ML20140G276
| ML20140G276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1985 |
| From: | Marinos E NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507120600 | |
| Download: ML20140G276 (329) | |
Text
/
JUN 2 81985 Docket Nos.: 50-445 and 50-446 APPLICANT: Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO)
FACILITY: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (CPSES)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND CYCNA ENERGY SERVICES TO DISCUSS PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM A PORTION OF THE PHASE 4 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM REVIEW On May 21, 22, and 23,1985, the NRC staff and its consultants met with Cygna Energy Services to discuss the preliminary results from a portion of the Phase 4 Independent assessment Program review for Comanche Peak. The meetings were held at the Cygna offices in San Francisco. An attendance list is en-closed.
The objective of the meeting was to determine the depth and breadth to which Cygna reviewed the mechanical system hydraulics and the electrical systems, including instrumentation and controls, for the component cooling water system. Cygna had transmitted its preliminary checklists for this portion of the review to the NRC staff by letter number 84056.065 dated April 29, 1985.
The NRC staff had transmitted questions collected from its review of these checklists to Cygna by a letter dated May 3, 1985. This letter is enclosed.
During the first part of the meeting the NRC staff sought responses to its previously transmitted questions. During the second part of the meeting, at the request of Cygna management, the NRC staff and its consultants provided further clarification of the remaining staff questions. Cygna indicated it would be prepared to respond to the unresolved questions in a future meeting with the NRC staff.
The meetings were transcribed and a transcript is also enclosed. The meeting extended over portions of three days; however, the transcript is provided in one volume. The transcript for the first day is contained on pages numbered 1 through 176; the second day is contained on pages numbered 177 through 308; and the third day is contained on pages numbered 309 through 323 with attachment 1 (3 pages).
k NC Evangelos C. Marinos, Deputy Electrical / Operational Group Comanche Peak Project
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES LB#1/DL LB#1/DL TRk/DL CP/TRT t: CP/TRT/DL RS
- SBurwell/mac BJYoungblood *CTrammell *JCalvo EFar s 06/20/85 06/ /85 VSNoof 06/24/85 06/g/85 06/21/85 06// /85 8507120600 850628 5 PDR ADOCK 0500
(
l NRC Staff and Cygna Meeting (5/21-23/85) i
]
Attendance List NRC STAFF CYGNA TEXAS UTILITIES NRC CONSULTANTS J. A..Calvo R. Stuart D. Davis, TERA L. Stanley E. C. Marinos N. Williams S. Kumar, G & H G. Overbeck 1, J. Knox J. Minichello J. Redding, TUGC0 G. Morris
! E. Tomlinson R. Hess J. Neushemal D. Norkin .J. Killigh V. Ferrarini T. Ankrum J. Foley R. Newmon A. Moersfelder
, R. Porter l C. Oszewski i L. Maggio l T. Martin ;
1 i
f I
l .
i 1
i 1
P f^
Tr + ,:, -. . , . . . . _ . , . . . - _ , _ . , , , . _ . , _ , , . , - , _ , , . _ , . . _ . , _ . _ _ . . _ , . , _ _ . . - , , , ._
j.o c ORIGINAL 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 TEXAS UTILITIES CPRT MEETING 1
10 CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES 11 12 13 14 4
15 16 TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1985 - 9:15 A.M.
1 27 18 101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1000 l
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 19 i 20 21 22
'25 .
24 t
25 l
26 27
(
28 l
l s. a.-e sco ooioor a cAmmoLL co ... ,
'
- j "*
- caaririto sacataaNo ma*Cattas ,,,,,v' esis. es e- s see OEPOSrTION Notaatal
2
, 1 MR. CALVO: THE MEETING BETWEEN CYGNA AND THE 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, SUBJECT, THE -- OR RELATED TO 3 COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT REVIEWING OF QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE 4 NRC TO CYGNA ON MAY THE 3RD, 1985.
5 MY NAME IS JOSE CALVO. I'M THE ELECTRICAL AND TO MY 6 OPERATIONAL GROUP MANAGER OF COPANCHE PEAK PROJECT. ,
7 RIGHT IS ANGELO MARINOS EO GROUP DEPUTY FOR THE COMANCHE PEAK 8 PROJECT. OTHER MEMBER OF THE EO GROUP IS ED TOMLINSON AND 3 JOHN KNOX.
10 ALSO, WE HAVE HERE DON h0RKIN FROM THE OFFICE OF ALSO, TED ANKRUM FROM OFFICE OF 11 INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT.
INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT. WE ALSO HAVE CONSULTANTS, GARY 12 13 OVERBECK, JOHN NEVSHEMAL.
14 . MR. NEVSHEMAL: NEVSHEMAL.
MR. CALVO: GEORGE MORRIS, LOREN STANLEY.
15 16 AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING IS TO DISCUSS THE 17 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO CYGNA BY THE NRC ON MAY 3RD, 1985
! 18 CONCERNING PHASE 4 OF THE INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION BEING 19 CONDUCTED BY CYGNA." THE RESPONSES TO THESE QUESTIONS WILL B 20 DOCUMENTED AS PART OF THIS RECORD AND OF THIS MEETING AND, 21 THEREFORE, THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER NEED TO RESPOND IN WRITING 22 TO THE NRC CONCERNING THESE QUESTIONS.
23 AT THE END OF THE MEETING SES$10NS WHERE AN 24 OPPORTUNITY WILL BE GIVEN TO THE TEXAS UTILITY ELECTRICAL C OMPANY, INTERVENORS, AND OTHER PARTIES ATTENDING THIS MEETING 25-ALSO, NOW, 26 TO INTRODUCE THEIR COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
i j 27 I REQUEST THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MEETING AND ATTACHM 28 BE SENT TO THE NRC, ATTENTION TO VINCE NOONAN, DIRECTOR OF '
sa= ean=cesco '
DOIDGE & CARROLL c o='s. c
" 'y* * **** C R 47 8i50 SMomTMAND mtponttas , ,8 0, ,*
u.si ese noe OEnotiTeoN Notamits
l 3
! 1 CDMANrHE PEAK PROJECT.
\ 2 THAT'S ALL I MAVE TO SAY NOW.
3 MS. WILLIAMS: I'LL BEGIN WITH INTRODUCING THE TO MY LEFT IS THE ,
4 PEOPLE WHO WILL BE SPEAKING THE MOST.
5 PROJECT ENGINEER, BOB HESS WHO WILL 8E TALKING PRIMARTLY ON TO HIS LEFT IS JIM FOLEY, ALSO 6 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS QUESTIONS.
TO MY RIGHT IS TOM MARTIN, ELECTRICAL AND 7 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS.
ISC.
AND TO TOM'S RIGHT IS LARRY MAGGIO, ELECTRICAL.
8 BEFORE WE BEGIN, AFTER HAVING REVIEWED THE STAFF'S 9
IT WOULD 10 QUESTIONS TRANSMITTED TO CYGNA ON MAY 3RD, WE THINK 11 BE PRODUCTIVE TO BEGIN THIS MEETING WITH AN OVERVIEW ELECTRICAL, AND ISC REVIEW 12 DISCUSSION OF THE MECHANICAL, 13 SCOPES.
