ML19256E267
| ML19256E267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1979 |
| From: | Conner T, Wetterhahn M CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO., CONNER, MOORE & CORBER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E248 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911020035 | |
| Download: ML19256E267 (5) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN In the Matter of )
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Cocket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )
)
(Wm. E. Zi=mer Nuclear Power )
Station) )
APPLICANT'S FURTHER MOTICN TO VACATE ORDER SCHEDULING RESUMPTION CF EVIDENTIARY HEARING Cn September 10, 1979, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Soard issued an " Order Scheduling Resumption of Evidenciary Hearing" setting Cc:cher 24 - 26 for an evidentiary hearing to consider Miami Valley Pcwer Project's Contention 17 re-lating to fire protection of cable trays.
On September 14, 1979, " Applicants' Response to 'NRC Staff Monien to Strike Miami Valley Pcwer Project Contention Ncmber 17, Concerninc Fire Protection of Cable Tra.vs and the Termination of All Discovery Relating Thereco' and Motion to vacate Hearing Date and for Additional Relief" was filed.
In this pleading, Applicant, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, et al., supported the Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Staff's motion to strike Contention 17 and moved independently
6 146 7911020 kb
to strike that contention and to vacate the Scard's Order dated September 10, 1979 setting the date for resurp: ion of the evidentiary hearing. That motion was based upon the decision by the single designated witness for the Miami Valley Power Project not to appear at the scheduled eviden-tiary hearing or at depositions scheduled by the Applicant a n d S t a r_ r_ . --1/
That pleading also moved the Scard to permit, if the Board did not grant Staff's and Applicant's =ctions for the dismissal of Contention 17, the Applicant to file a motion for st==ary disposition by September 21, 1979. " Applicant's Motion for Sc==ary Disposition Relating to Contention 17" is
__2/
being filed today cgether with the instant pleading.
In preparing the motion for st==ary disposition and acccmpanying affidavits, it was learr.ed yesterday that one of the Applicant's key witnesses, Melvin S. Abrams, Director,
.rire Research Department, Portland Cement Association at the Construction Technology Laboratories, could not be available for the presently scheduled hearing because of cc==i:=ents which are impcssible to change. The first date f&r this
~
witness to be available is the first full week in 'Sovember.
_1/ The Applicant's cleading noted that the Board did not coll the parties prior to setting hearing datts (p. 4,
- n.
2).
__2/ Gran t of that motion or either the Acolicant's September 14 motion or the Staff's September 11 motion would moot this request.
1956 147
_3-In the circumstances, the Applicant moves the Board to vacate the order setting October 24 - 26 for an evidentiary hearing and, in the event the motions for dismissal are not granted, to reschedule it in November.
Respectfully submitted, COIRER , MOORI & CORSER T
4 3 \
v!AO D- 0 2412 L. r g7 Troys.l Conner,Jr. "
/
/
h /
.O' V 'J[h :
Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant September 21, 1979 O
e
~
t.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR FIGU'dTORY CCM'4ISSION In the Matter of )
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Cccket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )
)
(William E. Zi==er Nuclear )
Pcwer Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the following documents :
- 1. " Applicant's Motion for Sc==ary Disposition Re-lating to Contention 17"
- 2. " Applicant's Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard Respecting Contention 17"
- 3. " Applicant's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for St= mary Disposition Respecting Contention 17"
- 4. " Applicant's Further Motion to Vacate Order Scheduling Resumption of Evidentiary Hearing" all dated September 21, 1979, in the captioned matter, were served upon the fcilowing by deposit in the United States mail this 21st day of Septa =ber, 1979:
Charles Bechheefed, Esq. Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Chairman, Acc=ic Safety and Chairman, Accmic Safety and Licensing So'ard Licensing Appeal Soard
~~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccm=ission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Frank F. Ecoper, Member Dr. Lawrence R. Cuarles Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board School of Natural Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory -
University of Michigan Cc=missicn Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Washington, D. C. 20555 o '. o'
}kh
Mr. Glenn O. Bright, Member Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Atemic Safety and Licensing Atemic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Scard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atcmic Safety and William Peter Heile, Esq.
Licensing Appeal Board Assistant City Solicitor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Panel City of Cincinnati Cc= mission Box 214 Washington, D. C. 20555 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Chairman, Atemic Safety and Leah S. Kosik, Esq.
Licensing Scard Panel Attorney-at-Law U.S. Nuclear Regula:Ory 3454 Cornell Place Cc= mission Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Washington, D. C. 20535 7chn D. Foliver, Esq.
