ML20125A723
| ML20125A723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1979 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C, Bright G, Hooper F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908150725 | |
| Download: ML20125A723 (106) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_. Records Facilities Branch (3) W 016 Phil n'O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . f
\ ?
IN THE MATTER OF: I CINCINNATI GAS & ELECETIC COMPANY (2n. H. Zimmer Nuclear Facility) Docket No. 50-358 (O Cincinnati, Ohio Place . Date - Friday, 10 August 1979 Pages : 3043-3149 I i i e O O Telephone:
? ' (202)347-3700
/
'U .
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC. - OfficialReporters au serth capiter ser
}h'1 .N)
Washington, D.C. 2 01 79o8150 -- NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. Ait
EEACH/ PARKER / 30 0 RILEY I . CR 6321 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.' h. 2
- p NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!OIISSION ,
3 !
-------------------x i 4, In the matter of: ,
5 CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY : Jocket No. 353 6 i (WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR FACILITY) :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 7
e t 8 Courtroom 805 e g United States Courthouse 5th & Walnut Streets Cincinnati, Ohic 10 Friday, July 10, 1979 11 l 4 : e 12 The hearing was reconvened, pursuant to adjourn-
, ,. 13 ment, at 9:00 a.m.
\
34 BEFORE: i i e i 15 CHARLES BECHHOEFER, Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Dcard { i 16 i DR. FRANK F. HCOPER, Member 17 GLENN O. BRIGHT, Member .
. 18 APPEARANCES:
n-o 19 On behalf of the Applicant: 20 I TROY D. CONNER, JR. , ESQ. , and MARK J. WETTEMAIIH, i 21 ESQ., Conner, Moore & Corber, 1747 Pennsylvania l l Avenue IM, Washington, D.C. 20006 99 i
~
~~
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulator *j Ccamission: 23'!l LAWRENCE BRENNER, ESQ.,i:nited States "4 9 uc car egu a ory em as cn, Ofiice of P.he 1 Executive Legal Director, Eethesda, Marfland. b/ 6 23 f-
'l s
h
;i l
l. ar2 ! I On behalf of the City of Cincinnati: () v 2 PETER HEILE, ESQ. 3 On behalf of Intervenor Miami Valley Power Projact: s 4 LEAH S. KOSIK, ESQ., 3454 Cornell Place, cincinnati, Ohio 45220 5
-and-G f JAMES H. FELDMAN, JR., ESQ.
7 o on behalf of Intervenor Dr. Fankhauser: I 8 DR. FANKHAUSER, pro se
- i S i I
10 11 l
. -- 1 12 13
() 14 15 16 17 - l l 13 i n
= 19 l
l l 20 21 l 22 ., i oo l 24 , ! 4 ,- e i r hb t --
l { 3045 david CONTENTS 2 cross on 3 wzTusss cirect, cross neard _soard. ned. Recr. ,
- n. *,
Rebuttal Testimony: i (Applicant) j 5 Louis,Aiello ) 3053 3058 3081 3097 l
, Vernot Ponce ) 3100 3100 +
Earl Borgmann ) f Richard Ednanen) !
= 7 i i 8 Rebuttal Testimony: ' i
, (Inte'venor MVPf} l Thomas D. MaVtin
~-
3102 3106 3108 10 ~, , , , 11 Staff Testimony: I I 12 Thomas E. Vandel) l and ) 3114 3118 3132 3133 i 13 Jack Hughes ) 3135 ;
*O g Thomas E. Vandel 3138 i
lb j 16 I e 77 i l 8 18 n l
. 19 ,f 3
l 1 20 i 2\ i 22 22 * ., . t , 24 i
?
ut 4
1 3046 I I _P _R _O _C. 3_ 2. _D _I N_ _G _S l [l/ Eh CHAIRMAli DOCHHOEF3R: Good morning ladies and (icavid j 3jt gentlemen. After our rather late session last night, the c'qyidl I! board considered the motiona of Miami Valley Power Project 1 take 1 43ll 5 il and Dr. Fankhauser to delay delivery of fuel to the f 6 Simmer sita, d , 7 i And we have de=ided to deny these motions on the I B i folicwing grounds. I might say, we are reading an order
- 9 into the record now, but we vill issue an order next week (
toj I in scmewhat more detail. F ,
!! I didn't have a chance to write cut a full order 72 l. last night.
l k 13 l On3: First, wo agree with the staff that we }
'^
l I have jurisdiction to consider there motions under 10 CFR
"; i i
g3 } section 2.717(b). I fG j: Two: On the meri~s,.hewever, c we havta been i
! -provided with no infermatics which would warrant our taking the g7 9 ,
id !. action requested. I 4
/ g Tha affidavits -~ no affidavits have baen
'l 29 submitted asserting facts which would cause us to in i 2; [ effect suspend the npacial auclear materials licensa.
!i 22 .ij 2n reviewing these natters, ue hLve not .
E l
.o, i
applied the stay standardu :f 2.0 CFR secticr. 2.788(e), l l t
;g . although thera are considerable recuons why wo might do ao '
s ;,.. !!n cr at least use thone standarda a: guidcnce. N e
3047 david 2 1 Even treating the assertions of counsel as , O V 2 if they were affidavits, no facts have been provided which 3 raise any question which would justify the action requesred. l 4 Shipment of unirradiated fuel is not en action to which g 5 NEPA applies. We cannot, therofore, consider financial or s ' other costs or the benefits to be derived from shipment. Wo 7 must review this action under the Atoric Energy Act w a where the questica is whether the applicants will abide by . g applicable requirements in their license. ! 10 - k The question is not, therefore, that which the t1 City of Cincinnatihas posed, that ist whether, unless some i 12 benefit be shown, the material should be shipped.
;3 No information 'las been provided to indicate that O 34 i the action fails to comply with the requirements of g regulations or the outstanding license. The staff has gi found certain matters which must be taken care of prior I
i 3.; l to shipment. We ara given no information that is exercising i
;3l its authoritry improperly.
/ g Indeed, as'for as we can see, the contrary is : 20 ""** With respect to Miami Valley's a11 aged security I g fi . g! concerns, we are provided so information indicating thct l H g l.l thase mattars will not i ha taken care of adoquately. The il gj applicants have taken grenu care not to reveal the exact ; y .. time er route of shipment. , 3 P
1 3048 d2vid3 ! Purthermore, this action will not impinge on our . O 2 rese1ution of or. ranxhauser s contentien five- ehe < 3 . app 1icants have filed motions for summary disposition on 4 this contention; we have not ru1ed on those motions.yet, f 4 5 but insofar as unirradiated fuel is concerned, we hold now 6 that at the present time and as a matter of inw, there
)
, 7 currently is no requirement for training of the populous -
8 through which such fuel will be shipped. , 9 We note that the Commission's ncit re.gulations '
.. l on shipment of fuel address only spent fuel.
j to ' i I 11 l Finally, the claim has been made that denying i 12 the motions will somehow indicate that we have made up our minds on other issues of controversy; we of course can ,
' 13 l t
14 do little to affect how others will view our actions, but 15 , this claim ignores the nature of an operating license i-16 C Proceeding. We areret charged with a general review of tha
, 17 ,i i
13 entire operating license, but rather cur duty is to resolve discrete contentions. eneral review is entrusted
- i .
- gg
20 to the staff. Nothingprovided in support of the motions ' would constitute a sufficient basis, even to i 21
- g E: admit a new contention dealing with unirradiated fuel shipmant:
3f or storage. gj
?
our order will say casentially that, but it wi2.1 4 , Th's is cur ruling. d be embellished with a few citations. e5 :t N a o
1 I 3049 I david 4 I If Diablo Canyon is any precedent, the ruling 2 76 i==to= it 1* or te r O. 99 1 61- to ** c , 3 delegate authority subsequently to the appeal beard. 4 We will issue an order as early as I can get it
]a 3'; out next week.
6 Now, as far as the board is concerned, we -- and a 7 insofar as what we're going to hear today, I would like the 3 parties to confirm that I have everything down here right. 9 We are going to hear rebuttal on contention 16 we are ff 10' going to hear your rebuttal, applicant's rebuttal, which l 1I was. reserved; we are going to put into evidence the 12 material on the Blanch interview, and insofar as it 13 affects contention 14, it will.be subject to cross A V examination. 14 We'll put in the record the other staff intervie'vs. 15 J. N a just to show that they wara -- that the staff carried out 10 l gy ; requests that we asked them to.' t la And finally I think we should discuss the schedule , I
/ to for later proceedings.
P.0 Any parties We anything else that escapes us, because so.far as we remembea, those were the only matters. 21 , r i 3; ! MR. BDENNER: I dcn't have anything else en the 1 1 1 23 schedule, Mr. Chairman. I had a folletrup niattar related to g the license to receiva unirradiat3d fuel that I wanted to } g {l mentions It dcas not requira any deliberations or anything j ti-. i
- t *
!i l1
a 1 i> e 3050 ' 1 davidS like that. : O 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Finc. l i 3 _, MR. BRENNER: It is my understanding, and I learned 4 . this orally just last night, and I guess I would ask tha ! I 5 applicant to confirm it or correct me if I'm wrong: but : 4 's they have applied for further amendment to the license,
' 7 ,
, as they are of course entitled, j 8 , If this is correct, I would ask the board to i 93 $ l direct that any - that further amendment and any further 10 . : technical matters that are filed with the staff also be filed i 11 ! p with the boarit and the parties so that everybody can keep 12 abreast with what's going on with respect to everything to ; 13 t O t-! do with the facility. ; l
.] (Board confering.) ,
13 ! if CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Although we would hear , 13 i li from the applicants if they oppose it, un think that ! 17 !! - ! 1 g request is reasonable. i redj! Do you have any reason why you would object to l
;~n "
providing the board and the parties with further information? 20 il '
!! MR. CONNER: One, your Honor: it is our position
+ ll
~
. l; that the board does not have jurisdiction for the reasons
- .,., 11
~ !! stated yesterday, so in that sen::a we do not agree with i
Gd
? Mr. Brenner that,'you knew, you should reviow it.
v That position we racerva. on the ethor hand, the matto: -- 1:hese are already 1 1 1 a
s 3051 l david 6 I
~
a matter of public record. You can find them in the i 2
~
ao=== * ==== 1
- wi see - 1e' e=a e ea e a -
_O 3e to do with allowing the contractor, Kaiser Engineering,
-A t
4 employees to help take the fuel boxes off the truck with
'l 5 a crane.
6 Now, that's not very acnumental, but that's comethin( j 7 that needed to be done, e So ! 'f, a. And that's really all that's involved here. !- 3. that's it. We'll be glad to send you a copy. I to i CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I take it that would be -- 11 we would appreciate your sending copies to the board , e f
- f2 Ii and the parties. i Sure, glad to. l i 13 MR. CONNER:
14 !- CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Cn this material.
?
jg l'j MR. BRENNER: Thank you, Mr. Chai:nran. It's
!G obvious that having it in the public document room in !-
8 . g! Washington doesn't help, since I didn't knew about it I
;cj and the board didn't knew about it.
Also, it's not just a saatter of who can handle 39(t. ; go the fuel. I'm not claiming it's any big deal en the
.n g merits, buti I'm - told it in$olves- permission to ;
+
d convert the license to one that would permit storage cf the n 'l ,
'l '
23 fuel underwater. d 3 If that's correct, you knci, arguably that [ I changes the situation. Of course thsy don't have permission g
,j .
.b a
3052 1 david 7 to do it now, but we're talking about an appliation that . would be under review, and I want to make sure that the parties 3 get all documents through the course of this proceeding. 1 D' CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We have in er order that 5 we issued today -- we do have jurisdiction, so -- to consider -- D it may be after the fact jurisdiction aftor the director 7
. of Nuclear Reactor Regulations las acted, but -- okay,
- 3 we will grant the staff's request.
~
E Do any parties have anything else that wo ought j 10Y to be considering? ! II lj. (No response.) ' 12 If not, I guess the first -- Mr. Csnner, do you 13 wish to -- are you ready to proceed with your rebuttal 14 on 167 t IU ': MR. CONNER: Yes. 10 CHAIRMAN BECIIHOEFER: Any parties have anything A
. ~7 h else that they want to raise preliminarily?
11 id j (No response.) 19 All right, you may proceed ein 16. E0f MR. CONNER: May I request that Mr. Louis L. ! i ! 2: Aiello be sworn. ; fi ' ( 22 Wheraupon,
'l 20 j' LOUIS L. AIELLO P i ilj ras called as a witnass, and having beer. duly sworn, mis c
E examined and tactified as fo'lowc !
I i 3053 l david 8 1 AND e by/ 2 Whereupon, 3 EARL BORGMANN, 4 VERNON PENCE, 5i and l S RICHARD KANANEN l
.. 7 were called as witnesses, and having been previously duly
. S sworn, were exadned and testified as follows: f 9 MR. CONNER: We are adding Mr. Aiello to the 10 panel as a rebuttal. witness. ;
I
!! e DIRECT REEUTTAL TESTIFONY ;
I i e 12 BY MR. CONNER: I Mr. Aiello, do you have in dront of you a 15 Q
;4 ! copy of a document entitled " Qualifications of Louis L. l-i l 15[ Aiello, Nuclear Energy Business Group, Quality 16 Assurance Engineered Equipment and Installation Site t
, ;7 , Representative, General Electric Company"?
ral A I do. f
. N !
ic f Q Is that a statomsnt of your qualifications cf - i t 20 your position? , t 2; A Yes, it is. nl Q Is that true and correct? 3 4, A Yes. c.,. ,
/ MR. CONNER: I would rz quest that *,his statement of Mr. Aiollo's qualifications and position ho put in t1m n]
d 4 o
i i 3054 david 9 9 record at this point as if read. , i 2 CHAIRMAN BECHEOEFER: Any objections? 3 (No response.) j
'~'
4 Absent objection, it will bo put in the roccrd > a ' I'
,1 as if read.
5 , t 6 (The doctanent referred to followa.) 4 d ! i k i i 10 i 11 i: 12 , O xk
.'I 4
9 16 . $ r 1'
= .1p. t
<) '
iS ll . t
- i >
* }') i, p
20f. r 21 II 9 E lin i et d
~
;M 4 O il I
si
- I
'I
0 QUALIFICATIONS
), LOUIS L. AIELLO NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS GROUP - QUALITY ASSURANCE ENGINEERED EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION SITE REPRESENTATIVE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
+
My name is Louis L. Aiello. I am presently employed by the General Electric Company and my business address is the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Moscow, Ohio 45153. I graduated from North Carolina State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering. I worked for two years at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company in Nuclear Piping Installation. I then worked for two and one-half years for General Electric Company in Installation and Maintenance Engineering before I assumed my present responsibilities as Quality Assurance Engineered Equipment and Installation representative at the Zimmer site. Collectively, I have had seven years of nuclear construction experience. I am a Level II Evaluator per appropriate parts of SNT-TC-1A in the following disciplines: Radiography, Ultrasonics, and Liquid Penetrant. I am also professionally registered as a California Professional Engineer in Quality Engineering. O
l 3055 I I da'. rid 10 1 BY MR. CONNER: ! 2 Q Mr. Aiello, did your work at Zimar include , 3' I anything to do with the control rod seals? l 4 i A Yes, it did. 5 Q Mr. Kananen, what instructions were given to the 6 millwrights concerning the examination of the seals on the
, i ! , 7 control rods? l . 8 A (Witness Kananen) None directly; they were at 93 the training session wh'ne the inspectors were instructing ,
10 how to inspect the seals. 1.f Q Were the mi11 wrights told to mm'te any examine. tion 12 for roughness? 13 A Ho. f T4 i Q Did you or Hr. Parla inspect the' seals for the 75 i smoothness test? I. 10 jj A Yes. tl r; ji Q By the way, did you ever inspect the seals with :
,, I tt; A a compa,rator in Mr. Martin's prossace?- !
; o ,, A He was prasant at the tina. I don't know if he t
I
.ic ! ,
witnessed me or not. l 21 [i Q Mr. Aiello, were ycu in tha courtrcom yesterday i
- s ir, l{ when you heard the statment by Mr. Marti.a that he had l
!! l 3 -l never witnessed Mr. Parla using a comparater inspecting a f i
n; - seal? ,
~
l
,.. A Yes, I was.
t a
i 6321 i JWBeach 3056 8/10 #2 i 1 g To your own personal knowledga, do you know if i Q 2 Mr. Martin was present? 3 A Yes, he was present. 4 0 And from your personal knowledge did Mr. Pasla , 5 use the comparator to inspect the seal? 5 A Yes, he did. i o
. 7 4 What were the circastances? r 8
A On one day in particular, I was asked to come 9 up to the operating floor by reactor controls.to look at a . 10 number of seals that. appeared there had been some 17 difference of opinion as to the acceptability with respect i 12 j to roughness. , u On that occasion, I brought my surface comparator, i j 14 . which I an issued, with me, looked at the seals in question . I 15 with Mr. Parla of RCI, and Mr. Martin was there, becssse ! t , s la there was a definite difference of opinion between l, g7 Mr. Martin and Mr. Parla. i gg I looked at those seals and found them well gg within the surface roughness requirements. 20 $ Did you personally inspect any other seals of. l i
., . j the rods at Zimmer? ;
.. . gl A. Yes.
n ,lj i i G Did you find any tihich did not meet the g i g ',1 spoeifications for smoothneca?
, A on the last day, which was September 5th of 1973.
.3 t
i 2-2 jwh 3057
'l rods were put aside for my review as far as the 2 acceptability, where there had been some question in respect
{ l 3 to the seals. There was a total of four seals which were 4 shown to me. One was rejected and sent back to Wilmington, j h i 5 The other three, gritty material was removed under my l k G, direction and my observation, and then they were inspected { 7 with the surface comparator. l 8 MR. BRENNER: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I missed 9 what type of material. 10 WITNESS AIELLO: Gritty. il MR. BRENNER: Gritty? Thank you. { 8 J2 BY MR. CONN 3R: ; g ' 13 Mr. Aiello, what was the policy, or what was the O - g4 j situation that caused you to be brought in to examine i gg i them? N I
; g A. It's been the policy of the General Electric -
I gj company, with respect to hardware, that a supply by un j g through the contract with Cincinnati Gas & Electric, that !
.i 3 . p* U any rework or any areas of question shall be brought ,
V g;f to a GE representative's attention for resolution. ! l gj j. And they had been instructed te set aside those Il 22y control reds where there were questionable arsas for my d 3 ij 't examination. 3,,, ( 0 Mr. Kananen, did you ever r.tthoris:e any milluright to use a file on a seal of the control rod?
., , 4 h
- I ii
2-3 jwb 3058 1 1 i A (Witness Kananen) No. } D. 2 g Would that include Mr. Martin? (,) I 3 A Right. l. f 4! ' MR. CONNER: The panel is available for ! l 5 cross-examination. ! 3 CHAIRMAN BECEH01?FER: Before the cross-examiaation, f 7 starts, I would like to jcat get a repeat of the one word S I tidt Mr. Brennan asked about. 'We still didn't undarstand l 9 what that NBrdB23DNER: j i 1O MR. BRENNER: " Gritty." 1 1 MR. CONNER: Gritty. I I 12 WITIESS AIELLO: G-r-i-t-t-y. 13 CBAIRMAN BBCHHOEFER: Oh, o!carf. , O 14 Ms. Kosik? i 15 . MS. KOSIK: one moment. 9 (Pausa.)
;7 CROSS-EXAMIUATION l
' I
- g. BY MS. KOSIK: '
i Mr. Aiello, did you state that none of the I jo 4 m[ seals were rejected because of roughness? r [ '
- 3. jl A (Witness Aiello) I indicated that one was i
i nl i sent back to Wilmington. L g Were any other -- did any othar seals -- wors 3 g,; ( any other acals found to have a rcughness problem? A If ycu consider the presenca of grf. tty material 4 c
I i 2 -4 ' jwb - 3059 j i 1 a roughness problem, then there were three that required l 2 the gritty material to be removed. 3d G Well, is the presence of grit on the saal !
- f ;
considered a roughness problem? In other words, would 4 ll ; 1 i 5 I; you say on an inspection sheet.t: hat grit was found on the ; 4 y 5y seal? Would it be written as "the seal is too rough"?
'a q j
, 7 h A I did not fill the inspection reports out. It's t f
L
. 8 a choice of words, and I prefer that RCI answer that !
~
1 9, question. i, .! 10l S Okay, fine. ! I 1; } A (Witness Kananen) Yes, that cculd have been t i 12 .b noted on an inspection sheet. I I 1;3 0 Now, how would this be notad is what I'm trying
- to find out. i I
14l' . 6 15l A It would depond on the particular situation. j t' , m S Well, how would grit which is found on the coal !
, j7l be noted on the inspection sheet?
t . 13[ A It's possible that it could say " grit" on the .
, li to ] ,,
seal area. i
;g ,f S Mr. Aiello said there were three, I believe, l ll l 3 I} seals that were found with grit. How was this shown on !,
- g the inspection sheet?
= A It might not wen have been shcwn on the
, ~u ' 3 inspection cheet. O 3 }' S Well, I understand that you filled out a nurther
l 2-5 jwb 3060 l I 1 of these inspection sheets. You're talking about "wot1d ! . O 2 1; have.- ee11 :.e how these insgection: sheets were fi11ed 3 out when grit was found on them. j 4 A I didn't inspect any rods. I didn' t perforni the inspections on the rods with the grit. 5l . 3 g Did you see the inspection sheets that were !
. j .
- 7 .filled out? , ,,,,_._,, j
> a A Yes.
9 g Do you recall how they wara filled out? 10 A Yeah, the grit was removed. Ar.d I recall one 11 that I think there was a note on there or something about 12 ' roughness of the seal, and after the grit was removed it }
}
- was inspected and it was acceptable.
M! O How'was this grit removed? I i
;3 A With emory cloth. !
;;3 l (Pause.)
d . g j ;' O How long after the grit was found on the 3chl L l gh tras it removed? , J A The grit on the three seals were al1 removed on to , i f 20 j the 5th, which was the -- you know, the day before the j 6
;j
,n i and of that particular portion of the inspections.
+
3 !! MS. KOSIK: No mora questions. , d
. e.
, (Board conforring.)
3
,, , .i CHAIPJmN SECH2OHFER: Mr. Hallo?
- s. .
O g. . MIt. EEIL2: Thank you.
l' 2-6 jwh 3061 ! i 1 BY MR. HEILE: !
- ~
O 2 2 =. -- , e- y- --e=ed x . c-et s 3< question that you did not authorize the use of the file 4 on any of the seals, may I assume by that answer that you j i 5 were not aware of any of the mi11 wrights using any files j f J on the seals? }
, I , 7 A (Witness Kananen) Yes, that's true.
O You never personally e'rer witnessed or learned D in any manner that a millwright may have used a fila en a 20 seal? Is that correct? 11 A Well, I know now. I2 O A mean at the time. II 13 h A I didn't know at the time. ! O d l V, f, O Now, is it "Mr. Aiello"? I 4 l: dI A (Witness Aiello) That's correct. I; jeh n You mentioned that you wera called to come down ; n I
; and take a look'at a seal that was in questien, and ycu
;c i brought a comparator down with you? Is that correct?
h ' j 19 j A That's right. , i 20 g' g Do you know at what point in the inspection of these seals this incident occurred, as a total number of at}h ! p;; [ rods that were examined, for instance? tian it halfway , v i gf through, or --
-f 2 .) i I havs no reason to doubt a particular set cf O 3]
a reda could havo benen accepted at thct pcint without my i a i .i
.,_,.._..,.,._,.-._.._._.,,,_,,,__.__,.____r._,.,_-.._ . . _ . , . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . - . , . . - , , - _ - - . _ . _
l 2-7 jwh ; 3062 ! i I Comparator being there. l t O 2 g so when 1. sme do ith your com, rator, did > 3 you leave it there? Cr did you take it with you? 4 .. A I left it with RCI, my comparator.
- 3i .
G Do you know if RCI had a comparator of their J own?
, 7 A They have a comparator, yes.
. 8 g one that would be functional on this job? .
9 A Yes. 10 g Did you see it there when you cama down? i 11 A I don't recall seeing it. l 12 .s % And then when ycu went back up, you - I'm sorry,
- J2 you left it there? Or you took it with you?
l 74 ' A Yes, I left the conparator in RCI's possession. 15 il - 0 Now again back to Mr. Kananen, did you observe 1 15b any of the mi11 wrights using a comparator on any of the I I seals? 7
- s q A (Witness Kananen) No.
to G Did you ever tell them not to use a comparator I; . Io I on the seals? l
;; !.' A No.
1 l 2I y; G You never issued one to them, though? i 7 l 13 i n. That's true. I never issued ene to them. . si !
.t; 0 Do you know where thsy found it? .
O
- ;g -
A It'is very obvious that it was laying cut with the
.' e u , , -. - , - . - - . - ,,,--,,-----,--.---------c , - , - - - , , . - - - - - - . . - , - - - - - - - - - - - -
2-8'jwb 3063 i 1 rest of the tools, the inspection tools. , i 2 g would one assume by the fact that it was laying 3' out with the rest of the inspection tools, that ' it 4 would be something to be used in the inspection of the 3 seals? 1 5 A Yes. , 7 g Did you ever instruct them to use it, though? l
. 3 A No. (
~ 9 g - Did you ever instruct them not to file any of 10 the seals? 11 A No. 12 MR. HEILE: Thank you. That's all. 13 i CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Brenner? I ! 14 l MR. BRENNER: I didn't hear you. ! t . r
!5 l CHAIRMAN BECHEOEFER: Are you recdy, Mr. Brenner?
l Ir3 [ MR. BRENNER: I think we should put on the !
! . 1
, 17 record that Dr. Fankhauser isn't here. We're not skipping iI aj him by accident. J ' 19 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Right. Dr. Fankhauser does
.00 not appear to be here, so Mr. Brenner may proceed.
2: BY MR. BRENNER: r, ll 0 Mr. Aiello, was this September 5th when you vere 1 , r.; j callad down to look at these four reds that had been put
't e4 ! asido, did you say?
O n] e A. (Witness Aiello) On Septer.bor 5th, I lookoo. at - U a , [ .
l , 3064 I 2 -9 jwh ; , I more than four rods, including these four with the seals. : i 2 G What were the other ones you Icoked at? i i ! 3'i A. They were documented on the FDDRs, the six that j ' 4f were sent back and the sis: that were accepted with the j i end JWB 5 change in the clamping technique. ar fois 4
,; j. , i e
O 3 { 10 ! i 11 '! 12 O 14 io 15 e 16 I 4 17 g i ts i 19 20 t I i 21 ;t ; I: i 22 [.e ' I, 9d L , I O '; V
=g !
; l AR$3arS1 l 3065 i I
3 Q So it would be a total of 16 rods you looked at on 1
~
, that day? !
. l i i 3
A I would say no less than 16t could have been ' 4 possibly one or two, but didn't -- you know, nothing was
' l' 51 found wrong with them and there was no rer. son to document j 6 among the FDRD, or ship them back to Wilmington.
7 Q Maybe you'd state what those initials ar,e, for the i i roc rd, that you were using. 1 8 A The FDRD is a GE field disposition request document.)i 3
- e !*
, 0 Q In all those rods that you looked at, did you look 10 l
,,[ at the seals on them?
- [ A I feel confident I. looked at the majority of the
-(
f seals on them. 13\ Q Did you, on each of the seals that you looked at,
llM
, ll did you check for roughness?
ij A Visually, yes.
- G ;j::
N O Why didn't you think it necessary to touch them j 17 a .. i
! for the ones you didn't touch? .
iG 'i *
. . A There was no doubt in my mind they were better i
~
12 !{ ! ; I than the 63 ras finish. 20 t !
} Q Can you explain how you can tell this by just l 21 ld -
i.! looking? ' nn f. l A After a time you build up a certain level of
- 23j j recognition with respect to finishes, and the finish below ;
2.; ! ' O
- i= 32, ==a *a 1= z 1ccuea e= -ita *ae excerei== =r -
2- = s
* ~ . - - - -
ar2 3066 i 1 few, pretty well approximated a 32 finish. l Q 2 Q Is it fair to say that the four seals that were i 3 put aside for your specific awami. nation as to roughness were 4 the roughest of all you looked at? \ 1 5 A No,'it's not fair. The gritty material is foreign 6 to the seal, and was removed, and the seal then showed no 7 evidence of any problem related to the gritty material, and 8 Was as good as any other seal, and I would not characterizo it 9 is being the worst. 10 Q All right. 21 What color is the seal normally without gritty' I
;2 material?
13 A It's a silver stainless steel. O 14 ; Q With a chrome-like finish? 13 A I would say yes. 16 Q What color is this gritty material that was found? { t
;7 i A It was a similar color.
i Q Was it a metallic material? ! 18 l 19l A If you're, asking for my opinion, I would say yes, . I I 20 !) it was metallic. I 21 I Q I'mtryingtogetahandleonabetterdescriptionj i i of it. So far all we have is gritty. 22 h. f. 23 Did it come off like a chalky precipitation whes . I i g, t i was rubbed? f,
=
A I think I can best answer that question, I cbserved
!i .
N ila i i
l cr3 3067 - 1 the application of a fine emery cloth to ronove this gritty Q 2 material, and I can say that it took less than a minute, one 3 minute, to remove the gritty material per seal. 4 DR. HOOPER: Sir, would you speak up? I couldn't 3 hear that. 6 WITNESS AIELLO: It was less than one minute 7 to remove this material. It was not tightly adhering to the a surface. DR. HOOPER: All right. Thank you. 9 f 10 BY MR. BRENNER:
;j Q Was this with the application of elbow grease on 72 an emery cloth?
13 A The millwright didn't seem to strain when he took
; O y, it off.
Q Which millwright -- these are the three seals 15
;g that had the gritty material?
D A That's right. 37 Q Which millwright did the job with the emery cloth? l 13 t gg A I believe it was the elderly gentleman. Maybe RCI j l
'l can give his name. I 3.;
i
.,, A (Witness Kananen) Mr. coyle. i
- n !;I; Q Stay with it, Mr. Kananen. j l
e !! .. You ware presenc during this process also? l
- Q-i
~
A No, I was told that it sas Mr. Coyle. t
,, . . '.tI n
? Q Who told yce it was Mr. Coyle? l g~
i il
ar4 I A Mr. Parla. 2 Q Back to Mr. Aiello. 3 Mr. Aiello, was Mr. Martin present while the mill-4 wright was using the emery cloth? 5 A (Witness Aiello) I don't recall Mr. Martin being 6 there a't the ' time. ; 7 DR. HOOPER: Excuse me. Did you say - 8 WITNESS AIELLO: I did not recall Mr. Martin 9 being there. 10 BY MR. BRENNER: 17 Q Mr. Kananen, did you want to say something there?