14 IT SEEMS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN LIGHT OF THE FA
? .
OUR RESPONSES TO THESE OUESTIONS WOULD BE, 15 THAT A COUPLE OF 16 QUOTE, OUT OF SCOPE, UNQUOTE, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT 17 YOU UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE SAYING THAT AND PERHA 18 SOME OF THE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE START THE MEETING.
TO BEGIN W'ITH, THE ELECTRICAL AND ISC SCOPE INCLUDED 19 THE CCW TRAINING SAFEGUARDS LOOP, PUMP VALVES.AND ACTIVE I
20 THE ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT I INSTRUMENTS AhD ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
r 21 SUCH 22 REVIEW BEGAN WITH THE CLOSEST ELECTRICAL SOURCE BREAKER, "A"
23 AS 6.9 KV SWITCHGEAR AND CONTINUED. 00T TO EACH IN OTHER WORDS, THESE SOURCES WERE CONSIDERED 24 COMPONENT.
THE SAFEGUARDS, THUS, WOULD HAVE 25 INPUTS TO OUR REVIEW SCOPE.
26 SEEN AN INPUT.
27 HOWEVER, TO INSURE THAT THE SYSTEM WAS ADEOUATEL 28 DESIGNED AT THESE PROTECTIVE DEVICES, WE OID CH coy.. ,,p.
- DOlDGE e CARROLL c o *"
'y,". ,* * *f,,C,8 o .s o CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTERS **ess **it as i s, as e -33e* DEPostTION NOTAmitS
4 l 1 LEVELS, THE SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT CAPACITY, AND PREFERRED 2 ALTERNATE STAND 8Y POWER SOURCES TO INSURE THAT THEY WERE 3 AVAILABLE.
4 CONVERSELY, THE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS REVIEW DID 5 INCLUDE AN EVALUATION OF SOME PORTIONS OF THE NON-SAFEGUARD LOOP AS IT INTERFACED WITH THE SAFEGUARDS FUNCTIONS.
6 7 WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE TO DO AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS 8 TO PERHAPS PULL OUT ONE OR TWO OF THE FLOW DI AGRAMS AND HAVE 9 808 WALK YOU THROUGH PHYSICALLY WHAT OUR SCOPE WAS, IF YOU 10 THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
MR. CALVO: BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER, I THINK WE 11 12 CAN INTRODUCE THE WORKING MEMBERS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO --
I 13 ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOH, ! WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO COME UP l
1
. 14 AND INTRODUCE THEMSELVES. ANYBODY WHO HAS NOT BEEN INTRODUCED, 15 AT THIS T!HE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND WHICH 16 COMPANY THEY REPRESENT. ,
17 MR. KUMAR: I'M $1VA KUMAR OF GIS8S S HILL.
l 18 MR. NEWMAN: RICH NEWMAN TENERA CORPORATION.
MR. DAVIS: DON DAVIS, TENERA.
19 20 MR. OSZEWSK!: JIM OSZEWSKI, CYGNA.
4 21 MR. MINICHIELLO: JOHN MINISHIELLO, CYGNA.
22 MR. STUART: DICK STUART, CYGNA.
'23 MR. REDDING: JACK REDDING, TUGCO.
24 MS. WILLIAMS: WOULD YOU LIKE TO BEGIN, THEN, GOING 25 THROUGH THE DRAWINGS?
i 26 WHO ARE THE PEOPLE SITTING HERE WHO MOST NEED TO SEE.
' MR. MARINOS: MECHANICAL OVER HERE AND WE NEED ONE.
27 1
28 DC YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE DRAWING, NANCY?
,, j';,8,C,*
DOiDGE a CAmmoLL co** e. c o.s .
CERTipiED SMORTMAND REpomites c ow=+
, . . . eess*933 sees ie s se a s e as** DEPOSITION NOTAmst $
j i
l l- -
l 5
1 MS. WILLIAMS: NO.
DO YOU !
2 MR. MARTIN: I HAVE GOT A FLOW DIAGRAM.
THINK THAT WOULD $1MPLIFY? DO YOU HAVE ONE.
3 4 MS. WILLIAMS: MAYBE YOU HAVE TWO OF THOSE.
5 COFF THE RECORD.)
MR. CALV0: BEFORE YOU START, MAKE A REFERENCE TO 6
7 THE DIAGRAM, INDICATE REVISION NUMBER, AND DATE.
8 MR. HESS: I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT WE USED 9 VARIOUS REVISIONS OF THE SAME DIAGRAM. THE ONE THAT I HAVE UP 10 HERE, I'LL GIVE YOU THE REVISION NUMBER OF.
11 MR. CALV0: THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS 12 MEETING, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW kHAT THEY ARE AND THEY CAN BE 13 IDENTIFIED LATER.
' 14 MR. HESS: THIS DRAWING NUMBER IS 2323-M1-0229 AND 15 IT'S REVISION CP-2. THE BASIC MECHANICAL SCOPE --
16 MR. MARINOS: IS THis THE SAME AS WE HAVE PERE 7 MR. HESS: YES, BASICALLY THE SAME FIGURE, YES, SIR.
17 18 MR. MARINOS: BUT IT DOES HAVE A IDENTIFIED NUMBER.
MR. HESS: THAT'S RIGHT. IT HAS A FIGURE NUMBER IF 19 20 IT'S FROM THE FSAR.
21 MR. CALV0: LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT FIGURE 9 2-3 22 SHEET 103, 2 OUT OF 3 AND 3 OUT OF 3, IS A SIMILAR DRAWING
'23 THAN THE ONE YOU MENTIONED BEFORE.,
24 MR. HESS: THAT'S CORRECT.
25 MR. CALV0: THANK YOU.
MR. HESS: OKAY, THE BASIC MECHANICAL SC' OPE STARTED 26 27 AT THE CCW SURGE TANK, TOOK THE FLOW PATH FROM THE SURGE TANK i
i PUMP SUCTION THROUGH THE PUMP DISCHARGE, 28 TO THE PUMP SUCTION.
l ooiose a c*aaou. ..,........
8:- ;;c,;;,*
c ow' l o.. .,o CERTIFit0 SMORTMAND REPORTERS '*'88 '
I sais ase asse OtpeSiteON NOTARitS
6 1 CCW HEAT EXCHANGER. THE OUTLET OF THE CCW HEAT EXCHANGER TO 2 THE NUCLEAR CHILLED WATER SYSTEM HEAT EXCHANGERS, THE CONTROL 3 ROOM AIR CONDITIONER HEAT EXCHANGERS, THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY 4 AND RHR HEAT EXCHANGERS UP TO THE OUTLET CONTROL VALVE ON BOTH 5 OF THOSE HEAT EXCHANGERS.