Charles A. Barth, Esq. Cler:cn County Ccerunity Counsel for the NRC Staff Council Office of the Executive Sox 131 Legal Director Satavia, Ohio 45103 U.S. Nuclear Regula: cry Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Nilliam J. Moran, Esq.
General Counsel Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Pos Cffice Scx 960 Washington, D. C. 45201 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section ,, ,
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regula: cry Ccmmissicn Washing cn, D. C. 20555
'l '; < 1.:
': f)/{% I\ .: !$ $ $,%
Mark /J. U4:;erhahn -
(/
i2 6 150
os a,
/ %
~
$ N s 6 a
\}\j h #,, -
p ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j ~
f SUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY CObD12SSION j
?
% c) \
In the Matter of )
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )
)
(Wm. H. Z4 er Nuclear Power )
Station) )
APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPCSITION REI.ATING TO CONTENTION 17 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.749, Applicant, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, et al., hereby =cves the Atomic Safety and Licensing 3 card for summary disposition relating ec Contention 17 of those =atters set forth in the attached
" Applicant's Statement of Material Facts as c Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard Respecting Contention 17,"
and the attached " Applicant's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Disposition Respecting Contention 17."
Respectfully submitted, CCNNER, MCORE & COP 3ER
\
?r rn
} c1/ !s adM K-)
. Troy & Conner, :r. -
V I/ b '
v
/
Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applican:
September 21, 1979 -
~
\?r'w \b\ p
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )
)
(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power )
Station) )
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD RESPECTING CONTENTION 17 Contention 17
- 1. The fire protection provisions for the Zi=mer Station are described in detail in the Fire Protection Evaluation Report ("FPER").
- 2. The Fire Protection Evaluation Report describes those systems utilized to provide early detection of fires and provides a detailed description of those systems de-signed to limit the consequences of a fire should one occur.
- 3. The fire protection program and plant arrangements .
are evaluated in the FPER with respect to the effect of a fire on the' performance of necessary safe p32nt shutdown functions.
- 4. The Zimmer Station complies with all design criteria and requirements for fire protection as promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. -
'756 152
- 5. The design of the Zimmer Station provides f or safe plant operation and shutdown with regard to th a fire protection system and programs to be utilized.
- 6. Certain cable trays in specific locations had to be protected in order that redundant _ divisions wculd not be adversely affected by a postulated fire.
- 7. The determination of the specific cable trays to be protected was made on the basis of an evaluation of each area in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff which also participated in the specification of the protection required.
- 8. Where protection of a cable tray is required, tha t cable tray will be cocooned with three one-inch layers of "Kaowool," a ceramic fiber made into an insulating blanket.
- 9. The Applicant participated in various tests to qualify the insulating material and the method of insulating the cable trays.
- 10. The test of relevance as far as the qualification of the cocooned cable trays utilized at the Zimmer Station is the one described in Revision 13 to the Fire Protection Evaluation Report, the CTL Report.
- 11. The CTL test was performed by Construction Technology Laboratories under the direction of Melvin S. Abrams, an expert in fire protection.
- 12. The CTL test is fully described in Revision 13 to the Fire Protection Evaluation Report. ~
.osa \55
3-
- 13. The cable trays and Kaowool utilized in the CTL test and the method of application are the same as utilized in the Zimmer Station.
- 14. The cables utilized in the CTL tests were the same which will be cocooned in Kaowool at the Zimmer Station.
- 15. Four cable tray specimens were fabricated for thu fire test.
- 16. Cables were placed in a random manner in each of the trays by personnel of CTL.
- 17. Prior to putting cables in trays, the rmocouples were attached to the trays.
- 18. After a tray was filled, the insulating cover was placed on the tray and the entire assembly banded with steel bands in accordance with the specifications.
- 19. The cable trays were fixed in the CTL furnace to simulate the vertical separation of cable trays.
- 20. Fur:. ace atmosphere temperatures were programmed to follow the time temperature relationship specified in ASTM Designation E119.
- 21. The wrapping of the cable trays with the kaowool blanket protected the circuit continuity of cables in the trays for a minimum of 94 minutes.
- 22. No short circuits occurred during the test period.
- 23. In addition, no short circuits occurred at a emble
. jacket temperature of 200 C which is considered as the maximum, 3,.56 154
4-continuous service temperature for maintaining continuity for this type of cable jacketing.
- 24. The cables which were removed from the furnace 30 minutes af ter the end of the test period and af ter temperatures of the cables had increased about 50*F over those at the end of the test showed no damage to the cable jacketing material.