.12 Mr. Aiello, how do you think this gritty material 13 got there? l O 14 A (Witness Aiello) I can only draw from my own 15 experiences as far as what it looked like.
1G Q In your professional judgment and experience. That'3 17 what you are here to help us with. i A It appeared to be from a grinding operation and is l{
' I I
19 - not a-machining operation. 20 To further elaborate, when one grinds the particles 21 are hot, there is a certain amount of heat generation, and ; i - l 22 { it is not unrealistic to have thece particles beccme attached j a - 23 [ to a metallic surface, attached not of'n sufficient magni.tude 2g i #here'you can't remove it with a little emary cloth, but still ' 25 ' attached whera you couldn't remove it with just, say, a 3impia; .
;f f ,
ar5 3069 1 acetone wipe-down.
] 2 Q What grinding operation with respect to 3 these control rods would have resulted in the deposit?
4 'A' I'd prefer to give that to Mr. Pence, since ha is 5 familiar with Wilmington. 6 Q All right. 7 A- (Witness Pence) Our present po'stulation on that 8 is there is a weld that is located apprcxin:ately one inch m 9 . below'the seal area, and under some certain circumstances l 10 \i 'the crown of that weld does have some grinding done on it, 11 and it is possible that some particles in that grinding 12 operation may have come in contact with the surface and not 13 been subseque='ly removed. That's cur present I.ostulation O 14 I. of where that came from.
'C This is a weld that is performed on all control I 15 ,
1 p3 !. rods as a matter of course? 17 ' A Yes. i Q Is it at Wilmington? 33 jg[ A Yes. i
- 20 0 Is it on the velocity limiter itself? I'm trying g to place it a little better.
I 22 A Yss, it's the connection of what is referred to l
- g. as a coupling at the very bottom end of the velccity,tha: j 24 I is welded to the velocity limiter. l O ,s j mImm samem: n. wenner, is this --- ven, '
4 L - 0 , _ _ . _ _ - . . _ , ~ _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _ . ._ _ - - - - . - _ .
1 cr6 3070 1 you might ask the witness, is that placs -- does that appear 2
]' on this Exhibit F or Attaclunent F to the Staff's.-- ,
s 3 MR. BRENNER: I think the answer to that is r.o, l 4 but I'll be happy to ask the witness. 5 BY MR. BRENNER: 6 ) Q Mr. Ponce, do you have Mr. Maura's testimony? I
, t t
7 Will you turn to Exhibit F, please. i l 9; A (Witness Pence) On Exhi'ait F, it does not show i
.' !l 3 if the wold exactly, but where it is located, if ycu go down ila toll from the seal area, there is what appears to be a notch in r -
i 11 that wall thickness. That veld appears at that 1ccatier;.-
- 12. [ Q That's the notch on the 'nside i portion of'the' wall ;
13 thickness? ..' O 14 A Right.
;i 15 ] CHAIRMAN BECHEOEFER: Thank you.
I 3Y MR. BRENNER: f 19 !i 0 l 17[ Q Thank you, Mr. Pence. I ja ll is Mr. Aiello, was RCI supposed to check the roughncas ;, t 19 !! of these seals? ;
!a; 20f A (Witness Aiello) There is no requirement for d
P 2; RCI to check the roughness of these seals. s
- 1 22 i 0 Well, what caused them to call you dcun and take a e i;
r l look at this, if there was no requirement for you to 1cok a~c y it? 33 A IfRCI,in1cokingdtthehurdwaroandcheckingofi 9b
t ar7 3071 i
! their own check list, which would include whatever GE requires O 2 1 1 t d d 19 e d s d11 e ef vs dw =
, 3 1:i
. they find something that they have a question, or in their L n :u 4[ mind,is not unusual for them to go a little bit beyond and '
5 request that I.come up and look at it. ; 6 In this case, this.was the case on this seal. 7 Q On the one that was rejected, why was it rejected? 3 A It was a pretty good gouge in that scal. It 9 was more than a scratch, it had some depth to it, and 10 l! l there was no attempt at all to rework. It was i::unediately 11.q decided to ship that one back to Wilmington. 12 Q If nobody cared about roughness, what was all a' this business about you running around with a comparator O t.4 and RCI having a comparator? What was it needed for? 13 A Okay, if you're asking for my opinion, I can.only 93fsayfrommyexperienceonthefloor,thetinethatIwas i,7j.calledup,Igottheimpressionthattherewasadefinite i gg i.. difference of opinion, a conflict between Mr. Martin in
' h
;;, 1; particular and the RCI inspector, and I feel that I was ,
2Q [i brought in as almost a third party independent of any , i t g ,i:)working relationship they night'have had, and to give my ga , opinien without any prejudice on their par . l 3 Q Okay, my question is, why did you or GE fork out
!i ;
jg good money to buy this comparator and to have it with ycu? i O n A I have a surface ccr;arator. It's issued to us. e i
- . . . . .- _ _ . . . . . _ , _ ,.r.. _. _ , . _ _ . . . . , . . . - . . - , , , , _ , _ . , _ , _ - _ , , . _ _ , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _
ar8 3072 l 1 It's used more than in just the case of CR control rods and 2 back seats. A surface finish is required on welds as far 3 as in-service inspection, and we have a requira:nent on that, 4 4 2 would have to spot-check some of the welds, so a comparator 5 is atsed in more than just this one incident. It's used quite l
;3 often throughout the job. <
l 7 Q Okay. You decided to use it in this instanc.3 8 because of the disagreement that you observed? i
. 3 A Well, this request was to me to come up and look f
. I go at a seal. When I got up there, I understood the basis of jg the request. It was quite obvious to me that there was a I definito conflict, thero was a definite difference of 12 g opinion, between two individuals employed by RCI, and so I g .? looked at it, I saw no problem with the seal, and I lef- ;
i u.. them the comparator if they found any more use for it, i g i g j Q With respect to the one you rejected, was there a 4
. h l ' disagreement over that one, too, or did Mr. Parla think that f h
l
,,3}onewasokay? .
g : A I can't answer that because the first time I saw g j that rajected seal was on 9-5-78. t J J l' Q Eut it was among those for you to look at and i (. . I? f,!! give your opinion; correct? A No,'itutsn't. It cculd have happened before.- it
.y could have happensd after that particular day, the unpacking O ,'
. of taet gereicnzar cent =ot =ed.
t i
I ar9 3073 f I Q Maybe we're not communicating. I thought you () 2 testified that RCI called you down to look at the four 3 control rods, and one of these was in fact the one you l f 4! rejected. I 5' A Okay, I can see the confusion. They called me to 6 look at four seals. They may not -- nost probably were not
, 7 the seals that I looked at on 9-5-73. There vac a question
. 8 on those four seals, three of them with raepect to the 9 gritty material, one with respect to the damago, they 10 automatically were put off to the side for me to 1cok at on l
J 11 the last day, when I did my inspection of any questionchio 12 areas .on, say,1G or so control rods. 17, Q I'm with you. Probably my confusion / 14 On the enes that you were called down to lock at 15 with ' respect to this disagreement going cn, we had Mr. 16 Martin in one corner saying "too rcugh,*'and we i' e
' had Mr. Parla in the other cornar sayir.g what? Did Mr. .
. g7 I fg Parla voice an cpinion? ,
~
gg A There was no opinion voiced at the beginning. I g 20 went up, they said, "Would you look at these seals?" I looked i 3 at the seals, I looked at the comparator, and I said thay are g lilIl okay, and then Mr. Martin said, he went and 1c ll "No, they're rough." p~ i! g) Q Hold it right. I'll let you pick it up. O s N 3, MR. CONNER: Let the wi4lesa finish his ansisr. i
;* e
!i I
i
?
ar10 3074 j t BY MR. BRENNER: { s 2 Q All right. { 3 A (Witness Aiello) And I said in my opinion, [
/^ they're okay, and that was the end of the discussion, as i
4 3 far as Mr. Martin and I was concerned, and tihat was it. G' rQ. When Mr. Martin voiced his disagreer.snt, what ! i 7 kind of check did he maks for roughness, in your presence? 8 A He probably touched it and lookod at it. I
, g can't - I'm sure he touched it.
t to Q Did you touch your comparater also? t g A Yes, we used my comparator. j f2 < Q Did you point him to the correct spot on you:: i i' s
-g comparator?
O a A Yes,I did. Q Well, I'm trying to figure cut how tuo peoplo - ,. o, could have a disagreement. I understand your testimony to be l [ e ,_,llthatwhenyoutouchacomparatorinthecorrectplacefor '
" si l
,, [ the 63 ras finish, and you touch the seal, thera is no :
i i 19 i question that the seal is much smoother; is that correct? l A That's correct. i 20 ]' !
, Q And after it wars obvious, did ycu point this out i 1, to Mr. Martin and say, 'Well, look at these two things, -
2; o, U touch these two things?" 23 :; ' y 'i A I did not elaborate, I tried to keep out of any O l!c==e11=evita**ecrxer==adzer-
$=e* id it == ===7 .
h d
I arli 3075 l I I and left the work station shortly after. ; O 2 Q oid ycu at 1.ast te11 Mr. Martin why you ehouaht it 3 , was okay'in using the comparator? You cou13 see it was 4 much smoother than the comparator? 5 A No, I didn't elaborate. O Q Does it give you any concern -- let r.e back up. 7 Prior to this hearing, did you know that any ,of 8 the millwrights applied a file to the scal? ~ 9u A No, I didn't. h Q Now that you know that, does that,give you any ,1 10} M concern? H . 12 A Based on the description Mr. Martin gave of the 13 ;f filing that he did, I would have preferred to have been thero O 14l to 1ook at it prior to any filing bMng A na, but it appears 1 . 15 that it would not present any problem. 1 10 ij Q Do you think this was an appropriata practics. by i: RCI to permit a situation to occur where a millvright'tcok e. g7 l is file to the seal? 4
- s : MR. CONNER: Objection. There was no suggestion I! l 20 d that RCI permitted this to occur, if it occurred at all.
O
- g; MR. BRENNER: I said permitting a situation
] ,
n? in which this occurred. We've got the clear testimony that j i 3j 'that's a fact. I didn't mean dirsct permission. !
;cj t
It was misfaasance, malfaasance, and nonfeasanca. 4 *
\
g CHAIRMAN BECHECEFE2: I think the alention is okay l 1 1
arl2 3075 1 as qualified. The objectinn is overruled. O 2 WITNESS AIELLD: As I stated, any rework sho21d 3 have been passed to General Ele:Stric Company for concurrence, i and so I was upset that it happened without me hating a Ch anem to look at the particular case or cases. ; I 6 ; and 3 7
. 8; :
I 9i I' I i 10I i. 11 'i i sk 1
$d I i,
15 ; TC l- < f 8 l IS 19 1 - 20 t P.! i
.32 23 i.
S'.\ a.s . , d 5$
3077 2davith 1 Q Okay, I'd like to talk' to Mr. Kananen for
, avid 2 2 awhile.
taks 4 3 Thank you, Mr. Aiello.
^
. s ar 4 Mr. Kavanan, you testified that you and Mr. Parla S between the two of you checked all of the ciantrol rod seals j 5 for roughness; is that correct? 7 A (Witness Kananen) Yes. 8 Q The ones that you checked, di.d you touch all of 3 them?
~
10 A I may have. It wa's a combinatio'n of touching i i 11 and visual. ! e' I 12 Q- Okay. Those that you felt you needed to 12 I touch, did you use the comparator? O 14 ;! t A Sometimes. t
!! ~
73] Q How did you decide whether you should usa a -I t 16 'il comParator or not? ;
,j A
; It was just -- one time I would us's it and ons j
!! l
.;3 { time I wouldn't.
{' lr It was -- the seals were uniformly 63 or battar, 19j j
.t ghsoIdidn't--unlesstherewassor.ethingnon-uniformabout i d
l 2 f the seal, you know, I didn't feel it was necessary. ; y' 5 23 O on the ones that you touched, did you touch them -
.:; , because you weren't satisfied with just looking .At them?
d , _n .*1 A Well, it's just a ut.ter of ccurse. YJu use tho -* *
**
- ee ene 86 r i
.. 1 i '
l l J
1 i 3073 ! david 2 I Q Did you feel a need to test with the comparator i bv 2 ' each time, or was it sufficient having worked with them 3 randomly that you felt you knew what the 63 ras smoothne3s e 40 would look like and feel like? I i 5i A Yes, I felt that Iknew wht the rms finish was. 6 II Q Do you know if Mr. Parla prestanhly looked at 7 or touched or otherwise checked for roughness cacit of'the S sals that you didn't? 9, A Yes, he did. 10 Q How do you know that? i ; j li p A He was instructed to do that by myself and 12 he completed an inspection checklist, and I performed 12 : walk-throughs. To the best of my knowledge -- well, O is ai every time I went on the ficor he was performing his duties ij
;5 !, as I instructed him to, and so on that basis, that's how I t 1
16 ) conclude that he -- he checked our seals. t Q Is it possible that you and/or Mr. Parla j 7 ' ,l , g; could be checking those seals in the normal course of events (
. is fj as you've described and Mr. blartin would never have observed i;
4 20 :! this? g; A It's verypossible. If you figure out over a rix 1 il
- 22. j weak period 137 rods, that'a five rods a day. Now, evsn j
!) I 33j using a conservative figure, that's -- tlay void put up .
y, set of four in the morning. '?he set of four wculd be out i ti C) 2S : there all morning long. 1 r 8
3079 l dtvid3 I If it - I do not remember even one. case. where O a thee too* ehem out of the he , out them en the horses. 3 inspected them with the gauges, flipped them over, inspected 4 the other sides and then -- then they had us do the. P Sj other inspections', clean them.and put them into the.. guide ; t i
' tubes without taking a coffee break.
G 7 It's not - it's not really comnon that Gl ' unions work that way, a 9! They're working by the hour and there's no incentive l l 10 ' for them to work fast. So it's very possible that they could j i
!! have taken them out of the box, put them on the -- on the i
12 inspection blocks while Mr. Parla was out. It's not possible ! t 13 that they could have done the entire operation without ! O *!" Mr. Parla being there.
.t t
.I 15 .i Q All right, but we're the other way around right j 16 b,, now. -
ei ' 27 [. Do you personally recall, yoursolf, :naking a il check for roughness while Mr. Mar + % was in very close l te p i 19 rf proximity to you such that he should have obsc ved it? Yes. i Io ' A i
.i my Q Is it poesible that you could have been doing it {
n> i and Mr. Martin didn'thow what you vers really doing?
- ,i nj A It's pcaniblo, p
y] Q You didn't - thic wasn't a big deal announcement O 3';i 3 where you wculd walk over and cay, "!1e era ready to begin
's 1
I
;i
r , t 3080 { 1 david 4 the inspection of the cont:rol seals for roughncas7 was it? O 2! A No. That wasn't their job. It was our. job to 3 lq _ do the inspections, and you know,'we don't inform them what { 4 i l we're doing. It's - l 3 ! Q If nothing else, this hearing has proved that. l 6 -
, (Laughter.)
7 MR. CONNER: I move that be istrickcn as an 8 improper comment with no adequate basis or foundation. 9 MR. BRENNER: I think there's a whole lot of 10 l ! foundation, but I don't object to it being stricken. l 11
}
CHAIRMAN BBCHBOEFER: Okay, I telnk we can atrike 12 , , g that, the comment. . p~ BY MR. BRENNER: 14
- Q Mr. Kananen, you stated that , ycu learned that l 75 . . k Mr. Martin had used that file for the first time in this 1G ~
hearing. - i
- 17) i I '
I Are you aware of any situation tihere any of 1 701 ! ll the millwrights performed any work on the seals which would j 10 j:fi have involved -- well, performed any work on the seals? f 25 rt. A Yes. l mt All right. y,
]i Q Was that -- could you describe what ,
i that work woul'd have been or was? 7 i
- t A Yes. That's ifnen they used the emcry cloth on tho ---
t
~4 .
ij as we described previcusly. O en
~~
i
}j Q All right. Besides that, anything ise?
1
3081 david 5 .1 A No. O 2j! o ave you had - aave you -- have you er anvene 3' else to your knowledge spo;can to Mr. Parla about Mr. Martin 4 using the file since you learned about it at this-proceeding? 5 A No. 6 Q Are you going to ask him about it? 7 A I hadn't intended on it. 8 MR. BRENNER: I hava no further questions. Thank 9 you, Mr. Kananen. l 10 j BOARD EXAMINATION I 11 3Y MR. BRIGHT: ; ii la Q Iet's see. I'll address the panel and whoever j 10 is best qualified, unless I ask you by name, should do the j
- .! answering. I'm sure we understand that.
19 i; on this gritty material, I assuno that the shop } j L inspection of the seal is done before this weld that was I 16l l i , d s
;; 9 discussed is made.
I c
- I A (Witness PancF.:) The original inspe.ction on the
!G]'t [
19 [ part, yes it l's. i ' Ech Q So after the wcld is made, there is no final shop i i i , i 2; inspection of the seal? ,
;i 22 ; A No, thero is a final shop incpaction of the seal t
23 after the final assembly of the total control red. nq. '.! Maybe I should clarify that a littla bit: thct is ! l O .
.3 a aurface and visual inspection as comparat. to a total l
*I d
.t
3082 dnvid6 ; dimensional inspection. T 2 O I guess what I'm curious about is how.did it . 3 get out of Wilmington with gritty material on that seal? j
?.
We arc worried about that
^
N A I'm not really sure. 4 p too. Good, as long as you're worried about it, than I I g Q think we can dispense with that. e , g[ The nature of the gritty materini, your -- you f e ,, have in your own mind pretty well defined it as weld -
- g i
spatter from that -- as you described it. I'm accepting your ' l A It's not in fact weld spatter in tiae normal I, sense of the welding operation, but as a sutsequent gri.3 ding operation, yes. .. 13 ; I . N,,-.Q' q O. , ii Q You're absolutely rfAt. 1% l} U What I want to make sure of is that this, in ! 15 !!. l,
] your opinion, was not some kir.d of chemical reaction th.it i
*
- ij N something inadvertently may have been spilled on the seal. ;.
1,.,- j A That's correct. It saened to ha something that , DJ o ;
. I was only on the outside. And if it had been some kind of j . ;0 t 1
j nham4 cal reaction, there would have been some hind of pitch 20 h i or resi'dus or something like that en the surface after iL 2; it l was removed. I 221 i j 4 0 when you discovered tha gritty material, was thors 23 4 I any offort made to 'get it off with chenical cleaner, 24 , acetona or something of this ilk?
]
a a 1
3003 david 7 1 A (Witness Aiellc) In the normal process of O = 1 -- ". ====1 ra *a =e 1 1 ivea ao = 1*a
; 3 rags soaked in acetone. I have no personal knwladge that 4q they attempted to remove this material by rubbing extra !
I I 5[ hard when they wiped down, but I'm sure it was exposed to 3 acetone before I saw them onSpetember 5 and requested the
. i
, 7 use of emory cloth.
, 3g Q so, you're saying that you are at least reasonably i
s [li, oonfident that, yes, the chemical wipe down with acetone {
;o E was tried and it did not respend.
- ;; , A I'm reaconably certain because of the practic/a of 12 l cleaning the control rods.
i. 13 Q Okay, turning to this amory cloth, how fine is O ;4j that cloth? I
;.3 },1 A I don't have a number to give you. -
1 - gg l} Q Four knot, six knot? t A It was fine emory cloth.
. ;7 [t. .
g ,j Q Well, the basic question is: if one were to take ;
- I
/ gg f a seminless steel surface that was rms 63 and you started
[ 20 ] scrubbing it with the amory c1cth, would you come up with il g; a surface that was at least ras 637 t '
.,, y A I prefer that Mr..Psnce answer it, but before !
"h .
g I pass it to him, the scrubbing and - you knoic - there
.{ ,I g3 vas no very c:ccassive hearing into the naal. It came off
., ti pratty easily, almcat a rubbing tjpu nature like I'm dolag 1
8h e
3084 , david 8 I with my hand. - l 2 (Indicating.) y 3 So I'll have Vernon answer the question as far as - ' 4 Q Perhaps I was leaning too far into the amory cloth, 5 but I think -- 6 A (Witness Pence) In either case, the amory cloth is
\ 7 like a polishing operation: you would be making the surface much smoother than 63. !
, 8i l-3! Q. And no - essentially no dir.ensional
. 10 change?
11 A Not unless you rub for a long ' h . l I
! 12 Q And this we determined was a cue minute ! 13 oPention or something like that, and therefore this would 10
- 4 fit within the bounds of what you say would be a very short, 4
- i
- I 13 insignificant inegth of time, t
t isq A That's correct. i= l I Q correct. 4 17 -[I' lb MR. BRIGHT: Thank you. ; in h.. s.
... i T- 19 ',:. BY DR. ECOPER: l l ? )
I* 20 l, Q Mr. Aiello, in your inspection of.all of these !.
- I 21 h seals, would you say they had the appearanca of having l
22 j' lathe marks or roughness due to lathe marks on them? j i e ... A I would say they had a latha mark on them, yes, i 2S g What -- what -- how dee7 a raark is this? Is ! I pg Q O 33 ; this sometling -- I thought it was t smooth surface, and now . e 6
3085 dnvid9 I you tell me it's got lathe' marks on it. It's hard for me 2 'l to imagine this. Does this -- 3 A (Witness Aiello) You can see the tooling marks. 4 Q Excuse me, I didn't hear the last remark. 5 A The tooling marks.
") Q Tooling marks.
7 A Right. Q Tooling marks. All right, go ahead. Sl
~
9 A There was no depth to these marks. To start
- 10 feeling them you would have to use your fingarnail.
11 Q You'd'have to use your what? 12' A. Your fingernail. i.3 Q Fingernail.
.O 14 A To t feel them with your finger, just with the , f 13 jf. surface.of your' finger, you wouldn't detect it. You wculd l f Nl '
actually', , have to take your fingernail and.run it down. l ' l* ;7 - Q -Run it down over it? 1 l la i A To be able to pick up the presence of these marks. l 3' nj Q so you could ses a tooling m: ark and you could n i 20jj feel it if you ran your finger down it.. 1; i l But even though there are these tooling marks,
- i i
li I 22 O does that affect the overall performance or sealing of :.his !
< li )
23 j device in any way? I
;; 1 A (Witness Pence.) Mayb3 I will explain a little
-O 3-
'i bit about coals., metal seuls. In reality, you want thta i i
l d i l l
i 3086 david 10 I small grooves there. In other words, so it would look like O 2 an eatremoir fine record ,1=rer - I meen a ghonooraoh record 3* surface. Thepurpose for this is that when you put the j 1 t
'#' weight on the small little grooves, they're like little 5! ridges. j G You elastica 11y deform the tops of these ridges so it acts like a number of little lines of sealing surface !
7 , 8 that pick up any minute discontinuities in the surfaces. . 9 Q So that helps you to make it a better seal that 10 way? i1 A That is better than if you tota 11y polished 12j that sea 1. Then the mating surface that it goes against i 13 L would have to be totally polished and very, very accurate 1y O 14 d ground surface to make a good seal. i 13 f Q Yes. So in effect those groovos have a function, 16 then, as far as the sealing of this seal. l
;7h A That's right. That's why we use a lathe turning ! - f, i
10j. operation as compared to a grinding type surfacs. a !
!9 Q Well, y imorassion I got yesterday from talking j 1
with Mr. Hartin was he mentioned scr.athing like a burr. I l 20 1 4 2; ,! know what a metal burr is when you'do a lathe. Is the::e l I 22 if something like a burr that could be on ene of these sur: faces? ! ii i 23 ;; I -- i J aj A It's very possible becan::e this surfaca is turned on a O 3 ,; i a rough casting. , II
- Il
3087 david 11 ' 1' j Q Yes. I O 2
- In a naarar area. It's verr a ssib1e thatYou 3l .
could have a very localized high spot on the casting and n 4. Il for some reason this was not totally removed in the shop. 5 Q In other words, then, this would be appropriate. S Would it be appropriate to file off this burr or whatever 7 it would be? 3 . A If - if this were near the edge of the sealing I 9i surface, as- compared to scrithing out in the sealing
!O surface, yes.
If In other words, if it had been brought to our 12 attention, that would have been our disposition, was to tell 13 tem to remove it. 14 , Q Yes, I can see hcw you can file it off if i - 15 I it's out at the edge, but if it's in the middle, I don't l 3; i know e:.actly how you could do it. ty I was wondering if you could tell me. It was Jej hard for me to visualize. i 2 19 j! A If that had been out in the middle of the surfaca 8 i d 2p i area, then we would not have recommended anybody to try to i ;I 21l file that off. , j 22 , Q Mr. Kananen, I believe you said y22 tcok four , a n rods uncrated during the day and sort of left them there all !, , o l 22 i day. l l ' ( O. gq Was that sort of normal procedura? f l a 4 l
3088 d vdd 12 i A (Witness Kananen) Well, the nornal proceduro was 2 to take them out of the box and put them on the inspectism 3 stand, perform the inspectics, and then clean them up 4 and put them into the guide tubes. 5 l It wasn't our intention to leave them out there G' all day, but sometimes it took that long before the mil 19 rights 7 finished and put them into the guide tubes. a Q So that from what you say, an innpector could have s e come along and looked at these things, aven though the mi13-10 wrights were not there. 11 Is that your test N ny? 12 , A Yes, that happened many times. i 13 Q so they were not always there while tho millwrights -- O !4 ; they were not necessarily always there when the visual m inspection was made. E m I A Yes, that's true. g] Q And did you say that you could in your experirace .- r 9g ' inspecting these things, you could walk up to one of I 33 these seals and look at it and without even touching it no and say, well, this looks okay?
- 2) ! A Yes.
[ li np Q How close to -- do you hr.ve to be to this seal? g,; tj A We'll gat up within six inches. , n
- s. - ,,
I'. Q About six inches or so. Well, I believo'we hoard
.y [ yestarday that - that it was -- that thoso coffae breaka -
that they - that the millmights tcok them cut, polished 4
3089 dvid13 I them, put them back wh'ile inspectors were on coffee breek. ! O 2 r== ae
- s 11 ta
- 1 l is1 , 1 *a
- vour *i r>
3l A That's my testimony. t 4 ., and 4 S[ l jwh fis. 0
~
7 8 9 10 11 I 12 j i ) 12 I O , ,. L n., t 10 :; ; d i fG [! n
<t t:
lC h- , . i
- 19 i 20 l J
21 ! l 11 ; 22 'ih ; I . A3 i 4) 2.t 1 l , Q '! pf
'E g
!l -
t .
I JWBeach ' 45 3090 I l' G It would have to be a long coffee break to do : fois ' O de.vid 2I * * - 'a **"* *** ra= ' ' =*r*= 4 I ' 3 A. You'd have to be out for the whole day.
~
4, S Be out for the day.. j i 3 DR. EdOPER: I think that's all I havg.;,,.,_ l. 3 BY CHAIRMAN BBCUHOEFER: 7 S Just to follow up on that last series of 3 questions, is it likely, or is it possible, that what
-g[ would happen is that the rods would be uncrated, the
[ .
,0 mi11 wrights would then take a coffee break themselves, ,
i y' i and while they were doing that, you came in and inspected? : h . g !! A. (Witness Kananen) Yes, that's possible. j.
,3 0 Is that likely, or possible, at least? :
i i g, i A. Yes, it is. n {
; O I guess this will be'for - Go ahead.' i
.w.. i t
t g 3Y DR. HOOPER: I
. ,, ,, I , S Going back -- I hate to go hac.4 to this milling !
. ~a :
, , !I marks, or whatever they wore, teoling marks.. I'm trying ;
i s .,a t j ,- to sort of rationalise something here. ; I If you thought - if you misunderstood the j
*3)
,, ,, ] function of those marks, and they do have a roughness, !
.)
I' 2^. ;;
! what would be the -- could they be misundersteed as being 1 i
a roughness on one of those guides? I have the idea that you move your finger around one ,ir.y and it wou'd hs O m..
- smoo*h, hue if you ran te ac==ss 1e wou1d be =cueh.
1 1 1 E .
! l 5-2 jwh l 3091 1 l I I'm trying to find out if this could be scmething i ,
h 2 that could be misunderstood as being a rougher surface as l 3 far as these guide plates in concerned. - l
.4 ! Is this possible? One could confuse that sort i
4
; l 5: of roughness with the diffarent scales of roughness on !
3, these guide sheets? Can you help me with that? A (Witness Emnanen) Well, the saals -- I wouldn't
. 7l I 3l classify these -- these seals ara not a polished surface, 3 so in certain respects you could call them a rough surface 30 because they do have these machining marks going around !
i and around. i1 l l 12 3 So that if one ran his finger in one directica 1 13 around, it would appear smooth. But if ycu ran your finger O I4 in the other direction, it would appear rough, and you might 15 , say that roughness did not correspond to the rough -- 63 RM3 l-M[ ; roughness if you hadn't had some experience in that sort 17 of thing? Is that,possiblo?
- TC ll A That's possible.
13 g All right, thank you. l 4 BY CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: l oc l' l I 2; j' O This is for Mr. Kananen, I g2ess. ; 22 Mr. Martin seemed to draw a distinction between t i j 23 the first 50 percent of the rods and the seccnd 50 parcent ! 2.; in terms of whethor they vare examined with a comparator. ; Q 2C g t New for the purposes of my cpeation hera, I'm d
'1 .
p i
l i i 5-3 jwb .. 3092 j i I . going to assume that the comparator-that he had in mind' ;
'O ~ 2! w e *a == th = ar ^1e11 hroushi: o=*o *he este d f*. :
I
- 3. (i But in terms of your own examination, you testified that i
.__. t i 4 you .==ined some with the comparator and some without.
1 3 Did that practice continue throughout all of them? Or , l 5 were the ones you examined with the comparator all on the 7 second half of the series of rods? o
, 3f A (Witness Kananen) The comparator was available l '
3 for the second half of the rods, yes. 10 i g Well, what I'm P.rying to get at: Was it
!!{ i available? You said you had one, but was it available, or 12 ; was it used for the first half of the rods?
I . 13 , 1 Yes, it was - uall, we had it in the QC ' office, 14 ,j for the first half of the rods. i3 j g Did you ever use it? 16 9 A' 7es.