6 WE ALSO CONSIDERED A FLOW PATH INTO THE 7 NON-SAFEGUARDS LOOP THAT WENT TO THE REACTOR COOLANT PUMP 8 THERMAL BARRIER COOLERS. AS THE SCOPE PROGRESSED, WE ALSO 9 CONSIDERED A FLOW PATH UP TO THE NON-NUCLEAR CHILLER WHICH IS 10 A DIVISION BETWEEN SE!SMIC AND NONSEISMIC EQUIPMENT TO COVER 11 THE SCOPE.
12 IN THE COURSE OF REVIEWING THIS LOOP AS FAR AS 13 PRESSURE DROP AND FLOW REQUIREMENTS ARE CONCERNED, ALTHOUGH t
- 14 THE ORIGINAL SCOPE ENDED AT THE OUTLET, WE DID REVIEW PORTIONS 15 OF THE PRESSURE DROP CALCS THAT COVERED THE ENTIRE RETURN LOOP 16 SINCE THAT WAS THE WAY THE CALCULATIONS WERE PERFORHED.
17 OKAY, THE NEXT DRAWING WHICH COVERS THE SCOPE IS 18 2323-M 1-0230, REV CP6, AND THAT WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO YOUR 19 9 2 --
20 MR. MARINOS: 9.2-3, SHEET 2 OF 3.
21 MR. HESS: THIS SHOWS THE FLOW PATH COMING FROM THE 22 NON-SAFEGUARDS LOOP OVER TO THE NON-NUCLEAR CHILLER -- ALL
! 23 RIGHT -- WHICH GOES THROUGH CONTROL VALVE 4460, IF l'M 24 READING -- 4640 !$ THE CONTROL VALVE GOING INTO THE 25 NON-NUCLEAR CHILLERS.
26 AND THEN FROM THIS SHEET WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE FOR I THE THERMAL BARRIER. THIS !$ 2323-M1-0231, REV CP5. AND THIS 27 28 SHOWS THE FLOW PATH INTO THE THERHAL BARRIER COOLER AND THE I
- '*y*yty,'
DOIDGE a CARROLL CamTipiED snomTma%o mapomisms g o.,, . . , , s .
c ow='.
j .,,,, ' ' " ' " , ' , '
wisi es, snee caposition Notamiss
7 e
- 1 OTHER COOLERS ON THE ONE REACTOR COOLANT PUMP.
2 OKAY. DURING THIS REVIEW WE DID ALSO LOOK SOMEWHAT 3 AT THE RETURN FLOW PATH FROM THE REACTOR COOLANT THERHAL 4 BARRIER AND BEARING O!L COOLERS, ET CETERA.
5 MR. MARINOS: WHICH REACTOR COOLANT PUMP 7 6 MR. HESS: WE 8ASICALLY LOOKED AT -- FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, THE TWO DIFFERENT REACTOR COOLANT PUMPS. INITIALLY 7
8 WE HAD SHOWN THE SCOPE AS TO 01, REACTOR COOLANT PUNP 01.
9 DURING THE ANALYSIS REVIEW, ACTUALLY THE MOST DISTANT BARRIER 10 COOLING PUMP WAS 03, 50 WE LOOKED AT THE FLOW PATH TO THAT 03 11 PUMP.
12 MR. OVERBECK: IS 03 THE MOST DISTANT LOAD ON THE 13 SYSTEM 7
- 14 MR. HESS: YES.
15 MR. OVERBECK: YOU MADE A STATEHENT TO THE EFFECT IN 16 THAT IN DEVELOPING THE SCOPE, DID YOU HAVE A HAND AT CYGNA 17 DEVELOPING THE SCOPE,OR WAS IT PROVIDED TO YOU7 18 MR. HESS: WE HAD A HAND IN DEVELOPING THE SCOPE.
19 MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, 1 THINK l'D LIKE TO CLARIFY 20 THAT A LITTLE BIT. THERE WAS ONE TELEPHONE DISCUS $10N SETWEEN 21 OURSELVES AND TEXAS UTILITIES WHERE WE SKETCHED OUT THE 22 REASONABLE SOUNDS FCR THE SCOPE ON THE CCW SYSTEMS REVIEW.
~
23 THE ACTUAL FINALIZ ATION OF WHERE THE REVIEW STOPPED AND START 24 WAS LATER REFINED BY TEXAS UTILITIES.
25 MR. MARINOS: WHY DID YOU GO BEYOND THE SAFEGUARDS 26 LOOP OF THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM INTO THE R 27 MR. hESS: BASICALLY TO GET AN ASSES $HENT OF THE
{
f 28 INTERFACE BETWEEN SAFEGUARDS AND NON-SAFEGUARDS DESIGN AS T
. - *aa cie o coicot a cAmmoLL c..........
co**
caatieieo swoavaamo aspoetsas """'
w . .. . . . n.. ca.osmow notaaiss
8 e 1 HOW THAT INTERFACE MAD SEEN HANDLED IN THE DESIGN PROCESS.
MR. MARINOS: FOR THE SAFETY $1GNAL, THAT SYSTEM IS 2
3 GOING TO BE !$0 LATED.
4 MR. HESS: THAT'S CORRECT.
5 MR. MARINOS: 50 WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO GAIN 7 6 MR. HESS: WELL, THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER ,IS MANY 7 0F THE COMPONENTS, TWO MAJOR COMPONENTS IN THE SAFEGUARDS LOOP
$ WHICH WOULD CONTAIN THE SPRAY AND THE NON- -- AND THE RHR HE 9 EXCHANGER ARE NOT NORMALLY IN OPERATION. 50 WE WANTED 10 EQUIPMENT THAT IS NORMALLY IN OPERATION ALSO WHEN WE LOOKED AT 11 THOSE FLOW PATHS. AND THAT'S WHERE THE NON-SAFEGUARDS LOOP 12 CAME IN.
13 OKAY, THAT BASICALLY COVERS THE SCOPE FROM THE 14 MECMANICAL SYSTEMS.
t ,
15 MR. CALV0: DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THE OTHER 16 SCOPES TO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW AND THEN COME BACK WITH THE 17 QUESTIONS IN EACH DISCIPLINE 7 18 MS. WILLI AMS: THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
19 TOM, Do Yo'U WANT TO GO THROUGH THE ELECTRICAL 7 MR. MARTIN: LOOKING AT THE SAME DRAWING, 20 21 2323-M1-0229 REV CP2, THE ELECTRICAL SCJPE FOCUSED ON THE WE BASICALLY ,
22 TRAIN "A" SAFEGUARD ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS.
23 STARTED AT THE SURGE TANK REVIEWING INTERLOCKS WITH THE VENT 24 VALVE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE LEVEL OF TRANSMITTER 25 INSTRUMENTATION WITH 26 THE --
27 MR. STANLEY: COULD YOU GIVE THE VENT NUMBER ON THE
(
28 VENT VALVE YOU'RE TALKING A800T7 poioot a cammoLL ..........
- yl",ge;;ll cuatmiso s.<ont awo asaoattas co -
.. . . . . n.e osaosition motamiss
' +
9 THE VENT VALVE 15 4508, RV4508. MAYSE 1 MR. MARTIN:
\ 2 I'LL JUST GO THROUGH AND IDENTIFY THE MAJOR COMPONEN 3
LOOKED AT AND IF WE GET INTO QUESTIONS, l'LL IDENTIFY WHAT WE COMING DOWN THE PATH, WE REVIEWED VALVES HB 4 LOOKED AT LATER.