- 25. Cables removed some 3 1/2 hours af ter the test was terminated (and after temperatures of the cables had continued to rise an additional 100 to 200*F for about 1 1/2 hours af ter the test was terninated) showed some softening of jacket material, but the cable tested still maintained circuit continuity.
- 26. The insulating barrier of Kaowool, using the ap-plication techniques and thickness described in detail in the CTL report, proved to be qualified as a fire thermal barrier between the enclosed system and external area of exposure fire, for the system arrangement used during the testing program.
~_
- 27. The 90 minute test period for the CTL tes's was determined in consultation with the NRC Staff.
- 28. The test period was determined on the basis that if this test were passed, sufficient fire protection as needed in the Zi=ner facility would be provided considering
.the lor'tions of cable trays, ignition and fuel sources, and fire detection and fire protection measures at the various critical locations.
g
- 29. Applicant is not relying on the Husky fire tests which were run during the period Septer.ber 1978 through January 1979 in order to qualify the Kaowool-cocooned cable trays.
- 30. Any asserted deficiency in the Husky tests done to qualify Kaowool cocooned cable trays are irrelevant.
- 31. The Underwriters Laboratory Test Report R8758 is not being relied upon.
- 32. Any asserted deficiencies in the Underwriters Laboratory Test are irrelevant.
- 33. Cables which pass through cable trays to be cocooned in Kaowool have been suitably derated in order that their design temperatures are not exceeded either in normal operation or as a result of a postulated fire.
- 34. A design feature of the Zimmer Station is the utilization of concrete curbs around penetrations of floors through which cable trays are routed such that any flammable or other liquids spilled on the floor cannot contact a vertical cable tray or penetrate into the Kaowool cocoon.
- 35. When Kacwool butts to a floor, ceiling or" wall, a qualified fire retardant sealant will be used to prevent penetration of any flammable liquid into a Kaowool wrapped cable tray.
- 36. Adequate fire protection has been provided for the Zimmer Station as described in the Fire Protection Evaluation Report.
'?.E6 156
~
- 37. Adequate consideration has been given to protection of redundant cables against specified fire hazards.
- 38. Where necessary, one of the redundant cable divisions has been protected with a qualified Kaowool cocoon.
- 39. The type and amount of insulation for cable trays has been determined considering the location and available fire detection and protection methods.
- 40. The Kaowool insulating material has been qualified by test to assure that all NRC requiraments and criteria are met.
- 41. Other design measures have been taken to assure the functioning of the cables both during normal operation and during a fire.
1256 157
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )
)
(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power )
Station) )
APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION RESPECTING CONTENTION 17 I. Preliminary Statement Applicant, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, et al., incorporatesSection I of " Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Disposition Respecting Certain Admitted Contentions," dated April 6, 1979.
II. Statement of the Case Applicant incorporates by reference Section II of
" Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Disposition Respecting Certain Admitted Contentions"
" ~
dated April 6, 1979.
III. Discussion of Contention 17 On August 7, 1979, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") admitted, inter alia, Contention 17 in this proceeding. Contention 17 states as follows:
m
, , c; ()
\58
Contention 17 Fire insulation material which is being used to protect the cables in the cahic trays from fire is inadequate to protect the cables in light of the cable tray in-sta11ation design and cable tray load.
The tests of the fire insulation material were improperly performed in that condi-tions which will exist during operation were not adequately simulated. _1/
In admitting this contention, the Licensing Board stated that "MVPP base [d] its contention . . . on tests performed during September, October and November, 1978, and 2/
January, 1979 "--
. . . . The Board's Memorandum and Order Admitting New Contentions stated that Miami valley Power Project ("MVPP") had alleged that the tests on insulation material were " inadequately performed."--3/ In addition, the Board stated that MVPP had examined the details of an earlier test of the insulation material performed by Under-writers Laboratory and "Eiscovered that 'the test of the
-4/
material was actually a failure.'" - The Licensing Board stated, in admitting the contention, that MVPP would rely on Mr. Robert Hofstader as an expert witness in this proceed-5/
ing.
Both the Applicant and the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Staff sought to take the deposition of Robert Hofstader
_1/ Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear S ta tion ) , LBP-79-22, 10 NRC (August 7, 1979).
2/ Id. at 2. -
3/ Id.
4/ Id. at 3. *Q I; [0 \
5/ Id. at 5.
after he had been identified by counsel for MVPP as their
~ --
6/
only witness on Contention 17. On September 10, 1979, Mr.