. :I 27fo We used it as a reference. We compared it --
- s l.{ parts of the job, it's the normal practice for QC to got
- s '!
. together and discuss in the offico what requirements were ;
s s j 20 L; set for this particular set of inspections. l l i 2; !j And as part of the normal course, just pull the ; i . . 2 i guage out, take a look at it, and say: Okay, these are a , 923 1 "63" and then look for nicks and scratches, and so on. a g3 [ So, no, it wasn't up there during the first half ;
;g of the inspections. And yes, it was up there during the ,
g '4 ( \ {
\ d ,
t 6 f 5 5-4 jwb 3093{ 9 1 second half of the inspections. r O 2 a === *
- z' ri=9= = = ** a
- 11 -- -
3 "a" comparator, was it used at all during the first half? 4 A No, it wasn't at the job location during the 5 first half. 6 g Neither yours nor Mr. Aiello's, as the case may 7 be? 8 A Right. 9 g so we can assume that none of the first half of 10 the rods that were examined were examined with a comparator? 11 A They were examined for surface finish. Now T2 whether the comparator was on the job ' location doesn't 12 mean that they weren't examined for the' finish requirements. O 14 g What I'm trying to drive at is whether the 15 comparator was actually used in thei examination of any of 16 those first 50 percent, more or less 50 percent? 17 ; A Yes, it was. It was used as a reference to is , determine whether the finishan were good or not.
?
10 ] B Well, was that enly when you had scme question, I j l 20 1 l you'd come back with the cearparator? fl 1 2; p A We didn't hava any question about whather thsy l 24 met the require:nents, the surface finish requireraants. It i l na tj would have been used if we had a question. It was used as l t ' 24 ' t a reference at the start to, you knew, refresh cur memory + 25 about the relative finish requi er.cnte. n , i f n (
.~ . . _ _ .
5-5 jwh 3094 , i t & Does that mean you would feel the comparator in l t , O 2 t,e o,,1ce, an , ,,en ,ee1 t,e sea 1 w ,c,e.e , it.was.on the i i 3 ~ site? 4 L Yes. 5 g so they would be not physically close together? 6 L No. l 7 g I see. 8 Now this question may just indicate my lack.of 9 technical knowledge, but I've heard references to an amory 10 cloth and an amory file. I want to know is there any 11 difference, or are they the same thing?
- 12. A I didn't hear a reference to an emory " file."
13 I don't know what you mean by that. O ,f 14 ; & Well, I don't, either, but I heard one of the witnesses une it. 13l I
~6 A (Witness Pance) I'll give it a try at clarifying
, 17[ that. I believe the reference to the file was a reference ! lal to a " mill file," not an,emory file. There was a mill file . 10 and an amory cloth. " k ry" is actua11y a terminology to! referred to as a gritty kind of a material. It's like tha Il
- 41 [ kind of material you put onto sandpaper, or acmsthing liks ,
I i 22 p that. It's a type of grinding cuapeutul, I gaeus yeu'd
~
23 call it. 2a g So that when Mr. Martin testifi2d that he used
.i O I 23 ,l:
's file," it couldn't havo been an emer:.' cloth that he war ll J * .
5-6 jwb l I 3095 I referring to? O 2 A <*itness norsmann) veddine in the ne ative. 3- A (witness Pence) I think he probably testified 4 that he used a mill file. I don't recall that he made 5 reference to an enory file. He did acke reference to an 6 emory cloth and a alli file. I think that's the correct 7 distinction. 8 % Now in terms of the testimony that one rod was 9 rejected and sent back to Wilmington, I think it was to because of roughness. Is that the only rod that was sant 11 back? Or it was for a gcuge, I guess. Is that the only 12 rod that was actually sent back or rejected? 13 A No. That was the only one that was sent back 14 for that specific requirement. That was one of a total of . I six that was sent back. l 15l- t i 16 G I mean fer seals. For cocieth ng wrong on the . 17 i seals. m " 'I For th'e ~ seals, yes. 'Therif'was one thEfVaE 10 sent back for the scratch on .the seal. 20 0 Right. That's what I'm trying to drive at. i gt The other three - where there was a question, that was !
- l 22 j resolved. Those were ratestad, or relockad at by i i
g , Mr. Aiello, and found to be satisfactory? ; I i i
~y D A That's correct. i O 23 ti4-G Was any further v;crk done on a.h:t before they l
1 l l
'5-7 jwb 3095 :
I were? Or was it just a second check? i h 2' A (Witness Aiello) After the removal of the 3 gritty material, I Icoked at the seals with the surface 4 ' comparator, found it acceptable, and also Mr. Parla of 3 RCI, in doing his function, looked at the seal and signed 4 it off as acceptable. I 7 g But when you looked at it, the gritty material 3 was still on it? Is that correct? S A I stayed until the gritty material was removed 10 and looked at the seal, the three seals in question. I I! stayed through the whole process of removing the gritty i2 material and reinspecting the seals. l 13 0 But thers was a difference in the seals -- 14 between the time you were called in to icok at them, where 15 there apparently was a difference of opinion, and the time 16 that you finally approved them, or decided that they i qualified? Is that correct? r! Ic In terms of the gritty material that was wiped 10 off. In other words, the gritty material was 'tiped off 20 earlier? 21 1- . A Yes. The gritty material tras roeoved in my a 22 presence. There was no diffsrenca in, any, the first ti:na . n i nj they saw the asal with the gritty matrial and then en the 1 na[ last day when I saw the gritty matarial ramsv d, and then f' O 1 1
~~ , \
the seal in::pectsd as far as surface di .ish. . 1 y 1 -1 f
', ,i
. i
I 3097 i 5-8 jwb i i
! CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's all the questions j O 2 the soard has.
3, Mr. Conner? 4 MR. ('ONNER: No questions. ! 3 CHAIRMAN BBCHH0EFER: Ms. Kosik? 6 , MS. KOSIK: I'd just like one thing clarified. 7 CROSS ON BOARD
, 8 BY MS. KOSIK:
9 0 Was the camparator present at the inspection to siti'before Mr. Aiello brought it down to check out the. It conflict that was mentioned? 12 MR. CONNER: Asked and answered, your Honor. 13 Objection. 14 ' MR. BRENNER: I agree with that objection, 15j Mr. Chairman. 16 CHAIRMAN BECHROEFER: Would you repeat the question? i?e didn't quite understand what -- 3,, 73 MS. KOSIX: The question is whether or not the 3g comparator was present at the inspection site prior to i 20 Mr. Aiello's bringing one down to check the conflict 21 , between Mr. Martin and Mr. Parla. And the reason it's i 22 I unclear to me is because Mr. Kananen has talksd about l the comparator being there, and not bei.ng there, and it's 3 }! g! unclear to me at this point in time when that comparater ;
- O ,3,
[ actually was first at the ich site. i l ii l 1 . i ! l
I i 34 jwb 3008 i i 1 CHAIRMAN BECHBOEFER: You're asking as to the l O 2 t 1 tion on the site, not gresence on the entire steer Is ! I, t 3 that correct, i 4 MS. ROSIK At the inspection site where the 3 seals were inspected. 3i CHAIRHAN BECHHO3FER: Yes. I think that question ~ 7 may be asked, because I'm not clear about the' answer, e ..u . 9 Objection overruled on that ene. i 10 WITNESS KANANEN: No. 11 BY MS. KOSIK: 12 j. S So the first time a comparator was p-asent at i is 3 the inspection sits was when Mr. Aiello brought it down? i! I4 ' A (Witness Kananen) Yes. l l MS. RCSIK: Thank you. 15l' e 15 i CHAIlOGut BECHH0EFER: Mr. Hello? 1.I ' iy P 'MR. HEILE: Thank you. 1 b is ;l BY MR. HEILE: , 7 tc 0 Mr. Kananen, in response to a question asked by
- IO q Dr. Hooper with respect to the first 50 percent of the rode ,
b i' I; ,j inspected, he asked you if it were possible that you remy tj i
- n ,1 have inspect 3d some of the reds uhile no mi11 wrights vers l h !'
23 . out on coffee breaks. And if I'u not mistaken, you asid
- i gJ. that wac possiblo. Is that your ancuer, air?
O t y' T. (Mitness Kanan1n) Yes. I
3099 5-10 jwb 1 Could you relate to us any specific examples S O 2 where that act axir occ rede 3 A Yes, I can. I- inspected a number of rods, l
., I 4 oven ones that Mr. Parla had already inspected, as I was 5 mmh ng my rounds of the work locations. I would go in l
6 and inspect the rods that were on the racks, whether or 7 not I'd sign any paperwork or not. 8 9 When the mi11 wrights were en coffee break? 9 A Yes. 10 0 Do you recall actually looking at seals at that 11 time? 12 L Yes. 13 S Okay, another questica I have for you was tha ' 14 . comparator. You mentioned that it wasn't specifically on i is the job. How far away is the office where it was kept isj from the actual inspection site? > l.
;7[
A It's a couple hundred yards. la S What would you do? Would you place your finger i 13! on whatever it was you were trying to compara it with, and i 20[ than walk a coupie hundred yards and see if-that was the l same? - j ! .n +I i ! 22 p A No, it's not -- Ya.sh, that'u basically it, I l
! i 33 ! guess.
l 3 :; MR. HEILE: The.nk you. l 0 '
,,- ] CHAIR!1AN DECHEC2 Feat I think at this stage I
! .1 t I ili ' If ,
3100 5-11 jwb 1 want to ask one fu_ h question. 2 FURTHER BOARD EXAMZNATION 3 BY CHAIRMAN BECHUOEFER: p 4 S It would be a matter of a couple hundred yards, S I but I asse e you would not do this for each rod you felt, f I 5 or each seal you felt? ,
, 7 A (Witness raannen) No.
. 8 g I assume you would do this maybe at the and of 9 the day, or the beg 4==4== of the day, or at see period 10 when you were normally back in the office? In that 11 correct? ,
12 L No. 13 CHAIRMAM BBCHEOEFER: Okay. 14 Mr. Brenner, do you have further questions? 15 ' MR. BREIOTER: I don't know, I think we've
; 15 : exhausted the area, or enhausted me, but.I have no further l
17l questions. f MR. CONNER: In view of the qudstion'thaV'1Tae 13 l , 19! just asked, I would like to ask one more to clarify the 20 record. I'm not sure it la -- CHAIRMAN BECIEIC2FER:- Oksy. 21l 22j FURTHER CROSS ON BOARD 23 DY MR. CONNER: p! B Mr. Kananon, is it i:nportant or essantial or l O ac , d neceucary to have a ecmparater physically pre::snt when you i' q i il .
5-:.2 j rib 3101 t If inspect the seal for the 63 RMS surface? 2!) 3. (Witness Kananen) No. j 1 3 (Board conferring.) j l 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOE'ER: The Board has no further II 3f questions on these witnescos. Thay're diasisned for this 6 tii" contention. i
, 7 l (Witnesses azoused.)
i
. 6 CHAIRMAN DECHHOEfGR: Un:ct, Ms. Kosik, do you 3 I' have rebuttal?
r f to 'i Ms. NoSIK: Yes, I'd lika to put Mr. Martin I: j I1 l. back on the stand in light of tthat's cces out in tha
'l 12 Applicant's rebuttal, fer a fe:r questic ns, l i 10 q CHAIIDGN BECHE027YR: .?efore wo do f:hst, lat 8 s l 14 take a short brea!c. Tan minuhus of 11:00 we'll be back.
p Cnd .'?AB 15 i (Recess.) 3r fois i 13 l' - n
.' 17h 70 I L l 1
I l
- .o l
1.1
'l y, &
*** q 1
O ,,
. .u
)
?
t
T r l GAR arl 3102 i I CHAIM1AN BECHOEFER: Back on the record. 2 Ms. Kosik, are you ready to proceed? 3 Whereupon, 4 l THOMAS DEAN MARTIN i 6 54 resumed the stand as a vitr.ess on behalf of Ine.arvonors and, S j having been previously duly sworn, was exanised and tantified
, 7y further as follows:
h
. C' CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: First let the record show s that Mr. Martin has resumed the witness stand.
10 DIRECT EFJJtINATION 1ij BY M3. KOSIK: 12 l , Q Mr. Martin, did you ever express an cpinion i 12 l regarding the roughness of the sesis prior to the time
;4 q l
i . the comparator was availablo at the inspection cite? I
;3 i A No, I didn't. " had no way of knowing how rcugh n .
jSl-{theywassupposedtobe,soIcouldn'tpossiblybecomplaining
' 4 about the roughness hofore 7. seen the comparator. , ;7 q '
l, MR. BRWNER: Mr. Chair: nan, I objec'c and movo { 13 i!
;., 1, that be strickon. That quention, I knoJ for a fact, was go q asked and.ancuered.
g;[ MS. XCSIR: It's reisvant in the sence of retut121 ,
,nj here, because thoro's tal*< about wh.tn it was discussed, i
i u that Itt. Aiello van brought dotm to check a conj 11ct of
.! opinion between Mr. Martin and Mr. Jarla, end what I'n tr/12J 1 '
;;; to show hero simply is tha: thin conflict eculdn't heto f
I i cz2 3103 i 1 arisen if Mr. Martin didn't have a com arator in front of him j-2L to check the roughness. 3 , MR. BRENNER: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the b 4 f objection, but I would note nothing lis. Kooik said went to l a F 1 my objection, which was that it had been asked and answera.i. j 1 GjYoudon'thavetoputthequestionstogetherrightnextto ,
. 7 ' each othersif they're somewnere in the record, chey're in the I a i
. E record. But it was asked and answered. I,et's move on. I 1,
e
'* i O l BY MS. ROSIE: .
i 10 ] Q Did you ever have a difference of opinion
~
n regarding the roughness of any seals with Mr. Parfa? ; 12 A Not really any differences. He cessed to think i in j they was rougher, too, but when the man ecme up and brought O 14 I li the comparator, he said they was okay. He okayed them, but . I i 15 i you could feel the difference, thers was nc possible
;g[ difference -- you could fool the two surfaces and tall thers l d
, 37jwasadifferenceinthem.
g- Q To the best of your kncwledge, did ysa aver observe i a set of rods being left out all day? j
;g! <
y, A No, I didn't. IL*. Kananon's mathematics, I yussa,
'l
- 21 p! would be right if you considered that the rod was only n ;l checked one time, but at first they was checked and if they I '
g i didn't pass the .:!JO gaugs, it was put back in the box. i
" And at that time -- I mean the procadura wes vo::y fact, and '
o'; t I belisve that it vill shcry that RCI would bring out their l I
ar3 3104 1 records, that there was eight or 12 done in a day on several t 2 ocessions, and that there was eight or 12 of them done a day, S how could one set -- be netting out all day? 4 Q What happened to a set of rods after they were f completely inspected? O MR. CONNBR: I can't hear. 7 MR. HEILE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I've 3 been turning the indicator dial around -- 9 (Discussion off the record.) 10 , BY MS. KOSIK I 1i i O What was donc uith the set of rods when the i I?. , inspection was completed, if they were not in fact sit ing. I 10 > out the rest of the day? r O !5 A Well, they was either put in the guide tubes 13 or originally they was put in a box and le.ter they was l 1; ; clamped, and then put in the guide tubes, but before-wa N : tjllstartedclamping,theprocedurewasverymuchfaster,.you
, l,
;g ] know, becau.se we didn't have all this miking and ever*j'hing .
is elsetodoI-i{ s l Q okay. Now bcw long were ycur cofdsa breaks'.8
- 3 h 6
ng . A About 10 minutas. ,
;;a ,, Q And in what aram did ycu take " cur coffes broske?
l r- ,1 l ;; , A Well, it was or. kha name ficer. Thsre was a wall , between the area, but the dos was open cost of the tiae, nr.d 3 I could see the control sd :31ades frcm tha polat I wo3
+4
I - cr4 3105 I ) taking my coffee break. O 2 Q oid v ewer. during one of your coffee areake, 3, observs any of the QC personnel inspecting the rods during [ 4 that break time? *
- 5. A No, I didn't. As a matter of fact, Mr. ,
L 6I Parla usually took a coffee break with us, so he was out in . l If he was out there, he could not be 7[thesameareawewere.
, S '- checking the rods in a differsnt place.
J Q Okay, one last question. As a milluright, would M I you say that you can meaningfully check an unpolished seni 1; i for roughness without the una of a comparator?- i h l 12 h MR. CONNER: Objection, your Honor. No foundation l, r - 13 a millwright has any special qualific'ations to datormine the
!.;i roughness.
;g HR.,BRENNER: Mr. Chairman, that was In essence p3 what the question is. I'd lika to get an answer. The j7 !,; basis for the answer can than be explored, depending on what l
;3 'l
- it is. ,
' f
!d 1 CHAIRMAN BECHROE?ER: Objoction overruled. You
.I ;
20 ] may answer. i
,g; j TR3 WITNESS: In tho unpolished our:! ace, you ::new, ;
- 1. .
to try to determine one degran frem another without a l g comparator, it's senselena, you knou. The fact that somnbedy
;,; } could rerambs: from one day or even an hour from the tima l
O ., they could fool one thing am.d :all J.! it's tho acme, you l e i
+
ar5
- 3106 g know, you've got to have the comparator close at hand to be 1
{ g able to tell the difference. 3 The only time I've ever checked the seal that
~
4 was without a comparator was a poliched seal,schere you 3 can feel for any type of roughness. g] MS. E081K: Thank you. No more questions. lI 7jil
~
CRAIEHAN BECHBOETER: Mr. Conner? 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION o-j BT MR. CONNER: g Q Mr. Martin, didn't you tastify earlier that yma g , said that the first 50, percent as we are using the term of 1
.g j the seals were too rough?
g~ ;o A I mild that they was such a great degree bf O ,4
. ;l difforence, but I would assume I did not say they was. I 10 lwouldassumethattheonesIhadcheckedwau,butthat's a
14 t' the reason I could not give no percentage, because I did
. bnotknow,AtIwouldjustassume.
. '? H
, How you can make assumptions, but you cannot know ecourately unless you have the comparator.
a 10 Q Didn't you just, say in your epinion you had to 7,.
;, have the comparator in order to determins whether the thing ,
' met the ras standard?
n' A Yeah. - Wr ., q so you determinod that the first 50 parcent warc V. too rough, even though you didn't have the comparator? n 3 e
ar6 3107 j A I didn't determine that, I said I figured that's y the reason I would not give no accurate number of how many
., I thought was bad, because I did not know. I said I assumed, 4
but I did not think an assumption should be-- you know, 3 part of anybody's inapooticr., because they thought something,
,3fjustsayit'sokay,tomedidn'tseemlogical.
Q What standard did. you use? l A For the first omar none; I didn't have none.
. c
. , O Is it your testimony that you were never absent u .
'l for more than 10 minutes at a tims from what we're calling 10 b an inspection site?
g A No, we went to lunob. When we want to lunob, g! . i Mr. Parla usually went with us. O 14 Q Outside of lunch, had you ever been absent from
! the job more than 10 minuten?
l$ ! l A Yes, sir, at times I was down in the reactor , , , , ' , doing the work that Mr. Kananen said Mr. Fowee was kept for, . ,. p Every sna on that job'~Ms I a ] but nobody sine was quellfied. d qualified for that. But at times, you know, I can't may p 100 percent of the time, I knew this, but at the times I did know it, I mean there was days that went by that I could
*:t J ,
I tell if anybody got close enough to look at thz seals or not.
,t I can't say' avery day. I didn't any every day. ;
Q In tha six weekn we talkod about uhun this l
~
O :.z . oms-un .ss cond.o.d, we. yeu -r ... t u .-x, 1 I
cr7 , 3108 1 A Yes, I was. 2 MR. CONNER: No further questions. 3 CHAIRMAN'BBCRHOERER: Mr. Heile? 4 MR. HEILE: Nothing, your Honor. 5 .. CHAIRMAN BECBBOEFER: Dr. Fankhat.ser still isn't a! here. 7 Mr. Brenner?
~~
MR. BRENNER: No questions. a{ 9[ (30ard conferring.) 10 BOARD EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: 2; 12I Q You mentioned that you had some coffee breake L q ;;[ where Mr. Parla would be on. How often did this, happen? i t.: hl l Did this happen every day, or s'rery coffee break?
;;q A I'd any about 90 percent of the time.
't Q .Nell, do you havn one in the morning and one
'I
,' .i in the afternoon each day?
g;,k aq A ro, we only had one coffee break in the mornittg. l u l 9
, Q And tihat about tha af ternoon? !!c branks then? ,
;g A No.
l
- z. Q Did you have any brottka during tha course of the .
l
;. afternoen?
g.g . A Mail, cen:stimers, yoti know, we'd to out in the , back, you know, outsida and co!co triLS lit. Parla, but lie. Parla didn't stay there wl'na wei tasn't thmet , b ranua:a tie wo ,
ar8 3109 1 doing the inspection, there was no reason for him to be , O 2 there *y hi.se1f. 3, Q Would he always or routinely go out with you, or 4 would he go out separately, or go some place else? 3' A .Well, usually, you know, they atayed together -- a well, I'd go off, but the other two millwrights and Mr. , 7{ Parla would go, we was all friends,' you know. I didn't go off,
. 3 so they would stay fairly close. I'ain't saying they was ,
D[l always, but I'm saying that I know of enough +4m== he couldn't have possibly seen the seals, that he was either IC with us or they was put in while he was sor.e pince else. 11l Il 12jt You know, he'd come back, but he couldn't even i is be looking at them. I.;] Q Bow about Mr. Xananen, did ha ever take coffee q y L breaks with you? I
!t , A No, I don't believo so. I don't remember any.
, i- Q How about lunch? Did he ever havo lunch with you? 13 A Who?
. l l
Q Mr. Kananen. ;
- .3 ]
t zhd i A No. He only did 19 out of 137,so wo didn't have
,a, ; '] t. hat much -- didn't want to talk te him that much to really t i I
, ,g
- get acquainted with him, going aus to lunch or tal?cing to
; f him. Like I said, he wacn't thoro that much.
- (Board conferring.)
. ,1 I
1 i
ar 9 1 BY DR. E00PER: O 2 o a a *ia r r **
- 1 = * *a-3 lsituationwithMr.Aiellolookingattheseoeals,andhesaid I
4 there was some sort of a dispute between yourself and I believe
$ I!f it was - I'm not exactly sure who it was, but you remember I t
; ij that occasion when you came and looked at the -- I Il A I remember the occasion when he come up thero,
, 7h 3 but there was no dispute. He come up to look at scratches e a 3 and stuff on it, but there was no dispute, he just coes to up and looked at it. ; 1; Q Me did not use a comparator? l 12 A Yeah, he apparently brought the comparator with g him. I know it was approximately the same time -- l O aut your testimony was that you didn't *- you l 14 I ,
;p agreed with -- let's see, I guess this was -- who was t'io g person that you were with when he came in? Who was the
- [ .:,other -- who was the QA man?
,g{
, A Mark Parla.
t % g, y d Parla? Okay. And you say that you both agr ud , il l g 4 .about this -- these marks and about the seals, and thoro , D was no disagreement between the two of you? l
.l 3 h A No, that was the raason they waa put back, s<m, if
;.g Mark had the final say-so, you know, if he thouJht they was
-,N goed, that man would never have been collad, they would have been put in tha hole, because ho had the final day-co.
.GJ 4
.. -.. - - - .. . . . . . .~
ar10 3111 1 Q But you said they were good, too. 2 A I didn't say they was good. I said there was 3 something on them. So did he. That was the reason he 4 came up to look at them. 5 Q You and Mr. Parla? 8 A I guess. 7 Q Then both of you said they ware had?
, 8 A We mentioned that there was something on it --
S, Q , On it? Did you say something on it, or did you 10 say they were rough? 11 A Well, there may have been something on some of 12 them, but there was scratchas on them and that's the reason
$3 I thought he brought it up, ycu know. I didn't know there 14 was some material on it, you know, you could wipe it off, 15 , but there was scratches on them.
15 Q But Mr. Parla agreed with you, and there was no
, jy i dispute about this matter?
I A No, he was the one that callad me -- they would 13 l
. I = not he a dispute if Mr. Parla thought they was all right, gg ,
20 they would have been passed, becausa at a later tima after I seen the comparator, you know, I never seen the corparator. 23l, 22 , You know, there was a conflict then, if ycu want to call it l I n' that. Mr. Parla agr:ed with mo, he thought they was rougha.:, but that man said said tlny wnu okay.
- lou know, and he vna
") Sli g< the hund hencho,.so it van .skey, no he passnd ' den. Iht.t's I
i , (
4 cril 3112 I what he told us, you know, he came and looked at them and 2 he said, you know, this is all right. But as far as feeling 3 the card and -- you can still feel a difference, anybody 4 could. 5 *O Now if you hadn't used tite comparator before this, 4 how did you know that these were potentially bad seals?
. 7 A I didn't.
. 8 Q Did you feel the:n beforeyou came 2p there or any- i s thing? :
10 A What do you mean, feel thwa before I came up thers? 11 Q Did you inspect them yourself? Did you look at i 12 them before you came up? Itow did you know to call hisa up l i is there? 14 A I didn't call him. 15 Q Did Mr. Parla call him? r
!G A Yeah, because the probism with the scals, you know, ;
, 17 they was put in separate, and he come up and look at them. i jg Q Well,you hadn't lockad at them before that, before gg he cams up?
A Well, I seen them befois that, yeah. f 20 g; , Q And did you fini they were damaged or scratched : I m;
. or anything? ;
23 ' .1 Well, they had scratches on them, but so did
,,3 j Pr. Parla, that was the reason he vam called, see, Mr. 2s la '
- !j i
3j had the say-so what happened to these, he'd say they uns scod, i L i fl I l
ar12 3113 1 they'd have been put in the hole, because it was not really a 2 conflict, you know.- I was repeatedly saying they was rrw.gher 3 than the card said, and he was never called back to re-4 check it. 3 Q h t was the first time you'd ever seen one of G these cards? A No, I'd seen a card before. That was the first 7l
. T time I'd seen it on the job.
0 DR. HOOPER: All right. Thank you. 3 10 l CEAIRMAN BECBROEFER: That's all the questions i:
;1 I the Board has. ,'
s
" '" ~
12 , Ms.'~Nosik?
, 13 ;ij MS. ROSIEs ,
I have no questions. 1 . W j, CEAIRMAN BEC5HORFER: Any other party have further y :i questions based on the Bocrd's questions 7 y MR. CONNER: No questions. I U 17 -l CNAIRMAN 32C5HOEFER: The witness is enoused. U n ga (Nitness enoused.) J g l. CRAIRMAN BEC5HOEFER: I would like to inquire ;
, o whether any party has further rebuttal on contention 16, y' specifios11y the Staff.
t . ; g; q - MR. BRENNER: !!c . I g] CHAIRMAN BUCNHOEFEA: Okay. 11e wl .1 procted to the i
.; next item. ,
, MR. fRCRTER I think the only itetn wo have .'. oft
.3 4
l 4 ___s
ar13 3114 I I l 1 are the matters which the Board asked the Staff to put into 2 evidence. 3 I'd like to call Jack Hughes and Thomas E, Vandel 4 'tothiAstandonbehalfof.thoStaff. j 5l Mr. Vandel has been previously sworn; Mr. Hughes 6 has not.
~ , 7i Whereupon, 1 1 . a Tuonas c. vanoEz.
3 was recalled as n' witness on behalf of the Staff and, having c 10 j, i , been 'previously duly.. sworn, was examined and tastified 11 !. further as fallows; and
'l JACK HUGHES
!2 j..
l 13 N[.'was. called as a witness on behalf of the Staff and, having . ti, P been first duly sworn, was a:camined and testified as follows: il
;gf CHAIRMAli BECH30EFER: Would you hold up a minute until I get these other documents out?
y, *l gy . (Pause.) ? 13 MR. BRENN3R For the record, I would note that l g *i Vandel'sprevioustestimonyappearsfollowingTr.pade1643, l I 3 i) and the items we are going to do today a:e follow-ups to l g, that previous tet,timony. l ni C:lAIRMAN DEC3HCEM 3 Oka'/.
- lou may proceed. ;
.;; DIRECT "! AMINATION 4, BY MR. 31 MIN 7R O.
V vr. Vaud.11 and !!r. Duchon, I ',tavia bohre me a O t t
I i 3115 ! ar14 1 doomment beariM the caption of this proceeding, entitled 2 " Direct Testimony of Jack Hughes and Thomas E. Vandel 3 Regarding Electrical Deficiencies," consistf.ng of seven 4 pages and additional attachrcents. 5 I ask each of you was this prepared by you or G under your supervision?
. 7 A (Witness vandel) Yes, it was. . S ,A' (Witness Hughes) Yes, it was.
0 0 I Q Are there say corrections to make to this testimony? 10 A (Witness Rughes) Yss, there is. In the - I 11 investigation report, on page 8 -- where it says in 12 , parentheses paragraph 3(b), second line -- . 13 Q Wait for everybody to find the page, please.
,af MR. BRENNER: It's the second set -- in other
$3 ' words, after you go through the testimony, you immediately come to an investigation report dated Augus 2nd, and we ta j g7 are talking about page 8 of that in'restigation report.
!d ij Proceed, Mr. Hughes.
- il ond 6 gg q
- i 20
- 1 g 4
$2 M!0 ,
.}
O *[ i i
' e
3116 3 david . I A (Witness Mughes) Paragraph 3(b),second line, ividl 2 where it talks aobot carrying capablity of the NRC, change take ? 3 the "NRC" to "MBC."
.o ar 4 Q Could you tell us what NEC stands for?
5 A It's the Natismal Electrie Code. 6 O Are there any other ehanges?
~
7 A No, sir. '
, S 0 As eormated, I ask each of yous is this doeunset A 9 true and sorrest to the best of your knowledge and belief?
10 A (Witnese Enghes) Yes. 11 A (Witness Vandel) Yes, it is. f2 0 And de eseh of you, do you adopt it as your 13 , testin:my la this proceeding? O 14 b A' ', (Witness Hughes) Yes, sir. tg 1 Ai (witness Vandel) Yes, sir. ig MR. samuusan Mr. Chairman, I would move that the ,' p dooussat just identified he admittedAsto evidence and p, he bound into the record as if reed. mLo CsAIEMAN asCasostsR: Amy objection?
.jo 'MR. CONMBA No objnetion.
,;) ! CNAlfttAM 33CM30tFER: Se ordered.
np (The dcauamat referred to follevn.) i i !
- 03) - .. ' l; O "i!
