 level 3, as you go down, decreasing in importance.
18 And the report goes into specifically 19 what all of these mean. I can quickly go over kind 20 of what's included in the terminology there.
21 The target characterization essentially 22 was what is the fragility of the targets that is 23 being exposed to the HEAF effects, such as is it 24 thermoset, is it thermoplastic, what's the cable, 25 what is the damage state, what's seen as a very high NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
156 1 parameter to determine what the zone of influence of 2 damage would be?
3 Moving down, we get to the arc 4 characterization that included things such as the 5 current voltage of the arc itself, the arc 6 mitigation, this would be your protective systems and 7 devices as to what that can limit the duration of the 8 event, where am I within the lineup of my specific 9 plant, and how important is that to determining what 10 the zone of influence will be?
11 Also, cabinet lineup effects, this was 12 looking at cabinet damage for damage or, sorry, 13 whether I'm going to damage an adjacent cabinet from 14 the zone of influence. And you can see it's missing 15 from the first two scenarios and only included in a 16 third because the first two scenarios did not have a 17 lineup as part of the scenario. If you were to look 18 in each scenario's detail, we had a lone cabinet to 19 a cable tray to a cable tray or a lone cabinet to a 20 both trains of equipment cabinet lineup and it varied 21 from case to case.
22 Moving down from that, we looked at the 23 internal ensuing fire, such as what combustible 24 materials would be in the cabinet as to how large of 25 a fire we're going to have in that cabinet; external, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
157 1 what's outside of the cabinet, cable tray again, 2 material came into play there; pressure effects, am 3 I going to damage anything in the room from the 4 pressure effects, and that was largely room 5 dependent; the electrical configuration, a lot of 6 factors came into that and they're explained in the 7 report so I'm not going to dive deep into that one 8 because it gets a little in the weeds.
9 Then when we get a little bit lower in 10 importance, you see suppression effects, room 11 configuration, and fire detection. Those are 12 primarily listed as low because we didn't see them as 13 an important factor for determining what the zone of 14 influence would be. So for example, fire detection, 15 these events happen so quickly that the detection is 16 not going to play a role in determining if I have 17 damage because, clearly, these events create so much 18 smoke and they're happening so quickly that the 19 detection is not going to limit the damage that we 20 see from the initial blast.
21 Room configuration, as well. While we 22 did see that as important, we tried to be in the 23 mindset that the zone of influence can be used in any 24 room configuration if you figure out, it's going to 25 be scenario specific, which is why it's down low NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
158 1 again.
2 Suppression effects came into play 3 because there hasn't been much work on is my 4 sprinkler system going to be reliable given that I've 5 had one of these events, am I going to damage the 6 capability of my system with an event this scale?
7 So this was the perspective of the 8 members as to how important things were. It goes 9 into great detail in the appendices on each 10 participant's ranking, and it goes into the 11 scenarios. So to scenario one, you see Train A, 12 Train B, cable tray, and this is kind of how we 13 approach the problem. And this is really in parallel 14 of what we were discussing earlier of binning the 15 importance of the characteristics, and I feel like 16 this was the stab to do just that based on the result 17 of phase one.
18 The report also goes into detail of these 19 higher importance events in the summary conclusion.
20 But it's definitely something that we would like 21 feedback on if it hasn't been something folks have 22 looked at. It's a pretty all-encompassing report and 23 a lot of work went into it.
24 Does anyone, it's difficult to have the 25 discussion without understanding exactly what goes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
159 1 into each of these categories, but does anyone see 2 something that doesn't align with what they're 3 thinking would be in terms of importance for 4 determining a zone of influence?
5 MR. SALLEY: Before you go there, Nick, 6 one other thing before you go into that is, in the 7 PIRT exercise, this is to help us drive research. So 8 the questions that are being asked when they're going 9 through these scenarios is do we know how to do 10 something? If we know how to do something, we've got 11 a lot of experimental data. Then that shakes out 12 because we can do it. A question will come up with 13 phenomena, hey, this is the phenomena, now can we run 14 the experiment, is it something that's reasonable to 15 do that we can get information? So where does that 16 lie in our rankings? This is where the 17 identification and ranking table piece comes in, and 18 so it goes back to this work that we're talking here 19 with the experiments. What experiments can we do to 20 get data to fill holes so that we can better do the 21 risk analysis on? So that's kind of the underlying 22 premise that the group was going in.
23 Now, if you wanted something that was 24 just pie in the sky $10 million to do it, you'd 25 obviously washed it off the table because it was not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
160 1 achievable. So the goal was to get to achievable 2 research to help better the problem, and that's the 3 underlying premise that PIRT starts out.
4 MR. MELLY: Yes, and you can see that the 5 questions also ask here that Mark was getting to is 6 that's the state of the knowledge of the parameter 7 itself. So is there -- model adequacy was is there 8 models that can handle this currently? Data 9 availability is does the data exist to apply into a 10 model? And the ability to collect the new data, so 11 how easy it is to collect data on this particular 12 parameter. It would be easy to collect the data, it 13 would just be extremely expensive to collect the 14 data, so that was also taken into account as the 15 ability.
16 But this might actually be a good place to show the 17 breakdown that was included in each of these 18 phenomena.
19 So this was probably the better place to 20 go. For the electrical configuration, we're talking 21 power supply, electrical tension coordination, 22 internal cabinet configuration with things like the 23 breaker configuration, cabinet compartmentalization, 24 cabinet combustible loading, bus bar configuration.
25 This gets to the horizontal/vertical discussion that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
161 1 we were having as affecting the energy release.
2 External cabinet. Again, ventilation, structural 3 design, cabinet penetration. Arc characterization, 4 arc migration, breaching the enclosure, electrical 5 characterization, thermal effects of the arc, 6 magnetic effects of the arc, electromagnetic 7 interference. This one, as you can see here, low, 8 medium, and these are the rankings of the individual 9 members and they're compiled in that summary table 10 you saw above.
11 A lot of them also have notes as to why 12 some folks differed from others in their rankings.
13 Not all of them, though. Fire protection, presence, 14 characterization of the system. Fire suppression 15 presence, the fire suppression effects. Pressure 16 effects, projectile, missile damage, pressure wave, 17 internal ensuing fire, fire ignition, 18 characterization of the fire source, fire 19 development. This gets into the T=0 that's currently 20 frequently used. Smoke generation, altered 21 ventilation effects, the ensuing fire. Very similar, 22 smoke generation and things like that.
23 Then we get into the room configuration, 24 that was room integrity, the room arrangement, room 25 ventilation. Then we get back up to the summary.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
162 1 But when we do our discussion here, it's 2 going to be interesting. And we can go back to this 3 PIRT if we think that the current in the voltage, as 4 well as the protective systems, are the highest 5 important parameters, we can compare with what the 6 PIRT has ranked those on the individual parameters 7 throughout this report.
8 And, again, this was a week-long 9 phenomena ranking elicitation exercise with, I 10 believe, seven countries who participated.
11 MR. PLETZ: The conductive cloud, is that 12 included under the pressure effects?
13 MR. MELLY: That will be included, I 14 believe it is in the arc migration. We discussed 15 that in the arc ejecta.
16 MR. SALLEY: Nick, why don't you walk 17 through the parameters to see, generally, how the 18 people ranked them, if they're in similar alignment 19 with what . . .
20 MR. MELLY: It's a little difficult to do 21 that with the three scenarios differing.
22 MR. SHUDAK: Can I get a clarification 23 from this morning? The medium voltage testing, are 24 you still planning on doing it at the 4 kV and 6.9 25 kFV, or did you say you're only going to be doing it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
163 1 at the 6.9?
2 MR. TAYLOR: So the question was, for me, 3 voltage testing, are we going to be testing it 4.160 4 or 6.9 kV?
5 MR. SHUDAK: Or both.
6 MR. TAYLOR: Or both. Right now, the 7 majority of the testing will be 6.9, except for that 8 equipment that was donated. From the specifications 9 that they sent us, it looked like it's only rated for 10 5 kV, so we'll test that at 4.160 if we receive it.
11 MR. SHUDAK: Okay.
12 MR. TAYLOR: But right now, the plan 13 wasn't to test anything else at 4.160. And if you 14 look at the arc voltage, the presentation I provided, 15 it seemed like the system voltage didn't have much of 16 an effect on the arc voltage. That's one of the 17 reasons why I put that together. So I don't see, we 18 don't have any real preference, but, right now, the 19 plan was to go 6.9.
20 MR. SHUDAK: If you're looking at other 21 donated equipment, if it comes from, you might get 22 other donated equipment that would be 4 kV equipment.
23 I'm assuming you'll test it at that?
24 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, correct. So the 25 question was if we get other equipment donated that's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
164 1 not rated for the higher voltages, what are we 2 testing that? We're not going to test it beyond what 3 it's rated for, so if we get a 4 kV or 5 kV piece of 4 gear, we're not going to test it at 6.9 or do 5 anything higher. We'll test it at 4.160.
6 MR. MELLY: And to answer the previous 7 question, the gas and the cloud conduct with 8 particulate is included in the arc characterization 9 portion of what you saw in the above table, and that 10 was one of the high parameters ranked for importance 11 of determining the zone of influence. So it's one of 12 the relatively high ones.
13 MR. FLEISCHER: Kenneth Fleischer from 14 EPRI. The one thing I don't see in there that I 15 noticed in the background on page eight of the phase 16 two test plan is it said that the PIRT panel covered 17 three distinct HEAFs, the first was an HEAF occurring 18 in an electrical enclosure with a cable tray passing 19 over the enclosure, but I don't see anything where 20 the test plant gets into considering the enclosure as 21 being a target in the zone of influence.
22 MR. MELLY: The enclosure. Do you want 23 me to speak to --
24 MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry. It's the 25 cable tray.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
165 1 MR. MELLY: The cable tray. When we get 2 into my presentation as to how the test, the phase 3 two will be performed, we'll get a little deeper into 4 that. But I can speak to it briefly here is that we 5 hadn't looked into putting a physical cable tray 6 above the cabinet that we're going to be testing 7 because we were going to try and focus on the ability 8 to put instrumentation into measure the effect. By 9 putting a physical cable tray above the cabinet, we 10 would be limiting our ability to collect information 11 at varying distances away from the cabinet. We were 12 trying not to shield our instrumentation with the 13 physical cables above the cabinet. So we're 14 attempting to get all the information we needed which 15 could then be applied to determining target fragility 16 and determining whether that cable tray would be 17 damaged or ignited in that case.
18 We've received several comments on that 19 on whether we would have a physical cable tray above, 20 as well as what materials would be put into that 21 cable tray, whether it be thermoset or thermoplastic 22 cables. However, the current plan was to focus on 23 collecting the heat flux data at varying distances so 24 that it can then be applied to the target 25 fragilities. Gabe spoke a little bit to that, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
166 1 that would be a secondary piece to make the link-up 2 between the data collected in phase two and the 3 probable damage states. So that's what we had 4 currently planned for the phase two of testing.
5 MR. TAYLOR: And just to add a little to 6 that is that, you know, let's say we go out and want 7 to put in, hypothetically, a test tray. Obviously, 8 we're going to have limitations with measurement and 9 devices, as Nick mentioned, and also what cable do we 10 test? You know, if we test one cable, does it 11 represent X, Y, and Z, and also, you know, you're 12 looking at does the HEAF damage the cable from a 13 functionality standpoint and does it ignite a cable 14 from a fire propagation standpoint. And both the 15 material and configurations are going to have a lot 16 of influence on those two aspects, so it's another 17 parameter that's just going to add a lot of 18 variability and we can't reproduce enough tests to 19 capture all those variations.
20 So we felt that hanging good measurements 21 with the instruments would serve us better than 22 trying to get a cable tray in. But, you know, if 23 there's ways around that or if there's ways to bound 24 things, you know, we're still open ears.
25 MR. TURNER: It's so cheap just to stick NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
167 1 on a couple of cable samples, like I used to on 2 tests. One of my hindsight things was I should have 3 been sticking little cable samples around all over 4 the place and didn't. You know, you just do the 5 resistance before and after if you want to, but it's 6 cheap and it's quick. So tests are so expensive and 7 so rare, in hindsight, I would have done a lot more 8 of that if I had a chance, so you ought to think 9 about doing that.
10 The other thing is, even though you're 11 measuring these fluxes, the exposures are so short, 12 I don't know how you can relate it to something, like 13 cable ignition where we not only have to have fairly 14 long durations of exposure, like 30 seconds, you 15 would say here's the flux it takes at 30 seconds. We 16 got this flux over two seconds, I don't think you're 17 going to be able to figure out if the cable without 18 the actual cable.
19 So it's cheap. I put cable samples up 20 there. If you look at the IE we're working on now 21 where I did a lot of cable sampling, I would just 22 change that from, rather than solid metal sample 23 holders, use expanded metals so it gets air behind it 24 and it's got more of a chance to ignite it when it 25 gets hot enough.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
168 1 MR. MELLY: Yes, that's a good point.
2 MR. PUTORTI: That's currently in the 3 test plan is to put samples of cable along -- Tony 4 Putorti, NIST. The current test plan has small 5 samples of cable. We just have to make sure that we 6 don't pack things so tight that we disrupt, you know, 7 the various levels of measurements that we're trying 8 to do and different distances.
9 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So I guess the change 10 then is the cable tray. All right. That is one 11 change that we're making.
12 MR. MELLY: And this is what Tony was 13 referring to. In the current plan, we do have cable 14 coupons on the mock test stands that we've discussed, 15 as opposed to the full tray. We didn't receive much 16 feedback on the PIRT when it was published and made 17 publicly-available. We're open to any review or any 18 comments on differing opinions as to the importance 19 of certain characteristics, and it is a pretty in-20 depth report. It's very difficult to skim over the 21 entire thing within a few minutes of today's effort 22 without wasting too much time but --
23 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and the feedback 24 doesn't have to be different. If you think there's 25 a conclusion in here that you guys agree with, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
169 1 mean, that's just as valuable feedback.
2 Okay. So not hearing anything on the 3 webinars, all right. So then, Nick, can you pull 4 back the presentation from this morning and go up to 5 an earlier spot where it had all the variables?
6 Actually, let's stay here because we kind of, it was 7 kind of getting towards lunch and we were kind of 8 winding down.
9 So after lunch, has anybody thought of 10 other equipment models that are common that you see 11 out in plants? Right now, we have identified the GE 12 Magna Blast and the Westinghouse DB-50s that I 13 believe are common from earlier discussion.
14 MR. MILLER: Another low voltage one is 15 ITE. It's pretty old. This would be, like, 60s or 16 early 70s.
17 MR. MELLY: I believe that was the one 18 that was at Fort Calhoun, as well, the ITE series.
19 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Well, again, if you 20 go back to your plants and you have that information, 21 please get it to Nick or I.
22 Next slide. Keep going. Thicknesses.
23 You know, these are minimum in the standard. I don't 24 know when the standard had these in it versus when it 25 didn't and when the standard came out. So given the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
170 1 vintage of the plants, I'm not sure that this was 2 applicable at those times, but this is kind of what 3 we're working on. I think what we do for equipment, 4 we make sure that we're meeting these minimums. But, 5 again, the realistic side, does anybody have any 6 thoughts or feedback on what the actual equipment 7 enclosure characteristics are?
8 MR. MELLY: That's a tough one off the 9 top of your head.
10 MR. TAYLOR: Without looking.
11 MR. MELLY: But this is one where if 12 anyone digs into this from spec sheets or things like 13 that as to what the actual equipment thicknesses are, 14 it would be a good comparison to what we plan on 15 purchasing.
16 MR. TAYLOR: Enclosure ventilation. I 17 think for this morning it's going to depend on what 18 we procure. I'm not hearing other feedback, so I 19 think that's kind of where we, I believe, want to 20 comment.
21 MR. FLEISCHER: Ken Fleischer from EPRI.
22 I was thinking earlier about what you said. You were 23 making a distinction whether it's indoor or outdoor, 24 right? I'm familiar with outdoor units that actually 25 have heaters and vents, so they actually do circulate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
171 1 the heat rise through them, whereas I'm also familiar 2 with indoor. They're more sealed. I don't know, are 3 we, I don't think, are we considering trying to 4 represent any outdoor bus testing?
5 MR. MELLY: We were not going to, we had 6 not focused on that as a major parameter to look at, 7 whether it's indoor design versus outdoor design. We 8 are trying to stay middle of the road again. From 9 our phase one of testing, when we did have to create 10 a mock cabinet, we were donated breakers and we built 11 a cabinet around it. We created typical venting at 12 the top of the cabinet, which we've seen throughout 13 several plants. It wasn't louvered design, but it 14 was almost checkerboard top vent. So we're really 15 just trying to be representative of what's out there, 16 and we've seen a lot of cases where you just have the 17 louvered design on the back face of the cabinet.
18 MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. My thought would 19 be is maybe we don't put a lot of importance on the 20 outdoor, just similar like the large transformers, I 21 think, that were discarded because they're outside 22 pretty much, you know, the air is like a heat sink, 23 it's just not really to just go right into atmosphere 24 and pretty much be attenuated. You could treat the 25 outdoors non-safe bus the same and really consider NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
172 1 what the representative types are indoors.
2 MR. MELLY: So would you say that they're 3 representative type for indoor switch gear and medium 4 voltage would be sealed, not vented?