Robert Hofstader called counsel for the Applicant and stated that he would not appear for MVPP as a witness in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Applicant cancelled the depo-sition which it had set for September 13, 1979. The Staff, which was also informed of this development by counsel for MVPP, also cancelled its deposition.--7/
Previously Applicant had propounded a set of inter-rogatories to MVPP related to Contention 17. Information was requested from the Project, inter alia, with regard to the basis for its contention and its proposed testimony.--8/
The Staff had also submitted a set of interrogatories to the Miami Valley Power Project.--9/ The Project has responded to neither of these requests for discovery. On the other hand, both the Staff and Applicant responded to interrogatories
--6/ See letter from Leah S. Kosik to the Licensing Board dated August 24, 1979.
--7/ Letter from Troy B. Conner, Jr. to Leah S. Kosik dated ~
September 10, 1979 and "NRC Staff Motion to Shrike Mimni Valley Power Project Contention Number 17, Concerning Fire Protection of Cable Trays and the Termination of All Discovery Relating Thereto" dated September 1, 1979.
See also letter from Tawn Fichter to the Chairman of the Licensing Board dated September 10, 1979.
_8/ Applicant's Sixth Set of Interrogatories to Miami Valley Power Project dated August 24, 1979.
9/ NRC Staff Interrogatories to Miami Valley Power Project Regarding Contention Number 17 dated August 22, 1979. -
- ,m., '. o' 160
propounded by the Miami Valley Power Project relating to Contention 17.--10/
Thus, discovery has been a one-way street. The Appli-cant and Staff have been unable to obtain from MVPP any specificity whatsoever as to the basis of its contention nor the sources and individuals relied on. No particularity has been provided as to the asserted problems associated with
-11/
fire protection for the cable trays at the Zimmer Station. -
The fire protection provisions for the Zimmer Station are described in detail in the Fire Protection Evaluation Report ("FPER") --12/ (See the Affidavit of Robert E. Cotta at Paragraph 2 (hereinafter " Cotta Affidavit, 'J __" ) ] . In addition, the Fire Protection Evaluation Report describes those systems utilized to provide early detection of fires and provides a detailed description of those systems de-signed to limit the consequences of a fire should one occur (FEPR at $1.0] . The fire protection program and plant arrangements are evaluated with respect to the effect of a fire on the performance of necessary safe plant shutdown 10/
~~
Letter to Leah S. Kosik, Esq. from Daniel W. Kemp, Esq.
dated September 11, 1979 and NRC Staff Response to Inter-rogatories of Miami Valley Power Project dated September 13, 1979.
11/
-- The Applicant and Staff have already moved to strike Contention 17. If either motion is granted by the Board, this would moot the instant motion for summary disposition.
--12/ This Report, including all revisions, has previously been transmitted to the Licensing Board and parties, and is made part of the Affidavit of Robert E. Cotta.
1256 161
functions [Id.). The FPER also addresses compliance with all design criteria and requirements for fire protection as promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Id. at S2.0]. The report concludes that tne design of the Zimmer Station provides for safe plant operation and shutdown with regard to the fire protection system and programs to be utili::ed (I_d.d at 53.0].
As part of this fire protection review, it was determined that certain cable trays in specific locations had to be protected in order that redundant divisions would not be adversely affected by a postulated fire. The determination of the cable trays to be protected was made on the basis of an evaluation of each area in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff which also participated in the specification of the protection required [ Cotta Affidavit, 15]. Where protection of a cable tray is required, that cable tray will be cocooned with three one-inch layers of "Kaowool," a ceramic fiber made into an insulating blanket
[See Cotta Affidavit, 54 and page A10 of the Fire Protective
' ~
Cable Tray Fire Test Report conducted by Construction Technology Laboratories ("CTL Report"), Revision 13 to the Fire Report referenced in the Cotta Affidavit, 14. See also the Af fidavit of Melvin S. Abrams at Paragraph 3 (hereinafter "Abrams Affidavit, t _")].
The Applicant participated in various tests to qualify the insulating material and the method of insulating the cable trays. The test of relevance as far as the qualifica-tion of the cocooned cable trays utilized at the Zimmer Station is the one described in Revision 13 to the Fire Protection Evaluation Report, the CTL Report. This test was performed by Construction Technology Laboratories under the direction of Melvin S. Abrams, an expert in fire protection (Abrams Affidavit, 52].