2 .. 6 h
s' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tStISSION BEFORE TNE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 80ARD . In the Natter of )
)
CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-358
)
(Ws. N. Einmer Nuclear Power Plant) )
. DIRECT 11STIN0NY OF JACK NUGHES AND TNOMAS E. VANDEL
, REGARDING ELECTRICAL DEFICIENCIES p State of 1111 acts )
)
) as.
)
County of DuPage ) Jack Nughes having been duly sworn, hereby states as follows: I an employed as a Reactor Inspector in the Construction and EaSineering Support Branch, Region III, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Glen Ellyn, IL. Ny educational and professional qualifications are set forth below: Education and Trainina
, High School Graduate Sullivan, IN 1952 e
Submarine School (U.S. Navy) New London, CT 1 52 Sonar School (Electronics) U.S. Navy 1953 Class "A" Electrical School U.S. Navy 1956 Class "C" Oyro Campass School . U.S. Navy 1958 Class "S" Electrical School U.S. Navy 1960 Nuclear Power School U.S. Navy 1961 Nuclear Welding School U.S. Navy 1962 O
1 i Reactor Control School U.S. Navy 1962 Electrical Control School U.S. Navy 1962 .]
, Engineering Operation Course U.S. Navy 1963 Engineering Administration Course U.S. Navy 1963 quality / Reliability Assurance U.S. 2hvy 1963 <
!astructor Trainiaq School (U.S. Navy) New London,,CT l964 Supervisory Management Course (U.S. Navy) Few Leodou, CT 1974
,\
. Fundamentals of BWR/pWR Operation New London, CT 1974 /
and Techacingy I e Nuclear Technoligy and Mathematics Fremont, OH 1976 Terra Tech cellege BWR yundamentals ' Bethesda, MD 1978 PWR Fundamenta'.s' Bethesda, MD 1978 , , Quality Assuranco Course Olen Ellyn, IL 1978 , Fundamentals of Imag,ection Course , G1 Ellyn. IL 1978 , s Nondestructive Emanisation Course ' Los kde c., CA 197 i Concrete Techantogy critse Skokie, IL '1979 , Esoerience ,
. I have been employed by tha Nuclear Re&uhtory Commission (NRC) in the ,
Region III office as a Aeactor Inspector s'asce September 1977, primarily
, in the field of electrical and instruneatntion inspection at a number ti different facilities la Region III. Froe August 1975 to September 1977, I was employed by Bechtel power Coryoritier, es Lead Bechtel quality Control Engineer working for the TcIn?t, Ediaea Company (Davis Besse Unit 1) during preopernional. testing g::itre to plant vtartup. Free 4
0 - 2-I i s t m y . . , _-.---,--- , _ ,w.-y .._-...--,------,__.--_,s- _ , - - - . - - - - _ - . . - - - -
October 1973 to August 1975, I was employed by the Bechtel Power Corporation (Millstone Unit 2) as an electrical field engineer responsible for the coordination of construction activities with all nuclear power plant systems prior to turnover to the licensee. From September 1971 to: October 1973, I was employed by All-Vac Electrical Company, Groton, CT performing shop and field repairs on industrial motors and generators. From June 1969 to July 1971, I served in the U.S. Navy, aboard the submarine USS Balfbeak (SS-352) as the chief of the boat, senior enlisted man's billet, assisting the executive officer in administrative duties. I was also the
, electrical division officer responsible for supervision of electrical and interior comunications sections. During this period I was awarded the Navy Achievement Medal. From February 1967 to June 1969, I served aboard the submarine USS Tusk (SS-426) as the chief of the boat and electrical division officer. From February 1964 to February 1967, I was an instructor at the Naval Submarine School, instructing nuclear submarine systems.
From March 1962 to February 1964, I served aboard the FBN submarine USS George Washington SS(B)N 598 responsible for operation, repair, maintenance and testing of electrical equipment and systems. From 1960 to 1962, I i attended various U.S. Naval schools. From 1956 to 1960 I served aboard the submarine USS Tusk (SS-426), responsible for operation, repair, maintenance and testing of interior communication and electrical control systems. From 1952 to 1956. I served aboard the submarine USS Tiru (SS-416) as a sonar technician and an electrician striker. i
Thomas E. Vandel, having been duly sworn and having provided educational and professional qualifications in written testimony regarding contention number 14 (following transcript page 1643), hereby states the following: The Miami Valley Power Project submitted to the hearing board on June 29, 4 l 1979 the affidavit of Donald P. Blanch. That affidavit is included as f exhibit A of the NRC Region III investigation report number 50-358/79-19, a copy of which is attached. Mr. Blanch alleges that during the course a of his work at the Zimmer site he had observed problems and/or possible problems, as follows:
- 1. Cable tray loading beyond National Electric Code specifications.
- 2. The cable spreading room contains overloaded trays, seismic. hangers that are of the wrong type and overloaded, and fire proofing that cannot meet specifications.
- 3. Cable penetrations through walls are overloaded.
- 4. Control devices are in many instances of poor quality.
- 5. Operational use of walkie talkie will cause false signals.
- 6. Interfacing action by multicompanies on electrical circuits often causes circuit checkouts to be voided.
- 7. Redundant conduit systems are installed on same seismic hanger.
Pursuant to the licensing board request, for the NRC staff.to address these concerns, Mr. Blanch was contacted by the Region III' office of Inspection and Enforcement. A meeting was held with Mr. Blanch at his home on Wedneeday evening July 18, 1979. NRC representatives were present as were two attorneys representing MVPP. The 7 items listed were discussed O . a w .
- q *e -
-*se <ge,... e-a
I
. 1 with more detail and clarification of his concerns being obtained.
l Arrangements were made for a site visit by Mr. Blanch and the NRC repre-sentatives on Thursday evening July 19, 1979. At that time, Mr. Blanch had full access to the site to seek and point out specific detailsiof his I concerns not only to the NRC representatives, but also to licensee repre-sentatives who were present during the tour. The details of investigation and the results are included in the above
, identified report. The significant activities undertaken by NRC to achieve resolution are summarized below: . 1. It was established that the National Electrical Code does not apply to the Zimmer facility. Those applicable limitations are (1) FSAR commitment (Section 8) that tray fill will not exceed 60% of cross sectional area, (2) S&L specified limitations of volume fill, forty pounds of cable per square foot (FSAR, Section 3) of cable tray maximum and allowable thermal heat (ampacity) of eighty watts per linear foot of tray maximum. S&L selected 33 computer cable routing points known to be the worst loading cases for designer review. In -
addition the NRC inspector (Hughes) observed and randomly selected
, 20 other points for review, i.e. cable trays which appeared to be heavily loaded trays. On July 25, the NRC inspector (Hughes) reviewed theresultsofthedesignerscalculationsregardingtEieabovestated limitations and verified the designer's determination that in one instance the percent cross sectional area fill for a non safety
. related tray exceeded 60% (currently being corrected) however, no other instance of the limitations being exceeded. It was determined O -
5-4 * **e e--e.
- , - - p- w r--- ---,ymw---, ,.----w ww ry - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -r--w' - - -
l that the worst condition for volume fill (identified by the S&L review) is one tray that is loaded to 36 lbs/sq ft, the worst condition found of the NRC inspector's (Hughes) random sample was 29 lbs/sq ft, with the overall average in the neighborhood of 1/2 the 4'O lbs/sq ft. The ampacity worst case was found to be 48 watts /ft, well below the allowable limitation. The results of seismic hanger loading review was essentially the same as for the cable trays.
- 2. Fire barrier material have undergone design verification testing and the final barrier requirements are established based on the results of the testing.
- 3. Wall penetrations (conduit sleeves) were reviewed by the NRC inspector .
(Hughes) and the S&L designer. Of 176 sleeves reviewed only 12 were i filled to greater than 50%, however, none exceeded the 60% fill requirement previously indicated as the FSAR fill commitment.
- 4. The control devices pointed out by Mr. Blanch were associated with non safety related turbine control functions. -
- 5. Operational use of walkie-talkies was discussed with CG&E personnel.
It was determined that the licensee has instituted adequate control of this equipment. i
- 6. The NRC inspectors have reviewed testing procedures and practices 1
l during the course of their inspections. No problems " relating to i . this concern were identified. This was substantiated through additional reviews subsequent to discussing this matter with Mr. Blanch. i
- 7. The hanger support, pointed out by Mr. Blanch during his site tour, had been identified by the licensee and was documented on a noncon-formance report.
-l O . i i 1 J --. ::_ _ _ ._._._-- - - _ ___- - . _ . . . -.
Although some of Mr. Blanch's allegations do relate to safety related components and are valid concerns, these concerns had been previously
, identified and analyzed by either the NRC or the licensee or both. The NRC believes that these concerns are being adequately resolved by the licensee.
Oktt< Thomas E. andel a e ush Subscribed and Sworn to before se this 2nd day of August,1979.
.fAU 5ettyg.Kox f-NotarfPublic My Coenission expires: 1.g.go 9
e
- r. .
- - . . - . __ -- .-. ~. - - - . . - . _
** h q% UNITED STATES
- 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- REGION lil
'd. 7se noosavaLT noao GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOls 00137 0 -
. AUG 2 1979 Docket No. 50-358 '
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Earl A. Borsmann Vice President
, Engineering Services and Electric Production 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45201 Gentlemen:
This refers to the investigation conducted by Messrs. T. E. Vandel, J. Hughes and G. A. Phillip of this office on July 18-20, 1979, of activities at Wn H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant authorized by NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-88 and to the discussion of our findings with Messrs. B. K. Culver, J. R. Schott, W. W. Schwiers and others at the conclusion of the investigation. The enclosed copy of our investigation report identifies the reason for the investigation and the areas examined. Within these areas, the O i ti8 ti i t 4 r i ti records, observations and interviews with personnel. r P ti tP 4 a i No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified during the course of this investigation. In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Pederal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed investigation report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document l Room, except as follows. If this report contains information that you or i your contractors believe to be proprietary, you must apply.in writing to this office, within twenty days of your receipt of this letter, to withhold such information from public disclosure. The application must include a full statement of the reasons for which the information is considered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is' contained in an enclosure to the l application. , l \ l O 1 l
' Cincinnati' Gas and Electric AUG 2 579 . Company 0
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this , investigation. . Sincerely, Gr-&fn hamesG.Keppler # Aw Director
Enclosure:
IE Investigation Report No. 50-358/79-19 cc w/ encl: J. R. Schott, Plant Superintendent Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Harold W. Eohn, Ohio . .- - Power Siting Commission Citizens Against a Radioactive Environment Helen W. Evans, Director, Division of Power Generation 4 O
l i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT i REGION III Report No. 50-358/79-19 I Docket No. 50-358 License No. CPPR-88 Licensee: Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street
. Cincinnati, OH 45201 Facility Name: th H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant Investigation At: Amelia and Moscow, Ohio Dates of Investigation: July 18-20, 1979 Investigators: T. E. Vande y//
'/
l id**
. u s T--/- 7 9 b.A . Y kG.A.Phillip f!' T T
- 4. t .%L:--
Reviewed By: C. E. Norelius f/t f77 Assistant to the Director R. Projects Section 1 f W/!7f '/
.' Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
, , Investination Summary l Investination on July 18-20, 1979 (Report No. 50-358/79-19) Areas Investimated: Because of concerns regarding electrical components and equipment expressed in an affidavit signed by an electrician who had worked at the Zimmer site, the investigators reviewed pertinent records and procedures, examined electrical components and equipment and conducted interviews of personnel. The investigation involved 92 investigation hours by three investigators. l l O
i l 4 Results: Regarding the seven areas of concern in the affidavit; (1) l
- overloading of cable trays, (2) overloading of seismic hangers, (3) overloading of wall penetrations, (4) quality of control devices, (5) s O .
>1 a r 1*i- 1*i .(6) ti r1 *i>i and (7) redundant systems on one seismic hanger, it was determined that:
it.
' The ites had been either identified and was being evaluated; or, the matter had been previously identified and reworked or scheduled for rework; or, the ites met applicable specifications; or, the item did not involve safety-related components or equipment. Other specific concerns 1 identified by the electrician during an interview and a subsequent site t visit were similarly resolved. No items of noncompliance were identified.
I t I 9
; A i
) i I i 1 ) I 4 i i *
- i .
J O ;
. D l . - . .
1
- i REASON FOR INVESTIGATION O I An affidavit dated June 26, 1979, signed by an electrician amployed at that time at the Zimmer site was submitted to the Atomic Safety and I.icensing Board during hearings on June 29, 1979, and was referred to Region III, by the board, to look into the items of concern espressed i therein.
SUMMARY
OF FACTS i i On June 29, 1979, the Mismi Valley Power Project, an intervenor organization, j
. in rebuttal to testimony by the licensee, Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, submitted an affidavit dated June 26, 1979, signed by Donald Blanch, l , who identified himself in the affidavit as an electrician who was currently l employed at the Zimmer site. The affidavit identified seven " problems e and/or possible problems" he had observed while working at the Zimmer site.
On July 18, 1979, Blanch was interviewed at his residence in Amelia, Ohio, in the presence of two lawyers representing the Miami Valley Power , Project to obtain additional details regarding the matters contained in his affidavit and to obtain information regarding any other specific concerns he might have regarding the electrical work at the Zimmer site. Arrangements were also made for Blaneh to visit the Zimmer site on July 19,
, 1979, to physically point out his matters of concern to NRC, licensee and contractor personnel who accompanied him.
- At the conclusion of the site visit, Blanch indicated that although an j evaluation may determine that cable tray loadings do not exceed the
- criteria specified in the Final Safety Analysis Report, some cable trays were, in his opinion, overloaded. He further indicated that he was otherwise satisfied that his other concerns, as they related to Class 1 (safety-related) components and equipment, had been resolved through ,
) . rework or had been identified for evaluation and/or rework. 4 a e e 5 ] 1 l ,
?
DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted Donald Blanch, Former Site Electrician Lewis Seiler, Attorney, Miami Valley Power Project .
Tawn Fichter, Attorney, Miami Valley Power Project Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company
*J. R. Schott, Plant Superintendent
*B. E. Culver, Project Manager
, *W. W. Schwiers, Principal QA&S Engineer
*R. P. Ehas, QA&S Engineer
- *D. C. Eramer, QA&S Engineer
*J. F. Weissenberg, QA&S Engineer
. *C. A. Burgess, QA Electrical e
J. Seibert, Site Electrical Engineer Sarment and Lundy i Larry Saumski, Electrical Engineer { Steve Tutich, Site Electrical Engineer Kaiser Enaineers Incorporated
*R. Marshall, Project Manager
*E. V. Knox, QA Manager O *R. E. Turner, Site QA 1
Foothill Electric l I Ben Evans, Electrical Superintendent l
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
e
- 2. Introduction On June 29, 1979, the Miami Valley Power Project, an intervenor o
organization, submitted an affidavit to the Board during the hearing 1
- on the Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant. The affidavit which was signed I on June 26, 1979, by Donald Blanch, who was at that time employed as '
an electrician at the Zimmer site, identified seven items as problems and/or possible problema he had observed. The affidavit was submitted in rebuttal to testimony by the licensee. A copy of the affidavit ' is attached to this report as Exhibit A. The Board at the June 29, 1979, session did not decide whether to admit all or part of the items in the affidavit but referred the - affidavit to Region III to look into all of the items contained in it. l Q '
On July 13, 1979, Blanch was contacted by telephone by Region III and arrangements were made to interview him on July 18, 1979.
- 3. Interview with Donald Blanch On July 18, 1979, Donald Blanch was interviewed at his resideince in Amelia, Ohio, in the presence of I.ewis Seiler and Town Fichter, attorneys representing the Miami Valley Power Project. Also present during part of this interview was Charles A. Barth, Office of the
; Executive I.egal Director, NRC.
I Blanch stated that, although Seiler and Fichter were present at his i j , invitation, he had not retained them for legal counsel nor was he a ! j member of the organization they represented. Blanch said that he ! had executed the affidavit as a means of bringing his concerns to the attention of the NRC and site management so that they could be evaluated and, if appropriate, remedied. Blanch also advised that
- he is no longer employed at the Zimmer site having been laid off
,l recently and was currently employed elsewhere. ! i During the interview, Blanch identified some conditions such as [ excess lengths of given cables, intertwining of cables in trays and the arrangement of large and small diameter cables in trays which, while not desirable, were not contrary to specifications or NRC i j requirements. t 1 j Blanch stated that he was aware of cable trays that were physically
, overloaded, that is, piled high in trays. Be was informed that the I
criteria in the FSAR in this regard require that cable shall not j exceed 40 pounds per square foot and the summation of cross sectional areas of the cables shall not exceed 50% of the tray usable cross sectional area or two layers of cables, whichever is larger, but not ! to exceed 60% of the cross sectional areas in any case. He was j further informed that the addition of side plates to the trays to i accommodate cables was permissible provided these criteria were met. Blanch indicated that, even if an evaluation demonstrated that these e criteria were met, he would still consider some trays to be overloaded. ( During the interview the other matters in this affidavit were discussed i and, in some instances, it was agreed he would identify some specific j l *
=
areas on concern if a visit to the site was arranged. Prior to the conclusion of the interview, Blanch stated that all problems or 1 i ; potential problems he had become aware of during his employment at l l Zimmer about which he was still concerned had been discussed. i i {
- 4. Site Tour with Donald Blanch
! Arrangements were made with the licensee for Blanch to visit the j Zimmer site during the evening of July 19, 1979, to point out specific matters of concern. During this visit Blanch was accompanied by MRC i l I personnel as well as the following: ' < t i 1 l l j . . j
W. W. Schwiers, Principal QA&S Engineer, CG&E R. E. Turner, Site QA, EEI S. Tutich, Site Electrical Engineer, S&L l . B. Evans, Electrical Superintendent, Foothill At the conclusion of the tour, Blanch indicated he was satisfied that all of his concerns involving safety-related matters had been t identified, were being evaluated and/or reworked, or met requirements.
- 5. Affidavit Concerns l
A listing of all seven items in the affidavit of Donald Blanch as
, well as a summary of the findings follows:
- a. Item One Concerns Concern:
(1) As much as 80% of the cable trays throughout the plant are , overloaded beyond National Electrical Code specifications 4 of volume per tray. i Observation: (a) Of the approximately 15,000 cables installed at Zimmer only 25% are Class 1E, i.e. essential for emergency reactor shutdown, containment isolation, ' reactor core cooling, containment and reactor heat removal, or are otherwise essential in preventing j significant release of radioactive material to the environment. Class 1E systems are defined as " Safety i Related" (10 CFR 50, Appendix B, introduction) and are the systems under review / inspection by the NRC. (b) Article 90-2 of the National Electric Code (NEC) 1975, scope b(5) states: It (NEC) does not cover
- installations under the exclusive control of electric utilities for the purpose of . . . generation control, transformation, transmission and distribution of
, electric energy located in buildings used exclusively
- by utilities for such purposes . . . . Section 8
" Electric Power" of the CG&E Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for Zimmer station ashes no committment '
to utilize the NEC standards in its design. Concern: (2) Trays are filled to as much as 150% of capability in some I cases, requiring addition of side plates. Addition is 4 merely cosmetic and does not add to the capacity of the
! trays:
l
. 6-
,,,,,,c-
,m,,,,.m-~.__,, ,m ---
Observation: (a) FSAR, Section 8.3.3.1.3, " Fill," states: The summation
. of the cross-sectional areas of the cables shall not
, (1) exceed 50% of the tray usable cross-sectional area or, (2) two layers of cables, whichever 11 larmer, but not to exceed 60% of the cross-sectional areas in any case.
(b) The subject of cable tray filling has been discussed in several NRC inspection reports, concerning thermal 4 ampacity (80 watts /ft) and loading fill limits (40
, lbs/fts),e.g. 358/76-10; CG&E audit performed November 14-15, 1977, of Sargent and Lundy (S&L) the
=
Architect-Engineer (A/E); and S&L's letter dated April 11, 1978; tray side plates (rails) were installed in accordance with approved design document change j (DDC) E-2599. Portions of NRC inspections are attached to this report as Exhibit B. i (c) The NRC inspector reviewed S&L's letter dated July 9, 1979, to the licensee regarding tray loadings. S&L on May 15, 1979, analyzed 33 routing points of the worst conditions and determined in one case to re-route one non-safety related power cable out of tray sections ) 4564A, 4010A and 4011A into conduit. In another instance there are three cables, which have not been pulled and will be route into conduit, thus reducing O - all tray loads below the FSAR comnittaent of 60% volume fill. These cables were also evaluated for l thermal ampacity and mass weight fill and determined , to be well within the design criteria. (d) The NRC inspector randomly selected several Class 1E cable tray sections in the reactor building, cable spreading room, auxiliary building, switchgear rooms
- and control room. It was requested that S&L calculate the thermal ampacity and actual loading fill for the !
following cable trays sections 2141C,.21575, 21585, I 1218B, 1058A, 1300A, 10555, 1301A, 12758, 1111B, i i l 10928, 1082K, 10865, 3039A, 2056B, 2023A, 2023B, 22455, 20165, and 2030A. These trays appeared to the i NRC inspector to be overfilled due to poor installation ; practices e.g. permissible use of random layed cables I (criss-crossed) which fails to promote ideal conditions.
, This example results in what appears to be an overfilled tray. Though aesthetically unpleasent, the tray may not be overfilled from a specification or requirements standpoint. The NRC inspector on July 25, 1979, reviewed S&L's calculations for thermal ampacity and i
p v 7
. ....k..-.'.....
loading fill for the aforementioned cable tray sections. The worst tray section was well within the design criteria. Example: Allowable limits for a
- 2-foot tray is 80 watts /ft and 40 lbs/fta (FSAR, Section 3, Paragraph 3.10.1.2.3). The worst condition reviewed by the inspector was power tray secti9a 1058A, B which was calculated to be 47.76 watts /ft and 28.97 lbe/fta, Concern:
(3) Overloading will cause inductance (heat) which will cause breakdown of cables if the heat generated is of sufficient l
- 1evel.
Observation: i i (a) Refer to the above example for allowable heat dissipation
. limits.
(b) Power cables are derated, i.e. the allowable current carrying capability (ampacity) of the NRC or manufac- , turer are drastically reduced. The method includes ' use of IPCEA tables and consensus paper e.g. Stolpe papers. Example of derated cable ampacity; size of cable No. 6; current carrying capacity; NEC 70 amps, Mfg 75 amps and S&L 21 amps. Power cable current carrying capacity of Zimmer are described in the FSAR table 8.3-18. (c) Derating of power cable has been discussed in NRC i inspection report 77-13. Exhibit C attached and S&L letter of April 11, 1978. Based on the conservation of S&L's deration, it is concluded cables will not be
- operated at values which would produce excessive amounts of heat.
, Concern:
(4) Instrument malfunctions and fires are a direct possibility
. , due to the overloading.
j Observation: j (a) Malfunctions of instruments could occur if a fire were to occur. Power and control cables are by !
- design, segregated from instrument cables in order to l isolate " noise." Power and control cables are inherently
! " noisier," than instrument cables. Instrument cables operate in the mil 11 ampere range, therefore pose no i
1
. 3 l .
1 ... . .. - "*;- " .
----e -- , , ---- -- q .,
,--,,m-mw-,wy---nyv.-y4 -e , - - - - - , -yy ,<y-_m,,- w-,,,,-w - - , -m--n,,, m-
threat to fire from overheating. Esample: Instrument cable tray section 1082E was calculated for watts /ft and asss weight fill. There were 438 No. 16 conductors and 1016 No. 20 conductors, which combines into 216 total cables. Total watts /ft was .00616 and actual loading weight was 13.56 lbs/fta. The design engineer assumed the nazimum possible current of 20 millieamps. Therefore, the heat generated is so small, that it is impossible to overheat the cables and cause a fire. (b) Instrument cable trays are designed to have ferrous material covers, so that there is a magnetic enclosure for these cables. Note: All Class 1E cables installed at the Zianer plant are qualified to IEEE 383, section 2.5 " Flame
- Tests." Refer NRC inspection reports 76-04, 76-05, 76-08, and 76-10 (Ezhibit D attached). The cable spreading room and other areas of the plant is equipped with fire protection systems.
- b. Item Two Concerns Concern:
(1) The spreader room (cable spreading room) is directly below the control room and contains all monitoring cables for the plant though trays and conduit. In this room the cable trays are overloaded, as are cable risers. Observation: Cable trays overloading was discussed in Paragraph 1(b)(3). Ten of the worst conditions of cable risers were analyzed on January 22, 1979, the highest watt /ft was 24.01, which is well below the allowable limits of 80 watts /ft. . Concern: (2) During the plant tour, Mr. Blanch, pointed *ut one hanger
, support (18187) that he knew of that did not meet the e
design specification. The hanger was tagged win a yellow ribbon. Quality control inspectors use this method to identify a hanger support that does not meet the design specification. If the hangers are accepted, a yellow 1" square tag is placed on the hanger. Observation:
, (a) During this inspection, the NRC inspector observed areas, such as the cable spreading room that was
l being inspected by the quality control inspectors, all areas have not been inspected at this time. O - (b) N NRC inspector reviewed the following cable tray hangers and loads that were evaluated by S&L's designers; Eanger Nos. 2HV2, 14H11, 1552, 24EV2 and 3H3, hangers are designed for 40 lb/fta. h Eighest i loading was hanger 15H2 which was 26.98 lbs/fta, ,,11 within the design criterion of 40 lbs/fta, Concern:
* (3) Original fireproofing specifications cannot be met due to '
the doubling of the original cable amount, in the Spreader Room and throughout the plant.
, Observation:
N fire stop (barrier) material was not selected until this past year. N se walls, other than flood walls will have fire stops of foam silicone rubber compound or high density silicone rubber compound. Fire tests were conducted by CG&E during the past year on this material. Fire stops , are not being installed on essential electrical systems at this time.
- c. Item Three Concerns r Concern:
(1) b re cables penetrate a wall there is a " grid" penetration which specifications require be sealed for possible fire and contaminant control. Due to excessive cables penetrating these walls, the original specified sealant cannot be installed throughout the plant.
, Observation:
(a) Mr. Blanch states that due to excessive cables that the original Nelson sealent fittings which are used for the sealent cannot be installed. N NRC inspector reviewed 4 essential and 19 non-essential DDC's for the installation of the Nelson sealii. DDC's are I being written where the configuration of cables through wall block outs (grid) does not conform with drawings. N DDC's are then incorporated on the installation drawings S&L No. 1270, Sheets 1 , through 22. Wall block outs are being inspected by the site field engineers. 10 I l
--w -w v-- - - < -n,-w,--- . , .
(b) Nelson sealent fittings are primarily used for flood protection, but are qualified as a fire stop (barrier), also.
. Concern: '
(2) h overloading through the well penetration has cab ed
, cables to be cut in half at the point of the wall penetration, and similarly could have caused damage to the insulation on other cables in the plant.
Observation: b specific cable was not mentioned in the affidavit nor
- pointed out by Mr. Blanch during the site tour. Discussions with the electrical field engineers could not reveal any
- instances where cables had been cut in half at the well penetration (conduit sleeves). Mr. Blanch pointed out conduit sleeves located in the cable spreading room, which in his opinion, were overfilled.
h NRC inspector observed conduit sleeves in several areas, including the cable spreading room, which was pointed out by Mr. Blanch, h inspector determined that the worst case of apparent overfill was located at the 546' elevation between the control room and reactor building. t On July 25, 1979, the NRC inspector reviewed the designers O' (S&L) conduit sleeve calculation for the above conduit sleeves and determined that cable loading was within the limits of the criteria established by S&L. ,
- d. Item Four Concera l Concera:
- Control devices are in many instances of very poor quality and
. sometimes unreliable. Components for jobs such as this are sometimes ordered as much as 3 to 4 years ahead of installation.
Many as of this date have been discontinued for a more reliable
- component. For example, Power Drawers at supervisor locations, I.C. signal bones, which measure vibration, eccentricity, and thermal (thrust) bearing wear of reactor feed pumps, which have since been changed on a, ewer installations to more reliable components.
Observation: During a plant tour with Mr. Blanch, on July 19, 1979. h oe concerns were pointed out to the NRC inspector and the licensee, O -
-n-
most of the items pointed out were non-essential components. The itses concerning essential cable trays i.e. are covered in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this report. As in the construction of any large project, long lead times are required for the purchase of equipment. During the construc-tion period the state of art will in some cases improve (astru-ments and control devices. The devices at Zinner were purchased l to contract and design criteria. The reactor feed pumps, 1 t including the various supervisory control devices are not essential (safety related).
- e. Ites Five Concerns Concern:
The use of radio s'ignal walkie-talkie, as used by CG&E will cause I.C. boxes and other microamp high frequency monitoring devices to emit false signals. . Observation: The IGtC inspector discussed this item with CG&E's design engineer and plant superintendent. The radio signal that is going to be l used is a very low level frequency. Most relay cabinets have a metal door enclosure which will shield out extraneous radio frequencies. There vill be a survey performed by the licensee ! in critical areas and these areas will be posted so as not to ! use radio frequencies in this area.
- f. Item Six Concerns Concern:
There is a lack of coordination between four concerns responsible for electrical testing at the plant: Multi-Amp, I&C, CG&E < Maintenance and Westinghouse Electric. In many instances
' circuits previously checked have mysteriously become disconnected.
) As a result, I an unable to assure that the circuit condition after it is checked will remain the same. '. t Observation: Multi-Amp and Westinghouse Electric do not perform tests on essential (safety related) components and systems. I&C testing department has been reviewed previously by NRC inspectors. CG&E maintenance department is reviewed by the NRC operations section. i
'. . i -
. . - , . , _ _, _ . . - . , , . , , . , _ _ _ _ . - , , , . , _ _ , ___,._.,_,m,.,_
The NRC inspector discussed the interface of all four testing departments with the lead testing engineers. Each section has a log which is used to record all cables that have been deter-minated. Determination of cables is sometimes required to perform construction and functional testing. There are pre-operation, tests performed on all components and systens after construction and functional testing has been completed.
- 3 Item Seven Concerns Concern:
Within the last year I observed redundant conduit systems installed on the same seismic hanger, in direct violation of specifications. I do not know whether this problem has been corrected to date. A large problem is that these are essential cables, monitored by Quality Control, and should have been a yellow tagged before cable pulling was done. Such was not the case. Observation: Mr. Blanch, pointed out one hanger, located in the cable spreading room. The hanger supported a blue division conduit and orange (RPS) channel conduits. This ites had previously been documented on a licensee nonconformance report and dispositioned by S&L; the conduits were not redundant. Divisional conduits must be separated from each other, channelized conduits must be separated from each other. However, divisional-channelized conduits do O, not require separation. Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in the Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the investigation on July 20, 1979. The inspectors outlined the scope of th investigation and presented the results for each identified concern. e o e e 1
~ ..