5 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the ones I've seen 6 are pretty much sealed, non-vented. This is non-safe 7 bus, right, we're talking? Not enclosures. We're 8 talking -- did I get on the wrong topic here?
9 MR. MELLY: I was talking about the 10 enclosure, but if we're talking about ducts, yes, I 11 would say no vent.
12 MR. FLEISCHER: All right. My mistake.
13 But I have seen, we do have outdoor turbine decks 14 where we do have some of that equipment outdoors, but 15 it's non-safe.
16 MR. RHODES: This is Bob Rhodes, Duke 17 Energy. The non-safe bus ducts that I'm familiar 18 with at Harris Robinson, they all have a breather 19 about the size of a quarter on the bottom of the 20 duct. It's sealed at the top, but it's not airtight, 21 which is one of the reasons that we assume that the 22 smoke would get into there and cause an issue. Of 23 course, ours all have the coating that was mentioned 24 earlier, so they're all insulated. Norrell, yes.
25 MR. MELLY: The one we pulled from Zion NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
173 1 also had the boots, as well as the insulation on it.
2 MR. MILLER: Could we go back to the 3 panel thickness one again? So are we asking that 4 because we're going to be fabricating --
5 MR. MELLY: No, we do not plan on 6 fabricating the cabinet --
7 MR. MILLER: We're just going to be 8 testing the equipment we've got which has already got 9 a defined enclosure, right?
10 MR. MELLY: Yes.
11 MR. TAYLOR: So I think it's getting at 12 the phase one testing where we have the international 13 equipment that got donated and the partitions weren't 14 these thicknesses. So, you know, we wanted to make 15 sure that, moving forward, we test equipment --
16 MR. MELLY: In addition, we were hoping 17 to get some information as to when we do procure the 18 equipment to test that it's representative of what is 19 currently out there.
20 MR. TAYLOR: I think, along your lines we 21 get equipment from whatever manufacturer and it meets 22 these, then we should be okay.
23 MR. MILLER: Or I guess if it doesn't, we 24 would just make note of that? Because, I mean, if 25 they were bought to all the standards before these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
174 1 took place or they changed --
2 MR. MELLY: Yes, that's a good point.
3 And I guess it's definitely what we want to consider 4 when we're going through a procurement.
5 And then the last one on bus ducts, was 6 there any additional thought on the configurations, 7 how we had it broken down in the test plan and mixed 8 tree of tests, aluminum bus, aluminum duct, and so 9 forth, on different configurations? Does anybody in 10 the room say, hey, we don't have aluminum bus steel 11 ducts or whatever their configuration is? I know we 12 have aluminum and copper, aluminum bus bars/aluminum 13 enclosure, copper bus bars/aluminum enclosure, I'm 14 assuming we have copper/steel. So nobody is 15 objecting to any of these four configurations?
16 MR. EARLEY: And while you're on this 17 piece, I'll mention that I checked out one of the 18 papers on this. The horizontal configuration is 19 worse than the vertical configuration. And the 20 horizontal configuration, the magnetic effect propels 21 the plasma cloud outward.
22 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. So it is more on 23 the plasma cloud being more --
24 MR. EARLEY: Well, the incident energy is 25 higher.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
175 1 MR. TAYLOR: Incident energy is higher 2 also for the horizontal configuration. Okay. And 3 then, you know, ratings of the buses, I think that's 4 something that I do have access to in the information 5 we have, but if there's any feedback from the group 6 here on we know our buses rated to 1600 amps or 7 whatever it is, we'd like to test something that's 8 close to what's out there. So any feedback on that?
9 All right. So I think I can work with our electrical 10 group and see where the population is. Nick, do you 11 have anything else on the test parameter?
12 MR. MELLY: No, not at this time. But 13 one thing in the test parameter that's not currently 14 well defined is the physical arrangement of how the 15 bus ducts will be tested. There's some pictures in 16 there. So that's one area that we are going to be 17 enhancing as we go forward with the test plan. It's 18 going to be the second phase of testing, so we're 19 most likely a year away from even beginning any bus 20 duct tests.
21 There was a very robust design and test 22 that was done by Cooper on their bus ducts, and it 23 was very interesting and the results seemed to work 24 very well with what we're trying to do. So we may be 25 piggybacking off of tests that have already been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
176 1 done.
2 So this is actually, what was in the test 3 plan, we received several comments as to why there 4 was the physical break in the bus duct that was 5 depicted, and that was an attempt to try and keep the 6 arc in this location because we were worried about 7 just continuing down the magnetic path and having the 8 arc migrate to the very end of the bus duct.
9 After seeing some of their testing, at 10 least with insulated bus ducts, we don't know if 11 that's going to be necessary to put that physical 12 break in there if there's the insulation. If there's 13 no insulation, we still don't know whether that's 14 going to be a problem. But, again, you can see that 15 we would have the instrument tests then located at 16 various distances around the bus duct itself.
17 In another picture, we had a cabinet 18 determination point, and we do not know if we are 19 going to need that arrangement set up. So this 20 picture here was we had it terminated again to a 21 cabinet. We don't think that we will need that 22 arrangement.
23 We'll go over this in a little bit more 24 detail when I'm doing my presentation on the phase 25 two test plan. But any thoughts on this would be --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
177 1 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I think from this 2 morning's discussion, we talked about maybe splitting 3 it up half insulated/half not or some fraction of 4 that. And for the insulated --
5 MR. MELLY: For the insulated cases, I 6 think, you know, we can do what was previously done 7 by Cooper and peel the insulation off from a section 8 where we initiate the arc and it should stabilize in 9 that location. But for cases where we don't have the 10 insulation, does anybody object to what we had here 11 where we actually physically separated, had a 12 separation along the bus and we initiate the arc 13 obviously on the power side of the bus, and, again, 14 it's to help maintain the arc in one location so we 15 can get good measure, decent measurement in that 16 location, because without that the magnetic forces 17 should push the arc out and away from where we 18 initiated that. And, you know, not having it 19 confined and not having a more continuous 20 configuration is basically just blow everything right 21 out the end and we don't have open bus ducts in the 22 plant. So that was kind of our approach.
23 MR. SHUDAK: This is Tom Shudak from 24 Nebraska Public Power. Related to the Cooper testing 25 that was done, the picture you showed there has the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
178 1 switch gear at the end. We had a lot of discussion 2 on what we tested ours, and if you put caps on the 3 end of them as you guys did on the Zion where you 4 capped that end of it, we didn't feel that was 5 realistic. And so we spent a lot of time and 6 modeling of it to see if we needed to have caps on 7 it.
8 So I guess if you're not going to put the 9 cap on there, I guess we'd like to know, I'd like to 10 know if you're going to put something on the end of 11 those. There's lots of supports that go along the 12 way that would slow down any pressure wave, and these 13 things just keep going on and on, right? They're 14 very lengthy. They don't end. So I guess if you're 15 going to turn that one at the end of it, that's going 16 to impact, I think, your test results.
17 MR. MELLY: And that's also, that's one 18 good point you brought up is that, in that testing 19 that was done, you did not have a cap on the end 20 because you did have those supports periodically 21 beyond where the test was initiated. We have not 22 procured these yet, so we don't know how they're 23 going to be physically arranged within the bus duct 24 itself. If we do have those supports, it might not 25 be necessary to put the cap on the end. However, if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
179 1 it is just a continuous run without any support in 2 the way from procurement, we may need to physically 3 cap the end or have a termination into a cabinet.
4 MR. TAYLOR: And it doesn't necessarily 5 have to be a cabinet that we procure. We can build 6 a cabinet and put some ventilation on it and just 7 terminate it into that just to kind of represent the 8 end effect of a long run. But I think it's a good 9 point on, you know, you have the support pieces, the 10 support members it goes down the length of the bus, 11 and, you know, the question I then was asked is do we 12 include those? I think we would, depending on what 13 we procure and what the design spec is.
14 MR. MELLY: And one other consideration 15 is that when we had put together this test plan, one 16 of the reasons why we had the cap in originally, as 17 well as the reason why we had this physical 18 termination, is we were testing in one of KEMA's test 19 cells, it's test cell seven, which had their medium-20 voltage incoming power supply on the left-hand side 21 of the cell and the low-voltage on the right-hand 22 side of the cell, and we were very worried about 23 damaging the adjacent power supply from that cloud 24 that you saw in the test video.
25 We have moved all of our medium-voltage NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
180 1 tests, I believe, we moved them all to test cell nine 2 where we don't have that concern. One of the test 3 cell walls is completely devoid of any kind of power 4 supply, so we'll just be able to not worry about 5 damaging anything. And that cap did not work very 6 long, as you can see by the video.
7 But as you can see here, I'm getting a 8 little bit ahead of myself, but we have the varying 9 levels of instrumentation stands so that we don't 10 have just one static three-foot instrumentation 11 point, so we can actually get different levels of 12 instrumentation. And if we damage one, we'll have 13 backups at different distances. For the Finland test 14 that we did run on test 23, we destroyed the 15 instrumentation tests they have, so we have very 16 little information as to what the flux was at the 17 three-foot zone of influence, and we had no 18 redundancy beyond that. So while we do have other 19 instrumentation at different points around the 20 cabinet, it gives us very little information as to 21 the immediate effect from that test.
22 MR. AIRD: We have a question from the 23 webinar from David Lochbaum. His question is do the 24 cameras provide information needed to assess the 25 severity of the HEAF event or is their role to help NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
181 1 market the badness of HEAF events?
2 MR. TAYLOR: I can attempt to address 3 that. So there's two types of cameras that we used 4 in the past. There's the regular video cameras that 5 take high speed photography video of the event. We 6 can use that partially to look at the shrapnel and 7 any type of metal that leaves the compartment. And 8 then we have the thermal measurements, as well, so we 9 have some high-speed high-arc cameras that we've been 10 using that NIST has. I think there's some 11 limitations with their initial camera that we used, 12 and we've been working with his to get a camera that 13 has a larger, what they call dynamic range, and it 14 automatically changes the ranges, meaning it can 15 capture different temperature ranges of the event.
16 So with that information, we can better 17 characterize the temperature rise of different 18 components or surfaces of the enclosure and use 19 information that way. I don't know if NIST or Nick 20 had anything to say.
21 MR. MELLY: The high-speed camera that we 22 actually used, it was also possible to watch the arc 23 migration from point to point within the cabinet in 24 certain cases. There was some early on testing where 25 you could actually see the initial arc strike and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
182 1 then watch the arc move to a different portion of the 2 cabinet, and you could see it re-strike and start the 3 arc in a different location. So that video was very 4 helpful in watching what was occurring during these 5 events.
6 MR. PUTORTI: Tony Putorti from NIST. So 7 one other thing that we plan to do with these extra 8 cameras that we've added is that not only do you get 9 a qualitative idea of the extent of the arc ejecta 10 but also most of these cameras are not going to be at 11 a right angle, so it's relatively easy to go and get 12 a quantitative view of where the arc ejecta is, what 13 the extent is, and where it is in relation to the 14 instruments that we have installed.
15 MR. FLEISCHER: Ken Fleischer, EPRI. I 16 like how you set up the three-tier there so that you 17 said before if you lose something you get the next 18 level. Should the bias be significant, some of those 19 coupons may fall off and onto the floor. They're 20 going to be individually marked, so you know when you 21 pick them off of the floor which rack they came from.
22 Good.
23 MR. MELLY: The answer was yes to that 24 question.
25 MR. FUNK: This is Dan Funk. A quick NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
183 1 question on --
2 MR. TAYLOR: Let's go to Dan, and then 3 we'll come back to Stan.
4 MR. FUNK: A quick question on the test 5 setup. We're going to force the damage to be where 6 you started obviously. That's the intent here. And 7 so you're going to prevent the natural phenomena that 8 I think we all agree takes place typically to a 9 termination point. Is the intent of this design to 10 simulate a segmented bus duct to where you're failing 11 at a joint or is the intent for this to apply to both 12 segmented and non-segmented, and that's going to tie 13 back into our current practice, which for non-14 segmented bus ducts, because of the magnetic effect, 15 we postulate the HEAF event actually at the main 16 breaker terminals and not anywhere along the path.
17 This, depending on how the results are applied, could 18 dramatically influence that.
19 MR. MELLY: This was more taking in mind 20 the segmented effect, so we'd be doing it at the 21 joint or at the bolted connection in the bus duct.
22 For those that are occurring at the termination 23 points, we were trying to map that to the damage of 24 the enclosure testing, rather than the bus duct 25 testing. So those plants which welded the bus ducts NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
184 1 rather than have the bolted connection, they would be 2 matched to the enclosure testing results, and we're 3 going to try and clarify that in the methodology.
4 For here, where we're actually trying to 5 focus where it occurs, it is to try and simulate that 6 bolted connection in that case.
7 MR. JOGLAR: So before we run the test, 8 vision is to stay consistent with the FAQ on the zone 9 of influence for this thing?
10 MR. MELLY: We are using that as the 11 starting point. However, there's no way for us to 12 locate that 37 feet above the ground.
13 MR. JOGLAR: No, no, but at least for the 14 non-segmented ones, I think you said just put it on 15 the breaker.
16 MR. MELLY: Yes, we're staying consistent 17 with that because we have no OpE to make us think 18 that anything has changed in that realm. Any other 19 follow-up questions from the --
20 MR. GARDOCKI: Well, where are you going 21 to go into, you've got another presentation, 22 positions, the racks and where --
23 MR. MELLY: So the question was how many 24 racks are we going to place. The picture on the 25 screen right now depicts three above and three below.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
185 1 Tony, do you want to take that? Right now, the 2 current plan is to have three varying levels.
3 MR. PUTORTI: Tony Putorti from NIST. So 4 are you referring to the bus duct here or to the 5 enclosures?
6 MR. GARDOCKI: Test coupons. You're 7 going to have one position?
8 MR. PUTORTI: For this particular setup?
9 MR. MELLY: So for this particular setup 10 where you see the three racks, each rack will be 11 depicted or placed with, this is what the proposed 12 rack would include. So each rack would include these 13 instrumentation pieces, so multiple coupons and the 14 depicted instrumentation.
15 MR. PUTORTI: And so we have slugs, the 16 classic slugs for clothing around there. Click 17 thermometers are on there used for measuring heat 18 flux, as well as a new tee-cap sensor that we're 19 working on now which measures, we'll be able to 20 measure very high heat fluxes, as well as some 21 coupons to collect any types of materials that may 22 coat things in the vicinity, as well as the samples 23 of cable.
24 MR. MELLY: And, again, right now, what 25 we're showing on the screen is for the enclosures.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
186 1 Again, you see that the three test stands, again, 2 this is not done on scale so don't think that they're 3 all going to be that close together, but the 4 intention is to have the varying distances of 5 instrumentation racks that are not cluttered enough 6 to actually impede the hot gases, so we have included 7 instrumentation at varying distances. That was one 8 of the questions we got that these were not 9 consistent with the mentioned spacing that was 10 consistent with the IEEE guide, and that was for a 11 reason in that we're going to be designing these with 12 minimal impedance for the hot gases coming out.
13 Any other questions before we move on?
14 MR. TAYLOR: So, you know, we still have 15 Nick's presentation on the test plan and the counter-16 resolution, and we're going to get to that. But one 17 thing that came out of this morning's discussion was 18 should we look at the parameters and the things that 19 we can change and kind of rank their priority?
20 So what I've done is I've put together a 21 list here on two sheets, everything from arc 22 location, grounding configuration, winding 23 configuration of your transformers, the supply, 24 whether we're going to model from their generator at 25 decaying current or a steady-state current as we've NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
187 1 done in the past. Obviously, duration voltage and 2 current are going to be important.
3 And on the second sheet here, you know, 4 enclosure thickness, bus insulation, circuit 5 characteristics, and that was, you know, providing a 6 sample from the plant of the circuit characteristics.
7 Bus bar, gap separation of the buses. Equipment 8 separation. You know, older plants and newer plants 9 have differences in designs. Is that important? DC 10 offset or phase initiation angle, ventilation, 11 aluminum alloy or bus material.
12 There's more. We can put them up there, 13 but what I'd like to do is kind of go through those 14 and rank them from a priority or importance 15 standpoint, how important is it to our test protocol?
16 High, medium, low. So I think that's kind of the 17 suggestion earlier from Ken, so is it okay if we just 18 start going through those and kind of throwing out 19 our plans? I'm going to use a different color for 20 the ranking.
21 So starting off on these three, I already 22 think that they're going to be high importance. So 23 duration, does everybody agree it's of high 24 importance? Anybody disagree? Okay. So we'll put 25 high for duration. Voltage, high, medium, low? All NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
188 1 right, okay. Any disagreement with high on voltage?
2 All right. So the comment was the excitation voltage 3 isn't going to change much. The arc voltage is what 4 we're interested in. The batteries might be dead in 5 that one, Ken.
6 Okay. So arc voltage, high. And then 7 current, is that going to be high, medium, or low?
8 High? Medium? Low? Abstentions? All right. So 9 high on that one, too. I kind of thought that's 10 where those would fall.
11 Arc location, you know, I put horizontal 12 and vertical, and that was the feedback from NFPA 13 that showed, the recent research showed that 14 horizontal had a higher incident of energy than the 15 vertical orientations. So that might influence where 16 we put the arcing wire in our experiments, maybe more 17 on the bus section of the enclosures.
18 So for arc location, how important is 19 that to the overall HEAF event? Do I have any highs, 20 high importance rankings? Medium? What about low?