This test is fully described in Revision 13 to the Fire Protection Evaluation Report [Id.). The cable trays and Kaowool utilized in the CTL test and the method of applica-tion are the same as utilized in the Zimmer Station [ Cotta Affidavit, 59; See also CTL Report at A12-13]. The cables utilized in the CTL tests were the same which will be co-cooned in Kaowool at the Zimmer Station (Cotta Affidavit, H4].
Four cable tray specimens were fabricated for the fire test. Cables were placed in a random manner in each of the trays by personnel of CTL. Prior to putting cableh in trays, ther{.occuples were attached to the trays. After a tray was filled, the insulating cover was placed on the tray and the entire assembly banded with steel bands in accordance with the specifications. The cable trays were fixed in the CTL furnace to simulate the vertical separation of cable
trays (CTL Report at 7-13]. Furnace atmosphere temperatures were programmed to follow the time temperature relationship specified in ASTM Designation E119 (Abrams Affidavit, 52; CTL Report at 13-14].
The pertinent results of the test are su=marized in the Abrams Affidavit [Abrams Affidavit, 'J 4 ; See also CTL Report at 14-20]. The wrapping of the cable trays with the Kaowool blanket protected the circuit continuity of cables in the trays for a minimum of 94 minutes (Id.). No short circuits occurred during the test period [Id.]. In addition, no short circuits occurred at a cable jacket temperature of 200*C which is considered as the maximum, continuous service temperature for maintaining continuity for this type of cable jacketing [Id.). The cables which were removed from the furnace 30 minutes after the end of the test period and after temperatures of the cables had increased about 50*F over those at the end of che test showed no damage to the cable jacketing material (Id.]. Cables removed some 3 1/2 hours after the test was terminated (and after temperatures of the cables had continued to rise an additional 100 to
~
200 i for about 1 1/2 hours af ter the test was terminated) showed some softening of jacket material, but the cable tested still maintained circuit continuity (Id.].
m
,7.E6 164
In sc= mary, the insulating barrier of Kaowool, using the application techniques and thickness described in detail in the CTL report, proved to be qualified as a fire thermal barrier between the enclosed system and external area of exposure fire, for the system arrangement used during the testing program (CTL Report at 5].
The 90 minute test period for the CTL test was determined in consultation with the NRC Staff. It was determined on the basis that if this test were passed, sufficient fire protection as needed in the Zimmer facility would be provided considering the locations of cable trays, ignition and fuel sources, and fire detection and fire protection measures at the various critical locations (Cotta Affidavit, 551 Three layers of Kacwool will be utilized on all cable trays which will be cocooned (Cotta Affidavit, 56].
Applicant is not relying on the Husky fire tests which were run during the period September 1978 through January 1979 in order to qualify the Kaowool-cocooned cable trays.
Thus any asserted deficiency in the Husky tests done for this purpose are irrelevant (Cotta Affidavit, fn. It 2].
~
Moreover, the Underwriters Laboratory Test Report R8758 is not being relied upon [Li.]. Thus any asserted deficiencies in this test are irrelevant.
Cables which pass through cable trays to be cocooned in Kaowool have been suitably derated in order that their
design temperatures are not exceeded either in normal operation or as a result of a postulated fire [ Cotta Af-fidavit, 16]. Another design feature of the Zimmer Station is the utilization of concrete curbs around penetrations of floors through which cable trays are routed such that any flammable or other liquids spilled on the floor cannot con-tact a vertical cable tray or penetrate into the Kaowool cocoon. In addition, when Kaowool butts to a floor, ceiling or wall, a qualified fire retardant sealant will be used to further prevent penetration of any flammable liquid [Id. at 97).
IV. Conclusion Thus, adequate fire protection has been provided for the Zimmer Station as completely described in the Fire Protection Evaluation Report. Specifically, adequate con-sideration has been given to protection of redundant cables against specified fire hazards. Where necessary, one of the redundant cable divisions has been protected with a qualified Kaowool cocoon. The type and amount of insulation has been determined considering the location and available fire '
detection and protection methods. The Kaowool insulating material has been quac 'd by test to assure that all NRC requirements and criteria are met. In addition, other design measurca have been taken to assure the functioning of the cables both during normal operation and during a fire.