. .. .:. ..,.r ..
1.... .y. n,. . . .. $ .
. Ex hi b i t.. A c, ". .t . . ':. >d 7 "
.: e. 4, e.. * . . .
'}7 ...n
. *h?!$Y. f.,YY. ,-:..:
- r. .s .!.e m,.::,. . . , : .
'\ .
.+.. . . . .
.v. k -
& .c k .: ;>
.. .., & .n fN
.h.:,..o4..:n.c y. f.L c,.k
. .s. <
,C ,
- .f..
.. m.
@.u,s.. .s$/d%w.$ N2 . .
h .. .n..k, .y..w., I!' h! ~;' M,. %j! ? p. p. . ;. , c. ..h.h$kS,$(b.f[t ' '.?'
; :....e .$.. O.M.-. . 'd((N).'h,? ;,. . ?.,; .r.
.{ *M$f.d..d.
y' m % .f;; M,f".L.!:ds;.>
.n
, . < .:.. m*
.a. .,:h.eig.
..: .p;:.}p: * .,@c..*;cm l .gr.K. K.
'$.. &."..'f ; :g't-y.'ip.&.g-$. x
..a ,; .u pg,. ;
',r '
a r.L.* *,3.t . t s' . Q.
. &n , .. .'+:
- J,!s
- M. m.:.i S.?
? r'.L.',.M.V. .?r ..< .lX.e . W..c
- M.
- . . .w . . . . . . *. r.
.W:c.u.?2. %.f .o e::.lai.v.
xvw. m M . i.%..'.t.'.:i
...nte w.gc.9 ,~.c.jf.y MG .Y%..g.a , .. ;,f,; : ..%.i m4as%. ,f I
h.
.a 1, ...) e
. , ? .< . G;;y>;
- m. .- w'.w. . tkmali.B' e .g*. .l .. .anchr:ased ....,..:. . '. 40.l,.z.
. . n .~.. : ,u sidinii ..at3.n. 1584 xm..;.:. a. rtx:Ahava;nipe.
- m. . ..~e , . . .w,wm. A. , W 1
. . . . , - ,. . . . . . . e. .<... . . . .- .... ..r.....
s.
#., f ' . ' . .: f oral . . .
lptg, iga, tion,. ;p,g.
. hereb/ . state 'tliat' I. 'm.3 vr. .
lt,isg.this.i. e.fidavi.i.
. . , . a~s. .'a 's.tatm.enteof 3..
.. ..y. . . . . . ..,
,,n.... c:,... g.t
.4 ;
.r
< . ., . . .. .... . . . . ..- , m. y. ,
..;i..
. ..i..l'and' thai I have firsthand kn6wle.cNe<as ..to the followingt,'.. .
;;.{!,. g. , 4;g ;,i . *.,,. ,
j
. . .. . . . . , . . . s. .
e . .
.y .:, / .. s.4..;n.. . . c. . ,1 w. n. .. M, ian el.ct,.r.i.cian,.fo. r. em. c.,.120.
y, ars,'. and a ==
- er'of zi ctrical .M
. g, . ..m.. w.. . ..
. . . . . . . ....i.<,..,. . p. . . .. . . . . . ...>
- 1. .,, . w.. . w:a .. m. e:.w. -
1 v..e,;.ae,.,i.wiin. zoo....... aunc cindinnatiiptor..wmia.s,
-.c e.r v. hm
,x. ioag+
ta -, u..ssarj
.. .s . . .w.w:g=.. ,
g r. M.. a Q(M..,3'.'~*.ykh2M,.,..,....,.,....n:,.W4fdstOnniQ
,i 9; . : . ..e . p*t' . :. : . :* >% . ; .? '&*. W ,'Q,, V*..~ : .".Fr.
r 2 M e ji d s. . a.. j hMu M d WS
.& v.1 dliO EtM % .% w (* w NEMw
- p. .'d,YN/M% :w tinuarINuclear .. . m.o Poiweir'.n m.mg:.,.irdrt%S60W$'m:~. .w af0R" p. a;the, %N; 9.e. g,d. Q G
, jyc.t $ lv. ;,,
Q. . g . . ; .. : .
.a,: g. . MMI4,JH W f.M 'the 'forman%f f1,easu'.Raf F*'*'d Umm:w. h.pf
. 5 .
a = ' ' . . n 'o j.
...L,,,..<>0.,.,... . . . . l r. ,M
..6 . n ,6 , yr . g. .. . i . . . -* 1 . ... . .. . L. 't/ .. :..a.t
- h. .
T.:. p..
.. d., . i.,
.ys
- e. -
8 . b,e $l.a.% -
- .. y--
6
.* ,'.t'. ,Ih8 I.IrW[ ,J . T. 8
. . gi.'s. . ,ystrd ty).. .h. ,m3. 1tk. <w m, . . s.,c e,.N) N.-. .,.,..f.u' y. s.N
-e .
y :: . .
, ,.r...c...
- n. w....fn c;gr o..p., .
.r .g , u. r.w si s 8
n.h.T g.. M.. - nR. M. . .i'a, e..$;.nbig:'
+ whangars,'.Wind..a aria!im,ederm.x..., i.
r, wn.sss. .%<.5.Mpidim.rp=A.gjibW .. ...wt,QM g awar .; g
< , .. h.-.m.f .y;k,.han.gN.e s'.'
..a;lf.5 A s[ .N I 'av.W ,of CnN1(P . .*r1.t.a.W:x
- '". . $ : . m-% ,,the h >
I, .,fs$$3..i. !jtnir$. .?Eent.tienN, .
. . stioh,e,y. .
abi;es'9....g na Ws M ,s3.., d111ng,}CrgwslI th. ..m p lan
.,f.. .
, N.E. 8...eememi ot
.,.. r m m. m L,,, w,pyrm suponi p.t
,f..M .. . v ... :. ,
m ~.v v % ;, :. T. .. .4.ici;t.N.stpervimInd'the.tsrp~ind.to6/p,f.
..c .
cableIs,t J3 als,ptheTsarem
. .: s .. mv . i . gs ..
Eii B. . . D,.:....c.:c Joasi . ,...m'4,. w.. t==#Ctan, x p.n vt.n:. *718. .t.v'31=eias
*tta.nL '.
i*'$
} O fW {s.:;.i g: % n,' at $ g p*er s i % . M.: . c
.@5 f hir N.h.
#1gctriciansp,[-
A ^ ggy,j.g f.<W.hl.$$.'{ N.Q,!Q $$. 1$ d *.);').fNe&,j .,g, [,s'v Q [k &M.j . h(h,,',. f' MM @M IE M..N M Ed$'d2 %g,f,7
~s'.F Nkh
,M k. ..a ?'" ~. M **.N N N
*+.. ...
-W W#A.t.'.3.12M.s.%;%.@.: ,t...fk W. W f h..,W':i M.,n, $....t Q
.~ . .y . ,. *-
- 5. Y! . Q -: $ - ..
.NNS .]. k . N h;., :e:.tY:.,N.W..h,.
- w n w . ei % . , w o u; . ,c., .
w . ; . .< k:..tu.r.o t e- ND.a.m.., .
. e. ~tian-- e.Yd ..
. : i.t .'.W.. v ..a.. x2n..t,he,h,.eur ,. M F h br 6. or
;...n.....
M. .,..e h:.ai'te ;,. I.have . et=.rvea gg ,e g..et. ;fallo
<a.. .,t
. . ...c.. %.-...,.3. e. .
.; s .
w y. .m
. o.,m .
ar possiblafrobim gug. % g ;.t ,..ng..n2.. s.
... @ m .s ,6...h W ,:. pro ,3 . ,,4s.y.,;.a.
- 3. . g,-i. ,g.g< 3 a .~4 a. . s.
u..e p M g ,; .m 6,. A w%,.4,Jbu== . .~. ,... s Wr c.. the
. . .r
; ., ,, , w. Mife.gl.wy. ..x.
- a. v t%,hout
+.... 8-it,... 9.g=eg=*=W+e'Ow .,...m m e f.%,%..msn. n,1. ,,.;ug,. .u gasp mm g v.v: .,3: f; cijia.eao- +. l y.a .o .c. r.,tr u.+.s.e.ph=. erers argly y.
/. n' edi ai on.,.ht. M, W.w x . A .,. s :. e .c c . ..g.m. .yde
~
F?g'(W.c.,M,.,a....fm'..m.w..,a.nn.u.e..,o ., pt t
?a Qj.
e. y'P Q $ D. ..
- t. .fh.
n eme
. N ei . M y4
- m. '
h..4 i:Ne.y $1s.zequivig.u
. . .,,.u. .
i
. ,w 1=,p..,..,(,n y
... ,; . . . . ..s g . . t ,; . 3 ,. . y . . g<
t : e4 g ...Z.. .., 3, . , . .,.
, , . . , . o,,.
. ,3 s. . <. *w5, .a ..-..e . . v
.. . .i .a r . ;>.. .
,. ..y .z,. g. va s<~.. ' .m. , .,. , ;i)1, .
V. ,e.... q . w'w. .s. 6, ,y , . , .. n. a
. ..%.. .m. . n. $ w.3. . '.
~
s M_ . .. ~
. ,+,t . :";y $.;. ; . .@)e v....... s,,r..% 4. .a; j*..
.v.
.w%-x,., ,p,. m.n y 4ty
' &,, g . , k, .M.u ;.M,..:%.L .. .4. < y,. . %,. %..y,<,.
,s.. .
- ;- Q....v e .-;4,s: c.Q.;Qg... .
..;Q.. 9
. f...t . M.
4 .. L.-y.'
. y, . ], M
. ;~ .;_. , +* ' !.Q,.g.., .3 ..
.y.. ..;,;. . . ,i .. .a ..-
.. ,:."... ..,, . . : : + : ;;.a w .n.9 . . 3
. . . . :;;' i k . * ...2. .. : v, . ' : q :M,..y yy.. Q@ .9c
. . A ~,.r;' ? *
-B 4.../. . .. .dA i:.h l
- p.c.f.v -,
w.p.
. '>A$:: A 9~;.l. i.v,D . f'...46. ;'&.
.v.. y:c. p. Adi.bi tW.pi% .:Raee'2;pi;3
;, x.lb%. ; p.6.J:,;. . .W:.
' : m ;2
.: 4. g pm.,.m
, y.:. t.~., ..~;.n. :.:..:1.....:..v. , .. .w..o :
,w<. e.
.y.
. g. .
.e.-5.. :m.- :..: m.i.W
' h. , . m., '.. :qc.:/ . ...,.y.y 3:4:s
',;;.y... .
. ?
.i [.. - !..P A.p .p. '
. a . ;;. W:.w lp3 ..;.E r;,.;.
' j ' : { '..a2 U. * ' y. for.' cosmetic . dd effect, and does noEn,M.,?- lr to the(capacity o,f.f,thei..trbys <.
, m . . . . gy.. ..
. - . . . . , .. . . .~ .
.. e.. .
. ill'o bf,'c.able,sMf't.b.y, :.. i. pad, .E ?...*U 4
.y.' . .. . -
<~ ,
v 4111. c.au.se i.nduct'anoe
.?
.. . , m. . 9. . , y ., c . .,,,..euse
- 4. heat) .
%hf.'ch.b.
... breakdown. . .. <..;y:.y." .: ., u. ,:. .?(
.A.::u.t1.:'.w:
u ,.* '.n
.s . ., .
nAs . c[..: 3/n .r.'.,.mgenerated .w. . . r . - is ;. .Jof ..: :aa:surricienthlh.wsdailmany;'.instriment&alfmeek:W
;. '; -: ' c. - '
3 ' ' .:. V .R.rires are a diEmet possibility & A to M. .ov61n%g. y.
~ . . ..u.:e~.w'n.:.d.: 0 n.L. ,. .vv. .
.: :; W. :.%. v. ' .. .'.n .c;.:.. ,.::e.
x,y y L?p$. h..ains 'lsi
. 5%::;.9 :' ;% ',- .m
. Y.
*..,..a
. .... .J2,h.,!, l:*Ihe .spreader Rxn.1s.directly,.beim n ..,n a l. on er by>
, .. th&cmtrol,s.o.am.a' ,p . . .. ~ . dt. . , . . ...,.:...... .
fra:ys }..".
;'ombIsaIforthe. plant,thouhh'cabletraysand' conduit.#- Tir thM iix,a the ' cable
. /.. . ' ' . .r. ' ' _'
. +' ;r. .
- r. ..,.. .- , :* - ... .. % .'.. ..
3 I.; .'l
. ,. t:ar9 2 J1. <c.fs.~ .f .':7:.h: . eor.over, loaded, as 'are cable J r,isers. . Some andseismic
~'-
'. * . g. ' '
- i.i/ .;;,c'/. ' 'j;'. . P;. .
. . 4 . .
the'. wrong ' type, and do not meet sargent. tundy
.. .....:;:.a ..e... p.
. .~. ;.. ; .y .:.y..:...:..y... ... ..p. -;
y.. ,,... . e
. ... . t
- 3. n ..1., . .: c.</:,.
;c .. . Loverina. . criginal tireprooting et.
..v..q.
. .. w M..ehe. .
...W...g:.u.e...
. . c . y. 1 - . w c ~ ? n;s?' m.!$, ni. ,tu,.u.>....u eigina1 e,mulb 4.e. w ...,.%. tl&,..pectricat
&. M W a. k. w$..%.1s.a '?.K.
i. 7m. .. ~ , . ? , . . : ,. . ;. . i.
.n....,.
. .p, ... ii .M
. . .. . .. . , . . 7 . .,.h d. ;.... . :v.
o.. :wm. p. r..k W
.m
=tions-
' ? , ;;. . .
- g. , . .13.
- . . . ; .;. ; i. : 3.. . .c . .".ntiere ables - 'penetrata.ayan q ; ~ :. 4 ..y: ,. . g n y h .:;::C.';2:
tharu 'im,a , grid"..penetratik,41ch i: ,- l D. ' ! .' ' a.,.., . . . . . 2,'.Arisquire be ,r =aa1M . . . . . n.g forcpossiblef.;
. . ~ .. . .,6. .. . .
fire
. .i v a.nd y . .
contaminant
.. : ,. . . . r contro1T.
.,.;n.n .
. : . ha
~. :
$; tojs.oessiv,e
.. m. . j
~ . . . . . . . ... ..
cannot'be. M. .e. t-
~.
c v.. . .
- . :.'Epenetrating
.c these'wallsi.'wthelerig.in,al;specif,ied nealante
..n.
. .:.. .~, ....
. e . .. ;,.z;..... .\.
i law. . h.u. ipughr-Tc ..
,, 3.;. .
- ' 'Q;. ., .J
- ..P.out the plantf.' 'the , overloading through the wall W4.icns has i.lceweed..cabige tp ,7Y
- . ' .' " 'M::
nd $f:';;=3 i=nindly ' LU:.% could'hswehp;,,Q deV: ?hh?:f
.V.' .C '. :G.J..be .:',l.*I. .' ? ~ .s;cut in half,at the paint'o. .f the %all 5-.u tion,.$a..:-M J d ':; 'S&S e,2 1
- e.
. .,n
. , . , , r. .. .. ; ,. . . .s i;.
. m ,; .;. .,
.- 3. m. ,:.g..g%.,FQ$:. . , , n. , . %; :n as
; a.g. 4,S.ci 50.PS$.
. ? , . , Y .i . ' .
- caused. damage to the u sulatLidn',c. . ch other cablesin'the'. plant'. . c'.
V
..y.2,- .t :
a v."
.. :: ,a< Sw" u -- ;
. ./. ,s ; ' . . ,. ? *L.r-
- 9. y . . .
. . ,.m.:.v . .. c.... .....: n ...,. : . .a. .z ..,
.. v..
tances of.very poor quali.tW,::w; .J y and a... 4 . . .'*.Control'devi'ces
. are ?in many' ins. ..< ft .;t.;. ;, ,:
r @c,..
. 1. . ,., 4.c. .. .-. . . , :.
i> .:, ; ,. .,u-.....n.....-. -
, e : ;;. ,. .... ... . o .s.:>..m ; .
.w o .t .s.-. .',.s , h p;i a: .
*, a. . -. . .
., )p . ; *l . ; , . ! .. .i . . :c . . cow'.mts for:bstzu %. , , , & as'.this 'are smetima<s 4:rdered Ds)
. . ;,.'z w .14=hia..
': . .' . ...n. .
- .c . .t.4 years ahead :pf. .t .:.. :.n.w.). ;.'m .. w. n a..: s ; ..m::.s..t. ..&p,.% ::,.u w .W c
- .e ... M. , *,w : % : instanation. i as 4f this. data %... W. m ,c#
.', .. a.v. .. . ;, a . .
. , ;. v .y . .; . .~.; .. . .r .. . . s ..n ,
i.cl.Q,'. . . J 7. '4,6xireliablebs.hA.w!.u wr .
.c ..a.powedrawers.$. .e eadplef.n.. , . , . n. ,
. .s.upaEvises. .$.op
. ,. . . m . . t<. . ;c n
.s .
v e..
. ,. -; m
.n 5 : . . s m..,..
. #... ... . . . . . .. . s ., .....
7.'.... F .9 . . 1:1 ?l1.c.g...,. . .. signal' txmass, sdtich usamure vibration,' accentric.i'tyi* a.nd .thernal.P= arm. .t ......eara q
- 1. m .
t s..- ,. '. ., - . . ,"..ru . ., .,. . v,. .3. . '
. . ; :;.. . . t .. .'.... - .*s.'........L-.,... y,. 4 a. .: r ., . ., . /:<:,1, , .,:...o .c
. m , .
,,'..,,,[...* Of reactor'fEhd pt3fp68 k: h.AND..'sibCesheen changed' M v p . ,,,
n# Nr
.qi .. ..r.
io h!.[ .f.h,;- a, .
. . v,
. .v. . .c. .s lf. 'I',y . ..y.'.r f.,.y;s . .;..n/,C,r,.,i.
!* ts.'
~
.?
,, scre l reliable i.uw
'; ,.a.- ly. .n..y.,- . .
. / ..... .
, . . .y...'. @ .,.v., ..
~
.. . c .c ._ ~ . ,
f3EI
.,;.. i:. .u;h.5. ..u R ' 'The .. ; ar.use s,n pi >f .- radiosiijnal walkie-talkie,'as . ... . e :::; - r.used .l . . '; - by:C.G.&T..'. v ,.y 6 :. ....-: w
... . . . . ,. ..r,,.
,.[.}.'.li ,
- y
. ,((. .'iM. . *. f*hm" l
BiICoaDp Nih[f,requbCy HDnitCE*ing ..~ a ..:n. . . ,00V3.Ces to m[t,, .fa. lSe'al. gna
., [... ,
- n. . . <; ~ . .
~ :.
4.s.. .v. .., ,. .n .. : .
. .. ,mm. .:...- - al . . a.,. .r P
; .'Ihere is' a lack of c.oort11 nation.between L4. concerns.t==premble .f.or ~ electric
. c- . . :. . 9, ,. .. ,'. 6. *a. . , . s i. . . .
' *:k : i;& %* . .
.s..: a 3 ".:.*: G t + :.: C.'G.& 2.Jamintenaden.,hnd ,1destinghouse
.l- ...' .
;V:. s .) ;,i
',.,Qtest,ing at the plats.: dnaltii@nN. .;2eN.C.7' .
- f.,1.,u.f. i p.,.,,~, -
.,,n... .. , . . .: . . . e..
. ; . .y . < . . ?.. . ?. . ., .r , , . . ,
4.- i l h k d have a.psteriously boome W,;. .'S."..> ,. h. e3 O,;iN: .: .,m. ..s.. . . . , .. ,.< .. .;
' . l r; . n:,9{RK.lectric.
. s..s.. .*;;.;.n ,e. . L.
. ' u. r.; ..:.'.Irt many.
, 4. w.
L instances
,.p.'
..s.circ.uits.
- 6. . .. y , .<,-.. ;. ,.prev
, .a, . ,. . . , : : g, ;,. . . .
ous y c ec
, g.:. .. y...;. y,,,,.....~,3
~.
.. . :; e .
- s. , .
*4: ,~,";.. a,. ,"f...
.: , .em . 4,,
4 e . . .,. . g a,. . . . .' . .- , **
. # :: . . .,ms.. .... p... ... .. .t . . g . . a. A. , ,:
.. . . .y
,v.. e -:4,.. ., .xa % .y . y . 8. (. . . , * * *
- t ..
- s. . * .
- 4. #.-.' .- . . , . , . .
j .' .
. g . g.v..#A,.,.. .,. . . . . ev. ../- ..
- r .. .
. . . . . e . . . ,,f,,. . .:s. y.' v7...* /. ... ,:. , . s,,*.s o . *, i '".$ ..' ."u. *a .si
- 4.. , . J. , .....
- ,: .;. .L.'Q . n,.d i . .. 4
. . m. ,
. ,j
- 3 ,' *
.l %. n:. % l..L.; y'. .ap.,....-. ., :
.e .n. J,' . y.
~
a'.. y, *'r: W ?. .' .,. , . t; .y. . e$ . , ) 6,,,..,.'..i
- ,.. . "; - . ' V. .'.,'G.;,? Q;H . ..
;,.... n... ..-..'. r+,: l-, . . .,h.. .
,, p ; c. - ,
.,.c
, ' . , 3., _ . s .
. . $v. . ..:. 3...
. .; %. s. ;.L . . m;,~.w . . .a,_ , 3. . . 3 , <., .
, . , , . ,. :. ; ,, _ , .g
.*-e. g g
_. _ _ _ . - -- . - - _ _ . . ~ . . - _
.~..e., r) a y v. . , . t .
. *" n . . M...*,'T, ,'
eu .a,af pp.t.. n. .3.:,s. ..t ?. #p.,rh.
. . .. , a. .: ,.. t m. ... v . >. . .;!;. ::y.w..;c. .. . i,9, ,, . o :*.....,
. w: s" :,.,,.g . :..s.....;g. :. n.T,y x hTb3 ~% t *, A;.,"*.,lE';p%
s e
.*H ; : 1..,.- m ..: .-, ..p
.% ym.,,2 .. .,.. > .s . , . , .,. ,. r.:. s,.n -
* * ' ~
. a..
* *i.n
.pe
.td as.; : . ';. *le -
.. ?. e. w:a;g:. 4.s % .3..:s,.?:r.py,7 s
.y ..M .. ?. :...'.A: 2. M., y. c. W' -l y U.?, :,w a. m ,
- $r. ..) D.zy4l au' *w#.;;1e.QXl.f,y: , ~ i *:. 's @ * ..,. 'yu .. ;.&.,.,
@;a..}c,7;%IEW? : ;y.7,b.y,o gs..'i.: ; t,';$ig, ye 3 . ,
. ' .T *,;m . .e f 4, 'fyi{p y
. h.
..%:ptj.!s!D.i,. M.' . e< ;.
4:.,~ q. . : w, n. c.; .. . u.n x.tz.7:s.*, .
.L
..g x. > . Mn,:.u.qw*
- '. . .;..p. . s. ;p,p'%.g, ,c, z. ;p ;,s.q .g .V-l C N.t ..
'w. . .,Z .: . i. . ., : . .. . .
A .;i.v.n n.: .::. E;tdiin.m..wtad. w.., . : :8. . : Me . . .:.a'nzeeult', >. s p...I n,m ': W irnable' : :4, ,.6 to' sasure %%. that.vthe ,
.W f.7;. . - *'W
;. N.;"A .,5^f;.'pTndO aw %ig.,igi. ' '.L
?.* .: - %; ,..'..r.. , 1.'i., .i.t
- s. .. .i*. . . , .
is diedad .4 wil.1:rumai.cs., n
.the see. .
, $ .3. . f v.~,.. s .a .
e p#
.,......g 4.. .
f: .8 .i .:,.
. . .' . 1~$e. .. :. .o:.u3.gn..
I,Nt.hin M. .,.,c.last!,Y. ear I chedv.ed unilaN..t ..,. .
.c$.
red duit.hs ;.f>,.ystse
. ,,. en. s. ,t...
- 1AYi m.U t f. M:.1. m..l
,. 3 .. s.
.*/a.Esans'.salmaic hanger, :in1ation directof%. .specificationsW,.I;do '9 r. i.-tiher.ht . . . . . ..<j .' .:
~
i mM4nraMna
. .....:. . . . . ....w.
y.. . t e u
. ,... i, uy. . . , ..r. ,y,,.
., , s. . c,. .,.. .. ,
'. . . 3, .t . . s.
- f. ' ;G;!this problem has been.u.u. pwmi to.date.).. A:large problem (a that tihese are,assentiale,.
'r. . .., .. . .. . . ~i; .. 4 ; :.
*~' ;. .;., :
l v.* * . . . .. ..p. s ' ; c..l[N u:%' ..hw,(smitared by Quality control, and should have been 'yellae .,t;a
.O .f..' . .
.< . q. .,e,h r'.' @, e .c c.. r/ .'.n,.:mble c .;.y .
- p. - .-
n..- w. ;
. . c S. ' . . : /"i . . I e: .: 4 ;C.
U.. Re;;:';':.L'M,.% pulling was doria.wsudi
* < ~
.v .9 9. og .;
e'at e iss)ime a i ;. W,. ba.T .P .p' g.?i.'.* ."c,? .,: .+j;1.n. .u..iI ma .n,eithei- @., .:..n. 5.. . . . i
,...J.
" Ap . a@ t;n y+:. ;. . S .;ci,2..',heliev. at,.a,s,to'.penutpop >.
. m. .. s. - - .. .o ..- s . . . . v.. .. ;. .- ...i..>.
., c
.5"....... . , .
.4 n ..t.- .
.. >.4 . . ., . -
njthe sont fansible: method. of 4peneratien.s ; . ,.. . . .v .e . ,,.. . . ..thatweeple.of proper'
. .t ...
- r. e .ys.s.;,..: .W.rd
*b. M .: e .'! .T.s. . . ,;.; .
J. >. .Wl.a.. .P.M. :.;,.:Qs4:::'M
+.y.:sonos'en'ta.u.V,!Vw :.M. .
- y? y,'.C:.;
, .; .'. ,,,q. ),;', Nlsuthority and with .nore::. : .
intelligence . then 4 tau .tha.Nas .which.GM? es M:;":& k .t.4 ... . .ng.y a s.
., v.e n. <.L: v. , ' . . .,: i.>:.m. ny.-t.,g. 4.g,q.:p. m. .ne not,heen .' ! n. cM,
- ..I?M.y.?..J.'?,*/.y.u.s..
Jinthepastl1..:.,..:.y,. 7
. .t etid6,;',fe.r'the'saf er' 4=rema4 l9-y R:@., .9,.Q, ,y. L ?. ;,)l..io do i.Ftiore.'..tW'.liWi g. ,
. . .m c. . .. e. . . . . .c ..y .. , . . i .. ....
a '%.y.' .W.! ;L / .>$. ~ ,,W.. f.,p.. z3 ' .7,,...[ g.c v
.Cl.].i.f.i.Q$,.
~
W./9K2h Q&.:. .&y,1,.lL.Q..
, ,x ..: ..s..
.s , .-.
.p m 7 n m
h ;;. y I'.,
.s1ans .
O. .a h. M.
- y. s ..wi.
v....K. s.,. w.'.+ .W,:. w a$. 4,,. p e
..,S..
.. .w
. @u@m 'v..M.s
, T.M... . .
,.. M .,9:
.a...... .
WM. . m i' ::;.t. .M.. ., . (.w. aW, . .
..s nd M. . <.m0. .. .. ......e......,,s . . ..*a:. ,. .m..s...,, y.y. .... a.:v...W.... .,/,i.,M,< .. ~. <.,. ;.;.. 4 a ,.
s, , g.T./.W. F.: .f... . n.W. e,ed. .. ..,. .. . f e @.. .?,3
.~.p.
n.
;'.~..e.
.
- a.; a.
< ^..'.',*: .c '
...(*.fl
' . . . s.,;
- j l t . ,.c, .'e,;i. g.,g.y+\
, * ;r. ;,n3 .y t; .. , ;.
n .,:.?;.,=,.sq $ .,*~(h p: . :V', . t;f r c .'..Fvy f. g. "qs!.< .
- . s
, (l M': .. ; ., , 't .).;>:. *. ,. .*., . ;,,:.y+7* .,s . e
.
- u* . ;p . > i, i,
. . e s; , .< *. t,.*. .. . ,. .. p
,, .y ? , .,'s- .,. , :. . "' . <;W- *y /. - .., * /. . P t,, r ' i;*. ,...d.
J * '), . .!.' .'f, *g g gn,.. M ,.y.. d'-
.# . Tr. . ./ *gS f.*eny y./ .l'g."" .". ,;
, .* J a A.
t. s
,.* 6 g s .
g } : . , i'.pv ..,. g** f.w. J.4 s. f.4. . . : ' ?t' '. * '-la ' . i*.- - . . .,3.-/ -1., P . t.,;',.N.f; . ' f , . t 'h. y ..:. . .,J. .:?. ,, .."t.l.f. 1.. n ././'., f...h. g; .f. 1.f.. W.. *,,. Y.;,.,r..
/
.2 6 .3,b.tary P p211cy;.y.'.:f3,g 4, ..',g;.,' ..
, . .; . . 4 ,.4, f,.; /'.',.i.'.,',1 , . g . w. , , , c, % ;c,'; *. , . . , ,, e .. .f .,b,%.,c'. .. . . , , ;, , , , . .,,;
' * 's. . . .'. /' f, .'
g ..'. is,f.h's f ', P" "'. ' ., . '
- i *l0 * *.WIS SERER. Miemey at Lee E.
.g.
,e. ..,e 4.. i 7. .'. ,, . ;1./ .z r * ,i . .,. 3, ' , U * - l3 t ,.*,;
'.,c*..,,- . . /.N. ., ,..6.h' g ,. ..;'.*h i g;",,r C f.. M.% . nstsee v. $ eve,,c . state er ess e' c. !t l:,r.i. *.y, ;,?- 4" l*
. 6
.f..q ; :,g, ,o ,, c, '... f. ;' g.
e,I e surans an . eusmano h' ;f.- "l' ' , ,8 j .8
. . . f, . ., .;fe . .. 4 .g . ,
y.T".. ..9;, yg;,N '!, .:a %.p* 7. .,y *a,.., .a.:'.rg W% 4ll6 ,.>g'"&: .* .; *h ;y
. * .,t. *me, emmen usas sea,
.- ';.y? , . J..)s:*te %* .,?Q;,6 0k' ?. ?'5 'f:
N 2 t,'lf *: ~ ?! " 4..'