21 I'm getting zero feedback.
22 MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's still high.
23 MR. MELLY: I have one question on this 24 as to, for the results that were during the NFPA 25 testing that showed horizontal, initiation showed a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
189 1 higher energy in the plume, is that because the 2 instrumentation was located in a horizontal direction 3 or was it not due to the instrumentation locations?
4 So that's what I'm trying to get at is that, if I 5 initiated the arc in a vertical orientation, were 6 there vertical instrumentation locations that would 7 have still been in the plume or was the energy, were 8 the results calculated at the front face of the 9 cabinet because personnel were the objective of the 10 testing?
11 MR. TAYLOR: Well, of course, that is a 12 major objective of the testing is the personnel and 13 how much it tends to impact them. And the plasma did 14 move in that direction. Of course, the magnetic 15 effect pushed it in that direction, and it also 16 indicated that the effect was worse when the fault 17 took place deep inside the cabinet.
18 MR. MELLY: So that's, I think, a good 19 clarification because if we are going to be putting 20 our instrumentation both horizontally and vertically 21 because we're worried about both the three foot and 22 the five foot, I think it's something to keep in mind 23 that it might not have the same effect because we're 24 worried about the plume and the magnetic effects in 25 both the horizontal direction, as well as vertically.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
190 1 So it may have a lower importance than what some 2 people have typically seen in literature for our 3 specific case.
4 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, it may not have the 5 effect on the overhead cable tray, whereas that was 6 non-arcal.
7 MR. MELLY: Right. So if I can, I 8 actually have a test --
9 MR. EARLEY: I think I know what test 10 he's talking about, and the sensors were in the front 11 so they were engulfed in a side plume that came out 12 horizontally.
13 MR. MELLY: And I can show the --
14 MR. EARLEY: The vertical plume is just 15 looking at the side and it's not engulfed.
16 MR. MELLY: And I'll show one of the 17 tests right after the break. I can pull up where we 18 had a test that was initiated on a vertical section 19 of the bus bar material within the cabinet. It was 20 our OECD NEA Test 11, and the arc was directed 21 vertically, in the vertical orientation, but we do 22 have test stands in the front of the cabinet, so 23 you'll completely see that we're going to get lower 24 results on our horizontal facing where the personnel 25 would be versus where we're instrumenting at the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
191 1 vertical case. So that's just something to keep in 2 mind when we're putting this ranking on.
3 Okay. So, again, for arc location, who 4 thinks that that is of high importance? Dan.
5 MR. FUNK: I'm looking at the recommended 6 updates to 1584, and horizontal versus vertical, they 7 say it's about twice the impact. So I think it's 8 probably important because if we're going to be 9 playing with zones of influence, it's something we 10 need to know. Maybe it can all be handled by 11 research of what 1584 did. And you're correct. If 12 they're relying on it for the tests, it's kind of 13 what you would expect. But it's probably something 14 we should know a little bit more up-front than before 15 we spend all the money for the tests.
16 MR. TAYLOR: So we have two votes for 17 high. Anybody else? Three. All right. Raise hands 18 for high. Now we have three, four, five, six.
19 Mediums? And lows? One medium. Okay. So three 20 lows, a medium, the majority high.
21 Grounding configuration. It seemed like, 22 because we were doing three phase, that the grounding 23 configuration wasn't that important. So, you know, 24 we could go and we could solidly ground it or we can 25 higher-resistant ground it or we could leave it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
192 1 floating, right? And I think some of that has to do 2 with the machine team, what they can best protect 3 from overheating losses. So they left, but that's 4 something we also have to consider.
5 But from the group that's still here, how 6 important do we think grounding configuration is for 7 the test that we plan to do? Do we think it's a low 8 priority, a medium parameter priority, or high?
9 Okay. So for high? Who think it's of high 10 importance? We have one in the back, two. Medium?
11 One, two, three, four, five. And low? Two. Two-12 five-two. Oh, I missed Nick. Two-five-three. So 13 you're doing high, medium, low, right?
14 MR. MELLY: Yes.
15 MR. TURNER: I'll just cover, the way we 16 do the test for Japan is we're mainly looking at 17 energy and really high energy events. We don't care 18 what the grounding is, as long as we get the current 19 we ask for and the duration we ask for. And the 20 reason we do that is KEMA is setting up with you to 21 meet your best for 23 kiloamps. They look at the 22 variety of circuits they can do and what combinations 23 of things can give them a nice, steady 23 kiloamps 24 with the duration you asked for. Sometimes, it's 25 steadier in Y and sometimes it's steadier in delta, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
193 1 and so they'll just recommend a circuit to me and I 2 don't care whether it's Y or delta because we rarely 3 see anything --
4 MR. MELLY: Yes, I'm with Steve. Change 5 mine to low, so change one of the mediums to low.
6 MR. TAYLOR: I'll go back through. Dan, 7 you had a comment?
8 MR. FUNK: Yes, I'm going to basically 9 qualify my high. Some of what Steve said, I think 10 the grounding configuration, where it's important is 11 actually in frequency. If you have an ungrounded or 12 a high-grounded system, you're likelihood of 13 protection failure is actually, in my mind, going way 14 down, so I think it's a frequency issue more than 15 maybe the testing which is what you're interested in.
16 Does that make sense?
17 MR. TURNER: Yes, and the testing at KEMA 18 is, of course, complicated because the frequency is 19 going to go down as the rotor slows down to give you 20 the power. So an example, a test where you're 21 running 40 megajoules, they might start out running 22 them at 60 hertz on the generator, but by the time 23 you finish the test it's running 48. It slows down 24 that much. When you're out there in the generator 25 hall, you just hear it grinding down.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
194 1 MR. FUNK: Yes, I'm sorry. When I say 2 frequency, I mean probability --
3 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So let's go ahead 4 around the room again for the grounding 5 configuration, importance of that parameter to the 6 actual testing, who think it's a highly important 7 parameter? No hand raises. All right. What about 8 medium? Medium importance? And low? One, two, 9 three, four, five, six, seven, so it looks like it's, 10 for those who voted, it's low on that, Nick. We're 11 not putting your names up here, so don't feel 12 bashful. Please provide the feedback on this.
13 All right. Grounding configuration, 14 delta versus Y. I think the information that Ken 15 gave us is pretty useful for when we split up the 16 different configurations but then, again, you know, 17 comments we've heard, as long as we get the 18 characteristics of the fault that we want from the 19 laboratory, it may not be that important.
20 So for delta versus Y winding 21 configurations, what's the belief for its important?
22 Who thinks it's a highly important parameter for the 23 testing? Medium? Low? So we have one medium, and 24 one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 25 nine on the low.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
195 1 MR. FLEISCHER: I would like to ask a 2 question on that because I think maybe you guys have 3 experience. So the face-to-face voltage between a Y 4 and a delta is different, but you're saying that the 5 testing you've seen is always the arc voltage and 6 have you seen the arc voltage similar, regardless of 7 whether it's a Y or a delta?
8 MR. MILLER: Yes.
9 MR. FLEISCHER: They're the same?
10 MR. MILLER: Yes.
11 MR. FLEISCHER: All right. Then go ahead 12 and change mine to low.
13 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So that's another 14 unanimous low, a unanimous decision on that one. All 15 right. Another thing that we had for a variable is 16 the supply. With KEMA super-excitation configuration 17 at their site, we can basically do a steady-state 18 current, which is what we've been doing in the past.
19 However, for medium voltage with the unit conducted 20 designs, the generators want to trip. It's going to 21 coast down and continue to feed the fault, so you'll 22 have a decaying current for as long as that fault is 23 locked in.
24 So the question here is how important is 25 it to test the actual decay that you see in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
196 1 plants versus the steady state that we've been doing 2 to the testing?
3 MR. TURNER: How big is the decay before 4 the generator can't hold it anymore? Ten percent, 5 thirty percent?
6 MR. TAYLOR: The question is how big is 7 the decay before the generator can't maintain the 8 voltage.
9 MR. FLEISCHER: So I don't want to steer 10 anybody in the wrong direction. I don't know off the 11 top of my head. I don't want to venture to guess.
12 I'd rather get facts. I'm going to see if I can find 13 a digital fault record that would accurately record 14 that type of information. I'm aware of one plant 15 where I may have access that was a generator, it was 16 a six-second generator fit fault. No, Turkey Point 17 suffered a flashover of the main power transformer.
18 Actually, the arcing fault was on the high-voltage 19 terminals, so the main power transformer. But it 20 would show you how the generator responded to it 21 because remember we did a root cause.
22 I'm going to see if that -- and I 23 remember we pulled a DFR. I'm going to see if I can 24 find that DFR. That would then tell me what happens, 25 but I would anticipate, again, let's walk through the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
197 1 scenario, right? You're basically, you've tripped, 2 you got a HEAF. The plant has tripped. Part of that 3 is a plant differential. You open the yard breaker, 4 so you have no voltage contribution from the switch 5 yard. You're now just with the generator with maybe 6 like a stuck breaker. So you're going to have an 7 immediate step change because the exciter fuel 8 breaker is going to half open, so really it's going 9 to be the residual magnetism of the rotor. The rotor 10 won't even be excited. So, therefore, you're going 11 to have an immediate step change down and then, from 12 there, you will have a decay. And I think that's 13 what we saw on the digital fault recorder.
14 So I did make a note to go see if I can 15 find that. Is it 70 percent? I don't know. I can't 16 remember.
17 But as far as going for a vote, I think 18 right now, unless we run into a technical 19 feasibility, I vote yes. That's a tie. Fifty 20 percent of the plants are on off-site power, fifty 21 percent are off the generator.
22 MR. FUNK: I'd like to second Ken's 23 perspective. It's not, you don't run into a 24 practical limitation because right now these unit-25 connected designs or that coast down are, quite NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
198 1 frankly, what's driving some of the answers we're 2 coming up with in our database checks. So 3 understanding that phenomena I think could be pretty 4 important if that holds true that the unit-connected 5 design is vulnerable.
6 MR. TAYLOR: Any other comments before we 7 go to vote?
8 MR. TURNER: I'm thinking we're mainly 9 trying to learn about energy and the ZOI, so I'd say 10 if the current only drops ten percent that doesn't 11 change the energy very much and you don't learn 12 anything. If it changes 80 percent, you may as well 13 have run just a duration half as much. But I don't 14 know if KEMA can do as much as 80 percent. They can 15 probably do probably a 30 percent drop-off.
16 MR. FUNK: That's fine, but just 17 understanding the phenomena, I think, so we can go in 18 with our eyes open and not closed is what's 19 important.
20 Tests aren't ever perfect.
21 MR. MELLY: One thing to note, we do plan 22 to make a test plan change to include this decay as 23 part of the medium-voltage testing. It will require 24 plant information where we are looking to dig deeper 25 on this so we do know what to tell KEMA to do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
199 1 because, currently, it's very easy to -- yes, we will 2 need a sample profile to give.
3 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and then we'll also 4 have to enter discussions with KEMA to see what 5 they're capable of doing. And if they're not capable 6 of doing what's representative, we need to maybe see 7 what they can do, run some tests with that, and then 8 have comparison.
9 Okay. So if there's no more discussion, 10 we'll go to see where we are. So for the decay 11 versus that steady state, who thinks that's a highly 12 important parameter? One vote, two vote, three, 13 four, five. Five for high. Medium? Six for medium.
14 And low? Two for low. I think that's it for this 15 sheet.
16 You have a question from the webinar?
17 Okay.
18 MR. MELLY: We have another low from Dave 19 Lochbaum on the phone.
20 MR. TAYLOR: So one low from the 21 participant on the webinar.
22 MR. MELLY: Also, for those on the 23 webinar who are listening in, feel free to also voice 24 your opinion and we will include the counts. That's 25 very easy for Tom to relay that information to us.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
200 1 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. And just to add on to 2 Nick, if we missed you going through those, the 3 rankings, you can see them on the screen. Please 4 feed that to Tom and we can update.
5 MR. MELLY: Yes, if we can update any of 6 these fields, if you would like to provide your input 7 on what's currently shown on the screen.
8 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Let's just work down 9 my list. It's not in any particular order.
10 Enclosure thickness. Who thinks that -- is there any 11 discussion on enclosure thickness? So who thinks 12 that's a highly important parameter? Medium 13 importance? One in the back, two, three. And low 14 importance? Eight. So three for medium and eight 15 for low.
16 The next one is bus insulation. I think 17 what we talked about earlier is we tried to split the 18 experiments up half insulated and half not. But, 19 again, do we think that's important for, an important 20 variable for the HEAF phenomena? Do you want any 21 discussion on the bus insulation?
22 MR. TURNER: Can you define it a little 23 bit more? Are you talking about the really thick 24 ceramic we put on bus bars sometimes, or are you just 25 talking about some insulation that's thermal, like a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
201 1 boot?
2 MR. TAYLOR: I'm not an expert in the bus 3 insulation. I don't know if anybody --
4 MR. SHUDAK: Ours is a thermal boot.
5 MR. TURNER: Yes. And so those, the arcs 6 just tend to blow right through those. If you have 7 a heavier ceramic that surrounding, like a square bus 8 bar, it doesn't tend to burn that back as fast. You 9 won't burn as much of a bus bar. And if it's 10 aluminum, you won't need as much aluminum in there 11 because you didn't run as much bus bar. But if it's 12 just a heat shrink wrap on there or a boot, it's 13 hosed. It's going to go right through that stuff, 14 and it just makes the experiment messy.
15 MR. TAYLOR: Are we aware of any that's 16 ceramic configurations out there?
17 MR. TURNER: Well, that's what you tested 18 on the bus duct design, that real heavy ceramic that 19 was --
20 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, probably Norrell, 21 right? It's like a sleeve. It's actually, it's not 22 rubber, it's a sleeve you slide on.
23 MR. TURNER: Yes, and it's pretty heavy.
24 MR. MELLY: And where we initiated the 25 arc, we removed that wrapping.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
202 1 MR. TURNER: It's one of those, I think 2 it's high. If it's just a boot, I don't think it 3 matters.
4 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So I think what I'm 5 hearing is it depends on type, but, you know, I 6 think, with that understanding, whether it's either 7 the shrunk on or the ceramic type, do we think that's 8 important for the HEAF phenomena?
9 MR. FLEISCHER: I have one clarification.
10 Ken Fleischer, EPRI. So I think what I'm hearing, 11 though, is maybe we separate that bus insulation for 12 switch gear in bus insulation. We're not saying bus.
13 It sounds like it makes a difference there. It 14 sounds like for one it doesn't make a difference.
15 You said, regardless, whether it's the rubber or the 16 boot, it's going to blow by anyway. And I think a 17 majority of the switch gear is either non-insulated 18 or if it is insulated it's that, whereas a non-seg 19 will typically have that more robust insulation. I 20 would recommend splitting that. Yes, so the first 21 one would be a bus insulation for non-seg bus, and 22 the second one would be bus insulation for load 23 centers and switch gear.
24 MR. TAYLOR: All right. So on the first 25 one, bus insulation for enclosures, votes for high NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
203 1 importance? Medium? Low? Eight for low.
2 MR. MELLY: Do we have anything else?
3 MR. TAYLOR: Nobody for medium or high.
4 Bus insulation for non-segregated bus duct. High?
5 High importance? One, two, three, four, five, six, 6 seven, eight. Eight votes. Oh, nine votes for high.
7 Medium, medium importance? One, one vote for medium.
8 Low? No votes for low.
9 All right. Next is circuit 10 characteristics. And this, I think, from our 11 discussion was characteristics from a plant to help 12 us inform and understand how to set up the generators 13 that came up. I don't know if we want to have any 14 discussion or clarification on that, Dan. I think 15 that was one of the comments you brought up.
16 MR. FUNK: Well, I think you probably 17 did.
18 I think the discussions over the past two days, the 19 voltage current, time duration, detriment, we've 20 probably beat that to death. And the idea of being 21 able to characterize the test circuit, you know, we 22 got feedback from KEMA on that already. We've 23 discussed that we may need to try to come up with a 24 representative system that we would expect them to at 25 least be able to replicate within reason.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
204 1 MR. TAYLOR: Any other discussion?
2 MR. TURNER: And I think they can 3 probably give you, once they set the circuit up, they 4 give you an effective reactance for that circuit, so 5 here's what it is and here are the components we used 6 to get it. They're still confused on why you need 7 that information, but I said don't worry about it, 8 they do models and stuff.
9 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So from the ranking, 10 who believes that to be highly important for the 11 program? We got one high, two highs. Medium? Four, 12 five, six, seven. Sorry, seven. Two highs, seven 13 mediums, and low? Anybody believes that to be of low 14 importance? Okay.
15 Bus gap separation? I think we've kind 16 of shown that it has an effect on your arc voltage, 17 and we already ranked arc voltage before as being a 18 highly important parameter. So, you know, we could 19 group it there, but keeping it separate, who believes 20 that that's highly important to characterize and 21 understand what we're testing in the program. So for 22 high? Eleven, eleven highs. Medium? And low 23 importance? One low.
24 MR. TURNER: And let me explain why I'm 25 low. Usually, when these arcs set themselves up, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
205 1 they're trying to go phase to phase. What matters is 2 where they can find a way to connect the circuit so 3 this phase can connect back to that phase. And it 4 could be a metal wall that's a certain distance away 5 where it's just at an open space. It really doesn't 6 matter how far the bus bars are apart, even if it's 7 a half an inch or an inch. It's the length it's 8 going to to find its way back to the phase it's 9 trying to come back to, so I don't think the spacing 10 has as much effect as the surroundings, but it's the 11 closest thing by which usually is what sets the arc 12 voltage.