Miami Valley Power Project has presented nothing which would contradict any of the material in the Fire Protection Report er any of the statements of the two af fiants. MV?P has not respended to any interrogatories nor has any expert witness been identified who will appear on its behalf. Thus, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.749, no genuine issue of fact exists and Applicant is entitled to the granting of its motion for summary disposition. This Scard should dismiss Contention 17 from the proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER, MCORE & CORSIR s
/ /-
.s' .1. cnj . . .e > c d ?_ l^)
Troy 3. Conner, Jr. ~
//?) Oks ' C Mtrk J. Wetterhahn C;unsel for'the Applicant September 21, 1979 e
m
,,E6 167
3 TATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
COOK COUNTY )
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT E. COTTA ROBERT E. COTTA, being first duly sworn according to lae, comes forward and states:
- 1. My name is Robert E. Cotta. I ra employed by Sargent & Lundy as the Senior Electrical Project Engineer for the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. In this posi-tion I oversee the electrical design and cable interface between various electrical systems. Specifications for electrical equipment also fall in my area of responsibility.
In addition, I have participated in the development of fire protection criteria fcr cables and cable trays and in the design and observaL_... of various tests relating to this equipment.
- 2. A statement of my professional qualifications is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference ,
hercin.
- 3. With regard to electrical cables and cable trays, I participated in the development of fire protection cri-teria and in the development of the Fire Protection Evaluation Report (" Fire Report") consisting of the Report and 14 revisions which form part of the Application for an operating -
i736 168
license for the Zimmer Station. This Report, as revised, is, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, true and correct and incorporated into this affidavit by
- /
reference.--
- 4. I am familiar with the tests conducted by the Construction Technology Laboratories ("CTL") of the Portland Cement Association (Revision 13 to the Fire Report) . I observed the tests and have studied the resulting report entitled " Fire Protective Cable Tray Fire Test Report."
This report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The cable trays utilized in the CTL test are the same type as utilized in the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. In addition, the type of Kaowcol used in the tests will be the same as utilized at the Zimmer Station. The method of application utilized in the course 5 the tests will also be identical to that used at the Wm.
Zimmer Station. Moreover, the cables utilized in the CTL
_ests were the same type which will be cocooned in Kaowool ch? Zimmer Station.
- 5. The 90-minute test period for the CTL test was ~
determined after consultation with the NRC Staff.
It was 1256 169
--*/ It should be noted that Revision 12 which reports on tests which were run by Husky Products, Inc. for the Wm. H. Zimmer Station from September 1978 through January 1979 is only being relied upon with regard to the ampacity measurements for a cocooned cable tray. -
In addition, Underwriters Labg&0 tories Test Report R8758 dated September 6, lc *'e2. titled " Report on Cable Raceway Protection Systeqe, irt Test Investigation,"
while valid, has been :./ e ied by the CTL Report con-tained in Revision 12.
determined on the basis that if this test were passed, a sufficient degree of fire protection in needed parts of the Zimmer facility would be provided considering the various loci ions of cable trays, ignition and fuel sources, and fire detection and fire protection measures at the various locations.
- 6. All ceble trays which are to be cocooned will be wrapped with three one-inch layers of Kaowool as utilized in the CTL tests. Cables which pass through cable trays cocooned with Kaowool have been suitably derated in order that their design temperatures are not exceeded either in normal operation or as a result of a postulated fire.
- 7. The design of the Zimmer Station utilizes concrete curbs around penetrations of floors through which cable trays are routed such that any flammable or other liquids spilled on the floor cannot contact a vertical cable tray or penetrate into the Kaowool cocoon. In addition, when Kaowool butts to a floor, ceiling or wall, a qualified fire retardant sealant will be used to further prevent pene-tration of any flammable liquid.
'? 6 170
-4_
- 8. Therefore, I conclude Miami Valley Pcwer Project's Contention 17 is ccmpletely lacking in merit.
EXECUTED COPIES WILL BE PROVIDED LATER Robert E. Cotta Sworn and subscribed to before me this day of , 1979.
Notary Public My Cc==ission expires .
.z . - .
O m
1osto 17i
STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ROBERT E. COTTA SENIOR ELECTRICAL PROJECT ENGINEER SARGENT & LUNDY My name is Robert E. Cotta and I am *he Senior Electrical Project Engineer for the Wm. H. Zinner Nuclear Power Station.
My business address is Sargent & Lundy Engineers, 55 E.
Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603.
As Senior Electrical Project Engineer, my duties are to oversee the electrical design and the cabling interface between various electrical systems. Specifications for electrical equipment also fall in my area of responsibility.
I directed the fire protection aspects of cable tray and cable design and I participated in the preparation of the Fire Protection Evaluation Report for the Zinmer Station.
I have completed two years of college level courses at the University of Michigan and the University of Illinois.