5 4512, MOTOR OPERATED VALVE HS 4524, THE COMPONENT COOLING PUHP 6 MOTOR CIRCUITRY, WHICH 15 CP1-CCAP CC MR. CALV0: MAY I ASK A QUESTION 7 7
MR. MARTIN: SURE.
8 9 MR. CALV0: MOST OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN 10 READING, THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN THE CHECKLIST ANYWAY.
11 MR. MARTIN: YES.
12 MR. CALV0: 50 1 GUESS MAY8E YOU CAN SAY THE 13 COMPONENTS THAT WERE EVALUATED BY CYGNA, PHASE 4 AS PART OF 14 THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM, THOSE ARE IDENTIFIED IN 15 THE CHECKLIST. I FEEL THAT WE'RE REPEATING.
16 MR. MARTIN: OKAY.
MS. WILLIAMS: COULD YOU MAYBE GIVE THEM A FEEL, TON, 17 18 FROM A FUNCTIONAL STANDPOINT WHAT RELATES TO WHAT, WHAT 19 INTERLOCKS WITH WHAT. I THINK THEY WANT TO GET A FEEL FOR THE l
20 DEPTH OF HOW YOU SET OUT TO TRACE YOUR WAY THROU
) 21 AND THE KINDS OF CONCERNS THAT YOU CONSIDERED AND GIVE TH i
22 PHYSICAL FEEL FOR THE SYSTEM AND HOW YOU SAW 17.
MR. MARTIN: OKAY. ON THE --
i '23 24 MR. MARINOS: IT'S NOT EASY.
25 MS. WILLIAMS: IT'S NOT EASY.
l ON THE RELIEF VALVE ORIGINALLY THERE 26 MR. MARTIN:
I 27 WAS A RADIATION INTERLOCK ON THE DESIGN WHICH 15 BA$!CALLY WH WE INCLUDED IT IN OUR REVIEW. 50 IT PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON THE f
I 28
- *** DOIDwE & CARROLL g o . .. c o.s+ .
, 'g* CEmTipiEO SMontMAND meromva ns c ow ='
'*'88
oass 3 DE POSITION NOf amig 5 es i s' es t- 8 8**
10 1 INTERLOCKS WITH THE VALVES AND THEIR POWER SUPPLIES TO THEP.
\ 2 WE'VE GOT TRAIN "A" SEPARATION VALVES ON BOTH SIDES OF THF 3 NON-SAFEGUARDS LOOP WHICH WE REVIEWED FOR BASICALLY ADEQUAlc 4 CIRCUIT DESIGN FOR ALL THE APPLICABLE REG GUIDES AND DESIG 5 CRITERIA.
AS WE STATED EARLIER, WE JUST LOOKED TO THESE THINGS 6
7 TO THE NEAREST SOURCE BREAKER AND TRIED TO DO AN E 8 FROM THAT POINT AND THE REST OF THE DESIGNS WERE ADEQUATE TO THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMP, AGAIN WE 9 THAT POINT.
10 REVIEWED FOR PROPER INTERLOCKS THAT START ON LOW PRESSURE.
Il THE OTHER TRAIN, THAT IT STARTED ON LOW PRESSURE SERVICE WATER TRAIN FRDM REDUNDANT DIVISION. THERE WERE INTERLOCKS BETWEEN 12 13 THE SERVICE WATER PUMP AND THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PU f I - 14 i(E REVIEWED THE OUTLET -- OUR SCOPE STOPPED AT THE 15 OUTLET OF THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY AND CONTROL ROOM HEAT
' 16 EXCHANGERS AND WE VERIFIED THAT PROPER SIGNALS AND CIRCUITRY 17 EXISTED, THAT INSURE THOSE HELD ON CONTAIMENT SPRAY AND SAFE 18 INJECTION SIGNALS.
BASICALLY,' ON INSTRUMENTATION, WE REVIEWED ACTIVE 19 20 FUNCTIONS OF INSTRUMENTATION, WHETHER IT DID THE PROPER INTERLOCKS WITH THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMP, AND A LOT OF 21 22 VERIFIED CONTROL ROOM INDICATION EXISTED WHERE I 1 THINK MAYBE TO PINPOINT SOME OF THIS STUFF, WE 23 24 INITIATED A DOCUMENT DC-5 WHICH IS ELECTRICAL SY 25 CRITERIA, AND THE LAST SECTION OF IT DOES IDENTIFY THE KEY 26 ITEMS THAT THE CHECKLISTS WERE DEVELOPED FROM.
! 27 MR. MARINOS: DO WE HAVE THIS CRITERIA LISTED IN THE WHEN WAS 28 MEMORANDUM -- IN THE LETTER THAT YOU SENT US, NANC Y, g ,,.. ,,,,.
- = n*=cesc o DOIDGE e CAmmoLL c on"
,j' CERTIFIED .MORTMAND REPORTER. ~ 'a'"'
l ..,. . vio~ ~eT.R, .
..........s
11 1 THAT, MAY --
\ MS. WILLIAMS: THAT'S APRIL 29TH, '85.
2 3 MR. MARINOS: WE HAVE A DETAIL LIST OF THE CRITERI A 4 THAT YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT?
MR. MARTIN: YES.
5 6 MR. MARINOS: YOU CAN REFER TO THAT LIKE WE ALREADY 1
7 HAVE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH ITEM --
8 MR. MARTIN: OKAY.
9 MR. MARINOS: -- UNLESS YOU WANT TO HIGHLIGHT 10 SOMETHING FROM THAT.
11 MR. MARTIN: WHAT I WAS CONSIDERING DOING WAS JUST 12 HIGHLIGHTING WHAT WE DEVELOPED THE CHECKLIST FROM --
13 MR. MARINOS: FINE.
14 MR. MARTIN: -- WHICH IS BASICALLY THE SECTION FOR 15 REVIEW CRITERIA.
MR. CALV0: FOR THE REC 0kD, WE HAVE BEEN TALKING 16 17 ABOUT CHECKLIST AND CRITERIA. I THINK WE HAVE TO PUT inAT Ih 18 PERSPECTIVE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN INDEPENDENT SYSTEM 19 PROGRAM F0F .. -- : ! CAL SYSTEM REVIEW CRITERI A FOR THE COMANCHE PEAK ELECTRICAL STATION PREPARED SY CYGNA FOR' PHASE 4. I 20 i
21 GUESS REVISION 1, THE DATE IS -- DATE IS -- WAS SIGNED --
22 MR. NORKIN: AUGUST 29TH, '84.
SEFORE YOU, GO ON TO THAT, CAN I STOP i
'3 2 MR. STANLEY:
YOU FOR A MINUTE AND ASK A QUESTION. YOU CONFINED YOUR REVIEW 24 WAS THERE ANY ATTEMPT
! 25 SCOPE IN THE ELECTRICAL AND ISC AREA.
t 26 TO EXPAND IT TO COVER THE ENTIRE -- TO PICK UP THE POSSIBLE f 27 INTERACTIONS IN TRAIN 87 28 MR. MARTIN: THE INTERACTIONS WE'VE LOOKED AT WERE
- a 'aa cco ooioGE a cAmmoLL ...........