13 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. We're going to skip 14 over this one. We'll come back to it. DC offset and 15 phase angle. And phase angle when you initiate the 16 arc, so it's this phase angle. You start the arc, 17 and it has some effect on your asymmetric nature of 18 your current wave form. And I think just from what 19 I discussed earlier, it may have some effect on the 20 pressure. But from the overall program, you know, 21 what do we expect the importance of the DC offset or 22 the asymmetric nature of the wave form on the HEAF 23 event? Is there any discussion on that parameter?
24 So who believes it's a highly important 25 parameter? Medium? Five mediums. Low? And three NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
206 1 lows.
2 I don't know why it took Kenny so long to 3 do. We're doing this in an afternoon. I wonder if 4 Ken is still on the line.
5 Next one is ventilation. So this is the 6 ventilation, and this one might be one we were going 7 to separate enclosures and bus ducts, as well. But 8 ventilation for enclosures, who believes that to be 9 a -- well, first, is there any discussion on the 10 ventilation aspect?
11 MR. FLEISCHER: This is more for 12 clarification for me. So we're talking about a 13 ventilation, I think I heard earlier that it can make 14 a difference as to where the arc plume is directed.
15 16 MR. TAYLOR: Some of the literature I've 17 looked at, it can have an effect on the arc 18 characteristics: the diameter of the arc, the arc 19 voltage to a point. I don't know if Steve has got 20 anything else on that piece.
21 MR. FLEISCHER: All right. Since we're 22 worried about the zone of influence and whether it's 23 going to be directed at it or away from it, and it 24 sounds to me that, okay, so it sounds to me it's 25 really important.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
207 1 MR. TAYLOR: I think the other thing is, 2 you know, Nick brought up yesterday with the louvered 3 vents in some of those, and Mark touched on it, too, 4 some of the effects there, that might have some 5 impact of where the arc projects energy out of the 6 enclosure and the breach occurs or a door opens.
7 MR. MELLY: Well, what we've seen in 8 testing is that the ventilation points for a lot of 9 these cabinets are typically where the plume and the 10 plasma is directed just from that's where all the 11 material is going. We have seen the louvers just 12 completely vaporize, but that is the location where 13 the louvers are that these zone of influence is 14 typically directed. It's a weak point in the 15 cabinet. It's where the easiest, the path of least 16 resistance.
17 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So any other 18 discussion on that ventilation?
19 MR. RHODES: And this is Bob Rhodes, 20 Harris. I've seen buses, I've got buses that have a 21 ventilation that you all haven't discussed which is 22 on the top, it's got a top hat arrangement, and so I 23 haven't heard any discussion about that.
24 MR. MELLY: So we have had experience 25 with the top hat arrangement in some of the Japanese NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
208 1 testing that was done. When they were trying to 2 recreate the event that occurred at Onagawa, they did 3 use a top hat design, and we, again, saw that that 4 was the direction that the plume and the plasma 5 wanted to head because of the ventilation.
6 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So for ventilation on 7 enclosures, not bus ducts but on enclosures, who 8 believes that to be a highly important parameter?
9 Nine. Medium importance? One. Low importance?
10 Zero.
11 Okay. What about the bus ducts now? I 12 think we've had a discussion of some of the 13 variations. Who believes that to be highly 14 important, ventilation on bus ducts? Medium 15 importance? One, two, three. Low importance? Seven 16 on low.
17 Okay. And on the last one that I have, 18 well, second to last, aluminum alloy. We haven't 19 really talked too much about this. In the test plan 20 that we had for the small scale, we had some 21 discussion in there on the different types of alloys 22 that can be encountered. And I think, you know, we 23 picked one of the alloys in there, but I think 24 there's going to be some variation of what's used out 25 in the plants.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
209 1 So just on that variable of different 2 alloys, aluminum, I don't think there's going to be 3 much variation, but do we believe that there's going 4 to have to be a big impact from the HEAF phenomenon 5 that parameter? Any discussion on the alloy aspect?
6 Okay. So who thinks that's a highly 7 important variable or parameter?
8 MR. TURNER: Discuss it a little bit 9 more. You mean an actual alloy, or do you mean the 10 type of aluminum, or do you mean --
11 MR. TAYLOR: Type of aluminum. Type of 12 aluminum in the bus bars, yes. Well, bus bars or bus 13 duct. So who thinks that's of high importance on the 14 HEAF phenomenon? I've got one. Medium? And low?
15 MR. MELLY: And I'm going to explain my 16 --
17 MR. TAYLOR: Seven on low.
18 MR. MELLY: Let me explain my high is 19 that if we did this testing for the first round and 20 someone asked me if aluminum versus copper was going 21 to be of high importance, I would have said not at 22 all. And we thought that going into the first round 23 of testing. So I think my state of knowledge as to 24 whether aluminum is going to be such a large impact 25 is so low that I'm going to err on the side of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
210 1 caution.
2 MR. TAYLOR: So you're making the 3 discussion of we didn't think aluminum versus copper 4 would be much of a difference, but we saw a big 5 difference. I think what the question here that 6 we're asking is does the alloys make a big 7 difference, and you're saying that, because we saw a 8 big difference in the other things and also the 9 alloys, there might be differences between aluminum 10 material. We're not comparing it to copper and 11 aluminum. So is that the --
12 MR. MELLY: Yes. Because if we had a 13 state of knowledge ranking, as well, it would be low.
14 MR. TAYLOR: So I think we had seven.
15 One low -- sorry. One high and seven low, eight low.
16 Who votes low on that one? Seven. So it was seven.
17 18 And then the last one doesn't really have 19 too much to do with experimental plants, but we did 20 bring it up when we were talking about the pilot 21 plants and that relates to the equipment separation 22 and understanding, you know, out in the plants, the 23 different separation of equipment that's important 24 for either safe shutdown or redundant divisions. I 25 wanted to bring up a discussion point. It may go NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
211 1 into some of the decisions of where we put the racks, 2 the instruments, you know, how we space those.
3 So I put up here is there any discussion 4 on aspects of equipment separation out in plants and 5 how we would then instrument the experiments as that 6 being an important parameter. I think right now, 7 just a little more clarification, we're basically 8 looking at multiple distances, so we have maybe three 9 feet, six feet, nine feet, something along those 10 lines, from a horizontal distance out from the 11 enclosure is what we're planning on doing right now.
12 You know, is there some logic or some configurations 13 where we would look at something different?
14 MR. AIRD: A question from the webinar 15 real quickly back to the aluminum alloy. The 16 question is from Preston Cooper from TVA. His 17 question or comment is that can we include the 18 testing of this alloy using a chemistry tape 19 analysis?
20 MR. TAYLOR: I'm not sure I'm following 21 the comment.
22 MR. AIRD: If we get better information 23 from Preston, we'll get back to you.
24 MR. TAYLOR: Does anybody else in the 25 room have an idea of what their comment was --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
212 1 MR. PELLIZZARI: Well, I guess is the 2 intention to, I mean, are you going to intentionally 3 test different alloys with aluminum, or you're just 4 presupposing you're going to get different alloys 5 with aluminum in your various equipment?
6 MR. TAYLOR: So we don't know what the 7 population is out there. So we looked in a little 8 bit, and there's some variation among the alloys that 9 we could procure that are commonly used in electrical 10 conductors. So we wanted to make sure that we were 11 being representative but also, if there is variation 12 among there, that, you know, we vary it accordingly.
13 And what we're asking here is do we think that that 14 parameter has a large effect on the HEAF phenomena, 15 HEAF energy?
16 MR. MELLY: And as part of the Cooper 17 testing, it was also a question that came up as to 18 what the composition or the alloy of aluminum is used 19 for the enclosure. This is very difficult 20 information to obtain from the specifications that 21 were done 30 - 40 some odd years ago as to 22 specifically what alloy of aluminum is used in the 23 manufacturing of the equipment, and there are 24 primarily two different predominant alloys that can 25 be chosen for use in the electrical distribution, as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
213 1 well as the enclosure design.
2 MR. TAYLOR: Did you get any 3 clarification? Okay. We'll wait on that. Again, I 4 put this equipment separation up here because it was 5 on the board back there and I thought it might have 6 some impact, at least for the instrument. So is 7 there any additional discussion on that?
8 MR. SHUDAK: This is Tom Shudak from 9 Nebraska Public Power. So just a sort of 10 clarification on this question. Those rotation racks 11 will have coupons on there that will be able to 12 determine the impact on equipment. I think it's 13 important that we are going to have cables on there 14 to see if those can ignite.
15 The location of the equipment is also 16 important, too, and that they can penetrate that 17 equipment because that's one of the ways we're 18 looking at it. It's not just a three foot or five 19 foot. It's also to the point where it comes up 20 against something non-combustible that's going to 21 stop the projectiles. So those facing that is, I 22 think, critical. Right now, I think we're using 23 three foot and five foot, so I think we have to 24 follow on at least with the current, and the tighter 25 those are the better. I'd hate to have to go from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
214 1 three foot to nine foot if I modeled it in our 2 current plan.
3 MR. TAYLOR: All right. So maybe I can 4 rephrase this. Rather than equipment separation, 5 sensor separation or measurement device location.
6 That might be a better way to characterize it.
7 MR. MILLER: Was that what the item was?
8 Like GDC 17 separation?
9 MR. TAYLOR: So I think it was related to 10 one of the comments that Bob brought up of over 11 equipment having both safety and non-safety equipment 12 in the same room and the separation can vary. So 13 that's kind of where I got it from, but, you know, 14 from a test parameter, how do we relate that into 15 what we're going to be capturing? I think it might 16 fit better on where we locate the instrument rack so 17 that we can then, you know, look at the impacts that 18 we're measuring from the instrument racks to the 19 separation because separation is plant specific. I'm 20 not sure we can go out and capture everything for the 21 test years that we're going to do.
22 MR. MILLER: This is Kenn Miller. When 23 I think of separation, too, I guess the conducted 24 plume aspect of this is of interest because of the 25 visibility to reach beyond the range, particularly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
215 1 filling the room.
2 MR. TAYLOR: So on that piece, we're 3 looking to use those aerial gels by carbon tape and 4 then do the XPS analysis to see what the conductivity 5 is. We don't have a live measurement of 6 conductivity, like a temporal measurement.
7 Obviously, if anybody knows the way to do that, we're 8 more than interested to learn about it. But that's 9 one way we're looking at measuring the conductivity.
10 And, again, those coupons can be put on these 11 instrument racks and post-analyzed.
12 So if I can kind of rephrase the 13 parameter to measurement, what did I call it?
14 Measurement separation or measurement locations.
15 Maybe in the comments, we can put target locations.
16 And position, yes. So distance, as well as whether 17 it's above, to the side, in front for positions.
18 So anymore discussion on that parameter 19 there? Okay. So who thinks that this is a highly 20 important parameter for the experimental? Thirteen.
21 So thirteen high. I don't think there -- that was 22 pretty much everybody. Medium? Medium importance?
23 And low?
24 MR. MELLY: We also got the most votes 25 for this one.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
216 1 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Make sure you save 2 that file, Nick. I don't want to lose the progress 3 we've made so far. So I think that's all I had for 4 the list. Were there any other parameters that we 5 thought were important, or not important but we felt 6 should be considered and ranked? Okay. Not hearing 7 any. Is there anything else from this morning's 8 discussion and early afternoon's discussion on test 9 parameters that we want to touch on?
10 MR. MILLER: Or definitions.
11 MR. TAYLOR: Is there anything on the 12 webinar?
13 MR. TURNER: Does anybody ever anticipate 14 using arc resistance switch gear in the future where 15 the flap opens and all the hot gas goes out a vent 16 and goes around a corner and gets dumped outside or 17 something like that? Does anybody anticipate having 18 that? Because we haven't done any testing on that 19 stuff, even though it really helps the worker who's 20 standing right in front of the cabinet. We keep 21 telling the people that invented it that this is 22 really bad for us in fire protection because now you 23 just put the flame over there. The response is yes, 24 but we've got barriers in there. It captures most of 25 the heat, and those emissions only last for a couple NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
217 1 of tenths of a second, so they're consumed. So if we 2 had one of these long arcs, here I am putting the 3 flame out 20 feet away from where the accident is and 4 changing it. So I'm just curious if anybody ever 5 plans on putting those things in there, which are 6 great for personal protection but horrible for . . .
7 MR. MELLY: Stan.
8 MR. GARDOCKI: We are in discussion on 9 our panels. We were discussing how the arc transits 10 through the atmosphere, so one of the parameters I 11 was thinking, the atmosphere conditions, whether it's 12 humidity or dryness, temperature, if that's the case 13 of the arc transiting through an atmosphere but arc 14 versus a thermal arc or something like that, is 15 atmospheric conditions going to influence how far 16 this heat goes with the aluminum that's in the cloud?
17 I would open that for discussion for anyone who 18 thinks that would be an impact on this aluminum heat.
19 MR. TURNER: A parameter of interest?
20 MR. TAYLOR: Was that something that the 21 NFAA or IEEE will do for all their arc flash testing 22 that you're aware of?
23 MR. EARLEY: No, we did not.
24 MR. MELLY: As part of our testing on 25 phase one, we did record all atmospheric conditions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
218 1 on test days: humidity, temperature --
2 MR. MILLER: Those were outdoors, right?
3 MR. MELLY: -- barometric pressure. We 4 were outdoors. So we did have a range of conditions 5 that we tested in. Rain the Japanese tested in, but 6 a lot of snow. We were outside. We covered a fairly 7 good range in Pennsylvania. We have not taken the 8 time to look into the effect, primarily because we 9 didn't have the electrical conductivity measure live 10 to make the comparison to humidity or other 11 conditions. But that's something that I guess is 12 still open for discussion right now whether we think 13 that's an important event.
14 For my opinion, I think it may be of 15 importance to the initiation and to the frequency, as 16 well, and some of the events, the Monshawn 17 particularly saw the humidity, the atmosphere, and 18 the salt, potentially the outdoors, that could have 19 contributed to the initiation of the event. I don't 20 know about the consequence of the event. Dan.
21 MR. FUNK: Yes, I would second what Nick 22 is saying. I've seen an amount of research done for 23 pollution and surface contamination but only as an 24 initiator. Like, a lot of utilities have programs 25 where they go out and wash down switch gear and stuff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
219 1 for just their very purpose for the measure, what 2 part of the country you're in or where you're at for 3 cumulative deposits of pollution and continue to 4 degrade the overall surface resistance, but I've 5 never heard it being a factor once you get an arc 6 started. It's such a minor contributor to the 7 temperatures and forces.
8 MR. TURNER: My perception of it is the 9 original atmosphere that starts in the cabinet is 10 completely changed in five milliseconds. Everything 11 is completely difference because you push all of that 12 out real quick. And then the plasma itself is behind 13 the initial pressure front, and it's kind of doing 14 its own thing in its self-made atmosphere. There's 15 not much difference in that self-made atmosphere, 16 depending on the original conditions.
17 So I agree. It might have something to 18 do with the initiation of the fault that started it.
19 But once you get that arc going, it kind of, I don't 20 think it's going to have much effect at all. And you 21 can see some of the effects on the atmospheres around 22 it because there's a lot of tests with SF-6. So you 23 don't even have air insulated anymore, so you know 24 that SF-6 and air insulation see some differences in 25 terms of how the arc is located and the energy, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
220 1 not as much as you'd think. So I don't know if you'd 2 want to handle SF-6 different than here.
3 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. That's great 4 feedback. Any other discussion on atmospheric 5 conditions for the actual HEAF event? Okay. Let's 6 take a quick vote then. So who believes that the 7 atmospheric condition parameter has a high impact on 8 the HEAF phenomena? Medium? One for medium. Low?
9 Ten, ten for low.
10 Anything else that we've missed?
11 MR. MILLER: I'm sorry.
12 MR. TURNER: Oxygen availability. Is 13 that an atmospheric condition?
14 MR. GARDOCKI: You need to oxidize the 15 aluminum to get the --
16 MR. TURNER: And we're not sure how that 17 works in the testing we do. When I've made 18 calculations, I said let's just assume the oxygen is 19 there. It might run out of oxygen, we just don't 20 know because I've run tests where you get a nice 21 plume going out the top, you could conceive that it 22 could actually draw air in, like your fireplace in 23 your house when you've got plenty of oxygen because 24 arcs feed the oxygen going into the arc, not this 25 way. They feed it from the ins where it's starting.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
221 1 We plan to run some tests to try to 2 figure out how the oxygen level changes in these 3 larger things. So that's a big effect that we're 4 testing for Japan.
5 MR. TAYLOR: So any other discussion on 6 the oxygen availability ventilation aspects?
7 MR. PUTORTI: Tony Putorti, NIST. But 8 that was something that I was thinking of when we 9 originally were looking at ventilation. So, you 10 know, is that something that we've already covered in 11 ventilating the enclosure up top?
12 MR. MELLY: I think they're linked but a 13 different aspect.
14 MR. TAYLOR: It might be worthwhile to 15 separate, as you've done here. So, you know, 16 ventilation is just more of a physical configuration 17 and the impact it has on the event versus, you know, 18 oxygen availability, especially on the aluminum 19 piece. Do we have enough oxygen to oxidize the 20 metal? So let's go ahead and -- I mean, it makes 21 sense to me to keep them separate. Does the group 22 agree? I see some heads nod.