I am a registered professional engineer, having passed the examination in the State of Illinois, and I am also registered in the State of Ohio. My work history includes 8 years as a plant engineer with several companies, and several years working in maintenance and operating groups for utility companies. I have been with Sargent & Lundy for the past 13 years.
1?;6 172
In 1966 and 1967, I was assigned to the coordination of electrical drawings for the Nuclear Steam Supply Systems on boiling water reactor plants. From that time through 1972, I was assigned as the Electrical Project Engineer and subsequently Senior Electrical Project Engineer on a two unit boiling water reactor. For the past 9 1/2 years, I have been Senior Electrical Project Engineer assigned to the Zimmer Station project.
My professional activities include membership on the Ad Hoc Work Group which developed IEEE 384, " Criteria for Independence of Class lE Equipment & Circuits," membership on the Steering Committee of the IEEE for the Task Force to develop fire stop standards, past Chairman of the IEEE Wire & Cable Systems Work Group which developed IEEE 422,
" Guide for the Design & Installation of Cable Systems in Pcwer Generating Stations," and presently Chairman of the Station Design Subcommittee of IEEE. i2 6 173
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
COOK COUNTY )
AFFIDAVIT OF MELVIN S. ABRAMS MELVIN S. ABRAMS, being first duly sworn according to law comes forward and states:
- 1. My name is Melvin S. Abrams. I am employed as Director, Fire Research Department, Portland Cement Associa-tion at the Construction Technology Laboratories located in Skokie, Illinois.
- 2. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mathematics from Illinois Institute of Technology in 1955. In 1958 I took graduate courses in .he field of mechanics. From 1949 to the present time, I have been employed by the Portland Cement Association. For the past 20 years, I have been a member of the Fire Research Section and have managed the section since 1970. In this position I have carried out a number of fire test research programs. During the,,past 10 _
years, an important part of my work has been the inspection, evaluation and recommendations for repair of numerous fire damaged structures, including nuclear facilities. I am a member of the American Society of Testing and Materials, the-American Concrete Institute and the National Fire Protection Association and am a member of several committees in these -
17 [.b k 7
organizations dealing with fire test methods, fire resistance and fire protection.
- 3. In my position as Director of the Fire Research Department, I directed and witnessed the fire protective cable tray fire test to evaluate the performance of thermal insulation material as a fire shield to protect electrical continuity of cables which was sponsored in part by The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Dayton Power and Light Company and Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company. I prepared the resulting " Fire Protective Cable Tray Fire Test Report" ("CTL Report") dated June 1979. The materials utilized, the test equipment, the installation of the specimens in the furnace, the conduct of the test, the test results, including observations during and after the test, are com-pletely described in the Report. This Report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and I incorporate it into this affidavit by reference.
- 4. In sw= mary, the following are my conclusions applicable to the present contention regarding the cable trays insulated with three one-inch layers of Kaowool which were subjected ~
to a fire exposure corresponding to ASTM designation E119-79:
- 1. Wrapping cable trays with three 1-in.
layers of Kaowool blanket thermal in-sulation protected the circuit continuity
,,E6 175
of cables in the trays for 94 min. No shcrt circuits were indicated on the light panel or by meggering before that tir2.
- 2. No short circuits occurred at a cable jacket temperature of 200C (392F), which is considered as the maximun con-tinuous service temperature for maintaining co: tuity of this type of cable jacketing.
- 3. Cable Tray 1 was removed from the furnace 30 min. after the end of the test. At this time, temperatures of the cables had increased about 50F over those at end of test. Cables were insp*.'ad visually, and it was determined that no damage occcrred to cable jacketing material.
- 4. Tray 4 was removed from the furnace about 3 1/2 hr. after the test was terminated. Temperatures of the cables continued to rise from 100 to 200F for about 1 1/2 hr. after the test 'aas terminated. When the tray was removed, some cable temperatures were still about
- '. s U l'V
-4_
the same as those at end of test. A visual inspection of cables ind cated that there was some softening of jacket naterial. However, one such cable was meggered and found to have circuit continuity.
EXECUTED COPIES WILL BE PROVIDED LATER Melvin S. Abrams Sworn and subscribed to before me this day of 1979.
Notary Pun 11c My Conmission expires .
- r. -
m
, , -,(a \77 i
, .e 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Decket No. 50-358 Ccmpany, et al. )
)
(Wm. E. Zi=mer Nuclear Power )
Station) )
APPLICANT'S FURTHER MOTION TO VACATE ORDER SCHEDULING RESUMPTION OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING On September 10, 1979, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard issued an " Order Scheduling Resumption of Evidentiary Hearing" setting Octcher 24 - 26 for an evidentiary hearing to consider Miami Valley Power Project's Contention 17 re-lating to fire protection of cable trays.