' """' esatineto swo=Twamo ascoatsas cow
j
.E7 3.. osposmom Notamies I
12
' THE INTERACTIONS OF SOMETHING HAPPENING IN TRAIN 8 THAT 1
( 2 REQUIRED AN ACTION IN TRAIN "A". THAT -- THOSE WERE THE ONLY 3 INTERLOCKS WE FCUND IN THE CONTROL CIRCUITRY OF TRAIN "A".
WAS THERE ANY ATTEMPT AT EXPANDING TO l 4 MR. STANLEY:
5 TRAIN 8 AS WELL AS TRAIN "A" EVER.
6 MS. WILLIAMS: THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN HAD WE FOUND BUT 7 SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE INTERLOCKS THAT WE DID LOOK AT.
8 OUR STANDARD APPROACH IS IF THERE WERE NO -- THERE WAS NO 9 REASON OR ZVIDENCE TO LOOK FURTHER OR EXPAND PHYSICALLY THE SCOPE, THEN WE GENERALLY WOULO NOT DO THA1. BUT I THINK THAT 10 11 IN THE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AREA, THERE WAS A LOT OF INTERPLAY 12 BETWEEN THE ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL GROUPS AND PERHAPS, 13 808, YOU --
. 14 MR. HESS: WELL, EVEN THOUGH THE ELECTRICAL SCOPE 15 WAS LIMITED TO WHAT WAS JUST DESCRIBED IN CERTAIN AREAS WHERE 16 MECHANICAL CAME UP WITH OUESTIONS AS TO HOW CCRTAIN FUNCTIONS 17 WERE CONTROLLED BECAUSE THEY HAD AN EFFECT ON THE MECHANICAL 18 FLOW PATH, FOR EXAMPLE, CONTAINMENT ISOLATION, WE WERE 19 INTERESTED IN THE MECHANICAL AREA AS TO WHEN CERTAIN VALVES 20 CLOSED ON CONTAINMENT ISOLATION SIGNALS. AND THEN WE REQUESTED ELECTRICAL TO GO IN AND LOOK AT THE ICD'S, EVEN 21 22 THOUGH THAT WAS NOT PART OF THEIR SPECIFIC SCOPE, THEY LOOKED j
23 AT IT TO GIVE US INPUT AS TO THE CQNTROL FUNCTIONS AND WHETHER 24 OR NOT SOMETHING CLOSED ON WHAT SIGNAL.
l MR. CALVO: WHEN YOU SAY ICD, WHAT 00 YOU MEAN7 25 i
26 MR. HESS: INTERFACE CONTROL DRAWINGS --
27 INSTRUMENTATION CONTROL DRAWINGS.
28 MR. CALVO: ONE QUESTION. GO AHEAD, LOREN.
- ===-c'*eo 0o:00t a cAmmoLL .........
l ''j.',*** csarisiso saontammo nemonteas
,, , c oy,,', , , ,
nesseate asee OEPCsitiON hotamits 1
I i .
f 13
' 1 MR. STANLEY: IS IT SAFE THEN TO CONCLUDE THAT YOU IT WAS ALWAYS TRAIN 2
NEVER PUT THE SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE ON THIS, 3 "A"?
4 MR. MESS: ! DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S A TOTALLY TRUE 5 CO NCL US I ON. FROM THE MECHANICAL SYSTEM STANDPOINT WE -- W "A" AND, TRAIN 6 DID LOOK AT THC INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRAIN 7 B.
MR. STANLEY: INSTRUMENTATION. LET'S ASK THE 8
9 QUESTION IN THAT. DISCIPLINE.
10 MR. HESS: UM --
MR. STANLEY: SPECIF IC ALLY WHAT I AM FOCUSING IN ON 11 INTERLOCK 12 IS THE INTERLOCK FROM TRAIN B TO TRAIN " A" AND THE 13 FROM TRAIN "A" TO TRAIN B.
MR. HESS: YES, WE HAVE REVIEWED THAT.
g . 14 15 MR. STANLEY: BUT YOUR REVIEW DID NOT ADDRESS THE INTERLOCK FROM AN 16 SYSTEMS ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THAT WAS A WISE 17 OVERALL SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE, WAS THAT A CORRECT INTERLOCK TO 18 HAVE IN IT. THAT QUESTION NEVER GOT ASKED.
19 MR. CALVO: SUPPOSE THE INTERLOCK WOULD HAVE FAILED.
20 WOULD IT DISABLE BOTH TRAINS?
21 MR. MARTIN: NO.
MR. STANLEY: YOU'RE SURE?
22
'23 MR. MARTIN: YES.
24 MR. CALVO: 50 YOU LOOK THEN -- YOU ELEVATE A LITTLE 25 BIT FOR THE TRAIN TO-- THIS IS -- GUESS THAT'S WHAT YOU 26 TRYING TO GET AT.
MR. STANLEY: EXACTLY.
l 27 28 MR. MARTIN: THE ONLY INTER-TRAIN INTERLOCK WE sa= =-c'sc o ooicot a cAnnoLL cos... c o...
c o. * .
',,',"' CEntipaED SMOmtMAND mEpontsms **'88'
saise asi ssee 3g p0517:04 Notamit s
14 1 OBSERVED DURING THE REVIEW WAS THE PRESSURE SWITCH BETWEEN 2 COMPONENT COOLING WATER, TRAIN "A" LOW PRESSURE AND TRAIN 8 3 LOW PRESSURE, AND STATION SERVICE WATER, TRAIN "A" LOW i
4 PRESSURE AND TRAIN 8 LOW PRESSURE.
6 MS. WILLIAMS: IS IT THE ONLY ONE SECAUSE THAT WAS 7 THE ONLY ONE YOU CAME ACROSS7 8 MR. MARTIN: THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE WE CAME ACROSS IN 9 REVIEWING THE TRAIN "A" THAT COULD POSSIBLY AFFECT THE TRAIN 10 " A" .
MR. CALVO: LET ME ASK ANOTHER Q'JE S T I O N. IS THE I 11 INITIATED BY 12 COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM THAT'S NORMALLY 13 THE ENGINEER SAFETY FEATURES, ACTUATION SIGNALS, 00 YOU ALSO CONSIDER THE INPUT FROM THE SYSTEM HOW THE COMPONENT COOLING 14 s
15 WATER SYSTEM, HOW 00 YOU CLOSE VALVES, HOW DO YOU OPEN VALVES?
MR. MARTIN: YES, WE HAVE REVIEWED SAFEGUARDS INPUTS 16 17 TO THE CONTROL CIRCUITS IN THIS THING --
18 MR. MARINOS: SAFETY FEATURE IS IT ISOLATES THE 19 NONSAFETY, THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM IS GOING ON 20 DURING PLANT OPERATION.