23 Okay. So for oxygen availability for 24 aluminum, who believes that to be a highly important 25 parameter? Eight. Medium importance? Two, three.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
222 1 And low importance?
2 We'll do the same thing for copper. So 3 high importance for copper, oxygen availability?
4 Medium importance? Two. And low importance? Nine, 5 ten. Your hand is up, right, Nick?
6 MR. MELLY: Yes.
7 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, ten. Anything else?
8 Any other parameters? Anything from the webinar?
9 Okay. So I think that kind of -- I appreciate all 10 the feedback. It's really good information. I 11 think, especially if we go and formalize the test 12 plan and finalize what we're going to do moving 13 forward, it's going to help provide feedback to us.
14 I think at this time it would be a good 15 time to take a break. So it's 10 after right now.
16 Let's come back at 3:30. And then Nick will get into 17 the test plan and the changes that he's made to it 18 that resolve the comments at the high level and then 19 anything we want to bring up with regard to the test 20 plan and that aspect, we can do that. So we'll go on 21 break now until 3:30.
22 MR. MELLY: Small-scale testing, you find 23 something or add, I mean, is that going to input 24 something to this, or you don't think you'll have 25 enough time after the small-scale testing to impact NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
223 1 this?
2 MR. TAYLOR: So the question is we're 3 doing small-scale testing and how will that be used 4 to impact how we're going to change the test program 5 for full scale. Okay. That characterizes the 6 question. I don't really see a lot of the small 7 scale on the HEAF phenomena or the energy output 8 really supporting much on the large scale, but the 9 real purpose of the small scale is to characterize 10 the particles to help further develop the model that 11 Maryland is working on. So there will be some 12 information there that can be used, but also it's 13 proof of concept so those aerial gels and the black 14 carbon tape, we can then use that for here and we can 15 put those at those test stands, as Nick was showing 16 you earlier, or we can even put those, because 17 they're passive devices, we can put them inside the 18 enclosure which is really where we want them because 19 that's where a lot of the additional energy from the 20 aluminum is going to occur inside the enclosure. So 21 we'll have some feedback there.
22 But as far as, like, the HEAF phenomena 23 and the parameters that we're using for large-scale, 24 I don't see the small-scale informing that much. I 25 don't know if Nick or anybody else have anything to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
224 1 add.
2 MR. MELLY: Yes, I agree. It's more for 3 the additional instrumentation which may be used for 4 the large-scale testing to focus in on that 5 conductive cloud of aluminum, as well as some of the 6 videography that we'll be doing to capture the 7 particulate.
8 MR. TAYLOR: And that's a good point.
9 And, actually, the question that David Lochbaum 10 brought up, that's one thing we missed is that the 11 Sandia equipment has the potential to be able to 12 track particles to get the velocity, which can be 13 important for the model that we're working on. So 14 we'll probably try that out. We are going to try 15 that out on the full-scale side, so that's another 16 thing in the small-scale we'll be using.
17 MR. GARDOCKI: How about the percentage 18 of aluminum of the components? Are we going to be 19 able to draw an analogy to how much aluminum grams 20 inside the cabinets, per se, and draw that out to say 21 the more aluminum the larger HEAF, or are we going to 22 do some kind of staging or percentages of aluminum 23 content?
24 MR. MELLY: We can get into that a little 25 bit when I discuss the test plan as our plan for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
225 1 evaluating that and trying to make some energy 2 calculations, yes, energy correlations based on how 3 much aluminum is missing from the bus bars after the 4 test program, how we're going to be collecting that 5 information, and post analyzing it. And, hopefully, 6 there will be drawbacks to the small scale because, 7 as Dave said, one of the things that we're looking at 8 is the amount of aluminum that is removed in a small-9 scale testing to do our energy calculations there, 10 which is one of the reasons why we're downsizing the 11 bus bars at Sandia so that we can more accurately 12 predict how much aluminum has been removed from the 13 bus bar.
14 MR. TAYLOR: Does that answer --
15 MR. GARDOCKI: Yes, I mean, I don't know 16 if you want to incorporate in your test parameters to 17 get good representation of how much will be consumed 18 or if it happens too fast, consume all of it, or how 19 much in a particular time period. I'm not sure 20 whether the physics of these dynamics of how the 21 plasma develops and time spanning of the arc.
22 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I think that's 23 something that we'd probably measure on the back end, 24 so measuring before and afters.
25 MR. GARDOCKI: If you don't have enough NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
226 1 aluminum in there, then you're not going to get the 2 spectra.
3 MR. MELLY: I think we have that covered 4 in both the factors that we have on the board, such 5 as the ventilation, oxygen availability with the 6 aluminum, as well as the duration of the event will 7 both influence how much aluminum is involved in the 8 process.
9 MR. GARDOCKI: But your cabinets are 10 going to have a certain amount of aluminum or you're 11 going to add it into it.
12 MR. MELLY: The cabinets will have a 13 certain amount of aluminum, and we will be measuring 14 the total weight of the bus bars before we run the 15 test and after we run the test so we'll know exactly 16 how much aluminum was lost during the test. One of 17 the uncertainties, I will say, will be that we do 18 have this particulate and you can see the objective, 19 which is solid aluminum, rather than oxidized or 20 vaporized aluminum, so there will be particulate when 21 we have these tests to see the multiple aluminum 22 pieces, as well as the slag thrown in all directions 23 in the high-speed videos. That will be the 24 uncertainty of the test. But in terms of the bus 25 bars, we will be doing putting in post-monitoring of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
227 1 the weight of the bus bars themselves. So that's one 2 aspect that we'll be looking into in greater detail 3 in the phase two test program, which does add a lot 4 of time to the post-processing and the analysis of 5 each test that we plan on running. And I'll cover 6 that in a little bit more detail on my next 7 presentation.
8 MR. MELLY: All right. I think we're 9 ready for a break, and we will come back in 15 10 minutes.
11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 12 went off the record at 3:14 p.m. and resumed at 3:34 13 p.m.)
14 MR. MELLY: Okay, we're going to get 15 started here real quick on the -- this is the second 16 to last presentation. It may end up being the last.
17 A lot of the comment review, we've kind 18 of knocked off one by one throughout the discussion 19 in the morning.
20 I'll quickly go through that last 21 presentation, but I think that we may have covered 22 almost everything.
23 So, this presentation is focused on the 24 second draft test plan, what we've been talking about 25 mainly all this morning, a lot of the parameters and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
228 1 things like that, but this will dig in to the actual 2 document that we released for public comment as well 3 as the updated version that we released for this 4 meeting.
5 So, some of the objectives that we have 6 semi already covered is discussion of how the 7 phenomena identification and ranking table influence 8 how we are going to be doing the testing.
9 Some of the experimental variables that 10 we are going to be focusing in on for this second 11 phase of testing, how we're going to be doing the 12 measurement for the second phase of testing, what 13 members we are currently working with inside the 14 OECD.
15 We've alluded to the fact that we do have 16 10 members. We'll share those members right now.
17 We're going to discuss the test structure 18 which we've also shown a little bit, the experimental 19 approach and the time -- the current time line which 20 is very fluid, depending on how -- when we can get 21 arrangements, contracts in place, updated test plans 22 and things like that.
23 So, these were what the phenomena 24 identification and ranking table identified as high 25 important phenomena.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
229 1 So, the cabinet to cabinet fire spread 2 and secondary arcs and cabinet line ups, this was 3 seen as a high parameter of interest from several 4 countries, especially because we did see cabinet to 5 cabinet fire spread in the Onagawa vent as well as 6 additional secondary arc potentials in that lineup.
7 The thermal damage criteria and target 8 sensitivity, for the short high heat exposures which 9 we've discussed earlier, this gets to what we've been 10 discussing this week as the -- we've been terming it 11 target fragility as to how we make that link between 12 this high heat extreme exposure for a very short 13 period of time and whether that cable or secondary 14 piece of equipment, will it be damaged?
15 Also, the likelihood and severity of 16 secondary fires. We've been discussing this as to, 17 if we have a short event, it's unlikely to actually 18 propagate a secondary fire or a fire within the 19 actual cabinet of origin, different methods of 20 getting about that.
21 One of the high parameters was also the 22 performance of HEAF shields. This is postulated 23 method for mitigating the effects of damage from a 24 high energy arcing fault through the use of a barrier 25 between the cabinet of origin or the bus duct of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
230 1 origin and your secondary targets.
2 The performance characteristics were 3 looked at as highly unknown and it was important to 4 gain more understanding as to how those would perform 5 in the actual HEAF environment.
6 Also, a high parameter was the likelihood 7 and severity of damage from the arc ejecta on 8 electronic equipment. This is what we're referring 9 to for the aluminum cloud that's created as to what 10 effects that can have on potentially shorting out 11 secondary equipment.
12 Metal oxidation, that is in terms of the 13 effect of aluminum and copper and the added energy 14 from the oxidation of that aluminum material and the 15 electrical -- the arc electrical characterization is 16 to the points of voltage, current and duration. And, 17 they're not in order of 1 to 10, these are just the 18 high parameters.
19 So, these are the focused variables and 20 we have covered this in great detail. And, you can 21 see here that I've identified that this was going to 22 be a focus for a later discussion through Gabe's 23 questionnaire is that we're trying -- we were going 24 to try and pin down collaboratively the current and 25 the duration of testing which we have done, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
231 1 discuss the methodology that we created and put in 2 the test program.
3 So, the current that we discussed earlier 4 of using was a range from 15kA, 25kA for low voltage 5 and 25kA and 35kA for medium voltage.
6 The arc duration, I think we discussed 7 that and have decided that we should nominally be 8 testing at the 2 and 4 seconds for both the low 9 voltage and medium voltage range and the bus ducts, 10 I think we maintain that we'll still be testing at 1 11 and 3 seconds.
12 There were two additional tests at 5 13 seconds and the driver for those were some 14 international focus to have a longer duration event 15 that corresponded with some of the operational 16 experience, and especially on the generator-fed 17 events.
18 Also, in the Phase 2, we've discussed 19 that some of the main priority in the U.S. is this 20 aluminum versus copper, so the electrical enclosure 21 conductor material as well as the different 22 configuration of bus ducts switcher I think that we 23 have covered adequately.
24 Again, very little changes. You see a 25 lot of what we've done here is in the last exercise NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
232 1 we did that went to binning as well as I think that 2 we've covered every single one of these that's on the 3 board in terms of the importance to the zone of 4 influence calculation.
5 Equipment type, bus bar material, bus 6 duct material, voltage, current, frequency, power 7 configuration, equipment grounding, arc duration, arc 8 energy, bus bar insulation, bus bar spacing, bus bar 9 size.
10 We did a pretty good job during our 11 discussion this morning.
12 So, the measurement parameters that we're 13 going to be focusing on, we had the presentation 14 yesterday from NFPA where they had to develop a lot 15 of the instrumentation it was using because of the 16 challenge to actually collect the information.
17 We did this in parallel and it seems like 18 we actually ended up in a similar place as to how we 19 were collecting the information and what we were 20 collecting.
21 We're going to be -- in the test report, 22 there's actually a great detail into how these were 23 developed.
24 Tony published a paper for the SMiRT 25 which covers in great detail how these heat flux NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
233 1 measurements are working and detailed.
2 We're going to be looking at the 3 temperature and the heat flux, the pressure we've 4 discussed at internal to the cabinet.
5 For room pressure is an area that's not 6 currently in the test plan but it may be slated for 7 one of the spare tests if we have the budget.
8 We're also going to be documenting the 9 furthest extent of damage. This was one of the tools 10 that we were using the video for as well as post-test 11 analysis.
12 We're also going to be looking at the 13 mass of material vaporized during the tests. We 14 discussed that in the last presentation. We're going 15 to be doing pre- and post-test measurement of the 16 cabinets themselves for the potential to develop the 17 approximate energy release models from the classic 18 energy conversion models.
19 This also has ties to some of the small 20 scale testing and whether linkages can be made in the 21 small scale energy release versus the large scale on 22 mass loss.
23 We also discussed the cable sample 24 materials. This is the cable hoop-ons that we 25 discussed. We're not going to be doing full cable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
234 1 trays. And, we covered that one in pretty good 2 detail.
3 And, the byproduct testing. So, we're 4 also going to be looking to do the conductivity 5 measurements through, again, the proof of concept 6 small scale work that we're doing, capturing that 7 affluent that comes off and also coats material.
8 We're going to be doing spectroscopy on that.
9 One main difference between the RGR fault 10 Phase 1 and Phase 2 is we will not be measuring heat 11 release rates in the Phase 2 of testing.
12 There were several reasons for that, one 13 of them primarily is being that we only really saw 14 the benefit when we were collecting heat release rate 15 information on that in during fire within the 16 cabinet.
17 If it was actually under the hood, that 18 initial blast overwhelmed the hood with, I believe 19 our max capacity for that hood was around 1000 20 kilowatts, 3500, but it mainly was based on how much 21 smoke we collected in a short period of time and you 22 can see the entire facility was full of smoke, we're 23 losing it. We had -- were exposed to the atmosphere 24 and wind conditions.
25 We used -- tried to use a lot of curtains NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
235 1 -- wind curtains to capture as much as we could.
2 But, we didn't really have a good way to capture all 3 of that.
4 Additionally, it was extremely time 5 consuming to set that up and work around when we were 6 trying to put the instrumentation stands up and 7 things like that.
8 So, by removing that, we'll have a higher 9 focus on being able to collect the heat flux data at 10 varying distances away from the cabinet.
11 This goes into the measurement devices 12 that we plan on using. For the temperature, we have 13 thermocouples, plate thermometers and the IR imaging 14 camera we referenced.
15 For the heat flux, we're going to be 16 using the plate thermometer for the time varying.
17 For the average we're going to have the 18 plate thermometer and the thermal capacitance slugs 19 which are new for this Phase 2 program.
20 Incident energy, we're going to be doing 21 the equivalent slug calorimeter so we have 22 comparisons to the NFPA testing as well and to the 23 IEEE. 24 For the compartment internal pressure, 25 we're going to be doing the piezoelectric pressure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
236 1 transducers.
2 We also, in terms of videography, we've 3 covered that fairly well.
4 We have the IR filter videography, the IR 5 imaging. We have high speed cameras and high 6 definition cameras placed at various locations around 7 the test.
8 And, again, we're going to be doing that 9 surface deposit analysis with links to the small 10 scale testing.
11 So, in terms of the international 12 members, we have Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, 13 France, both their IRSN and which is the regulatory 14 body and EDF which is their -- on the power 15 generation side.
16 We also have Germany, Korea, Japan, 17 again, we have CRIEPI which is their electrical power 18 research institute.
19 And, we have the NRA which is the 20 regulatory body.
21 We're also going to be including the 22 Netherlands and Spain.
23 So, from the previous test program, we 24 are gaining EDF, the Netherlands and Belgium and the 25 Czech Republic as additional members from the first NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
237 1 round of testing.
2 The only member who is not participating 3 in the second round that was in the first is Finland.
4 And, this is primarily due to resource constraints, 5 personnel challenges and for the ability to 6 participate.
7 So, we have covered this in fairly well 8 detail, but just to go over it again, is that the 9 tests in blue will be part of the OECD test 10 contribution and the ones in orange were those 11 specifically driven by the GI program.
12 And, our focus, the U.S. centric focus on 13 additional aluminum tests.
14 Same goes with the bus duct testing. In 15 blue is OECD and in orange is the USNRC.
16 So, we discussed this in detail as well.
17 One of the main things we want to do is limit the 18 test variables. And, this was so that we can have 19 the direct comparison between tests, a low voltage 4 20 second, medium voltage 4 second.
21 And, we can look at the differences in 22 the zone of influence, the differences in the 23 calculation hoping to have an identical cabinet so 24 these can be single variable differences in hopes to 25 create that dynamic model based on the parameters NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
238 1 that we have deemed to be high importance and we can 2 adjust those to evaluate the zone of influence.
3 Again, we talked about the repeatable arc 4 location. This becomes very important in the 5 discussion we had about the NFPA testing in that --
6 In the NFPA testing we discussed that the 7 horizontal direction showed a higher energy flux 8 based on the calculations.
9 And, you can see on the tests on the 10 picture in the upper left-hand side that, if we had 11 a horizontal orientation and our instrument racks 12 were located in the horizontal direction, clearly 13 we're going to show that there is a higher influence 14 or a higher instant energy reported there.
15 However, if we have test stands 16 vertically above the cabinet, the vertical 17 orientation is going to most likely show the higher 18 flux from that testing.
19 So, right now, we want to be able to 20 ensure that our test stands are located in a 21 repeatable direction so we can get the affluent 22 coming out of the cabinet from one of these tests.
23 If we -- if the arc location comes out 24 the top and we have all of our instrument racks on 25 the side, we're still going to be collecting data, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
239 1 but is that data relevant to the energy release 2 during that actual test?
3 So, we want to make sure that we can have 4 repeatable tests on whatever cabinet we use, which is 5 why arc location becomes so important where we 6 initiate the arc. If we miss a test, that's a full 7 test where that data is not really applicable or 8 relevant for comparison on the other ones.