.*.', "%y. .. ;A}'y. .? @. n
'.,k*'.
I,y*.:., , . ' .,,1,% y.yM s M iF. ,;,? .' .M m
- V
- i;4 e
- ' [V s h.). . e,: '.'Q. . ll'.
' 'j';'.p, *. . 2,;Q: MQ:::.C'il .y".i;&ydt.;'.;; , r.',T :. M r . ;m
- .. 3 6.: 7. .p'.H: ' , '. ' ,: n2. . .. . Q. . .. . ; , . . . ..., ' .t.j 4 '.'. Q.:.W e).r.',;. ,L .m:.V't.p'.;.* M . . .c:W./
*.%'v .
,.' . .',]: W. . l. < *
,,.....e.. .! s,&p . 1. r?' w.C.* y d
.%.. .' .~~
. y ,.. *; ,,.:.., . . , ;.p. ..;;_c..e1.'.); i. @.. .
e, ,s : 3, f ': . ,. < .;* * %. u. , . , ,; . ,u
. L?,,'. ,,;.; . .a.(.~ " . g.:;g . , . ?.
- ,- ,. .. -. ....'.3.,,.o..,; . , . . .s . . L ., ,q ...
e..
.).s. e
' ' s * .
; y %. ;,... . .u. .
i .k . . ...-. . , ;,.. M. ..
- 4, ,
\
. . . p.
. , ' . . . . eg ' .. s: e . ...;,.
e.,
. .,. . . v., f< ?.
... .s
, . , , , . 4.
. ,, ,- ) . ,4f, 3. . ..c t,
- 3. .g. .. .;r. .* ,. .. :e..,3.,* . .: *,o .
~.
..'t..;',..-
s . . ' -
. . i
.. 4.. .. ,. 1 . i. .
. i. , P ' a .
..., .y. . , ,.j a
. , . .t.a...,<.,a,. . i ,,j . , . , , '
. s
. ,t . f. . . . ' ..., *.
.... ' .4 ' . . .. ./g- .'*.
5 .,4,,* .. .
"'i.....**.*c'...
, , . .-e
, i
- 4,l
, j
, ,* l ' i.
. J'. .
- n.7,=
. s@,b6 .',. ,;
?.
' , o t.
.*:f.
*I
.. ..*n. ,
. . r ,; a e; .n i',,,'.a* ; *. '.T.
u . .,
.* ..$ .,,- ' ,.? % v,,.i .4' . . ' 3:. . . . ..e...
.. ,. .; .. ;;r.... , ..; . r,.,.*
. *. . . .
- N
,s. , . , t? .'%,.*.
': . ..: i s . . . .. . .e t
?. W, . . . . ,
5.$ :-[&:a. . . W.Q.
):. .yl5:. .
. Q.. ;U. . 0 m .T..,.'[m.'"..f b ; ;. . . .
- ...s, r.. Y. ,n .
4:..... , t;!.fe'g:
. . v.; ..M.*e'
.,, . "Q' pli.h&q$.y'.W.:w. : .
. a ... .'* TS; , . -
%.s. . ' .
- ...: , ; . , g.v p.,, .,.,.,:...s ;.;.. . .
-.Q;,/
,. ., p
. .-.~ . c, ,, .,.c. . :
- .,p ,s? % ..,.. . . . .. ., .
..t . -
. c.,.
. . m .# . . . . . . ..
y,, . .jp.y.g,,%. G,y,. WxW. $.. . ;.. p. , .~. .s ...M. . ., ,7a. w... ... .. ..F.'/.Q . .Q W. ..R...,...
. ....@. ,, ,m . . ..@. . .
- . .a - ,. .
. o. . .. s. ._ g ... . : a .....~.,.<
.' x > h. ..b'%: .,+ g , 9 c) :?
... ..e. ..., .. . . :. .,
9 S,b.w. u. .: ,. .. . ..Q, , t.. . v. :. , 8p :. . . M.*?.,
,yy ,: Mp ..e. . ,.;, g; , j :a. . wa. . . .' . :. ...
pl. .yM.
?,.;.o,... . .w. .v.<.s.,4.y.:.=,%..,.,n.,4.,.b..o . . .g. . f ,... '> . . .y.... . ;..l
~. .;g;;f .r*
.... . a :.,. . ., n. . u, ,.. .;.~.,,. .; . . e . g , ,
. .u.
- c. 3. .
. a .;. . . .-
- v. . ., .
- ., ,,,,~...c.,.. . e. , .,r; ,.
a,. y e ..u. ,..:..u. . . . . . n.<.,. ..
..n.
~....
. ;;s.
. ,. 3, ..w. .
.. ... ..y.n. ..
,....A.,..
. 7.
. , . . . . . . g,,
. e, ...,
, . . . n.
. , :. i . .
.S . .... .
.a. ,. .,,,,.
-*e.e. e
W' , . Exhibit B P;ge 1 of 2 [ UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'g OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION III Report of Construction Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-10
, Licensee: Cincinnati Cas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street
- Cincinnati, Ohio 45201
- Win. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-88 Moscow, Ohio Category: A Type of Licensee BWR (GE) 807 HWe Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: November 2-4, 1976 Prinicpal Inspector: E (( /8 b
/ (Date)
Accompanying Inspector: q.9yablonskiaLsa F. J /I"/ h
- 7b
. (Date)
Other Accompanying Fersonnel: None e e few Reviewed By: E. L. Jordan, A g inf // ///(.2 Engineering Support Section / (Date) e
. e **
Exhibit 8 Page 2 cf 2 B. Facility Items (Plans and Procedures) y Unresolved Item - Raceway Loading Procedures
. _ - 3 Considerations used for controlling raceway thermal and mass fill
, limits were not available for review. Architect-Engin*eer logs.
computer program and/or other methods will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection. C. Managerial Items The inspectors were informed that CC&E's Quality Assurance and
~
Standard Section is now located permanently on site until the
, completion of construction.
, . D. Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee
. None.
E. Deviations None. F. Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
- 1. Pipe Hanger InyfRistion Procedure (IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76A07D 3 0&
IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-06 identified that the oil and gasket material used in hydraulic snubbers to with-
, stand radiation and environmental conditions remain a concern.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed Bergen-Patterson Pipe &spport Corporation (BP) letter dated September 17, 1976, and Sargent and Lundy Engineers (S&L) letter dated October 5
. 1976. The inspector determined that the oil (CE SF 1154 Silicone Fluid) is capable of withstanding radiation and environmental conditions for the duration of 40 year plant life. However, the above letters indicated that radiatio'n testing of the e ethylene propylene seals and "0" rings wi}1 not meet the specified total integrated dose of 3 x 10 rada for the design life of 40 years. Furthermore, tests required by S&L
. Specification H.2259, Paragraph 2.04B.a remain to be performed.
The licensee stated that tests will be performed either at the end' of this year or early next year. The inspector stated this matter remains unresolved pending review of test data. 9 e.-. **
* * " e e m e.asm. je
Exhibit C Paga 1 of 8 o ' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OTTICE OF INSPECTION AND ENTORCEMENT REGION III \ Report No. 50-358/77-13 Docket No. 50-358 License No. CPPR-88 Licenseet Cincinnati Cas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45201 Tacility Names Wm. R. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Inspection att Zimmer Site, Moscow, OH Inspection Conducted: October 5-7, 1977 h.. ffwjt; ' Inspectorst Tg [dablonski -
/M23/77 1 Nf2dl77 Other Accompanying Personnel:
P. A. Barrett (Training) W4><w d--- Approved by: R.L.Spe[sard, Chief X!7'/ Engineering Support Section 1 Jnspection Summary Inspection on October 5-7 1977 (Report No. 50-358/77'13) Aress Inspected: Work performance and record review concerning electrical
/ testing; work performance end record review concerning installation of electrical cables; work performance and record review concerning A.C. motors and AC/DC components. The inspection involved 44 inspector-bours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the three areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were found in one area; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in each of the other areas (Infraction - failure to implement proceduras, Section I, Paragraph 1.g; Section II, Farsgraph 2.b.(1)). o
Exhibit C Page 2 of 8 f -,
- b. Throughout the plant the RIII inspector observed that
. power cables were " bunched." i.e. installed predominately
'. along one side of the cable trays. In some cases cables were completely covered. The inspector was concerned that there was no apparent requirement to install cable in such a way as to allow adequate heat dissipation, e.g.,
single layers and rdequate spacing. Information is required regarding the method of analysis or other engineering justi-fication of the installation. This item is unresolved and will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection. (358/77-13-05) f
/
f' e 4 o . G o ...
Exhibit C
- Page 3 of 8 U.S. NUC17M RICULATORY COMMISSION
\
OFTICE OF?tNSPECTION AND INFORCEMENT 2
)/)
4 REGION 111
.J >
0 , Report No. 50-358/78-03 ,. Docket No. 50-358 License No. CPPR-88
.1,1censee: Cincinnati Gas e M Electric Company 138 East 4th St7 net
, Cincinnati, OH 45201 Tacility names Wm. E. Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant I i Inspect 1'.,n att Zimmer Site, Moscow, OH e Inspection conducted: Foruz I M 1,, 1978 ' Inspectors: T. E. Vandel 9<A ' 7 - J 26< -F
' f. 3. Co ltOf=7,$
J. hughes
,Q, ,. /g, y / f
~
d/ /3
/
/]*/7d i )/ e.~
R.~ *isidu 2/2" ?' O /",K. Other Accompanying Pirsonnait K. 3. Ward Approved by: N. A h, W. Mayes, w* , inf . 2* //76* Prejects Section ' ' Inspection Sunna q ., Inspection on February 14 .17.1978 (Recort No. 5N358/78-03) Areas Insica.te,di, Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals installatie.t. eine-l trical and inrtt:asentadoo cables and components installation, fire protection, recircula.:for.sp'.rnp NDE records, safety relateci pipe welding, and followup of previ ay heatified noncomplisece and unresolved wetters. i , The inspection involv U .bhpector-hours onsite by five 2RC inspectors. Results: Of the seven reac inspected. three items of noncompliance were identifieta in two ar (Inf rections - failure to follow esta*alished pro-l cedures, components, and ina failure to - ovide adequate protection of safety related :, uste documentation of test results) O '
. ...: :.: . .::,:~.-- E- . *:-- . '
f/W Exhibit C Pag 2 4 of 8 l, /
~ '
(open) Unresolved Item (358/77-13-01) - seismic and environmental j documentation for electrical components supplied by NSSS. The EIII inspector's review of licensee QA audit reports which verify the
. validity of the MSSS certificates of conformance and the effectiveness ,
I
- of the NSSS certification system remains to be accomplished.
I (0 pen) Unresolved Item (358/77-13-04) - Electrical cables not tie wrapped in horizontal cable trays. The licensee's Architect-Engineer l supplied the following information in letter to Cincinnati Gas and Electric company dated February 14, 1978. The cable tray / support sys- i tem is conservatively designed assuming the entire cable mass is l accelerated with the same acceleration as that of the cable tray / support system. During a seismic event, the acceleration response
- of the cable tray / support system is transmitted to the cable through friction since the cables are not securely attached to the cable tray.
The transmissibility of dynamic response from one system to the other is a function of the natural frequency ratio of the two systems
- involved. The natural frequency of cables with small tension is very
- low and thus the natural frequency ratio of the cable tray / support system to the cable is high. At high ratios (3 to 4), only a fraction (less than 10%) of the cable tray / support system acceleration is trans-mitted to the cable. Thus the cables inertia force is such smaller compared to the one used for the design of cable tray / support system.
Therefore, cable deflections during a seismic event are not detrimental to the safety of the cable tray / support system. This matter remains ( open pending further evaluation by the NRC. (open) Unresolved Item (358/77-13-05) - Beat dissipation of power cables ( predominately along one side of cable trays. A re"tew of this matter l C} was made by the Architect-Engineer as documented in Sargent & Lundy letter to Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company dated 7ebruary 14, 1978. The letter did not state whether this review and/or .esults meet the requirements of Insulated Power Cable Engineers Assoc'.ation (IPCEA) Publication No. 46-426, which is a commitment included in Section 8.3.3.1.1 of the FSAR. Other Inspection Areas
- 1. Licensee Audits A review was conducted of the licensee auditing activities for
/ the year 1977 and those scheduled for 1978. The results of the review are as follows:
- a. 1977 Auditing Activities It was learned that auditing activities, as follows, were performed during the year:
W 9 +-e to e , e *e-*- 9
l'
*/ Exhibit C Pag 2 5 of 8
. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P -
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION III
- Report No. 50-358/78-13 Docket No. 50-358 Lic:nse No. CPPR-88 Licensee: Cincinnati Cas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45201 Facility Name: Um. B. Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At: Eisner Site, Moscow, OH Inspection Conduct : J e 12-16, 1978
/(. #
Inspectors: T. E. Vande
#7-Y[
//
, yf 'd Q ,'?-f [
/ =-A -
y Accompani d By: . C._Pulsipher Approved By: . W. ye , C e Projects Section I
"/
Inspection Summary Inspection on June 12-16. 1978 (Report No. 50-358/78-13)
- Areas Inspected: Observation of work and review of records for recirculation pump installations, and for electrical and instrumenta-tion activities; review of procedural provisions for 10 CFR Part 21 handling and reporting; and review of previously identified noncom-pliance and unresolved matters. The inspection involved 62 inspector hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the eight areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. t
. 1
m Exhibit C l
, P;g2 6 of 8
. 1 (Closed) Unresolved item (50-358/77-13-05, updated 50-358/78-03):
Beat dissipation of power cables which were " bunch" installed pre-dominately along one side of cable trays. Ihe licensee's Architect-Engineer issued another letter concerning this matter to Ci3&E, dated April 11, 1978, which states, in part: "
. . . size smaller'than 3/0 in Table 8.3-18 of FSAR are more conservative than those in the IPCEA tables. In fact, at the smaller size (19/22) the ampacity in Table 8.3-18 is approximately 1/2 that listed in the IPCEA publication."
T l (closed) Unresolved item (50-358/78-03-02): Rosemount Company's I
* (Rosemount) supplemental mounting brackets for Class 1E instruments.
Rosemount's " quality Certification of Compliance" has been revised to indicate the correct revision. Rosemount letter, dated March 31, 1978, to CG6E, verification Report states, in part: "This is to
, certify that the below listed temperature sensors were supplied with brackets (Rat F/N 104-16',7-1) containing the supplemental =
support." (0 pen) Unresolved item (50-358/78-01-02): Cable trays CB-7, CB-8, and C5-9 bolted directly to the terminal boxes, which are mounted directly to the diesel generator equipment. Design Document Change E-2987 was issued on May 18, 1978, to prevent transmission of vibration from diesel generator to cable bus. Work has not been pj completed as of this inspection. Further review will be conducted in the future. (Open) Unresolved item (50-358/78-01-03): Environmental qualifications for electrical penetration terminal boxes. The inspector was notified by the licensee that Conax Corporation, manufacturer of the penetrations, would be doing a protype test on terminal boxes and cable splices in mid-August. The inspector will conduct review of the final test results in the future. (Closed) Unresolved item (50-358/78-03-13 and 50-358/78-08): The
, applicable ASME Code year and addenda not being specified in KEI's radiographic procedures. The inspector reviewed the following EEI procedures: .
.. SPPM-4.1 Radiographic Testing SPPM-4.2 Liquid Penetration Testing g?PM-4.3 Ultrasonic Testing SPPM-4.4 Magnetic Particle Testing SPPM-4.5 Fersonnel Qualifications o
- --------r- ' - - - - '-
. -- ~
Exhibit C P:g2 7 cf 8 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION III
~
Report No. 50-358/78-01 I Docket No. 50-358 License No. CPPR-88 Licensee: Cincinnati Cas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street l Cincinnati, OH 45201 Facility name: Un. B. Elemer Nuclear Power Station Inspection at: 1hs. B. Eisener Site, Moscow. 08 Inspection conducted: January 11-13 and 18-20, 1978 7 Inspectors: T. E. Va'nde 7/77
.44m R. J. Cook P
/'7!7 7 Yf 4 l l O
I 3* 2 // 7 7 Approved by: D. W. .,~2!/717 Projects Section Inspection Sumasry
- Inspection on Janaury 11-13 and 18-20, 1978 (Report No. 50-358/78-01)
Areas Inspected: Work and records review for recirculation pump internal installation, electrical installation, and'. reactor pressure
, vessel internals installation, and previously identified noncom-pliance and unresolved matters. The inspection involved 74 inspector-hours onsite by three NRC inspectors.
' Results: Of the four areas inspected, two items of noncompliance were identified in two areas (Infractions - failure to provide a procedure for cable loading review and failure to follow procedure regarding cleaning materials). O .
--g = --_m - _- _ _ _ _ , , , - - - - - - - - , - , - - -
~~
Exhibit C Pagt 8 of 8
~
e pulling, QACMI No. R-7 Revision 6, dated January 12, 1978, and deter-mined that the necessary measures had been established in Section 1.1.4, which states in part, " pull cards may be corrected to indicate
- route corrections received from gargent & Lundy by revision to cable i tabulations or by DDC's. Applicable DDC number shall be indicated. l The entry shall be initiated and dated by an authorised FEC, Engineer." '
(open) Unresolved Item (358/77-13-05): Fower cables were " bunched", installed predominately along or.e side of the cable trays. In some cases cables were completely covered. The inspector was concerned that there was no apparent requirement to install cable in such a ! way as to allow adequate heat dissipation (single layers and adequate !
' spacing). Information is required regarding the method of analysis or other engineering justification of the installation. The licensee stated that the Architect-Engineer is analysing this problem. This ites will remain open pending review of the analysis.
(0 pen) Unresolvec Aten 058/77-13-01): Site documentation did not include seismic and environmental qualification for components supplied by the NSSS including the NPCS pump motor and RHR pump motor. The information is available at the supplier's office, however, no evidence of review and approval was apparent. Also, certifications for the reactor building fan motor are required. Tcis item will remain open until adequate documentation is reviewed. Other Inspection Areas The NRC inspector reviewed the status of open 10 CFR 50.55(e) reported O items. The results of the review are as follows: Second Actuation of the Main Steam Relief Yalves The inspector learned during discussions with licensee represen-tatives that NRR licensing personnel were informed during a meeting on January 5,1978 in Bethesda, Maryland of the Safety Relief Valve second actuation problem design review progress. It is understood that further review activity is to be undertaken to: (1) double check design calculations, (2) review computer models for possible changes, (3) consider mitigating devices to reduce ' loading, and (4) meet further with NRR licensing in February 1978. Functional or Frogram Areas Inspected , \ 0
-7 . . . - . ...... .
, Exhibit D Pag 31 of 10 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT '
REGION III Report of Construction Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-04 - Licensee: Cincinnati Cas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45201
- Zismer Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-88 Hoscow, Ohio
. Category: A , Type of Licensee:
BWR (GE) 807 MWe Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: April 28-30, 1976 Principal Inspector: jd.l'* E. W. K. Lee #N[ 9 Accompanying Inspectors: f' F. J.
$<u.r5 $
ablonski (Date) 6[/DfN W. J. Y Rey (Date)
, /
f////7{
/ (6 ate)
Other Accompanyin Personn - None Reviewed By: fiM/ J. C. LeDoux, Chief
. / /
d~N//7 Engineering Support Section
' (Date)
Q .t -
.. 7y
, 4
- I
l
=
Exhibit 0 Page 2 of 10 The matter stated in IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-03 had not been answered by the licensee. The matter above is considered to be unresolved and will be reviewed as part g of the licensee's answer to Report No. 050-358/76-03 con-4 . cerning corrective action to be taken to avoid further noncompliance. .,
, l
[ c. Cable Identification (1) Each cable reel has a label attached with purchase order number, size, stranding of conductors, type of insulation, trade name, bill of material and date
' of manufacture. The cable is likewise identified.
(Raference - Receiving Inspection Plan, Cable) . (2) Specification requirements are verified including
, flame tests and design base accident withstand tests.
(3) No cable installations were in progress. (4) No cable pulling procedures have been formalized.
- 3. Observations of Work and Activities
- a. Emergency Diesel Engine - Generator IC (1) Concurrent with this inspection, a diesel engine-generator was delivered to the site. Portions of the receipt inspection and preparation for handling and storage were observed by the inspector.
(2) A standard " Receiving Inspection Plan" was in effect, i.e. verify identification, examine for damage, source release, machined surfaces coated, vendor instructions for receiving, handling, and storage. (3) The customer purchase order No. 2082 was listed on the packing list. (4) A"holdtag"wasplacedonallthreeunkts. The CC&E t o' Quality Assurance and Standards approved document check-l list was not available. l (5) As received, no tarpaulin covered the generator. 1 (6) The generator rotor was not restrained from free wheeling. " (7) Both engines had damaged carpaulins.
. 9
- 1 4 r-e .
s 71
* * ~
. l l i
. Exhibit 0 Page 3 cf 10 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCDiENT Q REGION III Report of Construction Inspection IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-05 -
Licensee: Cincinnati Cas & Electric Company 139 E. 4th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Zimmer Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-88
, Moscow, Ohio Category: A Type of Licensee:
.' BWR (GE) 807 HWe Type of Inspection: Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection: June 22-24, 1976 Principal Inspector: C. . b 7 h
@ac'e)'
Accompanying Inspectors: K. R N u 7/7/7f (Date)
- f. . .
'F. J. ablonski 7///7[
' (Dite)
, Other Accompanying Personnel: None 8
Reviewed By J. C. Le ux Chief Engineering Support Section 7/f[/7[
' l (Dite)
O e I
. ,' Exhibit 0 Pag 2 4 of 10 tensiin3, pulling c0thod3, pulling comp:unds, minimum temp;rcturca cnd bending radius. Before pulling, all raceway inspections including separation are verified to have been completed, routing card and cable tabulation D verified to be complementary and while pulling, maximum tensions are recorded. Raceway loading is included as part of the computerized cable tabulation process. Excess fill is automatically flagged. CG&E has ultimate.
[ responsibility for cable insulation testing. Cabits are identified both by color and number at th,e ends and incremently throughout the routing. Balance of Plant (BOP) cable routed in class 1E raceway is also distinctly identified.
- b. Cable storage areas were observed. Cable reels were
' stored off the ground and pertinent types, i.e. instrument cable, were covered per manufacturer's direction. '
- c. To date only minimal BOP cables have been installed.
Raceway seals, floor and wall penetration seals and fire
. barrier considerations were not reviewed.
- 3. Review of Quality Records
- a. Cable is supplied in reference to three S&L specifications:
H-2160. H-2161 and H-2162. All cable supplied, including BOP, has the same basic fire and other design base event requirements. Receipt inspections have been performed.
- b. Inspection records confirmed that certain requirements had not been met, i.e. all prototype test data was not provided by all suppliers.
- c. Of the data available for review, no certifications were included which would provide evidence that cable materials supplied to the site were directly traceable to documented prototype flame and other design base event tests. The above item was determined to be unresolved.
l e
** Exhibit.0 Page 5 of 10 '
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ' ( RECION III
\/ , Report of Construction Inspection 1 .
IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-06
- Licensee: Cincinnati Cas and Electric Company ~
139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 h . H. Einmer Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-88
. b ecow, Ohio . Category: A2 i Type of Licensee: BWR (CE) 807 We Type of Inspection: Routine, Announced
- Dates of Inspection: July 21-23, 1976
/' /75
~
Principal Inspector: . . Va
. (Date) p x Accompanying Inspectors: None Other Accompanying Personnel: None.
Reviewed By: D. W. Hayes, Chief // 7/ Projects Section (Date) O 9 9 0 0
, e
%s T
* * . . - e. . .--
9
. Exhibit 0 P;ge 6 cf 10
- 3. Handling rf Safety Relst-d Piping (IE Inspection Rep *rt No. 050-358/76-03) ,
. KEI has prepared, approved, and issued QACHI No. SM-4, O. Revision 0, effective July 22, 1976, entitled " Procedure (Q ,
, for Release from Storage and Handling of Safety Related, Special Piping and Piping Components Weighing Over 1000
. Founds." This procedure prescribes the requirement:s to be followed for release and handling of piping components.
This resolves the concern previously identified.
- 4. Pipe Hanger Installation Procedure (IE Inspec' tion Report No. 050-358/76-03)
The referenced inspection report identified 4 specific criteria which would be considered during the preparation
, of an installation procedure. . During this inspection the , , , , ,
inspector reviewed a KEI issued Field Construction Proce-dure No. 2-112, Revision 0, dated April 29, 1976, entitled
" Pipe Support Installation - Large Bore Piping" and con-
. sidered it acceptable to resolve the identified concerns except for the oil and gasket material radiation resistance concern. The inspector was informed that the licensee plans to obtain additional information from the manufacturer pertaining to the radiation suitability. This matter remains open.
- 5. Inland-Ryerson Post Tensioning QC Procedures (IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-04)
] .
The referenced report identified a concern regarding tendon protection activities observed that were not prescribed within the applicable procedure. The inspector reviewed the Field Installation Manual revised to add the indicated pro-visions. In addition, it was learned that CG&E had approved the revision and had determined its implementation by the performance of an audit. This matter is considered resolved.
. 6. Electrical Cable Test Data and Certifications (IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-05)
The inspector was informed that activity is.in progress to
. obtain test data for flame or other design base event tests for two of the four cable types. Also, documentation is being obtained to show cable type traceability to prototype
, tests prescribed by the specifications. This matter will be l reviewed further during the next inspection. , l - l . 4 7
, Exhibit 0 Pago 7.of 10
. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION em OFFICE OF INSFECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
( ) REGION III - Esport of Construction Inspection - 1F Inspection Esport No. 050-358/76-08 4
'Licemoses Cincinnati Ces and Electric Company
- 139 East 4th Street
.. Nacia==ti, Ohio 45201
, ths. E. Zimmer NucIsar Power Station License No. CPPR-88 Moscow Ohio Category: A2 Type of Licenses: WR (CE) 807 We Type of Inspection: Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection: August 24-25, 1976
. Principal Inspector F. . b $n 9 74
[(pace) Acca g enying Inspector: None
~
l Other Accompanying Personnel: None Beviamed By - D. yes, Chie ~/-7M Projects Section / (Dete) a s y.
.(.
s
. . _ _ _ _ . . _ ,, . . - - , _ ~ , . , . , _ -
- Exhibit 0 Pag) 8 of 10 y E. Deviations Contrary to section 8. Table 8.1-1 of the Final Safety Analysis Esport (FSAR) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
' k gineers (IEEE) Standard 336-1971 Sections 2.5.2, 5.1.3, 4.1(6), 7 and 8, the licensee has failed to develop procedures i
for calibration and control of test equipment, inspecti,on of temporary conditions such as jumpers or lifted wires, data analysis and evaluation by quality assurance, and provisions to make records such as test data sheets and working drawings ' part of the official project record. F. Status of Freviously Esported Unresolved Items i
- Electrical Cable Test Data and Certifiestions (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-358/76-05 and No. 050-358/76-06)
. The inspector reviewed test data and certifications for cables supplied by Eerite Company and determined them to be acceptable.
Certifications for cable supplied by the Okonite Company were act reviewed by tu inspector. No certifications for cables supplied by Samuel Moore and Company, and Raychem were available. The licenses has placed the above cables on hold thus prohibiting installation until certifications are received, reviewed and approved by the licensee and architect-I engineer. This ites will be reviewed further during subsequent inspections, heent Interview A. The following persons attended a annagement interview held at the conclusion of the inspection. . Cincinnati Ces and Electric Company (CG&E) - i R. F. Ihas, QA and Standards Engineer
. J. E. Ioffman, QA and Standards Engineer R. J. Schlunt, Electrical Field Engineer .
W. W. Schwiers Field Project In51neer *
~
Gearco. Incorporated E. 3. Gear, Site Construction Manager
*3- .
9
.__ _.._. . _ _. . , _ . . . . . '. F
./ -
Exhibit 0 Page 9 cf 10 4 - UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tDfISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENTORCEMENT REGION III
' ~
Report of Construction Inspection , IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-10
- Licensees Cincinnati Cas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Ha. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station License No. CPPR-88
, Moscow, Ohio Category: A T)pe of Licensee: BWR (CE) 807 MWe ,
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: November 2-4, 1976 . Prinicpal Inspector E (( /8 b
/ (Data) g.p.yablonskiatau Accompanying Inspector: F. J. [ "/h
- 7b (Data)
Other Accompanying Personnel: None i
^
p . Reviewed By: E. L. Jordan, A Chief '// //,742 Engineerin,g Support Section / (Data) e
@g .
* ~
* * * " * * * * .E ' E ** * *
. . .. .._ l 7 '.."'.*..** ; . - * * *
- M"**'T'"*'
Exhibit 0 Page 10 cf 10
- 2. Shieldina Cas Plow Rate (IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-07)
The inspector re-examined KEI Welding Procedures No. 3.1.22, Revision 18 No. 3.1.36 Revision 18 and weld data sheets and
, determined that the gas flow rate specified on the data sheets
, , is within procadural limits. This matter is considered to be resolved.
- 3. RCI UT Procedur2 (IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-07)
, Questions raised in the above referenced report were discussed.
The inspector determined that the answers were acceptable. This matter is considered to be resolved.
- 4. RCI Visual Examination Procedure (IE Inspection Report No.
050-358/76-07) The inspector reviewed RCI Procedure No. VE-1, Revision 1, dated July 23, 1976, and determined it to be acceptable. This matter is considered to be resolved.
- 5. RCI Audit Requirement (IE Inspection Report No. 050-358/76-07)
*e The inspector reviewed additional information relative to audit procedures, frequency, scope and purpose, qualifications and responsibilities of auditors and determined them to be acceptable.
N a matter is considered to be resolved.
%_ ' ~
- 6. Electrical Cable Test Data and Certification. (IE Inspection
, , Reports No. 050-358/76-05. No. 76-06 and No. 76-08)
Plame and loss of coolant accident (LOCA) test data for Samuel Moore and Raychem cables were reviewed by the inspector and deter-mine to be acceptable. Also reviewed were certifiestions which indicated that cable types supplied to,the Wm. H. Zimmer were traceable to those cables which successfully passed prototype tests. Two new electric cable vendors have been approved by the licensee; Cerro Wire and Cable Company, and Anocenda Company, Wire and Cable Division. Cable supplied by Anoconda was certif-ied to meet or exceed all flame and 14CA tests. Cerro cable is lacking LOCA test certification and is being used only in balance of plant circuits. Suitable means of identification wars ; in force to preclude inadvertent use of Cerro cable in Class 1E systems. This item is considered to be resolved.