21 MR. CALVO: I'M TRYING TO GET HOW MUCH OF THE 22 SYSTEMS FLAVOR YOU CONSIDER AS PART OF THE PHASE 4 AND SO
'23 KIND OF WAY YOU LOOK LIKE YOU TRYING TO COME DOWN TO THE 24 COMPONENT LEVEL. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAD DONE SOME THINGS AT ;
25 THE SYSTEM LEVEL AND ! GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND 26 OUT.
I 27' MR. HESS: TOM, IF YOU DON'T MIND I'LL JUMP IN.
28 WE DID LOOK AT WHAT THE NORMAL OPERATION OF THE sa= eaa=c sco DOIDGE & CARROLL co ...cas..
- '****** 8 0= *' '
CERTi#iED SnomTMAND RE PomTsms "'"
wi N '33,. Os position NOT AR'E 5
15 1
SYSTEM WAS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A P $1GNAL AND AN 5 $1GNAL AS WE LOOKED AT THE ISOLATION OF 2 FAR AS VALVE POSITION CHANGES.
WE LOOKED 3 THE NON-SAFEGUARDS LOOP FROM A SYSTEMS STANDPOINT.
"A" AND TRAIN 8 LOOPS FROM A 4 AT THE !$0LAT10N OF THE TRAIN 5 SYSTEMS STANDPOINT.
MR. CALVO: OKAY.
6 7 MR. MESS: THE INTERLOCK THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING WITH 8
THE PRESSURE SWITCH, BASICALLY WHAT THAT INTERLOCK DOES IS IF 9 YOU GET LOW DISCHARGE PRESSURE ON THE PUMP INDICATING THAT THE 10 DEMAND EXCEEDS THE CAPACITY OF THE PUNP, THAT IT STARTS THE AN 11 SECOND PUMP UNDER NORMAL SYSTEM OPERATION NOT UNDER A P OR 12 S SIGNAL BECAUSE ON A P AND 5 51GNAL, BOTH PUMPS ARE RUNNING.
13 MR. CALV0: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT PARTICULAR i
- 14 INTERLOCK REFLECTS CERTAIN DESIGN PHILOSOPHY, CERTAIN DESIGN 15 PRINCIPLES. IF I AM TO CARRY THE THING HORIZONTALLY TO OTHER IT 16 SYSTEMS, BECAUSE IF IT WAS DONE GOOD OR BAD ON THIS SYSTEH, l
17 MAY GIVE YOU SOME GOOD PERSPECTIVE HOW THE OTHER SYSTEM HAS 18 BEEN DONE, BECAUSE THE ULTIMATE RESULT OF THE ALL THE EFFORTS t .
19 IS TO DETERMINE HOW GOOD THE OTHER SYSTEMS ARE INSOF AR 20 GOOD AND BAD, IF YOU FIND OUT FROM THE ' COMPONENT COOLING WATER 21 SYSTEM.
22 MR. HESS: RIGHT.
23 MR. CALVO: AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT HOW FAR YOU 24 WENT INTO THIS -- SUPPOSED TO GIVE YOU THOSE HORIZONTAL 25 COMPONENTS FOR US TO ASSESS THE OVERALL DESIGN FOR THIS OTHE 1 26 SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS.
27 MR. HESS: I THINK AS WE GET FURTHER INTO THE 28 DETAILS OF WHAT WE LOOKED AT IN RELATION TO YOUR QUES
- - ' = =-c 'c o ooioot a cAmmoLL .........
c oe' .
"'jj'j.*,l canimeo saomtHANo atro=Tsas osnosmon notamies
l l
i 16
' MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, I THINK A LOT OF 1
2 THIS WILL CLARIFY. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN HOW WE 3 GOT CERTAIN POINTS COVERED BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT THEM, SAY, AS 4 AN ELECTRICAL REVIEW PROBLEM, BUT THEY REALLY, SAY, CAME UP 5 FROM THE MECHANICAL QUESTIONS AND THEN WE HAD SPECIFICS THAT 6 WE ASKED ELECTRICAL TO LOOK AT THAT CONCERNED US FROM AN 7 OVERALL SYSTEM OPERATION POINT.
8 MR. CALVO: AND ONE GENERAL QUESTION. PHASE 3 --
i 9 THIS IS PHASE 3 YOU CONSIDER THE RHR, RIGHT?
10 THE REPORTER: YOU CONSIDER --
11 MR. CALV0: THE RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM, RHR.
12 MS. WILLIAMS: RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL.
I 13 MR. CALVO: IN THE ELECTRICAL ASPECTS OF THE SYSTEM
) .
"A" 14 DO YOU CONSIDER THE B TRAIN OR DO YOU ALSO CONSIDER THE 15 TRAIN, WHEN YOU --
16 MS. WILLIAMS: THAT WAS JUST B TRAIN. IT WAS PHASE 17 2.
18 MR. CALVO: OKAY. PHASE 2 WAS THE B AND PHASE 4 YOU 19 DID CONSI DER THE " A TRA IN.
20 MS. WILLIAMS: FOR CCW.
21 MR. CALV0: 50 YOU DID SOME LOOKING INTO THE 8 22 TRAIN. OKA Y. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO KNOW. GO AHEAD.
23 MR. STANLEY: ONE MORE QUESTION. CLARIFICATION AS 24 FAR AS THE ENGINE SAFETY FEATURES ACTUATION SIGNALS, THE P 25 SIGNAL AND S SIGNAL, DID YOU DO AN EXAMINATION INTO THE 26 WESTINGHOUSE SCOPE, THE ORIGIN OF THOSE SIGNA.LS, THE POWER?
MR. MARTIN: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE SIGNALS, NO, 27 l
28 NO, WE --
p='..=c.sco DOIDGE & CARROLL co.. .. c o ..
centmeo saontwamo menonteas c ov='*
u ,I'l1*'.*.a osnosmo% Notamics
17 1 MR. STANLEY: YOU TAKE THE SIGNAL AS A GIVEN --
2 MR. MARTIN: RIGHT.
3 MR. STANLEY: -- ACTUATING --
4 MR. MARTIN: WE TOOK THE CONTACT FROM THE CONTROL 5 CIRCUITRY THAT'S INVOLVED IN THE COOLING WATER SYSTEM 6 CIRCUITRY.
7 THE REPORTER: I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
8 MS. WILLI AMS: REPEAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
9 MR. MARTIN: WE TOOK THE CONTACT FROM THE SAFEGUARD 10 SYSTEM AS A GIVEN IN OUR CONTROL CIRCUITRY.
11 MR. CALVO: KEEP IN MIND, ALL WE'RE TRYING TO 00 15 12 TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DIO. WE MAY TAKE YOU AROUND THE 13 WORLD, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DID AND WHAT I - 14 YOU DID AND THE PURPOSE OF I T, 50 YOU FEEL YOU SAY YOU HAD NOT l 15 DONE IT, YOU SAID YOU HAD NOT DONE IT. WE'RE TRYING TO 16 UNDERSTAND.