9 Again, instrumentation will be the 10 primary means of data collection. This is in terms 11 of we're not going to have that cable tray above, but 12 we're going to be using the instrumentation, the heat 13 flux, the temperature as a surrogate to make that 14 linkage between the actual materials.
15 And, again, I just wanted to reinforce 16 this, that no testing will be performed -- no testing 17 to be performed will be subject to any equipment to 18 get to conditions that exceed the equipment ratings.
19 And, what I mean by that is, if we have 20 a donated cabinet that's rated for 4160, we're not 21 going to subject that to a 6.9kV situation.
22 So, this was the general lab that you've 23 been -- that we've shown a few times. Multiple 24 equipment rack locations to capture the direction of 25 where we believe the arc is going to go.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
240 1 This is discussed in detail in the test 2 report in that we're going to have a -- essentially 3 a week -- the first week of testing will be a 4 shakedown week where we are going to go with the 5 proof of concept where we believe the instrument rack 6 should be located, where the arc location is going to 7 be.
8 And we are going to try and confirm that 9 we can collect repeatable information from these 10 tests.
11 We're doing that because we don't want to 12 go secure 40 lab days and go just 40 at one time.
13 Because, if we need to make adjustments to the test 14 plan and to how we're collecting the information, we 15 can adequately do that.
16 Test days are the most expensive part of 17 the project along with the equipment that we're going 18 to be testing. So, we are going to approach it in a 19 careful manner.
20 So, the time line for the testing, it's 21 not head workshop, but right in here, we're at the 22 April 18th and 19th, the workshop date.
23 Next week I have the meeting with the 24 OECD International Members where I'm going to relate 25 this information to them. And, essentially discuss NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
241 1 how we plan on changing the test plan and finalizing 2 the test plan.
3 I will also receive their input. I know 4 many of the members have been on the webinar. And, 5 I just want to make sure they have a fair chance to 6 have an equal level of discussion of any plan changes 7 or test changes that do come out of this meeting, 8 that they are fairly gone over with them.
9 We will be doing a comment resolution.
10 Essentially, we're still working on the comment 11 resolution, we have to go over it a little bit. And, 12 we've received a lot more information during this 13 meeting.
14 So, we hope to finalize all 91 comments 15 that we have received by mid-May. And, we also plan 16 to revise the test plan based on feedback from this 17 meeting and the international meeting, again, in mid-18 May.
19 We discussed earlier, the international 20 agreement is currently held up with the lawyers.
21 And, I left it a little bit vague as the summer is 22 hopefully the data that we will have it signed, 23 towards the end of summer, August.
24 I think everyone in the room realizes the 25 difficulties with getting past lawyers. So, I really NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
242 1 -- that's a shot in the dark.
2 Again, one of the aspects of the project 3 is we do have equipment delivery and that becomes a 4 very complicated process from country to country as 5 well. So, we're hoping to have everything shipped to 6 our storage facility which is down the road from the 7 Chalfonte facility in Pennsylvania in the fall, 8 October time frame. And, we look to do the initial 9 test series in October, that is the target date 10 currently.
11 That first test series will most likely 12 be on equipment that we do purchase, so the 13 purchasing is in that range.
14 Depending on feedback from this meeting 15 as well as management how the agreement goes, that 16 October date is aggressive, but we hope to be able to 17 do testing then.
18 Again, the second series of tests, we 19 wanted to correspond that with an international OECD 20 meeting to have our international partners a chance 21 to witness testing. Again, this is in Pennsylvania.
22 And, Mark has already opened this up to 23 try and set up a field trip up to the KEMA facility 24 so you can see the generator capabilities as well as 25 the KEMA facility.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
243 1 There will be several rounds of testing.
2 Typically, we like to do a week or two weeks of 3 testing in a row. That can usually accommodate one 4 test per day because of the amount of effort that 5 goes into instrumenting the equipment, safety related 6 checks, high pot testing, prior to testing.
7 And so, we usually have one test a day 8 for that week.
9 So, there will be several rounds of 10 testing that goes on to complete the full series of 11 tests which are currently slated at 36 tests. So, 12 there will be opportunities in the future to 13 potentially have visitors a the KEMA facility to 14 witness testing.
15 We'll coordinate all that under the EPRI 16 MOU or other avenues, I think.
17 And, that is our current time line of 18 actions with the Phase 2. I think we covered most of 19 this actually in our morning discussion, but does 20 anyone have any questions of the overall picture of 21 how we plan on performing the next series of testing?
22 MR. CHEOK: What do you mean by initial 23 test series?
24 MR. MELLY: Initial test series is, 25 that's document and the test plan is our week of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
244 1 scoping tests and to ensure that we're collecting the 2 correct information.
3 Tony may want to speak to a little bit 4 more of that as to what we envision and why we are 5 calling them scoping tests.
6 MR. PUTORTI: Because we're using some 7 new measurement techniques and also because we want 8 to make sure that Nick alluded to earlier, that we 9 can get the arc to exit the enclosure where the 10 instrumentation is.
11 We wanted to just have one week of 12 experiments. If you go and you book two weeks in 13 advance, that doesn't really give us -- if we have to 14 change something, it doesn't give us much time to 15 change it and test days are very expensive so that's 16 why we just want to do just one week to start with.
17 MR. FLEISCHER: Kenn Fleischer, EPRI.
18 The small scale testing, it's not 19 integrated in this schedule? I thought it was going 20 to be a predecessor.
21 MR. MELLY: Yes, the small scale testing 22 is separate from the overall OECD arrangements. So, 23 that's an oversight on my part of not putting it in 24 here.
25 That testing will fall on the time line, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
245 1 I believe it's June 25th that we're planning on doing 2 the small scale testing at Sandia, that's the initial 3 date we will start.
4 PARTICIPANT: They're not really tied 5 together, right?
6 MR. MELLY: No, they are not.
7 PARTICIPANT: They're independent?
8 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, so, Nick's correct.
9 June 25th, they start testing, that's the plan. And, 10 we have the final report by the end of September.
11 And then, publication on our end will take some time.
12 MR. MELLY: Any other questions on the 13 path forward?
14 (No response) 15 MR. MELLY: Okay, I'll jump into the 16 comments and I have a feeling that almost every 17 single comment I'm about to show, we have covered.
18 Do we have any questions from the 19 webinar?
20 PARTICIPANT: No.
21 MR. MELLY: Okay.
22 MR. MILLER: Well, that's good.
23 MR. MELLY: I'm hoping.
24 So, again, we've seen this slide. We've 25 got 91 comments in total. Again, that is through the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
246 1 Federal Registry as well as the EPRI MOU, 27 comments 2 were received by EPRI.
3 I tried to breakdown the comments into 4 categories because we did receive a lot of redundant 5 comments as well as I wanted to find a way to cover 6 them here.
7 Some of the comments were on the 8 generator capabilities and the applicability for the 9 HEAF testing. So, the decay of the generator itself 10 as we have received a few comments on as well as the 11 2250 MVA rating.
12 We received a lot of comments on the 13 protective relaying and the duration of testing, the 14 equipment ratings and how we're going to be selecting 15 the equipment.
16 The test conditions, the equipment set up 17 combustible load and cable trays.
18 Test parameters such as the voltage 19 current grounding team and a lot of comparisons to 20 the IEEE guide for the metal enclosed switch gear 21 rating.
22 So, some of the main comments that we 23 have -- that we haven't talked about, actually, is 24 that we received one comment that the stated 25 generator capabilities at KEMA were 2250 MVA. That NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
247 1 is the maximum capability of KEMA's generator, but 2 that's not what we're going to be testing each piece 3 of equipment to.
4 So, there was a misunderstanding as to 5 how much power we're going to be using for each test.
6 I think that we've cleared that up through our 7 discussion this morning. That is just their maximum 8 capability.
9 And, KEMA does essentially dial in the 10 current, the voltage and the duration that we're 11 looking for and we have discussed even the ability to 12 have that decay put on to certain testing. So, we've 13 covered that pretty well.
14 We've also discussed the -- how they'd 15 use process of the SuperX excitation to compensate 16 for that decrease in voltage, and they have the 17 ability to change that. So, we're going to be 18 looking into that for future testing.
19 We also are still going to be putting out 20 a request for an example of what that decay looks 21 like.
22 So, there were a lot of comments as well 23 on the ratings of equipment. And, we've been looking 24 at the apparent power range of the values we selected 25 versus the industry sample averages that Gabe has not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
248 1 shown.
2 This was part of his evaluation to look 3 at the capabilities. We were looking at the apparent 4 averages and the range that we're going to be testing 5 at.
6 So, using the above calculation, the 7 square root voltage times current, we calculated the 8 range of applicability for the 4160 as well as the 9 6.9 versus the industry averages that we calculated 10 from looking at plant to plant variability.
11 PARTICIPANT: Sample averages?
12 MR. MELLY: Sample averages, this was not 13 across the fleet. This is tied to the amount of 14 plants that we had access to this data. I believe it 15 was 18 and 23 plants, respectively.
16 MR. TAYLOR: We had more information of 17 these ratings, so it's -- I don't have the actual 18 numbers.
19 MR. MELLY: Right.
20 Well, we can see from this quick look 21 that we were well -- we were inside the potential 22 sample industry averages for what we're going to be 23 testing at.
24 And, there were a lot of comments on the 25 fact that most equipment is equipment is rated to 500 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
249 1 MVA.
2 I think that we've covered this one in 3 fairly good detail. There was a lot of discussion of 4 the protective relaying and the potential to test 5 these are going to fault to .5 seconds and 1 second.
6 And, we discussed why we're not going to 7 be doing the testing in that short duration range.
8 And, the ability to separate the arc 9 faults in to bins.
10 We saw those short duration events go 11 into the Bin 15 frequency, not high energy arcing 12 faults. This is a typical electrical cabinet fire 13 because you only have that cabinet damage.
14 And, the potential to split Bin 16 into 15 these arc blast categories as well as the full on 16 high energy arcing fault, larger extended damage bin.
17 Again, the frequency of the HEAF events 18 is a current area of work that we're going to be 19 working on under the MOU. And, we plant to start 20 that official work, I believe it was stated this 21 summer on our plan.
22 MS. LINDEMAN: Yes, later on.
23 MR. MELLY: So, later on this year, we're 24 going to start that work under the MOU.
25 Again, duration, I think we've beat this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
250 1 over the head quite a few times. So, we're going to 2 be basing that on operating experience as well as the 3 plant specific designs. And, their circuit 4 protection scans.
5 That is one area that we want to focus in 6 on under the MOU as well.
7 And, a good place to look at the current 8 work that's been done on that is in one of those EPRI 9 white papers.
10 So, again, this is actually a picture 11 from the Fort Calhoun event, the one that did last 12 for 42 seconds. Just kind of wanted to show it as an 13 example of these low voltage events that do hold in 14 for an extended period of time.
15 Additionally, that event that I alluded 16 to which is the 8 second German arc, and there is a 17 link to where there is more information about that 18 event.
19 So, we do see that some of these can hold 20 in and there is an extensive amount of damage and 21 vaporization of the conductive material from one of 22 these events.
23 MR. MILL: Is that an aluminum bus bar?
24 MR. MELLY: That is aluminum bus bar.
25 So, in the Fort Calhoun event, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
251 1 cabinet itself had the aluminum bus bar and 2 conductive material. And, where the event actually 3 occurred was at a transition point where it went from 4 the aluminum bus bar to a copper stab for their 5 breaker. And, they were using a silver oxide to --
6 as the transition point for the aluminum to copper.
7 So, this is one that we discussed a 8 little bit earlier. There were a lot of comments 9 received on the fact that the initial test plant had 10 no breakers installed in them due to both pressure, 11 combustible load and things like that.
12 We have made a change and included the 13 breakers, all breakers will be included in the 14 cabinets that we're going to be testing.
15 Again, we talked about the cable trays 16 and how we plan on making the jump from 17 instrumentation to what would be there if we tested 18 a cable tray and why we're not.
19 We also received a few comments that we 20 need to do a better job at the internal combustible 21 load, what is in the cabinet, how we load the 22 cabinet, what arrangement the cables are in, whether 23 we are introducing cables or we're using stock cable 24 material that come with the cabinet purchasing.
25 And, we will be documenting all of that, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
252 1 including the size, orientation, mass, cable jacket 2 material, cable instrumentation material. And, 3 hopefully, we'll be including pictures of the 4 internals of the cabinets with each test prior to the 5 test.
6 The last category was the comparisons to 7 the IEEE guide.
8 We've covered that in a fair detail right 9 now, but the main point is that we're not trying to 10 replicate the IEEE guide. We have different goals 11 for what we're trying -- the data that we're trying 12 to collect and different objectives.
13 Our objective is not personnel safety in 14 this case, so we're not going to be -- that's one of 15 the reasons where -- why we are not using the cloth 16 targets.
17 What you could see from the test videos 18 that Bas showed yesterday is that those cloth pieces 19 of equipment or those cloth markers actually take up 20 a lot of room as well as can potentially inhibit the 21 flow of gases out of the cabinet.
22 So, we're not looking to do that because, 23 if we show that we burn a cloth target, it's not 24 giving us much information at the location they're 25 specified in the IEEE guide which is very close to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
253 1 the cabinet.
2 I expect that if we run one of these 3 tests for 2 seconds, those cloth targets will be 4 damaged in every single case.
5 Question?
6 MR. FLEISCHER: Kenn Fleischer, EPRI.
7 Not so much a question, but this is good 8 info, you know, as we've gone through this workshop, 9 a lot in my mind as to the paradigm we came in with 10 has changed significantly.
11 I think what you're saying would really 12 serve the industry well from a historical perspective 13 is if this is all documented.
14 MR. MELLY: So, we do have an official 15 comment resolution format. And, I think our plan is 16 to make that public. That's an option that we can 17 make it public as we move forward.
18 To every comment received, we've 19 identified, if it were -- if it resulted in a change 20 to the test plan, where that change was, how will 21 that comment resolve or potentially an explanation as 22 to why the difference is there.
23 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, and that's the 24 important part.
25 MR. MELLY: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
254 1 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
2 MR. SALLEY: Nick, we can make that a 3 part of the CP.
4 MR. MELLY: We can make that a part of 5 the CP, yes.
6 Again, one thing that we already did 7 discuss in detail was the wire sizes and why the 8 first round of tests was done at the 10 gauge class 9 case standard versus what's specified in the 10 standard.
11 We are reaching out for more information 12 on that. I think moving forward, unless we receive 13 some information from IEEE which is in conflict of 14 what we're trying to do, we plan on following the 15 guide and using the 10 gauge for our low voltage and 16 the 24 gauge for our medium voltage.
17 As we identified in the first series of 18 testing, we had no problem initiating and holding an 19 arc for the medium voltage tests where we did see an 20 issue with the low voltage tests even using the 10 21 gauge wire.
22 Another comment was on the arc location 23 and the arc initiation phase angle, how we're 24 potentially differing from the IEEE standard. We've 25 discussed that as well as identified the reasons why NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
255 1 we're going to be potentially differing from that 2 location.
3 Primarily so that we can collect the 4 information in a repeatable manner.
5 So, that's very important as to where we 6 put the arc.
7 Again, I pulled this from Gabe's 8 discussion. We flip-flopped, so these were 9 everything we planned on talking about this morning 10 that we've already covered.
11 But, that is a good point that we did 12 receive all these comments and we have spent a 13 considerable amount of time going over each comment, 14 discussing with our partners, both NIST, KEMA, the 15 International members as to how to resolve these 16 comments, get clarification on what we need to 17 understand in the comment and how it could 18 potentially change the test plan.
19 So, it is a good recommendation that we 20 publish it with this CP. I believe it'll give a 21 historical perspective on how the plan has changed.
22 We won't have Rev numbers, but it'll give an overall 23 picture.
24 MR. MILLER: It also documents the 25 interaction with the industries.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
256 1 MR. MELLY: Yes.
2 Any comments? Questions? Stones?
3 MR. GARDOCKI: What's your outcome of 4 this? Are you going to put out a NUREG or --
5 MR. MELLY: For the comments?
6 MR. GARDOCKI: For the tests?
7 MR. MELLY: For the tests?
8 So, there is a plan.
9 MR. TAYLOR: You're not going to be able 10 to talk about it?
11 MR. MELLY: I can get into it and you can 12 correct me if I --
13 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.
14 MR. MELLY: -- get it wrong.
15 So, the test is going to be covered in 16 several different ways. Because this is a 17 complicated project where we are working with the 18 international community as well as we have different 19 phases where we are going to be -- some of the tests 20 are going to be OECD, NEA, some of the tests are 21 going to be NRC exclusive.
22 The plan is to publish the OECD tests 23 which we are going to be doing internationally under 24 that collaboration the same way that we did with 25 Phase 1 where we have a Report of Test published in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
257 1 the CSI -- CSNI documentation style much like the 2 Phase 1 test with some conclusions of the test 3 program and in that same format.
4 Additionally, this test will include two 5 NUREGs. One NUREG including tester report of the 6 aluminum tests as well as the overall picture.
7 And, a NUREG on enhanced methodology.
8 That one's going to be the analysis of all the data 9 and the initial work towards refining the zone of 10 influence, the modeling approaches that we've 11 discussed and things like that.
12 We do plan on that's a little bit down 13 the road after the test program and we still need to 14 discuss with EPRI -- it would be beneficial to do it 15 under the MOU so we can get involvement and do the 16 analysis much like the Helen Fire Program and the 17 Rachel Fire Program were successful. And, that's a 18 good model to approach this.