,l i \ -
- ] ~ .
1 i i
! I i
3117 '
)
i david 2 I MR. BRENNER: The witnesses are available for l 2 questions. S lj I would remind the board and % e partica of the 1 4i very limited natura that the board admitted this document i 5 for. 3 's CHAIRNMI BBCHEDEFI:R: Yes, I would repeats we
. have admitted this document asl evidence, the portions of 7 li , 8 this document that relate to contention 14. are admitted 9[ as evidence, and the witnessas :nay be cross examined on those i,
10 f aspects. 11 The rest of it the board is a&nitting for the 12l purpose of showing that the staff perforzaad the investigation j I i 13 that we asked them to. . . - . . Mr These are not - the rest of it does not ocnstituto I 15 an issue of controversy.
;d i MR. BRENNER: Thaak you. ,
'j l
) ;7 ti CHAIRMMI BECHBOEF3R Or an 13 sue which the l 1 l
;c !j board has decided to put into controversy. So these witt.essse:
. p
;g ] are subject to cross awamination on portionsdealing with 1
ti contention 14. 2; !! g; MR. BRDINER: I ticuld also remind the board that
,; [ Mr. Vandal has been /! extensively cross namined on contentien
- i. !
p,3 14, and we'ra not harm to r7pont that testimeny aither.
.t. . CHAIRPRI BECHHOUT:'t: That's con:act.
Mn. BREmiER: They're av>111ahLa for rianticna. g-l! O
I 4 3118 david 3 1 CHAIRMAN BECBHOEFER: Ms. Kosik. 2 CROSS FJuudNATION
'S BY MS. KOSIK 4 Q okay, on page 5 of the testimony -- I'm going 3' to direct this to whichever of you would have the answer --
G CEAIRMAN BBCHHO3FER: I didn't hear you. I . 7 didn't haar what you said. A 3 BY MS. RCSIK i 9' h Q Okay. I refer to page 5 of tha tsstimony and I ,
; g L request that either of the gentlemen which has the answer 1f would please answer the questions.
l This deals with the overloading cor.cern. 12[ Z I' In your inspection, did you rely on S&L selecticn of 14 i the 33 worst cases?
;g A (Witness Hughee) The 33 worst cases were already
- a y n
- ; completed by S & L. If yeu read further in the investigation,'
- O
;rd it's stated that the inar.cctor also observed and randcsly !
h} selected 20 other points. l [0 i
. h i :: } Q So a total of 53 were investigated? l 1
i 20 , A Yes. I
' 0 Now, you state that there was a datarmination 21 ll <
- t.
- njj that only in ono instance did you find there was an 3 exceeding of tho 60 percent requirament.
y{ could you explain what you mens by "one inctanco." 33j Do you mean ene schio tr:y or n run of cabletrays? A if l'
[ l 3119
'l '
Q vid4 I A In one cable tray, let the record show it was 2 a non-safaty relatad cable tray. The calculations indicated 3 that t'2e cross sectional arca fill did excaod the 60 percent 4, and therefore the designer decided to repull that and S , route it in conduit to pre *;ent the exceeding of 60 percent S of fill.
, Q 1We about the trays adjacant to that one trays i 7 ,!!
, 8 were they not also exceeding the 60 percent?
I e A No. to Q Okay, could you explain how that's possible? It 11,] seems to me they would all have the same quantity in
! \
t,t ' them.
;,3 A Wocid you repeat that?
14 MR. CONNER: We would' object to this line of y[ questioning. It's all related. The witnesu answer that s
;g
- it's non-cafety related equipment. So it has nothing to do with contention 14, as. auch.
J 17 li , l3 lj MR. BE2NNER: !!r, Chair: nan, I interposed no 11 E objection. t9[ !
?.0 : CHAIRMANBECHHbEFER: one o,f the things we have to I
3 decide in deciding contention 14 is whether thera are -- g whether there is sufsty significanco to - to these cable b g treya genotally, so that.obviously the witness's opinion :
- l y I that it isn't safoty relatcd, we have to decido whether .
O ,j th e.s accurate o= noe. 1 e , I is b
- - - , _ _ ~ _ . - - _ - _ _ .
_ ..._m . , _ _ - . . - - . -
l 3120 dtvid5
! I think the objection is overruled, nv 1 : MR. BRENNER: .You may answer ths. question, i
'3 Mr. Hughes. l 4i off the record.
i 5' (Discussion off the record.) G MR. BRENNER: Back on the record. 7, WITNESS BUGHES: I would just like to know
, 3 what the chairman just said about an opinion.
g MR. BRENNER: Nait a minute. Wait a minute. 10 WITNESS EUGHES: I didn't hear the chairman. The chairman oterruled the 13 MR. BRENNER: 12I objection. You may now respond to the question. 13 BY MS. XOSIK 14 , Q Do you recall ths question or did you want it ; h repeated? g [1 i t;; [ A Would you repeat the questica, pleasa?
}
l g i Q I'm just trying to determine wh2n you say in 4 I g' one instance -- you stated one instance means cua cable !
. i gg I tray. I'm trying to determine how one cable tray la -- can y be overicaded beyond the 60 percent and yet the adjacent a
y[ trays -- which I assume the cable runs .hrough all of them -- ! j 3; are not ovarloaded. ! 3, A The adjacent cable tray does not havo an effect ca g ,q,., , that particular cable tray fill. - o e on't the cablas crn from cno tray right latn
~
. Q ,-
- i k.
4
3121 david 6 1 another along the whole run? 2 A No. 3l Q What happens to the ones that don't? _ 4 A They go in an adjacent tray, which is also 3 considered as a separate tray, s (counsel for Intarvenor MVPP conferring.)
, 7 Q so it seems like at least two in a row would be ., gl overloade.it is that not the case?
- g MR. BRENNER: Mr. Chairnian, if Ms. Xosik doesn't 10 know what adjacentmeans, I can't help her. But when sha A
I 79 uses the word " adjacent," what comes to mind is trays l 12 ' Parallel to each other. t. g Now, if she wants to ask how cor:a from one and 94 i of the cable tray that Mr. Hughes was talking about to 9,3 where that cable tray may and thero isn't a continuation I 'I of this overloading condition, she could ask that quotion. gg f; 37 fts. ROSIK: Well, perhaps - that's what I maant i i ;
;g ; by adjacent. I'm referring to a cable tray run.
. I 99l BY MB.ROSIK:
20 Q Is that the correct terminology, a cable tray at *""7
- 22 MS. KOSIKs Is the witness talking to counsel or l i !
g who is he talking to? ,,,, ;- i'
,", tiITNESS HUGHES: Yes, ::m ' am. Yos, ca'am. 'O ,, b, l
[, That would ho :ncra correct. M h d ,
I e 3123 l t david 7 I i BY MS. NOEIX: ; l CJD 2 , Q okay. Now, the cable trays in this an, those 1 3/- that were preceding and following the one cable tray that
*' 4 was overloaded, are they not r.1'so overloaded? - 5 A That's not necessarily true, due to the reason l f
of where the junction is locatsd.
~
, . 6I
. 7, Q Well, in this instance that you found, was it b,
l'. 8 the case?
. u s l' 9 i' A ma, ma'am.
f M[. Q So what you're saying is just one tray was
!i found to be overloaded and no trays that preceded it j 12 j or followed it were overicaded? \
13 i{ : p I, (Counsel for Intervenor MVPP conferring.) . i[ l
- Q Okay, now, regarding the hanger suppert, it tras d
stated in your testimony that this was doctmented as a non-i
,e !,
s 5: conformance. Does this mean -- what dcos this mean? Does ( g3 y - this mean the NRC is going to require that a change be tsade? t t ;g :;
... . 14
;g , A Are you referring to item number seven? ;
1' You. I p,o j Q n
- g. ;{ A Rupeat that questien.
1 :, y ,i.. Q You stated this prcblen was aircady documente.d as ; I o ' p.
- e. ,
a non-conformance. . s
.)
. , . . A A non-conformance report is a site docuast:stion
~", ,
,g
, '. used by tha licensee to decur. tant anything that's installed 8
I n
i l 3123 I 1' davidu that does not conform to specification or drawings. 2 " ,, Q Well, does this mean that these problems have 3 to be modified? 4 A It means that these problems, if the non-
"l conformance sticker is on that particular hanger, it means 6 it has been identified by the QC departrient saying that t:his 7 hanger was not installed according to the installation
.* 8 drawing and therefore needs a designer engineer to reverify D .: it. i 10 Q Does that mean a designer enginesr will say, 12 I well, yes, it's okay, all right as is? 4 12 A I cannot say that, ma'am, because usually the O' ! r ** x , th a is vi itt 1 >* * **
- 14 1 then he'.11.come back and says put it in according to 13 l drawing.
16 Q Now, are you saying that if thin problem is daalt d I I" with properly, this -- the changes that are necessary in order 10 to meet the drawing will be made? r 13 A That's affirmative.
, 20 ;1l (Pause.)
I t 21 0 Now, regarding the 60 percent cross sectional 22 ;l.f loading, I believo 'you stated in there that it can be f s ; 20 Fi 60 percent with the additicnal aidsplates added on. 4 6 Oj, A I did not say that. M Q Ckay. Perhapo I misrsad pago E .)f -- let'*2 ase -- . r
3124 david 9 I the inspection report 79-19 -- okay, it's the first O 2 (; inspection report following the testimony on page 5 of that. L 3 I'ain -- let's see -- one, two, three, the fourth paragraph 4 of paragraph -- section thr.as, I guess it is: Interview E with Donald 31anoh. 9 MR. BREMMER: Mr. Chairman, just a minor
. 7 olarification for the record. This is investigation report 0l 79-19. So you've got differsat numbering systems.
In l other words, there might also be an inspection report 79-19. l OJ 10 So it's just to clarify that. I1 'BY M8. R0822:
? ?. ,0 .okay, it states in there: "Re" -- Dianch --
13 "was fudther inforraad that the addition of side plates to the 14 i trays to accorrsodato cablos was permissible provided these in g criteria were met." ll 10 I assume they mean these criteria, the 60 percent?
? 17 A Yes, ma'am.
iaf1 Q Okay, what I'm asking is: an I reading this to j oorrectly to say that you can fill the cable trays to 60 2S Percent of the area where the side plates are added on? 21 , A No. ,
' i na Q okay, then are you stating that they have to j
.I 2 he 50 percent of the original arse prior to the side plates !
9l i 2.; ) being added on? O aj l A If you'ra talking chout 60 porcent, we're talking s i .
.j d
t 3123 david 10 I about volume filled of.the original, which is not to easeed O 2.i 60 percent. 3 0 60 percent of the original. 4 A Yes, ma'am. 5 To olarify side rails in that particular sentence, O side rails were put up for a physical for the cables', not
. 7 as for to fill - . 0 0 I don't understand. They were put up for what for s the cables?
10 , A It is not -- side plates vere put on there for 11 i0' physical--physical. 12 O Physical? 13 A To prevent cables from overspilling, not put up 1.! j there to emceed the 60 percent. [s! f Q Well, I guess it's unclear how they might tg '. spill over the original sides if they're only filled to . gy 40. percent of the original sides. 30 J' A Poor workmanship. ic ', Q Poor workmanship, is that what you said?
; A That's what I snid.
g; att Q of what? i l' pp, j A Cables store laid in the cable trays c:das- f g]orossed. Thereforo, they were not noacly in rcws and meing ' a y criss-crossed would make the cabis trays appear to be ove::- 5 y :. f111od. .. ,
. 3126 david 11 1 Q Okay, when you have a situation where they're O 2 -as--ed -d '- trrio. - do--ine *ea- asr 3 aset the 60 percent requirement, do you r.easure that as 4 they are criss-erossed, or do you measure that as they were 5 if they hadn't been in there criss-erossed?
6 A The cable try fill is measured by the summation
~
7 of the cross sectional aree. of each cable. e 8 (Counsel for Intervenor MVPP conferring.) s MS. E0815: I have no further questions. 10 (Board conferring.)
;1 CHAIRMAR EECHECEFER: Mr. Reils? ,
12 MR. EEILE: Thank you.
;3 EY MR. BEILE:
la Q Mr. Eughes, when you looked at the cable traya -- 13 can you hear me? I'll stand up. ts When you looked at the cable trays, I know you
- 7 were talking about cross sectionals at 60 percents when I
to you physically look at the trays and you see the cables, , i
? jgl oan you see the cables all the way up to the top of the ;
to side plates? yl A Yes. l i e'; Q But that doesn't mean they're over?,oaded. It 33 simply :neans that they are taking up a space going all the 1
., , j tray up to tho top, right?
~
O .;; ] 4 A That!s affirmat:!.v.s . d # t A
3127 david 12 1 0 But when you try to ovaluate whether or not 2 in' fact they're overloaded, you have to know how many 1 3'
~
cables are occupyLag that o!.sacar is that correct. f 4l A That is true. 5, Q Dir, how did you find that out? , - 6 A By going to the design engineering office and t '- l I
, 7 l oheoking their computer indes runout of each cable in t!at 3, particular tray saation.
l. o I Q In other words, it wasn't from the physical , I n inspection of the trays. There's no -- there's no place . I
- 10 F
l {, II during your inspection that you actually count the number : f [ of cables in the tray. ; 12 [ ;
, is A That was done in an inspection report back about ;
;. I 19 - enouse me. The inspection report 77-13, NRC I f i i.
i3 , inspection report. But not this time. . I ' p3) Q So you don't know if cabXei: Myhavegenadded
; ;7 or not added since that tina?
;3 : A The computer runout decidas what cables are run l
* ! This is the engineer's tg ! in each tray --oabla tray sootion.
p,) t way of howing what cables are run in what cable trays throughout the whole plant. l u.
,g I
; Q So prasunably the computer is accurr.te, but we
; ji are relyin'g. cn the computarr, is that right?
I i A Yas and no. It f.a also on docign drawings. . g O g1 0 2resumably, i:f they're laid in accordance with
-l h
3128 david 13 I what the computer says and what the drawings showed, then 0 2-
.h.t.. th. . h r of hl.. th.t r. t 117 i th t 3 tray. Right? .
1 A That's oorrect. I erd 7 5' l i M fis. 5 i 1 7 t,
, et i
9 i 10 ' ( 11 la ! i (.: u ' 1 i 15 I id (I, l , e l'.I el . . l to L , i 4! F i
't
$.'. )
=
)
- c. .
4
i, miseach
, 3129 98 1.
O Titan you make ceallations to figure out how A V 2 many cablos are in there, and you know t; hat the approximate 3it guage of the coppar wira is that runs through the cables. k : i A l' Do you know what the approximate weight of that is? 7 Is that correct? g 5 ;l A That's true. L
. ?' S Who made those calculations? Did the imc?
- l. 3 4
&g A The designer ergineer,)and we checked ths 9' calculations.
M , S You vent through thos calculations again?
- ! , A Yes, cir.
i2. j S Dased upon tho nur.ber of .u.bles that were in 1 is the tray through the design. r te 'I. A Yes, sir. 4
;6 h S Now in places where they're criss-crossed, we b
r,J l had some tastimony in this caso about Zellum grips being l J uY nttached to the enbica an thsy go to the vertical drop, ;
, t n :; ,
or right before the vartical drop. , i
;c. [ Would you mind telling us how they can nr. tach
'] l
.i - ,
Kallum grips to those cablas? Was there poor works:anship l
~
h !~ t j in the cross-creaa? d I
'i' . . M2. Cot 1NER: Objection, you: Ncnor. This Ecard8:3 l i
23 ;t indicated aron of interest hors has nothing to do with . i l ? 24 .I .%11um grips. That van disenaa9a thu la.st time. Ife don't a :t see why wo sheuld reopen that again. y/ , s l j
l
. I s-2 jwh 3130 1 MR. BRENNER: I think *his is well within the -
2 area of interest. i 3 CHAIRMAN BBCHEOE?3R Yes, I think the line is ; 4 appropriate. Objection ovarruled. l i 4 t 5I MR. BREIGTER: Now as I understard the questions 6 are addressed to the panel? And the reason I saphasisc 7 that is that Mr. Vandel was present during the previoun 8 Rallum grip testimony. ! l 9 CHAIRMAN BECEROEFER: That's correct. f i i 10 SY MR. REILE: ! l - 11 , S Either one. l . 12 , 3. (Witness Hughso) Koll'.ua gri:n c.re used on I 13 vertical trays only. And the purpose of the Kollum grip 14 ' to be used ca the vertical cable trays are for ths.weiriht 1 l 15 ' of a large power cable. Therefore, ariss cross would not i 16 h really affect it. i
; 17 i S Well, don't you kind of have to have the cables i
18 in little bundles so they can pass tvc or three cables to
- Dl the Kellum grip?
I 20 A, That's true, but as they come down the vertical 21 tray, if you take a look at the top of the vertical tray i
; 22 . whers the hangar is locatcd, they ara in a group where j 1
they can be attached to the Is11um grip. j 23 y
/ 1 24j G So they'ra criaseroaming until they get to that i C) .g ],
i vertical area, and they're no icngar cristcrossings they'ra i l fi n .'
.i
'4
_ . - - - . ..- - . _ . _ , . - - . . . . _ . . - - - - - - - - -_ - , - - - - - - - - . - , _ , . ~ - . . - .
l 8-3 jwb 3131 1 l established in a group in that grip. Is that right? 1 , A Yes, sir. 3 g Would you say that from -- were you speculating, , m 4 or would you say that frem actual knowledge? 3 A I'm saying that from actual visual inspection 6 ' of certain vertical trays. 7 j S Did you inspect the vertical trays where you,were 3 i)l discussing i the crisserossing effect? i I
' ii :
9 1 A No. j 10 g so is it correct, then, that essentially the 11 support by the NRC is based en recomputation and analysis 12 of the inspections of ths company or the engineers? 13 A Would you repeat that? I4 j g Is it essentially correct that the findings in t the report are predeninantly based upon the findings and ~ , 15 lP ; l 16 inspections of the engineers or the applicant? ! l ' pl i
; 77 r A Negative. t
- 3 l} g other than recalculation of _ heir figures. :
+1 19 ll A Nagative.
Io j, g Tell me why I'm incorrect, then.
!i i 21 {, A The NRC dcne a thorough inspecticn of all j 22 a ecmplaints on the affidavit. l 33 g I;m sorry; I cheuld have been nora specific, ;
4 . 2 ; '; then. Ralative to the cables in the cabla trays and the r
.] g number of cables in trays, and the weight, at cetera, icur e
e 4 _____- J
1 8-4 jwb 3132 .! 1 I firulings were essentially based upon the reevaluation and 2 recomputation of the figures given to you by the applicant 3 and their engineers. Is that corroct? ! g 4 L That is correct. ; 4 3 MR. HEILE: Thank ycu. i That's all I have. j 6' (Board conferring.) 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Conner? 8 MR. CONNER: No questions. [ D' (Board conferring.) 10 MR. BRENNER: Mr. Chairman, I have some quick 11 i, redirect. I could go ahead, if ycu want. 12 ) CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I just have one question i 73h before that, and then you can proceed O 14 a I BOARD EXAMINATION g
;5j BY CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
- s ;; 3 I wanted to inquire, apparently there were two a e o i
' t7 !!o mastings with Mr. Blanche, particularly on this -- Did you c
;3 " take into account every instance, or did you 1cok at dl
.' is jf every instance of overloading that tir. Blanche either told ,
1 2 20 you about or pointed to during your tour? l
!! I
;; p!
A (Witness Hughes) Yes, sir. -l I nj CHAIRMAN BECHECEFER: Okay, Mr.,Brenntr, you may i a
.13 proceed.
{ _ { I sa
. O s .ii -
i
,j .
U ,
. F
3133 8-5 jwb I REDIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. BRENNER: 3 g Either one of you may answer. I think there's n 4 another situation where it's just not clear.what we're 3 talking about with this term "overicading." i l 5' What's the purpose of the 60 percent volums fill 4 7 requirement? 8 A (Witness Hughes) The purpose of the 60 percent j volume fill of a cable tray is due to the thermoinductance S ;r, 10[ of the cable. 12 S It's not to make sure ths.t the cable doesn't 10l - spill over the side, is it? 13 A No. 14 y! 4 Okay, if I have a situation where the work is 1 15y sloppy and therefore the cables are crisserossed and il 13h spilling over the side, is that a better situation fren s l ; 77 i the point of view of peak buildup? Or a tmrse situati-en? j i 18l - A It could work both ways, due to the reascn that I I ts IL if they was crisscrossed, you'd have a lot of void space -
! l 1 i 20 < in there. Therefore, you would have more air going through 21 there taking the heat away. ;
' :j ! 22 :; G How could it work 'he c other way? 23 :i 1 Well, in certain areas, like a junction, ycu a i might not have tha -- as large a void space, but it would o sa ; a : 25 i : still be a void cpace evsn il it was put in layers. 1 d a N
t i 8-5 jwb 3134 i I g Did you ever have any less of a void space than O 2 i if the cah1es were said in nice and neae tn even rows ehan 3 if they were crisserossed? s ' A Sometimes yo's would have less. 4[ , S[ g How could that te? l G A Due to the reason, the way the cables were laid
. l 7 . in straight in layers, you have a very small void. l , 3h g All right, let me start again. 3 - 9 Situation A is a situation where all the cables j are laid in perfectly. They're nice t.nd neat. They meet l 10 l r !
11 'jj the 60 percent requirement. j lt 12I Situation B is a situation wher2 the cables are I I not laid in pe:tfactly. Thera is some deviation and they're 13j O 14 crisserossed in some fashion. i-( is Which is the better situatica, from the point of l view of having less peak buildup? The sloppy situatien? 16] i Or the nice, neat situation? l g 17 jI . 1 , is . (Pause.) l t
! :Dh. A (Witness Vandel) The case 4 hare the cables are -
f 10 crisscrossed and so forth, there's more air space between f 2; d, them than in the case where they were laid neatly; i d therefore, heat would be dissipatad by air flow. 12] 23 G Stay with it, Mr. Vande1. 2 4 ", So frem the eandpoint of the 60 percent
.O 23 j requirement, this "everloid cituation" is really a more n
d 0 h 9
-- -- n,-,--.,-- , . - - - . - - . . - - - . -
I 8-7 jwb 3135 3 I conservative situation. Is that correct? t O 2 A res, ie is. ' i 3 g Thank you. j 4 Mr. Hughes, Kellum grips. If I have a situation 5 where there is crisserossing as the cables come down and 6 start approaching the vertical position, is there anything 1 e 1 7 to prevent the installation of Kellum grips around cablas l
, 8g that happen to be crisscrossed?
9<I A (Witness Hughes) No. I
!O , O So in fact if there is some crossing in that i
I 11 vertical position, Kellum grips could still be installed 12 i satisfactorily? i 13 ' A That's true. O - MR. BRENNER: 14] No further questions. Il 15hI, CHAIRMAN BECHROEFER: I have one follow-on r6 [ question before I allow the other partiss to asic again.
- , n 'I NM BM MMAMM
;g 'j BY CHAIRMAN BECEHOEITR:
I
/ is } O Prom the answers I've just heard, would it be j go[ possible that the crisserossing or the lack of neatness i,
i
- .n h might not be due to poor workmanship, it might be due to i 22l it poor planning?
si . 23 ll I mean, are thera situations where you would {. 24 j; actually want it te be Icosa in the trays, the - 4 O !! 33 jj ' cables? a N , v , n .
l' j i 8-8 jwb 3136 3
?
I' A (Witness Hughes) No, sir. ,! O =< no-11y you me eo ery to 1ey th- in neae1y. ! i 3, G So that the caputations of heat all assume l' 4lll ii that they would be laid in neatly. l 5f A That's true. Usually in a nuclear power plant U the designer will go with a lesser current in those cables i I 7 than what the cable manufacturar requires. Just, for 1
- i 8 -
1 example, a cable manufacturer might say his cable was goed ]
!! I 3[ for 72 amps. The designer :aight ecme back and say we will
! l 20 y.!not allow more than 21 amps. l II So therefore, the designar conserves where the
.l i 12 -l heat will not build up. And that's the pttrpose of doing .
I ! 13 s this. l O s 74 S But my understanding is, even though it may not ! 0 15 l have been plannad for, the fact that some of these cables
! e are loose or crisscrossed will not have any safety l 13 [
, y7 [ significance? .
;3 L That's true.
n
.? :sj g It will not 1sssen the safety because they'ra i 1
20 il not neat and arranged in a row. ; 2; O) 3. That's true. [ i
- n* MR. BRKINER: Just a nincte. Let to get a ,
2.; clarification on that question. Yeu're postulating, fi st 3; of all, a cabla that's scfaty rolsted to begin with? 33 C M .AU EECECEF32: Correct. J
s-3 $wb 3137 i I MR. BRENNER: Sc se're talking about safety j 2 significance solely from the standpoint of heat buildup. i 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Tha't's correct, and pausing t 4 the air.
,,. l 5 MR. BRENNER: The witness may answer the queistion.
r ! 6' CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. l ~ 7 WITNESS EUGHES: Would you repeat that, sir? 8 BY CEL M. BECEROEFER: j i 3 g Well, with all the assumptions, what I'm just 10i trying to get clear is whether, assuming a safety related 11 ; cable, and assuming the problem of heat buildup, the fact i 12[i that these cables are either crisscrossed or not straight j! 13 and neat and nice as designed, will not have safety L: f significance. I r l ' 15 lI L ,(Witness Hughes) That's true. l [ ! 15 i CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Thank you. l t f7[ I guess the witnesses are available for further j 13 :. cross-examination.
! +
Ms. Kosik, do you have further questions? l
.is j; i I
I 20 [ MS. KOSIK No. j 2: ;' CHAIRMAN BECHBOEFER: Mr. Connen? } 1
.n MR. CONNER: No questions. .
23 .! CEAIRMAN BECHECEFER: Mr. Haile? l
'l 23 ] MR. HEILE: No questions. l
> s 23 i CHAIRMAN BECH20EFER: The witne:3sas are excused i h
I 3138 l 8-11 jwb 1 i I but I have one question of Mr. Brenner, whether -- O 2 MR. -E= == Mr. vandes a s to stay u, there. ! U CHAIIDEAN BECHEOE?ER: That's what I'm saying.
' 4
. I think that other document should be put on the record. ! I ' S ..I MR. BRENNER: I would ask that Mr. Hughes be i i l 6f, excused. '
. j CHAIlutAN BECHEOEFER: Yes, Mr. Hughes is exctsed. !
7l
. 8d (Witness Hughes .axcused.) ,
if t ij ' Sj; MR. BRENNER: This is going to be a continuation j 10;d i j of the testimony previously bound in following transcript l 1 i e n - page 1643.
] Whereupon, 12]it I'- THOMAS VANDEL ,
is! I f4 was recalled as a witness by the Nuclear Ragulatory I L m; commission Staff and, having been previously duly sworn, I
?g l1 : was' examined and testified further as follows:
a I jy ; DIRECT EXAMINATION I l ic li- BY MR. BRENNER. , lI !. l ;g ll 0 Mr. Vandel, I have before me a doco:nent bearing ! - I
.no j;- the caption of this procesding and further entitled d
-j Direct Testimony of Thomas Vandel Regarding Pressure n
,n : Test'ing of Doors and the Use of Impropor Bolts for the g g Traveling Screen." i y' 1 y Was this document prepared by you, or under your [
23j supervision? i S> E
8-12 jwh I A It was prepared by me. 2 S Is it true and correct to the best of your 3 knowledge and belief? 4l A Yes, it is. 5 0 And do you adopt it as your testimony in this G pr W ing? 7 A Yes, I do.
. B MR. BRENNER: Mr. Chairman, I move that this 0 document just identified be admitted into evidence and 10 j , bound into the record as if read.
I 11 CHRIRMAN BECHROEFER: Yes, we will grent that 12 request. This is not an item that's a mattar in contention, 13 so that - Just one minute. L!, MR. BRENNER: I might add, Mr. Chairman, that j 15 . , it's less than clear to the staff that we even have to 0 1G jj prepare testimony on this traveling acreen matter, since j i l
~
i 17I the investigation clearly determined it's not related to p rc y any safety matter. But for convenience we havs included j 4 i
;g ll it as a basis for a full record as to what the staff locked !
!! j so h at pursuant to the Board's request.
d 2; i '. MR. CONNER: We would ncta an objection to ita { i n .j admission into evidence because it does not relate to any f
. t
,e f contention. We den t have any objsetion te it being il l ng ledged into the record, but we do object to it as evidence O .g- h because it has nothing to do with cny contention.
t b t 4 4
,-.-,--.-,--,-..-n ,,,,g.,-,-- -, --
,e---- -.- - - , - - - - , - - . - - , - - - - -- ~ . _ . . , - - - - - , - - -
1 l. l i 8-13 jwh 3140 j 1 MR. BRENNER: In.effect, what I am suggesting, j l O a I . 1. , is .e _ tro . t es we , e ee r_ ~ er !
}
l l 3 of the staff's response to the Blanche affidavit. It is j 4 . l
., I. I 4h:I in the record solely to serve as evidence of what the !
i , 5 ' staff did - that's on the traveling screen question. 1 6 j Now on the pressure testing of doors, that part 7j . should be in the record as evidence.
. 3 s-
' 3:l c CH&IBMAN BECHECEFER: Well, we - actually, on i-I 3I the pressure testing of doors, we put the earlier i 10 ii testimony in on the same basis, where we had a few n
11 j: questions, and I think the.whole testimony will be put j , 12 ' in solely to show that you complied with the Board's l request to investigation this matter. 13 [
..O ;-
Ml (The Direct Testimony of Thomas Vandel Regarding
~
l is '. Pressure Testing of Doors and the Use of Deproper Bolts k i i l i3 i! for the Traveling screen follows.) l i I
- 3 9- I
- 13 20 p ;
.:1
?.i 1
\
22 'f ' l n e, .! 2s t , a a i
J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~.
r In the Matter of )
)
CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-358
)
, (Ma. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant) )
. DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THOMAS VANDEL REGARDING PRESSURE TESTING OF DOORS AND - '
l THE USE OF IMPROPER BOLTS FOR THE TRAVELING SCREEN State of' Illinois )
)
) ss.