17 WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THOSE LATER WILL BE 18 ANOTHER THING. WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. I'M NOT SAYING 19 WHAT YOU DID WAS THE RIGHT THING OR THE WRONG THING, JUST i
20 TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. GO AHEAD.
21 MR. MARTIN: DO YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS OR JUST 22 START WITH QUESTIONS 7 I3 MR. CALVO: WELL, IT'S UP TO YOU. DO YOU FEEL THAT 24 WE HAVE ENOUGH OF THE SCOPE OR DO YOU WANT TO GET -- GARY, 25 GEORGE?
26 MS. WILLIAMS: 1 THINK THAT THERE'S ONE MAJOR I 27 DIFFERENCE AT LEAST SOMETHING THAT GOVERNED OUR ANSWERS TO A 28 LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS THAT MAYSE THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE
'y[*,*jc,go DOIDGE a CARROLL c a.. . . c ,, .
t % =
.. % , CERTIFaED SHORTMAND REPORTERS ***88'"'
sais at t ases DE*OSITION NOTAmig s
18
' TIME TO DISCUSS, AND THAT'S WHY DIDN'T WE GO BEYOND THE 1
OF k 2 SAFEGUARDS BUS, WHAT'S INVOLVED WITH DOING THAT AND, l
3 COURSE, THEN PICKING UP THE DIESELS WHICH WOULD SE DOWN 4 THERE YET.
IN 5
AND FROM -- WE HAD TO PICK A SCOPE AT SOME POINT 6 TIME AND IT WAS CUT OFF AT THE SAFEGUARDS BUS OR 7 SOURCE, BECAUSE ONCE YOU GO BEYOND THAT -- I THINK WE 8 DISCUSSED THAT IN THE APRIL MEETING -- YOU'RE REALLY H 9 LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT GOES INTO AND OUT OF TH 10 ASSESS THE SIZING OF IT PROPERLY.
YOU 11 THE SAME GOES FOR THE DIESEL LOADING SEQUENC OF 12 HAVE TO LOOK AT A LOT OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE 13 A 10-FOLD INCREASE IN SCOPE AND EQUALLY TIMEWISE.
YOU WERE ASKING 14 AND WE WERE CURIOUS AS TO WHY 15 QUESTIONS AGAIN AND MAYBE YOU CAN TELL US A LI 16 ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE QUITE A FEW O 17 HITS HOME ON.
f MR. CALVO: FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU SELECTED WHAT 18 YOU CALL A VERTICAL ' SLICE, YOU HAVE BEEN TAKING SMALL 19 l
PHASE 3, A BIGGER VERTICAL SLICE.
20 SLICES PHASE 1, PHASE 2,
[
YOU ESTABLISH SOME BENCH l
21 YOU ESTABLISHED SOME DATA POINTS, 22 MARKS. I GUESS IT'S NOT IMPORTANT WHAT YOU DID WITH THOSE.
OF 23 IT'S IMPORTANT WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO CON 24 THE GOOD THINGS AND THE BAD THINGS THAT YOU F I MEAN, THE OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ARE GOING TO SA 25 PHASE 3, 26 THAT B ASED ON WHAT I HAD LOOKED ON PHASE 1, PHASE -2, INSTRUMENTATION THE ORIGINAL i 27 FOR THE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL IS "A"-OKAY, WE 28 ASSURANCE THAT THE DESIGNS FOR COMANCHE PEAK g w.. c o...
sa= ee.=cisco DotDGE & CARROLL C ow** *
"' '****** CERTi# LED SHORTMAND REPORTERS **"'"8'"'
utbs Yssee DE*0stTiON NOTARIES
19 1 WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW -- THE REASONS WHY YOU CONCE i PIECE
\ 2 THIS CALCULATION AND THE REASON YOU DID THIS PARTICUL 3 OF A REVIEW, WHY, BECAUSE -- NOT BECAUSE YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE 4 MORE VERTICALLY, BUT BECAUSE YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE HORIZONTAL.
5 50 WE'RE TRYING TO KNOW WHY YOU DID IT SO WHEN YOU THEN WE CAN 6
GIVE US -- COME UP WITH THE OVERALL CONCLUSION, 7 UNDERSTAND IT AND WE CAN SAY, HOW COULD YOU COME UP WITH THESE AND THAT 'S WHY WE 'RE 8 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON WHAT YOU DID.
9 ASKING THE QUESTIONS.
MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY. THEN THERE'S ONE PART BEFORE 10 11 WE GET GOING, I GUESS I SHOULD CLARIFY AS TO WHAT'S NOT D 12 YET, AND THAT IS THIS DESIGN PROCESS OVERVIEW WHICH I SPOKE THE PART THAT'S NOT DONE IS 13 BRIEFLY TO IN THE APRIL MEETING.
k* 14 THE PROCESS FLOW DI AGRAMS WHERE WE HAVE DEVELOPED THE FLO IN 15 DIAGRAMS THAT GOVERN THE WORK AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AN 16 THE ELECTRICAL AREA. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS NOW OF TYING THE i
i 17 PROCEDURES TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE PROCESS 18 50 WHAT WE'LL BE DOING IS TAKING THE INFORMATION 19 THAT WE GAINED, HAVING DONE THIS HARDWARE REVIEW AND OUR 20 UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE WORK IS PERFORMED IN'GISBS S HILL 21 TRANSMITTED TO TEXAS UTILITIES AND INSTALLED ON DOWN THE LINE, 22 BUT WE HAVE NOT COMPLETED THIS DESIGN PROCESS OVERVIE YOU'RE
'3 2 THAT WE CAN'T TALK QUITE TO THE l'ORIZONTAL SLICE THAT 24 THINKING OF TODAY. 50 THESE GUYS HERE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS YOU 25 THE VERTICAL SLICE AND WE CAN TALK, 26 WANT ABOUT THAT. THAT'S FINE.
I 27 MR. CALVO: SOME OF THE REASONS WHY YOU DID THI j
28 THIS WAY, WHY YOU LIMITED TO THE SCOPE IS GOING TO BE DOIDGE & CARROLL co%...cosv.
l s.. ea.=cesc o
',,',*** CEmTipito SMontMaNo mtponism5 ,, , ,C o,wj',*
iaiseese-ssee DEPO 5tTION NOTAmit 5
20 1 IMPORTANT NOT ONLY TO YOU, TO ALL OF US, EVERYBODY ELSE IS g
2 GOING TO SCRUTIN!ZE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.
I UNDERSTAND. BUT JUST SO THAT YOU 3 MS. WILLIAMS:
4 UNDERSTAND THE HORIZONTAL PART'S NOT QUITE DONE YET.
THE MR. CALVO: DO YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR DATE FOR 5
I'M NOT 6 HORIZONTAL PART WHAT IT WOULD BECOME AVIALABLE.
7 PRESSING, I'M JUST ASKING.
MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF PARTS, TOO.
8 i
THE OTHER IS THE 9 ONE IS THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS DATA BASE.