19 Additionally, I believe we're going to 20 have a standalone NUREG for the small scale testing.
21 MR. TAYLOR: That's correct, yes.
22 MR. MELLY: So, those are the four pieces 23 that are going to come out of this as well as the 24 NUREG/CP which documents this interaction, so five 25 NUREGs, one CSNI. And two IAs on the international NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
258 1 work.
2 MS. LINDEMAN: Two more IAs?
4 So, the Japanese have been performing 5 additional tests focused on parameters such as 6 pressure. And, we're going to be working under an 7 MOU with the Japanese to publish two additional IAs 8 to collect that information. So, we'll have the full 9 leverage of information.
10 MS. LINDEMAN: And, I assume you'd have 11 a joint NUREG after your report for the briefing you 12 take for it?
13 MR. MELLY: Yes.
14 MS. LINDEMAN: Are we talking about that?
15 MR. MELLY: I should have made a slide on 16 this.
17 MR. AIRD: Nick, we have a question from 18 the webinar.
19 MR. MELLY: Okay.
20 MR. AIRD: It's from Mark Hewitt.
21 His question is, in the documentation of 22 the enclosure, would an assessment be made as to the 23 inclusion of any other aluminum pieces -- piece parts 24 other than the conductor or enclosure duct?
25 For example, it uses relays, control NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
259 1 cables and the frame structure?
2 MR. MELLY: That is a good question and 3 we have started to think about that. And, the 4 questionnaire that went out to NEI was phrased in 5 such a way that if aluminum was part of the 6 conductive pathway that can experience the arc and 7 become consumed during the arcing event, that was 8 what we were looking for in terms of, is aluminum in 9 the cabinet?
10 So, the real importance there was, can 11 the aluminum become involved in the event and can we 12 have the additional energy release from the oxidation 13 of that aluminum?
14 So, if we did have aluminum pieces, parts 15 that could be part of that pathway and consumed 16 during the event, we would be -- we are interested in 17 collecting information on that as well as having that 18 part of the test program.
19 That's going to become important for what 20 pieces of equipment we collect or procure and how --
21 where we initiate the arc within the cabinet.
22 So, yes, that is an important part and 23 it's still to be determined based on the procurement 24 of equipment.
25 MR. GARDOCKI: Gabe, as far as small NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
260 1 scale testing, when do you think you're going to get 2 your report done?
3 MR. TAYLOR: So, right now, like I said, 4 I write it down to the contractors at the end of 5 September.
6 So, we'll probably get a draft sometime 7 late to early -- late July, early August. And then, 8 go through an internal review and then Sandia will 9 respond to those comments and finalize their report.
10 So, a final report from Sandia, I'm 11 expecting by the end of September and then it'll go 12 through the publication process which takes a few 13 months.
14 MR. GARDOCKI: Months?
15 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, that's been our recent 16 experience.
17 MR. GARDOCKI: And, it won't be 18 publically available until next year?
19 MR. TAYLOR: That's right, late this year 20 or early next year, depending on the politicians, the 21 publications branches.
22 MR. MELLY: It took them six months to 23 publish the PIRT.
24 MR. SALLEY: So, you know, did everyone 25 see Stan put on his project man?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
261 1 (Laughter) 2 MR. SALLEY: If you didn't, okay.
3 MR. TAYLOR: The other option which, you 4 know, this is more for the NRC management type 5 direction is, you know, we could always issue it as 6 a Sandia report rather than a NUREG. That would get 7 it out a lot quicker, but it wouldn't have the, you 8 know, the NRC NUREG stamp on it.
9 I'm not quite right now, but that's 10 something we'd probably take back and discuss.
11 MR. GARDOCKI: Well, just for the eyes to 12 see the report and the results at a quicker pace 13 before the --
14 PARTICIPANT: Will this be released for 15 public comment?
16 MR. TAYLOR: We weren't -- so, the 17 question is when -- how fast we can get the 18 information out and also will we release it for 19 public comment.
20 For a lot of the testing that we've been 21 doing lately where we've issued it for public -- the 22 test plan for public comment, we haven't been going 23 through a draft version followed by a final version.
24 In a lot of cases, it takes over a year 25 between the draft version getting put out and getting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
262 1 the final version.
2 So, we weren't planning on doing a draft 3 for public comment on this one. And, Mike Cheok has 4 a comment.
5 MR. CHEOK: So, I think, you know, we can 6 -- as soon as we approve the reports and your report, 7 we can have a public webinar to announce the summary 8 of the results and for results that might influence 9 the next set of tests we do through that publically, 10 we are now in a public meeting.
11 MR. TAYLOR: And that's a very good 12 suggestion.
13 MR. GARDOCKI: Yes, I was just concerned 14 of getting the results of the small scale testing.
15 I'll be fully due to initial testing, in the time 16 line of there. But, your initial testing, I've 17 forgotten the date.
18 MR. MELLY: It's on the other 19 presentation.
20 MR. TAYLOR: I think it's October, right, 21 the first phase?
22 MR. MELLY: Yes.
23 MR. GARDOCKI: So, you think we can get 24 something publically out before that October?
25 MR. TAYLOR: We can probably have a call NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
263 1 or a webinar to discuss the results, but the actual 2 get a document out in the public around, I'm not sure 3 we can meet that.
4 MR. SALLEY: Gabe, with the schedule 5 here, I understand that Nick's schedule is very 6 aggressive.
7 MR. MELLY: They tend to be.
8 MR. SALLEY: Yes, it's extremely 9 aggressive. So, please don't hold us to this 10 schedule. I mean, with some of it, the challenges 11 we've got with the --
12 You know, we've got to work with the 13 lawyers. We've got to get that right and we've got 14 to work with our international partners. And, those 15 things all take time.
16 So, we're not going to sacrifice quality 17 for speed here. So, you know, we'll slow it down to 18 ensure that we get the quality.
19 So, again, this is very aggressive.
20 MR. MELLY: For the first phase, I 21 anticipated getting done three tests a day. And, 22 that did not pan out, and 5 tests a day for the low 23 voltage.
24 We did not pan out meeting that goal.
25 KEMA usually shuts down shop at around 3:00. They're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
264 1 on a different schedule than most.
2 We got done one test a day.
3 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, but I think, you know, 4 as soon as we can get agreement with the results, we 5 can communicate them in some form to the public and 6 move on and not have to be delayed by the publication 7 schedule.
8 MR. GARDOCKI: Especially with the 9 important players. I know you're going to need the 10 results very quickly, the small scale test, right?
11 MR. PUTORTI: Not to do our part.
12 MR. GARDOCKI: No?
13 MR. PUTORTI: You would need the -- I 14 think that you'd need the small scale results for 15 would be where would technologies you're going to 16 take from small scale measurement technologies and 17 use them in the larger scale. That's what you would 18 need the results for.
19 But, as far as the results, I'm not sure 20 how much that's going to change the first round of 21 the full scale. I don't see that.
22 MR. GARDOCKI: I was thinking more along 23 the lines of coupons and degrees of temperature, 24 ranges to measure what the expectation of plasma 25 coming out of this would be.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
265 1 MR. MELLY: Right. And, we will have --
2 those are developed right now and we will have those 3 available to be putting in the first round of 4 testing. We just won't have the results published by 5 the time the initial tests are taking place.
6 MR. PUTORTI: All right, but if you're 7 referring to the techniques that Sandia's looking at 8 using for the small scale and bringing those into the 9 large scale, that will take time for them to field.
10 But, it won't change the rest of the large scale 11 plan.
12 MR. MELLY: For instance, those coupons 13 that Gabe was referring to to collect the eject of 14 the aluminum, they are developed and available now so 15 we can still use them in large scale testing.
16 Whereas, the relevance and whether we 17 should be investing our time and energy is going to 18 come out of the results, that's where the main trust 19 and the main resource drag is for the small scale.
20 But, we can easily put them in the 21 cabinet right now, shelve them and wait to see if 22 they're worthwhile to be tested.
23 MR. FUNK: This is not the first time we 24 ran into this issue. So, what we did in the past, I 25 know, Gabe, you're familiar with this, once the NUREG NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
266 1 report has gone through tech review, and we're really 2 confident there's not going to be any technical 3 changes, that's when we started using it.
4 Can a target date be established for tech 5 review? Because I believe that would be within your 6 control where publication will not necessarily so.
7 MR. TAYLOR: I think that's reasonable.
8 It's really going to depend on the quality of the 9 first draft that we get from Sandia and how much, you 10 know, feedback or changes the NRC reviewers see from 11 that document.
12 And, but, if there's not much change and 13 we don't see technical changes from the first draft, 14 they may well make quick changes to address those 15 comments. And then, at that point, we could get 16 agreement within the NRC to, you know, issue the 17 results or have the discussion of the results at that 18 point.
19 So, I think that's the reasonable 20 approach.
21 MR. MELLY: Yes, and again, to keep in 22 mind that the small scale testing is going to be much 23 in the style of a report of tests where there will 24 not be any methodology changes proposed in that small 25 scale testing.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
267 1 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, they're not going to 2 try to, you know, do some type of modeling of the 3 results to extrapolate different variables and how it 4 affects particle sizes and whatever the other aspects 5 of the testing are.
6 It's just you test at these variables, 7 this is the size distribution, this is the fraction 8 of oxidation, whatever they need to report.
9 MR. MELLY: Any other questions, time 10 line, schedule, outcomes?
11 MR. PUTORTI: Just one small detail, we 12 discussed this earlier in the day.
13 But, when we decide or when we get the 14 enclosures that we're going to be testing, the 15 question out there about if they do arrive with bus 16 bars that are insulated, do we want to leave them in 17 that state or remove the insulation?
18 MR. MELLY: I think that is going to 19 depend highly on some of the things we have discussed 20 here today.
21 For the internal or for the cabinets, the 22 enclosures themselves, I think that we will most 23 likely be -- it depends on how we procure them, but 24 I see that typically they're not going to -- no 25 insulation for an enclosure cabinet, we may be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
268 1 removing.
2 If they're for the bus bar or for the bus 3 ducts, I think the decision was to test half and half 4 with insulation and non-insulation.
5 MR. TAYLOR: I wouldn't see us going out 6 and making a change to equipment. I think we'd want 7 to procure it.
8 MR. MELLY: Yes. Now, one question that 9 I think we may have missed in the discussion earlier, 10 we were talking about procuring these cabinets and 11 the initial thought was that if we're -- let's say, 12 we're running 20 tests, 10 at copper, 10 of them at 13 aluminum.
14 If we can procure both copper and 15 aluminum from the same manufacturer, we will do that 16 and the bus bar spacing may be a little different.
17 However, if we can only procure aluminum 18 or a copper conductor, are we going to fabricate the 19 aluminum equivalent for the other test series or for 20 the other tests that we're going to run and what 21 factors would be important if we go down that route.
22 Because, our electrical contractor right 23 now does have the ability to wholesale and replace 24 all the copper conductors inside the cabinet with 25 aluminum conductor material. I know that may alter NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
269 1 how the design is working based on the spacing of the 2 conductors internal to the cabinet.
3 Are there anything -- any concerns or 4 approaches that anyone has in the room that we should 5 keep in mind of if that's the route that we have to 6 go?
7 MR. SALLEY: You're driving into the 8 heart of Ken's discussion about the we won't buy the 9 equipment starting out.
10 MR. FLEISCHER: No.
11 MR. MELLY: Yes.
12 MR. SALLEY: And, we can't take that.
13 And, that's was -- Ken, that's what I got from your 14 whole discussion on that.
15 And, we need to start out with something 16 that is certified.
17 MR. FLEISCHER: Right. Well, that 18 discussion -- Ken Fleischer, EPRI.
19 That discussion was based on the premise 20 of my paradigm coming into this workshop was that we 21 weren't getting donations, I didn't know about 22 donations and we would procure the equipment.
23 And, therefore, we would have total 24 control over configuration.
25 In this particular case, I guess my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
270 1 thought is, is why don't we just review what is our 2 end game in mind? Our end game in mind is to see if 3 the zones of influence are affected by the additional 4 vaporization or oxidation of aluminum.
5 If our target is to set off or find out 6 what kind of switch gear is going to do that to set 7 off the equivalency between copper and an aluminum 8 switch gear configurations may not be as important.
9 But, I think we should strive to try and 10 keep some similarity with what we've got and minimize 11 modifications.
12 I think if we start modifying things, 13 then we have thrown in a new variable that we may not 14 have fully thought through and have unintended 15 consequences.
16 MR. MELLY: I agree.
17 And, on the flip side of that is that 18 because that is one of the main parameters that we're 19 looking at is the copper versus the aluminum, and the 20 delta of the damage states between them, trying to 21 minimize the amount of variables that we have 22 different in that case is very important.
23 So, for instance, if I buy all aluminum 24 GE Magne-Blast and all copper Westinghouse, that's a 25 huge difference immediately as to the potential NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
271 1 damage state.
2 So, it -- whereas, I may be qualified 3 aluminum for the Westinghouse and qualified copper 4 for the GE, those are two immediately different 5 cabinets which may have distinct zone of influences 6 just on the cabinet design.
7 I wanted to try and limit the variables 8 and I would love to find a manufacturer that can spec 9 the copper conductors and the aluminum conductors in 10 the same box. I just am not too familiar with 11 manufacturing processes or the catalogue availability 12 of this.
13 MR. MILLER: This is Kenn Miller.
14 I agree with you. I mean, if a 15 manufacturer can sell above waste of waste --
16 MR. MELLY: Right.
17 MR. MILLER: -- that gets over this issue 18 of making a new design yourself. It's not, quote, 19 certified.
20 MR. MELLY: Exactly.
21 MR. MILLER: Whether that's true on that.
22 MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
23 MR. MILLER: You should certainly start 24 with that if possible.
25 MR. FLEISCHER: Ken Fleischer from EPRI NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
272 1 again.
2 Yes, yes, I'd buy that that's what would 3 be preferred. I guess maybe the bigger question, 4 because I'm still not sure, are we looking to try and 5 do this testing program with 100 percent donated 6 equipment?
7 Or, are we looking at donated equipment 8 and then maybe with what we're going to get and we 9 find out what we have, we can contact, let's say, the 10 majority is going to be the GE Magne-Blast copper.
11 Can we contact GE to maybe replicate a unit in 12 aluminum?
13 MR. MELLY: That would be the ideal.
14 So, to answer the first question, no, 15 we're not looking to have the majority of the test 16 program on donated equipment. We're going to be 17 using donated equipment for several of the countries 18 who are not unable to provide monetary donations to 19 be all inclusive to our international members who are 20 interested in this work.
21 The rest of the equipment will be 22 purchased and procured through several of the 23 contracts that we have in place right now.
24 MR. FLEISCHER: Okay. Well, then that 25 sounds good. And, I think we can be smart about it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
273 1 by looking to see what we have.
2 MR. MELLY: Okay.
3 MR. SALLEY: Or, as we -- or, Ken, as we 4 discussed today, if we have some, you know, U.S.
5 participation, well, some of that equipment we would 6 be more than happy to work with you.
7 MR. MELLY: Yes.
8 MR. SALLEY: So, again, if we're looking 9 at some of the plants that are closed up or -- I 10 talked to Brenda Simril a little bit, TVA's cleaning 11 out some warehouses, looking at some surplus. I know 12 there's a lot of stuff out there, there's more out 13 there and it would be very open to working with the 14 industry on some of this.
15 MR. MELLY: Yes, and if we do receive 16 more donated equipment, that is a good suggestion 17 that, whatever we do receive in donations, it 18 actually allows us to test more equipment because 19 that's large cost driver for the test program, but we 20 can reach out and see if there is an equivalent 21 design or specification for how the internals need to 22 be swapped out if we're going to be changing the 23 conducting material.
24 MR. MILLER: Kenn Miller, NRC.
25 So, that is captured, though, what we try NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
274 1 and when we try and go out and buy the additional, we 2 will look for that option of getting the same design 3 with both types of material.
4 MR. MELLY: Yes.
5 Sorry, I went off on a tangent there.
6 MR. TAYLOR: Anything else then on the 7 test plan?
8 MR. MELLY: All right, is there anything 9 else on the test plan, either webinar or in the room?
10 Anything we think we haven't covered or 11 something you had in mind prior to the meeting that 12 they were looking for a discussion on?
13 MR. TAYLOR: I think there was one follow 14 up question from EPRI. I think Ken, he went back and 15 looked at the fault monitoring equipment for the one 16 event he talked about earlier.
17 Did you want to add anything on that?
18 MR. FLEISCHER: Ken Fleischer, EPRI.
19 Yes, I need to go back and go through the 20 data in detail. So, I can put something together 21 concise, but I have very high resolution digital 22 fault recorder raw data that we can pull together.
23 It's for a 6 second -- it was not a --
24 well, I don't know, I mean, it was an arc but it was 25 an arc on the high side of the bushings of the main NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
275 1 power transformer.
2 And, I have the high data resolution just 3 to give you a quick summary of what it looks like, it 4 looks like in the first 26 cycles, it drops to the 5 pre-position point for the voltage regulator. So, it 6 goes from about 22 kV down to 17kV for about 26 7 cycles and it holds steady. It's a very short 8 duration.