On September 14, 1979, " Applicants' Response to 'NRC Staff Motion to Strike Miami Valley Power Project Contention
- cmher 17, Concerning Fire Protection of Cable Tra.vs and the __
Termination of All Discovery Relating Theretc ' and Motion to Vacate Hearing Date and for Additional Relief" was filed.
In this pleading, Applicant, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, et al., succor:ed the Nuclear Rec. ula torv. Commission Staff's =ction to strike Contention 17 and moved independently
,r,*- / 4 "O
'_0 I/0
to strike that contention and to vacate the Board's Order dated September 10, 1979 setting the date for resumption of the evidentiary hearing. That motion was based upon the decision by the single designated witness for the Miami Valley Power Project not to appear at the scheduled eviden-tiary hearing or at depositions scheduled by the Applicant 1/
and Staff.--
Thnt pleading also moved the 3 card to permit, if the Board did not grant Staff's and Applicant's motions for the dismissal of Contention 17, the Applicant to file a motion for sc=narv. disposition bv. September 21, 1979. " applicant's Motion for Sc= mary Disposition P. elating to Contention 17" is 2/
being filed today toget.er with the instant pleading. --
In preparing the motion for summary disposition and acccmpanying affidavies, it was learned yesterday that one of the Applican 's key witnesses, Melvin S. Abrams, Director, Fire Research Department, Portland Cement Association at the Construction Technology Laboratories, could not be available for the presently scheduled hearing because of comm_ ments which are impossible to change. The first date fdh this ~'
witness to be available is the first full week in 'Sovember.
__1/ The Applicant's pleading noted : hat the Board did not poll the parties prior to se :ing hearing dates (p. 4, fn. 5) .
__2/ Grant of that motion or either the Applicant's -
September 14 motion or the 3taff's September 11 motion would moot this recuest.
1 7 '~
sv .}79
- In the circumstances, the Applicant moves the Board to vacate the order setting October 24 - 26 for an evidentiary hearing and, in the event the motions for dismissal are not granted, to reschedule it in November.
Respectfully submitted, COMIER, MCORE & CORSER s
s/ i
\ .
v /2,0 '
c'M +A L. g] -
Trcy 3. Conner, Jr.
< - f f '[ !)Dh' bj
/
Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applican September 21, 1973
~ ..
G m
v6 180
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NCCLEAR REGi1LATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric ) Docket No. 50-358 Company, et al. )
)
(William H. Zi=mer Nuclear )
Pcwer Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the following documents:
- 1. " Applicant's Motion for Su= nary Disposition Re-lating to Contention 17"
- 2. " Applicant's Statament of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard Respecting Contention 17"
- 3. " Applicant's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Su= mary Disposition Respecting Contention 17"
- 4. " Applicant's Further Motion to Vacate Order Scheduling Resumption of Evidentiary Hearing" all dated September 21, 1979, in the captioned matter, were served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 213: day of September, 1979:
Charles Sechhoefer, Esq. Richard S. Salaman, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cc= mission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Frank F. Ecoper, Member Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard Appeal Scard School of Natural Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulaterv University of Michigan Cc= mission Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Washington, D. C. 20555
< 1 " ,',;, \ ?. i
Mr. Glenn O. Bright, Member Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
incmic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Scard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and William Peter Heile, Esq.
Licensing Appeal Scard Assistant City Solicitor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Panel City of Cincinnati Commission Box 214 Washing cn, D. C. 20555 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Leah S. Kosik, Esq.
Licensing Scard Panel Attorney-at-Law U.S. Nuclear Regula: cry 3454 Cornell Place Cc= mission Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Washington, D. C. 20555 John D. Foliver, Esq.
Charles A. Barth, Esq. Clermon: County Cctrunity Counsel for the NRC Staf f Council Office of the Executive 3cx 131 Legal Director Batavia, Ohio 45103 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccm=ission Washington, D. C. 20555 Nilliam J. Moran, Esq.
General Counsel Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Post Office Scx 960 Washington, D. C. 45201 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Docke tj nc. and Service Section .. _
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cummission c.._ng cn, D . 'C . 20555
/)I. 1 /
'./* \ ,4 ,,
%' ,,)'
if,'O hQ Mark /J. N4 erhahn -
U l'56 182