County of DuPage ) Thomas E. Vandel having been duly sworn and having provided educational and professional qualifications in written testimony regarding contention
, number 14 (following transcript page 1643), hereby states the following:
. Previous written testimony was provided to the board - du ing the hearing in June, 1979 regarding the pressure testing of doors. This item was
further reviewed at the site during July 17-20 and July 24-25, 1979. NRC . inspection report 50-358/79-23, a copy of which is attached to this testimony, describes the testing witnessed by me and the conclusion of 4 acceptability of the material. O
M
,..i l . During the hearings held in June 1979, an affidavit of William Gabriel
} was submitted to the licensing board, a copy of which is attached. Mr.
; Gabriel alleged that stainless steel nuts and bolts were not used in the installation of the " drag line" as was required. This ites was reviewed by the NRC during a site visit on July 17-20, 1979. It was established by discussion, between Mr. Gabriel and NRC personnel that the " drag line" is the set of traveling screens installed in the water intake structure i .
l at the site, a non-safety related piece of equipment. This classification of equipment is not inspected by the NRC. None the less, the stainless bolt and nuts concern was reviewed by me and I determined that stainless j steel cap screws and lock washers were used in the installation as specified by the manufacturer and that no installation errors regarding substitution of material occurred. The details of this review are also included in the above referenced report (attached). 14x-1 . Thomas E. andel i Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of August,1979 ^ ilt,0 W Betty ~ ox 7 { Notary lic My Coussission expires: 1_g.go O 2-
~
ATTACIDfENT .~., , AFFIDAVIT 0F WILLIAM GABRIEL STATE OF OHIO )
) ss COUNTY OF CLERMONT) l I, William Gabriel, aged 61, residing at 1942 Mt. Holly Rd.,Batavia, l 4
Ohio, hereby state that I have been a member of Millwright local 1454 for 12 years, and Pryor to that a Millwright for Trailmobile, Inc., for approx- ,
.' imately 28 years that I worked at the site of the Zimmer nuclear power station at Moscow, Ohio for approximately 2) years: that I worked for Kaiser Engineers in the field for one year and as a tool crib attendant
- for li years and that I have personal knowledge of the facts hereinafter I related
- ,
() I hereby state that while working in the capacity of tool crib at- '
'tandant, two boxes (approximately 250) of li"xit' stainless steel Uss hexagon-shaped nuts and bolts were shipped and stayed in millwright storage facilities. These were to be used in what was called the t-drag line.
The blue prints called for stainless steel nuts and bolts. The life of t n regular bolt is not as great as stainless steels that is, they deterior- ' ate faster. After two weeks in storage, I asked Fred Imhoff, a foreman for Kaiser, when these bolts were to be used. He then informed me that Kaiser had went ahead and used regular nuts and bolts because the stainless steel ones were not there at the time bolts were installed. To the best of my knowledge, those stainless steel nuts and bolts were -never used
.for anything.
shEat\ Willie.m Gabriel m
.-m- - - - - -- y w -
_,-..,wm -
----y--w. , - ' -- -w eg e-ws- - , - - - - - , r-w - ---
w* - w- -i--
The foregoing affidavit was sworn to and subscribed before me - by William Gabriel tilis . d3 day of I 2 J ,1979 l e 8 ' c- cL4CA b' Notary Public 4 h
. . ~
- ~ -
. O O .
S 0 me
# #g UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 -I REGION 111
.o 7se nooseveLT noao
% .....,/ oLEN ELLYN,ILUNOls So137 g AUG 2 1979
' ~
1
~
Docket No. 50-358 Cincinnati Gas and Electric
- Company ATTN
- Er. Earl A. Borgaann
- Vice President
. Engineering Services i and Electric Production
!
- 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45201 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. H. M. Wescott and T. E. Vandel of this office on July 17-20, and July 24-25, 1979, of activities at the Hs H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station authorized by NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-88 and to the discussion of our findings l with Messrs. B. K. Culver, W..M. Schwiers and others of your staff at the ] conclusion of the inspection. ! The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined i during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a
- selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel.
No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified during the course of this inspection. 4 - j In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the
! , enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, except as follows. If this report contains information that you or your contractors believe to be proprietary, you must apply in writing to this office, within twenty days of your receipt of this letter, to withhold a such information from public disclosure. The application must include a full statement of the reasons for which the information is considered
- proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
l 4 O l
- i l
1
Cincinnati Gas and Electric AUG 2 SM Company We will gladly discuss any quescions you have concerning this .
~
inspection. Sincerely,
. W/
James G. Keppler Director
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-358/79-23 cc w/ encl: J. R. Schott, Plant Superintendent Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b ' PDR Local PDR NSIC
~ TIC Harold W. Kohn, Ohio Power Siting Commission Citizens Against a Radioactive Environment Helen W. Evans, Director, Divison of Power Generation
, t O i 1 O l t
m - - . _- . _ _ . __ - -__.- - _ U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION III
~
,, Report No. 50-358/79-23 -
- Docket No. 50-358 License No. CPPR-88 Licensee
- Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45201 Facility Name: 14s H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Zimmer Site, Moscow, Ohio Inspection Conducted: July -20 nd 24-25, 1979 Inspectors: T. E. Vandel [-2 N
.fC$1 H. M. Wescott 7'2-77 O i , ovea >F: - c. x5 ,f I cs W 7-2 /1 Projects Section 1 Inspection Summary Inspection conducted on July 17-20 and 24-25, 1979 (Report No. 50-358/79-23)
Areas Inspected: Follow up of previously identified noncompliance and unresolved matters; perform reviews and witness testing regarding matters ! I and concerns presented to the ASLB hearing board by affidavits from concerned citizens. The inspection involved a total of 54 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors. ,
, Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
O t
. , . . - - - ,-.-r,, - --, ..--
, - - , - , , , , , , , , , ,,,,.-.,.a , -r---,,--- - , - , , . - . . . , . , - , - . . - , , - - - - . ,
DETAILS O Persons Contacted Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E) . C. A. Burgess, QA Electrical Engineer B. E. Culver, Project Manager R. P. Ehas, QA&S Engineer D. C. Kramer, QA&S Engineer J. R. Schott, Plant Superintendent c W. W. Schwiers, Principal QA&S Engineer
; J. F. Weissenberg, QA&S Engineer 1
Other Contractor Personnel j_ E. V. Inox, Corporate QA Manager, Henry J. Kaiser Company (HJK)
.R. Marshall, Project Manager, HJK R. E. Turner, Site QA Manager J. Sandlin, Assistant General Superintendent Construction, HJK i F. Dewar, General Foreman, HJK Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (358/78-31-01): Aluminum plates coated with corrosion. The inspector reviewed QA Surveillance Report (QSAR) No. 553Q,
. dated February 2, 1978. These plates are identified as SFSR's 186, 188, 192, 198, 202, 205 and two racks not numbered. Also, the size of welds on the bottom of the racks could not be verified. Through discussion the inspector learned that the GE drawing 762E210, Rev. 4, called for the base casting to be welded with intermittent welds 3/8 inch by 4 inches long located top and bottom. Weld cracking was experienced. The require-ments were changed to 1/4 inch welds 25 inches long. This eliminated the cracking problem. ECN NE-44567 called for the weld symbol to be changed. , This was changed on drawing 762E210, Rev. 5. Review of Rev. 5 established that the pictorial representation was not correct. A new Rev. 6 to l drawing 762E210 for this correction and was accepted by the licensee as l being the as welded condition. Reference Field Audit Report No. 221, dated July 17, 1979. . l (Closed) Unresolved Item (358/79-07-01): The inspector observed X-ray film packages on the floor of the storage vault. Inspection of the storage vault verified that X-ray film is being placed on a pallet. In addition, X-ray film packages are'being wrapped and secured. i (Closed) Noncompliance (358/79-07-02): Welding electrodes and stubs i found through-out the plant. The inspector reviewed the letter from H. J. Kaiser Company dated March 30, 1979, subject, NRC Inspection Report 79-07 discussing the search conducted through-out the site to locate and
retrieve all unused electrode and stubs. Review of records that indicated that twenty-two (22) welders had received training on May 14, 1979, and thirty-two (32) on May 17, 1979, in accordance with Kaiser Engineer Field Construction Procedure No. 1-19, Rev. 0, dated May 17, 1979, " Nuclear Indoctrination and Training." Review of the above established that the licensee had taken the corrective action as stated in their response letter dated April 11, 1979 (QA-1122). - (0 pen) Noncompliance (358/79-12-01): Inspections to verify correct veld procedure, welder qualification, filler material, joint design, cleanliness, fit-up, and tack welds not documented. The inspector reviewed documentation and found that corrective actions had not been completed, in that pipe whip restraint records had not been reviewed and accepted by July 13, 1979, as stated in the licensee's response letter dated July 10, 1979 , (QA-1161), to inspection report 50-358/79-12.
- (Closed) Unresolved Item (358/79-14-04): Documentation did not certify that charcoal filters met the requirements of Specification H-2817,
- Paragraph 203.6.b. The inspector reviewed CVI Penvalt Report No. CVI-TR-7301, Amendment 1, " Design and Development of the High Efficiency Charcoal Absorber and Its Application in ESF Atmosphere Cleanup Systems." This Topical Report was accepted by Effluent Treatment Systems Branch, NRC Division of Technical Review on April 1, 1975. The regulatory position was that the Topical Report is acceptable as a reference in license applications and meets the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.52. (0 pen) Unresolved Item (358/79-14-20): Incomplete documentation for solution annealing of material used in the recirculating loop piping. This item remains open pending the licensee's retrieval of heat treatment records. Note: Report No. 50-358/79-14-20 was in error in that this report states that ". . . material was held in the oven for four and one half (4.5) hours." This should read one and one half (1.5) hours. (0 pen) Unresolved Ites (358/79-14-21): Definition of "I.of" in question. Therefore, test samples not representative of materials used in the recirculating loop. This ites remains unresolved pending resolution by the licensee. t (open) Unresolved Ites (358/79-14-22): Documentation not available to establish that ring headers in the recirculating loop met the eight (8)
, percent ovality requirements of Specification 21A9318, Revision 3,
. Paragraph 4.4.7.e. This ites remains open pending the licensee's retrieval of the documentation or taking the required measurements to verify compliance with the specification. (Closed) Unresolved Item (358/79-14-23): Certification for veld filler material did not have results of physical tests. The inspector reviewed SA-358 which does not require physical tests when the weld material is not coated.
l Review of 50.55e Reports j ) (Closed) 10 CFR 50.55e Report: Failure of an Anchor / Darling tilting disc check valve to close by gravity when installed in a veritcal line. The' inspector reviewed Kaiser Nonconformance Report E-996 dated July 29, i 1978, Kaiser veld data sheet line No. 1E21F003. The check valve " dog" was built-up with weld filler material (buttered) to prevent the disc from going beyond top dead center allowing the valve to close by gravity alone. This valve is mounted in line IE21F003 LPCI system pump discharge. (Closed) 10 CFR 50.55e Report: HPCS minimum flow bypass valve failure. The inspector review of the following correspondence:
- 1. Review of GE letter dated October 16, 1978, (GEM-207) confirming
, GE's acceptance of repairs made to the subject minimum flow valve.
- 2. Review of GE letter dated October 6, 1978, (CGE-1022) evaluation of
! the safety aspects of the HPCS minimum flow gate valve E22-F012
. abnormally.
i ~
- 3. Review GE letter dated February 7, 1979, (CGE-1071) followup of safety aspects of the HPCS minimum flow gate valve abnormally.
(0 pen) 10 CFR 50.55e Report: Overpressurization of the steam jet air ejector heat exchanger (tube side). The inspector established that a check valve has been installed as stated in the licensee's report dared i March 2, 1979 (QA-1106). This item remains open pending further review by NRC RIII Operations Branch. O Functional Areas Inspected Rotatina Screen At the request of the ASLB hearing board, the affidavit of William Gabriel, submitted to the board during the Zimmer hearings, was investigated. Mr. James Sandlin, Assistant General Superintendent of Construction, and Mr. Frank Dewar, General Forman, both of HJK, were contacted in this 1 i matter. It was learned that Mr. Gabriel, badge number 59-0020, had worked as the millwright tool crib attendent for approximately two years and that Mr. Fred Imhoff was made a Temporary Forman for s'.short period -
, of time, however, neither are currently employed at the Zimmer site. In response to questioning regarding the " drag line" identified in the affidavit, it was learned that it is the traveling screen installed in the intake structure at the Zimmer site. This screen is specified in Sargent and Lundy specification H-2237 (nonsafety related) and was supplied by Rexnard Envirex Incorporated, supplier of water screening equipment.
On page three of the Reznard catalog and material parts lists it was found that 3/4" x 1 1/2" stainless cap screws are spelled out, 2 cap screws, with stainless lock washers, are used for mounting of each basket l to the traveling chains. No other stainless material was listed. The
O inspector understood that there is wear on the baskets from the catching of trash in the water on the bottom end of the rotating cycle and dumping the trash into a trash chute at the top of the cycle, and therefore the baskets have to be replaced after a period of time. The stainless cap
. screws are intended to facilitate this maintenance operation. With the aide of the General Foreman, a search was conducted of the millwright tool crib and storage areas for such cap screws. No screws were found, but several of the locking washers were found that the foreman said were left over from the installation. The traveling screens were observed by the inspector and the cap screws installed were checked. Four different cap screws at random were checked with a magnet and it was determined that they were stainless material. The inspector concluded that the correct cap screws had been used in the installation of the buckets.
, Water Tiaht Doors The affidavit of Robert Anderson, presented to the ASLB hearing board during the prehearing conferences, regarding testing of water tight doors
. and frames was investigated during this inspection. This was reviewed during a previous inspection and was identified as an unresolved ites requiring further review (50-358/79-14-24). Sargent and Lundy specification H-2174 requires in Section 8-1 E 7.lc the leak rate of the water tight doors shall not exceed two gallons / hour per foot of door periphery while the door is loaded with either the seating or unseating pressure, and that the test load applied over the entire door shall be 54.6 psi seating and 11.0 psi unseating.
The test report of a shop test on door No. 80 was reviewed. The report 4 i () recommended the following tests be done for all the installed doors at the site: (1) Door closed seal leak test at 10 psi with no pressure drop l in 10 minutes, (2) with seal volume pressure of 17 psi (1.5 times the unseating pressure of 11 psi) pressure decrease not to exceed 0.5 psi in ten minutes. A third test for the door frame was described but was not intended to be included in the tests for the door seal. The test is to ' apply 82 psi to the door frame (1.5 times the 54.6 psi seating pressure) with no pressure loss in 15 minutes. Other documentation reviewed was as follows: l t
- 1. Engineering field meno stating that the doors Mr. Anderson worked on were Nos. 80, 107, 116, 138, 146, 189, 236, 237, and 268 (a total of
, nine doors).
- 2. NR No. E-7137 listing the original leaking condition of the embedded l frames.
- 3. DDC-1606 prescribing the repair action to be taken.
The inspector witnessed the final testing of doors with the following results. i l l
. -., . -a a _ . - - ._
.m _
M s Doors tested are located in the lowest level of the Service Water Pump
- -s House.
i Door No. Press. Time at Press. Leak Rate 234 10 psi 10 min. 0 psi ,
,- 17 psi 12 min. less than 0.25 psi 1 82 psi 15 min. O psi 235 10 psi 10 min. O psi
- 17 psi 12 min. less than 0.25 psi
, 82 psi 15 min. O psi 237 10 psi 10 min. O psi
. 17 psi 10 min. less than 0.25 psi l
82 psi 15 min. O psi Door number 236 was tested at 82 psi and found unacceptable. One pinhole leak was found between the angle iron door frame and epory sealer. Also one pinhole leak was found in a weldment. A nonconformance report will be issued and necessary repairs are to be made with follow-up leak testing to verify adequate repairs. Note: The pressure gauge used for the 10 and 17 psi tests was a Trerice (RUH-26) 0-30 psi gauge 0.5 psi increment calibrations. The gauge used for the 82 psi test was a Duragauge (TNT-018) 0-100 psi gauge 1.0 psi increment calibrations. Both gauges were calibrated on July 25, 1979, using an Ameter dead weight tester that had been certified by Ameter/ O Mansfield and Green Laboratory to a nasiana error of 0.03% of indicated reading in January 1978. These pressure tests were conducted by the R. V. Harty company division of Door-Man Manufacturing Company in accordance with their procedures 76H03-BM103, Field Final Acceptance Tests and 76H03-BN12A-BN12B-BM12C Field Scope Sheets. The NRC inspector has concluded that these final tests are acceptable and no further action is contemplated. h 9 O . . .. ._ . . . . . . ._
' t 3-14 jwb 3141 1
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board has to questions j 2! on this. We would like to commend the . staff'foi the job i i 3, they've done on looking at the que::tions we've raised. I 4 j! i 4d MR. BRENNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I Y S appreciate that comment. I S [- I would ask that Mr. Vandel be ascuced. 7 I would like to follow up your comment by sts. ting
- o:A that I think what we have dona here in response to the 3 l Blanche affidavit, the Gabriel affidavit, I don't know how 10 many other effidavita, serves to underscora the validity 11 and good sense of the t'<w:nission's requirements that there I d
12 o be adequate specificity and basis chown bafore the staff - 13 and then the Board has to deal with actae of these things. Os ;. 14 i We've done it. It's water under the dam, or i i m4 over the dam. I can't tell you heu many man-heurs this has I 10 d ti cost. The reason I bring that out is not because peoplo n 7 ;7 jj shouldn't work, but for every hour the Coriginal Office ti m l! of Inspection and Enforcement spends doing scIc stuff like y 1 ts i this, it's one hour less that they're doing what they b 20 !I should be doing at the sites and in their offices. I Et f, CHAIRMAR 32CHHOEFER: I beliova the witness is i 22 i excused. 23 - (Uitn230 e::cused.) , 24 CHAIRIGN BECH3OITER: I thin'.: tha enly thing O ;3 left to discuss is further scheduling. I'is not sure we
!i
./ 3
l 3142 . 8-13 jwb ' l I have to be on the record at the mment, fer this. O F V 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOE?EK We can go back on the f record. 4l > 5;I MR. BRENNER: I don't think thare's much that t Gj can be said at this point with respect to the issues that ' i 7' have been held over as rolated to Thres Mile Icland.
, G .! We discussed that extensively at the prehearing, ,
9 as I recall. The Board's holding the issues- over until J 10 the staff has gctten into its rera71ew of plants ein light l 17 il, of whatever new requirements might ecma out of the various ll 12p and sundry inquiries that are new going on. 13 CHAIRMAN BECHEOEFER: Do you have any further 14 information as to timing?
,i 1
15 l MR. BRENNER: I'm I.ot going to speculate as to ISjl schedule based on something that generic. I think we can 3
, ;7 {j take judicial notice of the fact that the staff is expending n
13] a great percentage of its resources with respect to he
? ID aftermath of Three Mile Island.
'i 20 t CHAIRNAN BECHHOEFER: And I 'sresume that, as we 1
21 ! indicated in our memorandum and crder ad.nitting the 22 new Cincinnati contentions, the ataff will advise the j 23 9r parties and send the partiac any documents indicating +. hat l 2; the issues as far as the ataff are concorred are new d
.u ji informatica en these iscusa. :
ha [f 1
+
N~ _ _- , - . - - - - . _ , -. - . - - _ . - - - . _ - _ - -
i 1 8-16 jwb l 3143 I MR. BRENNER: Yes, sir. , 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Arising onc of Three Mlle 3 Island. 4 MR. BRENNER: What I envision happening - 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOE N : See, cur Ciscottery in part i i 6 on Cincinnati was based on such a filing. l i 7 MR. BRENNER: What I envisica our filing would B be our analysis of the 2i m er facility meeting the staff's 9 view of the requirements of emergency planning, -- 10 CHAIRMAN BECHH0EFER: And Incnitoring, right. I 11 MR. BRENNER: -- and wa aise noted their area of l, 12 technical qualifications as being held open. !, 13 Financial qualifications was held over,.and'any 4 14 1,; further items on that item two will be brought to' the 1 13 Board's attention. I':a not clear at this point W5t 13 further there will be, th0 ugh. - , , 17 i CHAIR!!AN BECHHO3?ER: Well, I did vant to inquire i 13 on that. I assume that tha staff will come cut in the { 9 l N near future with a financial qualifications cupplement to ! l l 2C bj the SER. Do you have any information on that? l h 2: ] ' IM.~3RENNER: I must be candid with you. I l J i 27. :j don't rarnebar if the SER isuues c0ver the.t or not. , h 23 9 CHAIRMAN BECHEOEFER: It does not, as I remenber. -; I { 24 ] MR. BRE!!NER: I don't have any inforr.ation en i O 33 $ the current schedule. t
.i L
e i 8-17 jwb 3142 1 CHRIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The supplement was supposed ; O 2 eo corer 11 i.1 q 1111..eien., ,1 s the River send ! 3 type inquiry, generic issues inquiry. t 4 MR. BRENNER: That was to be covered in the ! 5 original inquiry, as well. And there may be other things i 6 in the supplement, as well. I and JNB8 7 CHRIRMAN BECEHOEFER: Right. ar 9 fois 6 o A g i 10I i l i I 11 !) 12 , l O n ! itg ! w , i e 17 ! i. 13
- n 1: .
.t J
?
20 f 2: if it t v r, w ,-
.s .
4
~!
9ll1 e
, .. - 1 '
s j' r r ? AR9 arl . 3143 I MR. CONNER: Mr. Chairman -- 2l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I might say the Board's
! c ,
3 intention h>robably is to separate out the electrical, installa-t ,
- 4. tion isiace which we just let in, so we may wall'4ccida to hear s, -
l ' 3I that one prior'to the other ones. 0 The w(y the Board's schedules are working out, s 7 bji several sho b sessions might be useful, rather than one t
. 8 .i:t extonded long session.
9 ]: - MR. BRENNER: Presumably we can tal. cbo2t the q e schedule as we nearEthe completion of discovery. - 10 ] x y . I f 18, MR. COtOCR If your Honor plea'se, I would like ! y - ,. 12 jI to make a motion before Mr. Brenner. leads cc astray here, iI 13 l from nr! standpoint. ! O :( r We have two things, No. 17, wpich you have just 1.4 l p 15 admitted, which could be taken up now. We also believe another thing that could' be then un ic Contention 9 of the 1G [d
- j ;;/j City's as to the poir.t of having gemebody en the independent
!! 1, .
gji environmental review board, which has really nothing,to do il 43 l 10 ; with monitoring. It seems to me we should get as much out i, j 20l'ofthewayaswecan. P i
;; I Now with regard to schedule, it seems to me :
h s . 22 that in the Board's order, if everything is subnitted,-if i n all discovery requests are in by the 24th, 15 diys later ! 2,. brings you to about Septen. car the 6th, I tLink it is -- O y Septe@ sr the 7th. 5 1
..s
. t- !
L_ _ _ _ ,
i 3144 ar2 1 I would propose that we schedule the resumption of
, i n
O. - the hearing for the 17th of September. 3 Well, obviously I can't guess everybody's schedule , 4! conflicts, but I do not seo letting this thing sort of tiander i 3 around till we get to a schedule. i ; g4 i j For example, we will not bother with summary l
. p , , ' g disposition, because it's probably faster just to try the ,!
1
. Uj issue and be done with it.
n
~ '
Bf! We do not propose to take any remedies proyidad d l IO N for in the regulations that would delay the prompt introductiod
; s
. ., o e 8- of answers into the record, so I would propose, subject to !
12 the Board's schedule, obviously, that we start in September
!! i I3 [ as soon as possible. !
I4 . CHAIRMAN BECHHCEFER: At the very least, you'll 13 [! have to have five days for theservice of the answers. 13 [ MR. CONNER: Well, we will arrange service. I ; I y 17 [' mean there's too much confusion in the mail and so forth. ; I3 I I mean, Dr. Fankhauser, of course, isn't here, but he said
- T3 I he didn't get the stuff in the mail from both us and the Staff d i
20 Well, if we're going to try to expedite resolutien i 21 of these things, we will personally deliver to Dr. Fankhaucer i 1E O or his counsel to make sure he has it, whauever the tactimeny U I3 h might be. But we don't want just to let this thing slide, 22 and that's why we would rcquest that the Board schedule O Ir ( this hearing for as early as possible in September. i
- e. q an3 3145 j I KR. BRENNER: Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to I that on two grounds:
2f 3 First of all, I don't want to precludo myself 4 from moving for summary disponition. Cnce I see what the 5 "l discovery looks like, and once I see what the Staff's 6, technical experts come up with, I may well want to save their 7 time in being here and thereby move for sunmary disposition. 8; And I'm entitled to that opportunity. L 9! CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's correct. ! i I 10 ! MR. BRENNER: In addition to that, based on the 11 ! whole schedule of the rest of this proceed:mg, there is no 12 i need for that kind of haste. I cannot comrsit to how long it t i is it will take for the Staff to prepare their ausessment until O ;a! i after discovery. s
!i ici ii The reason is very simply, e.nd the basis of all ,
i' !
;a the papers that we have so far, I'm quite confused as to just j l
-l what it is the Intervanors are after, c.nd I won't be able
, 17 ]
it
;g ] to focus on it until after discovery.
f 19 MR. COMMD A I would emphasize that on No. >
.i -
;c - ,
17, we have inspescion c1 ready and we have reports ist the ! I i file already which the Staff is familiar with, and that's i n l il 2-2] one reason why that particular contsntion ahouldn't take
't 33 any time. .
.;,; . I, too, do not understand the City's philosophy ,
O g i and why they want somebody on the independent review board,
\
L' __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ar4 3146 1 but that would have to be produced, but I would like to get O z that mo ins. These are thines thet can c1 ear 1r de moved out 3 of the way. (. 4 I would also note for the record there is no 5 j. technien1 qualifications icaue. ; G MR. BRENNER: On tha review board contention, 7 the Board has already ruled that would be one of the conten-e a tions that would be held over until such -- until the
. 9 Three Mile Island-related matters are in. That made good to sense then, it still makes good sense. It's silly to take it ; one little piece, separate it out, when it may become part 12 and parcel of the whole overdll assessment.
12 But with respect to technical qualifications, I O 1 14 l agree we don't have a contention going directly to that l Ig matter. . It 13 ;' However, the Staff has already announced that it's l
;; ; conducting a review of that matter,with respect to the t
;g i p
. qualifications of Cincinnati Gas & Electric to operate this h
19 4 facility. When that assessment is complete and issued, l
;o ;l; it will obviously constitute new informe. tion, and we can il 21 l'l see where it goes from there.
ti
.n
" ii MR. CONNER: That is an overstat2 ment. Mr. t l
'h f g Brenner, counsel for the Staff, initially aanounced that j y i as part of the Three Mile Island thing, the7 are looking at O' g everybody's qualifications, all companies, and indeed some ;
Ih L . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ __
4 cr5 3147 l i 1 of the Staff's qualifications to review all of these matters, i 2 but that does not make it a contention in this proceeding, 3 , and I don't know that we need to hold up on that. 4 With regard to the independent review point, it is 5 certainly a discrete issue -- monitoring, yes, all runs 6 together. We are not arguing that. But that really has . 7 nothing to do with the philosophical point that the safety 8 of Cincinnati warrants special treatment as to an independent
. 9 review board. That's one thing we can get rid of and we 1
10 should get rid of. 11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I'd like to hear what 12 the City has to say about that first. , 13 MR. HEILE: First of all, I agree with Mr. O 14 Brenner's approach. I believe the questior. of environmental 15 review board in placement of someone from the local environ-16 ment on that board who has a close association with the 17 company, from a practical standpoint, I would think it would be ^ 18 something they would want. It would help with the
- is continual cooperation, I would believe, between the 20 $ various environmental groups and the company itself, so 2; that everybody knows what's going on, of a ma-jor basis.
f 22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That, of course, is the , merits, but -- 23 p!j MR. HEILE: But I'm getting at, it seems to ne ; if 3,; li. I O 23 !j that could very well be something along the lines of Lessons ; y 1:
$1 i
ar6 3148 1l Learned from Three Mile Island and, of course, cooperation 2 between the local and the major populationc and the Applicant 3 for the company involved. I 4 So I think it quite readily philosophically . 5 5, fits into the latter category with respect to Three Milo i
- j. !
i
~8ll Island. I would snhmit it should be held over till then, j . !i as the Board has already decided.
, , 7l t 6i CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. Kosik, do you have [ l 3 any conunents particularly -- do you have any problem if , t' . 10 [ we should take up your contention 17 prior to our ; i l
!!j resuming for the full set of other hearingc? l t
12 f It may be very difficult for us to schedule long i il 13 continuous hearings, in any event. So as r matter of V 14 l' tl, schedule -- that appears to be an issue we can separate out. l l
- 5 [ Now I can almost guarantee you -- I will guarantee i !
13 :. that we can't do it by the end of September, because of i ,
, 17 !i . conflicting schedules. But do you have any problem with !
- l separating that out?
!S g ,
e MS. KOSIK: You say you're considering separating 19 4lt i 23 ]i it out, but that it would not happen before the end of l 21 September? Is that what you are saying? r CHAIRMAN BECHHO2FER: No, what I'm saying it n cicarly won't come to hearing at the end of September y, ;: because of conflicting Board schedulas. 23 MS. KOSIK: I was under the impression that
1 1 3149 cr7 I I round about October somewhere.we were going to be back anyway. I 2 Is that not a correct assumption? 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I doubt it.
'I MS. KOSIK: So you're asking do we mind if ycu do 5 .
that in October? The other things, I can't 3 CHAIRMAN BECHEOEFER: e foresee doing that early.
/ l#,I Well, it would be a greater inconvenienco 8i MS. KOSIK:
l 9j for us to come in and out, in and out; that would be our I' l 10 ' only objection to that. To some extent, I think 11 o CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
'i ,
12{ we're going to have to do this throughout the rest of the c 13 proceeding, because I doubt if we can stay for three or d
' 14 F.
four weeks at a time, or whatever it may take, because of ,
'5 , conflicting schedules.
%; Anyway, we'll take those views into account I,
s 17 '. in setting further schedules. [ Is there any other matters that anybody wculd "G ]l ..
- Gj like to. raise?
Ii Okay, the hearing is adjourned. Th Il
)
21 I! (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m. , the hearing was t ( j adjourned.) p 22] ! I. . d i . 23 1 l* O ug t O u L__ A . _ _ _ - , . . --}}