9 My belief is that that's where the 10 exciter switch gear breaker is still in service 11 actually exciting the rotor.
12 Then, after that, you see a quick drop to 13 about 50 -- so, that was about a 20 percent drop.
14 So, then you see another 30 percent drop 15 down to about 50 percent. And, I believe that is 16 when the exciter field breaker now pops open so now 17 the field is no longer excited and it's residual 18 magnetism.
19 And, yes, it slowly decays from there 20 just as I would expect. It's a, you know, an 21 exponential decay. It's not as fast as I thought and 22 it continues well beyond 6 seconds. But, the final 23 arc finally extinguishes at about 6 seconds.
24 What I can do is compile that together 25 and maybe like a small mini white paper. I could NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
276 1 provide that back to the group and we can send it to 2 KEMA to see if they can replicate that decrement 3 curve.
4 Now, the thing is, is that it doesn't 5 have to be an exact replicate, but I can give them 6 the raw data, they can get as close as they want.
7 But, it's definitely clear, there's a lot less energy 8 coming out of that generator than if you were 9 infinite bus through a transformer.
10 MR. MELLY: So, one of the things that 11 would be a potential work around as well, if KEMA 12 cannot replicate that decrement curve, there is the 13 potential to calculate the energy release during that 14 event and align the duration to the equivalent total 15 amount of energy release.
16 MR. SALLEY: Ken, yes, that's a great 17 idea. And, if we can do that, you know, this CP that 18 we're talking about isn't going to happen overnight.
19 So, if we can work with EPRI and do that, we'd be 20 happy to include that and document that in here.
21 So, we're really open to that.
22 MR. TAYLOR: Any other follow up from 23 this morning's discussion or this afternoon's 24 discussion on the test plan? Are there any, 25 especially on the test plan, are there any comments NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
277 1 that Nick really didn't cover and you need a little 2 more information or background on the NRC's initial 3 disposition of the comment?
4 MR. MILLER: This is Kenn Miller, NRC.
5 I will do something probably with the 6 HEAF definition and adding back in some time data 7 based on the 2 and 3 seconds, based on the switch 8 gear and the breaker ratings.
9 And, maybe we'll put that out to --
10 that's the only thing I'm thinking of in terms of 11 definition changes that we've talked about. But I'll 12 put that out there and we can look at it.
13 Unless anybody else had anything else on 14 definitions?
15 (No response) 16 MR. TAYLOR: Just getting back to, if 17 there's nothing else, so, as far as the generic issue 18 program discussion, I think it's worthwhile on our 19 end to go back and formalize the milestones and 20 dependencies so that when we do get asked questions, 21 we have a more formalized and clearer response to 22 that and direction on of how and when these different 23 milestones are going to be completed.
24 On the PRA realism, I believe we need to 25 continue working with EPRI on the frequency and the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
278 1 classification as well as these definitions. I think 2 it's going to be very important especially from a PRA 3 model to make sure everything aligns.
4 And, I should probably also put up here 5 the very important thing on the pilot plants. And 6 so, we'd like to identify some pilot plants for the 7 GI program, potentially go out to the pilot plants 8 and understand what the risk is for these HEAF 9 scenarios with aluminum.
10 So, identifying the right pilot plants.
11 Nick talked a lot about this about, you know, if they 12 already assumed top isolator, everything in the 13 room's lost, well, you increase ZOI, it's really not 14 going to have that big of a delta risk for those 15 scenarios.
16 But, there could be other modeling or 17 compartment configurations where an increased ZOI may 18 have an impact.
19 So, understanding what the risk change is 20 in the plant for these events is important. So, I'd 21 look to EPRI and possibly NEI to help us out to 22 identify the pilot plants and support that 23 understanding.
24 So, I think that's very important in how 25 we go about that. We'd have to work with the Stan NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
279 1 and the GI program and include everybody that's in 2 that program working on it.
3 Also, we had some discussion of going 4 back and understanding what tests IEEE and NFPA has 5 performed for their research and make sure that we're 6 not being repetitive and understand what came out of 7 that work. We have that action item.
8 We talked about fault currents. So, for 9 the personal safety, I think there's a lot of 10 information that the plants have already done in that 11 analysis. And, this gets into the fault currents that 12 we're proposing for the test plan and the sample data 13 that I pulled up, you know, is that representative of 14 what we've seen in the personal safety assessment?
15 So, that's one for industry to go back 16 and look in and just verify what we're doing, if it's 17 in line with those studies.
18 Also, on sample circuit characteristics, 19 this is one that Dan and I identified if there's any 20 characteristics that are important for the tests 21 limiting X over R or anything else that we would want 22 how KEMA sets up their lab, we'd like that feedback.
23 We talked a little about the arc 24 locations. Really need to get a clearer 25 understanding of where we should put the arcs. So, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
280 1 I think we have the three, at least for the 2 enclosures, the three locations where we potentially 3 put it.
4 But, we haven't come up with a definite 5 road we want to go there. So, any feedback on that 6 one would be important for us.
7 And, we agree, the equipment document 8 when we get, we need to understand what the, you 9 know, the manuals are for that equipment and document 10 it in the report, this is what we got, this is its 11 rating, this is how we tested it, pretty 12 straightforward.
13 A more recent discussion, manufacturer 14 design verification for the aluminum versus copper.
15 Once we identify what equipment we want to procure, 16 we have to reach out to the vendors and say, hey, we 17 will bind this in copper.
18 If you're going to have aluminum or maybe 19 they have aluminum in that product line, how can we 20 configure it or could you maybe point us in the right 21 direction to procure that equipment if we can't find 22 it.
23 So, bringing the manufacturers in to make 24 sure that we can test real representative equipment, 25 it's important. That's on the NRC side to perform NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
281 1 and go through procurement.
2 And, the last one I have here is I put 3 EPRI on it, but the decrement curve. If we can get 4 some information on that, we can work with KEMA and 5 go from there for that.
6 So, I think that's the majority of it.
7 I don't think we have too much traction on the 8 verification tests. So, right now, I don't see that 9 as being forward on our end. If there's discussion 10 otherwise, we can bring that up now.
11 And, the other thing that we haven't 12 really resolved is the grounding. So, you know, 13 should we just move to ungrounded, resistance 14 grounded? I don't think we can come to a conclusion 15 here on that.
16 MR. MELLY: No, we have not.
17 MR. TAYLOR: We did rank it the day 18 before, but I don't remember what that was.
19 MR. MELLY: We ranked the importance 20 during -- we ranked it as low here with a few highs.
21 A high left the room.
22 And, we had it ranked in the PIRT as 23 well, so we'll take that into consideration moving 24 forward. And, I'll discuss it additionally with the 25 international members next week.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
282 1 MR. TAYLOR: So, I think that's kind of 2 the action items we have coming out of this meeting.
3 Is there anything else that I missed?
4 MR. MILLER: Kenn Miller, NRC.
5 One thing on the equipment documentation, 6 I know you mentioned the equipment is being donated 7 by the Koreans and Germans.
8 Depending on who you're getting equipment 9 -- who we're buying stuff from, if it's secondhand 10 refurbishment commonplace, they may have access to 11 documents that we would need for the other items that 12 are donated, assuming we get the information on what 13 exactly they are donating.
14 So, there may be ways to get 15 documentation through that same contract that we're 16 buying the equipment from to help us with this part 17 of the deal.
18 Unless, I mean, we may get stuff from the 19 people that are donating it, but if not, that may be 20 an option to get it.
21 MR. MELLY: That's a good point.
22 MR. TAYLOR: That is a good point.
23 MR. MELLY: In terms of output from this 24 meeting, what people can expect, we do plan on 25 issuing the NUREG/CP which will document all of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
283 1 presentations that have been given, some of the notes 2 that we've taken during the meeting. That's a little 3 bit longer term.
4 Do we plan on putting out a meeting 5 summary?
6 MR. TAYLOR: So, this is a public 7 meeting, there will be a meeting summary, short two-8 page meeting summary of what took place. But, it 9 won't be as detailed as the CP that we'll put out in 10 the near future.
11 Questions in the back?
12 MR. FUNK: Kenn, I think this question is 13 directed to you.
14 Yesterday, you mentioned that there is 15 going to be an interest in looking at this testing 16 and the results from a more traditional Class 1-E 17 general design criteria perspective with regard to 18 the generic issue.
19 What about your fire guys, for all 20 practical purposes and so you can see that's the 21 focus of everything here.
22 So, with regard to the pilot plants, what 23 are your expectations or what do you see their 24 involvement as it relates to the generic issue from 25 the perspective of single failure and GDC-3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
284 1 explosion?
2 They might not approach it, I mean, just 3 as good to go forward with the blinders on if fire 4 PRA unless we know there is some difference.
5 MR. MILLER: I'm not really sure how to 6 answer that, to be honest with you. Because I'm 7 still a little bit fuzzy on how this plays over on 8 the GDC side because of the single failure criteria.
9 And, by definition, these HEAF events are 10 indicative of a fault and then failed protection 11 which goes beyond single failure.
12 So, I'm not really sure how to can that 13 yet. But, I guess my thought was at least being 14 aware of how this plays out and see if there's any 15 issues with, for instance, some of the criteria we 16 have for physical separation between safety trains 17 and whether or not an event like this, you know, has 18 the potential to affect and alternate train.
19 So, I'm not really sure yet how that 20 plays. Just know that, you know, on the surface it's 21 we've got to think about independence of safety 22 trains and how this could affect that.
23 MR. FUNK: I understand. What is the 24 inherent nature of doing the deterministic safety 25 analysis, we know that fire can affect multiple NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
285 1 trains, you know, as a common cause. But, the 2 Appendix R analysis --
3 MR. MILLER: Yes, fire --
4 MR. FUNK: -- deals in that so, it 5 depends on while we're looking at this as this is a 6 fire event or something else? Because that 7 determines whether it's a single failure impact or 8 not.
9 MR. MILLER: Well, in GDC specs --
10 MR. FUNK: Under the design basis 11 criteria.
12 MR. MILLER: In GDC specs, it's a single 13 failure. I mean, that's what you talk about, you 14 know, the safety systems, what your dual train and 15 you have some fill there of safety function assuming 16 it's single failure.
17 So, I'm not sure.
18 MR. FUNK: Okay. There again, the safe 19 shutdown analysis, if you separate -- and the single 20 rule specifically states you do not assume single 21 failure so, that's a rimless oxymoron.
22 MR. MILLER: Right, that's -- that's kind 23 of a separate thing.
24 MR. FUNK: I've reviewed this.
25 MR. MILLER: That's a separate rule. But, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
286 1 yes, I'm not sure, I'm not sure.
2 MR. FUNK: I understand, sir. Thanks.
3 MR. MILLER: That will be an interesting 4 observance when it comes out. And, I know that's 5 what Bob was thinking also.
6 MR. GARDOCKI: To follow up with your 7 saying that, there are some mitigated measures that 8 we explored during our committees. The heat shield 9 was one that we kind of touched on but we didn't go 10 into depth on and I don't think industry is really, 11 well, explored that and come up with anything that's 12 qualified on how this is going to affect that type of 13 mitigated measures.
14 So, this is really going to affect some 15 of those mitigated measures.
16 There is some photo detecting, you know, 17 light sensitive tripping breakers that the industry 18 is exploring right now.
19 I'm not sure what stage industry is 20 taking credit for those as mitigated measures for 21 this kind of arc flash and tripping the breaker 22 within microseconds.
23 So, those are some exploratory mitigating 24 measures out there that we don't know exactly where 25 industry stands. I don't know if anyone here can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
287 1 touch on that.
2 MR. MILLER: Kenn Miller.
3 I know one thing I would say, based on 4 looking at this type of event, certainly preventative 5 measures is something I would be looking at from GDC 6 deterministic perspective, obviously, that your 7 protected schemes are proper in terms of clearing 8 faults as quick as possible within the 2 second limit 9 of the equipment which should preclude this type of 10 event in the first place.
11 So, I mean, from -- so, from that side of 12 the house, I would -- that's something I'm hoping to 13 see out of, you know, reaction to the industry and 14 they go back and look at their preventative measures 15 and getting in a position where this kind of event 16 can't occur.
17 So, that's an important lesson here, I 18 think, just because the potential of this event to do 19 damage.
20 MR. TAYLOR: Anything else? We're getting 21 -- I think we're starting to wind down here.
22 Anything from today's or even yesterday's 23 discussion?
24 (No response) 25 MR. TAYLOR: What about on the webinar, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
288 1 Tom, do we have anything coming in through the 2 webinar?
3 MR. AIRD: No public comment on the 4 webinar.
5 MR. TAYLOR: We do have to open up for 6 public comment before we close.
7 MR. AIRD: All right, let's do that right 8 now.
9 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, so, for those on the 10 phone line, I'm going to have Tom open up the phone 11 lines which will take a few seconds here. And, if 12 you do have any comments, please identify -- unmute 13 your phone, identify yourself and then make your 14 comment.
15 So, I'll wait for Tom to give me the nod 16 that the phone lines have been unmuted.
17 Okay, the phone lines are open, so if you 18 have a comment, please identify yourself and make a 19 comment.
20 Okay, so I don't hear any comments from 21 the public. Okay, no comments during the public 22 comment period.
23 With that, we'll go ahead and move to 24 Mark Salley for some closing remarks.
25 MR. SALLEY: Yes, and then, Mike Cheok is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
289 1 going to make a couple closing remarks here at the 2 end.
3 But, thank you all for attending. Gabe 4 did a good job covering the actions. This is a 5 couple I just wanted to touch on here.
6 Actually, working under the MOU, I'm 7 sorry, I just wanted -- yes, work on the MOU, two 8 things I just want to touch on.
9 Again, you saw the KEMA offered on the 10 field trip if that makes it more understandable, the 11 generator, the facility and that, please talk with 12 NEI. If we have anything there, we'll be happy to 13 set something up.
14 And then, do a -- meet you up there for 15 a day trip or something along that line.
16 The other thing is, Gabe, again, touched 17 on this, too, and it's the risk analysis nuclear 18 pilot plants. Again, that's an area where we could 19 work with you to get that and move the generic issue 20 along, we would like to work with EPRI on that one.
21 MS. LINDEMAN: We would need to 22 understand your expectations for a pilot plant as 23 well.
24 MR. MELLY: We'd need a follow up meeting 25 to be sure on specifically the pilot plant questions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
290 1 and actions.
2 MS. LINDEMAN: Do you want me to repeat?
3 MR. SALLEY: Sure.
4 MS. LINDEMAN: Yes, I think just 5 clarifying the timing of the pilot plant just seemed 6 that was uncertain. And, where the intern ZOI fit in 7 to all of this, that and then, just what your 8 expectations are.
9 As you saw, there's a wide variety and 10 just tell us what you need.
11 MR. SALLEY: Okay. And, working on the 12 MOU I can get with you and we can talk about that.
13 And, let's see, that's the only thing 14 I've got, so I will give it to Mr. Cheok.
15 MR. CHEOK: So, thank you again for 16 coming out. I know two days is a lot. And, thank 17 you all the people on the webinar and the public 18 phone lines, two days is a lot of time to spend with 19 us and that's not even counting travel time. So, 20 thank you.
21 And, hopefully, you'll have learned 22 something about our process and understand it a 23 little bit more.
24 I know, I sit in here and I understand 25 your comments and your questions and concerns a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
291 1 little -- a lot better. So, I'm glad I showed up and 2 we had this thing.
3 And, I apologize to those people out in 4 their presentations yesterday afternoon. I fully 5 intended to be here, but I made a mistake of opening 6 some emails at lunchtime. So, that kind of affected 7 my afternoon.
8 So, again, thank you. But, I want to 9 mention something else, too. So, the generic issue 10 process and everything else involves more than just 11 the Office of Research.
12 NRR is also a player there, you know, our 13 counterparts they are totally involved in this. And, 14 I know my counterpart, Mike Franovich has been 15 following this here with EPRI now and I've had a 16 couple of emails from him, you know, actually making 17 comments and asking questions.
18 So, he has been listening in. He's not 19 been here, but so we have been working fully with NRR 20 and they are on board and we will continue to have a 21 panel basically with NRR and Research as we go 22 forward.
23 Again, thank you.
24 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, with that, that's the 25 end.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
292 1 MR. SALLEY: Oh, one other thing. I'm 2 sorry.
3 MR. TAYLOR: One more.
4 MR. SALLEY: Before Mark calls, is Kenny 5 Hamburger not here, he's in Paris, you know, he did 6 a lot of work to set this meeting up, do all the 7 presentation material put together. So, I think we 8 should thank Kenny for doing all that.
9 MR. MELLY: He's potentially still on the 10 phone still working at 11:00 Parisian time.
11 MR. SALLEY: Mark Earley turned around 12 and he reminded me of something.
13 So, Ashley one other thing with the 14 definitions, NFPA and Research have been working and 15 we've been having a few webinars, exchanging some 16 ideas.
17 Mark has a very impressive thing that 18 we've been talking to and we've been talking to and 19 we've been learning a lot about the work they've 20 done.
21 If you want to dial in with us on the 22 definitions, Mark, if that'd be okay, we'd get EPRI, 23 you know, you and Kenn work with us, we'd really 24 appreciate that. And, I think, again, with that 25 collaboration, I think we could really get some high NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
293 1 quality work turned around and a lot of work.
2 Okay, with that, we'll go off the record 3 and we're done.
4 Thank you very much.
5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 6 went off the record at 4:52 p.m.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433