WE'RE DOING ALL FOUR PHASES.
10 TRAINING ANALYSIS ON THE ERRORS.
II AND THEN TME THIRD PART IS THE REVIEW PROCESS FLOW CHARTS.
12 THE REVIEW PROCESS FLOW CHARTS ARE PROB ABLY FURTHEST 13 AND WE NEED TO GET A COUPLE PROCEDURES FROM GISBS 14 AND COMPLETE THAT SOMET!HE IN THE NEXT MONTH.
.' THE HR. CALVO: ARE YOU ALSO HOPING THAT SOME OF 15 16 LESSONS LEARNED IN ONE DISCIPLINE LIKE IN THE PIPING SUPPORT, IS 17 BECAUSE IT REFLECTS ON OTHER DISCIPLINES, SOMETHING THAT THA T W ILL B E PAR T l
18 GENERIC, THAT IT CAN BE MOVED HORIZONTAL.
19 OF YOUR CUMULATIVE EFFECTS.
ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY.
20 MS. WILLIAMS:
MR. CALVO: OKAY.
21
! MR. MARTIN: MAYSE BRIEFLY LET ME REVIEW, TRY TO 22 23 JUST HIGHLIGHT IT AND WE'LL GET INTO MORE DET 24 THROUGH THE QUESTIONS.
i WE REVIEWED ELECTRICAL POWER CIRCUIT DESIGNS, SOME 25 26 THINGS HIGHLIGHTED IN THERE WERE ELECTRICAL AND PHY 5'
27 SEPARATION, REDUNDANT POWER SOURCES, CONTROL CIRCUITS l ,
WE DID VERIFY THAT THERE WAS 28 PERFORMING REDUNDANT FUNCTIONS.
co.,,..cos,.
- = sea *cisc o 00tDGE & CARROLL C ow * "
"'**'**** CERTIFato SMORTMAND REPORTE RS "'"
se e ssee DEPOSITION NOTAmits
J 21 1 A TRAIN 8 FU?:CTION, BUT THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR AS WE WANT TO TALK
\ 2 ABOUT TRAIN 8.
3 MR. MARINOS: WHAT DO YOU MEAN SY A TRAIN 8 FUNCTION?
4 MR. MARTIN: WELL, LIKE YOU GOT A TRAIN B FUNCTION --
5 FOR EACH FUNCTION THAT EXISTED IN THE TRAIN "A".
6 MR MARINOS: IN BOTH "A" AND B.
7 MR. MARTIN: CORRECT. AND THEY WERE BASICALLY 8 PERFORMING THE SAME THING. WE LOOKED AT VOLTAGES AVAILABLE AT 9 THE SOURCE BREAKERS THAT CUT OUR SCOPE OFF, WE TRIED TO VERIFY 10 THAT ADEQUATE SYSTEM VOLTAGE EXISTED THERE AND THAT DID HAVE 11 REQUIRED OFFSIDE AND BACKUP POWER SOURCES OR STANDBY POWER 4
12 SOURCES.
13 WE MATCHED -- WE REVIEWED PROCESS RANGES AND AS FAR 14 AS THE INSTRUMENTATION THAT WAS PREPARED TO INSURE THAT THE 15 INSTRUMENTATION SECURED WAS QUALIFIED FOR THE PROCESS RANGE IT 16 WAS EXPECTED TO SENSE. BASICALLY, WENT THROUGH AND VERIF IED 17 THAT EVERYTHING IN FSAR AS FAR AS CONTROL FUNCTIONS, 18 INDICATION RECORDING WERE IN THE CIRCUIT DESIGN FOR THIS 19 EQUIPMENT.
1 20 MR. CALVO: YOU DON'T HAVE THE INF ORM AT ION, BUT 21 SOMETIMES DURING THIS MEETING WHEN YOU SAID YOU LOOKED AT 22 FSAR, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO FIND OUT WHICH -- UP TO WHICH
~
23 AMENDHENT OF THE FSAR THAT YOU VERIFIED HERE FOR THE RECORD, I
24 FSAR.
25 MR. MARTIN: THAT COVERS IT IN AN OVERVIEW.
26 MR. NORKIN: I HAVE ONE QUESTION. .YOU WERE TALKING
{ ABOUT THE LIMITS OF YOUR REVIEW WHEN THE FACT THAT MAYBE OUR 27 I
28 QUESTIONS DIDN'T REFLECT AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LIMITS. I san oma=cesco DQIDGE g C ARROLL g ,,,,,g ,,,, )
, cantmeo swontm*No marontras ,, , ,c oy,, , , , ,
'0. . 8 ****
. . . . . . osposmo% uoramis
l
- . . ... . s b
22 1 THINK OUR QUET TIONS ARE SOMEWHAT BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE W 2 K40 IN DOING THIS K!ND OF REVIEW AND GO!NG BACK TO TH 3 A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.
4 NOW, IF WE WANT TO TEST THAT, I GUESS I'M SETTING 5 THE STAGE FOR tT IN SOME CASES WHERE WE WOULD MAVE GONE A 8
6 LITTLE FURTHER, WE MAY WANT TO REOUEST THAT KIND OF 7 I NF ORMAT ION. AND ! WANT TO SET THE STAGE FOR THAT HOPING THAT
- I 8 INFORMATION WILL BE AVAILABLE.
MR. MARINOS: WHAT DO YOU MEAM BY THAT AS TO 9
10 INFORMATION, MORE IN-DEPTH REVIEW 7 11 MR. NORKIN: RIGHT.
12 MR. MARINOS: CYGNA MAY NOT HAVE IT BECAUSE CYGNA'S 13 SCOPE DID NOT COVER'IT.-
r
. 14 MR. NCRKIN: l'M SAYING AN INDIVIDUAL REV!EW ON OUR 15 TEAM WOULD PROBE 1 HOSE AkEAS AND THEY WOULD BE~!NTERES 16 SAYING COULD YOU GET TFAT INFORMATION.
s 17 hR. CALVO: WE ONLY TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHAT CYGNA 18! '
,HAS DONE. IF SOME THINGS THAT WE FEEL THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE 19 . DONE AS PART OF THE IDI ACTIVITIES, THEN THE SER VfLL BE
' 20 REFLECTED SUCH.
21 MR. NORKIN: THE POINT 15 THAT YOU CAN'T TELL.
g; * $0METIMES IF YOU GO BACK THAT EXTRA STEP AND YOU FIND OUT THAT
' 23 CYGNA' USED AN A55'UMPTION THAT !$ INCORRECT, BUT YOU GO BACK AND sed NOW THAT WAS DERIVED BY LOOKING AT ANOTHER CALCULATION
.24 25 SOURCE CALCULATION, YOU FIND OUT, THAT NUMBER 15 NO GOOD, WE
' 1
.26 CEN'T MAKE THAT POINT UNLESS WE LOOK AT THAT SOURCE
) 27- CALCULATION.
t MR. CALVO: THAT'S OKAY, BECAUSE THEN --
28
=== ... c.ec o cosocri a pasoLL co.... co...
'j[*Is Cf. AtipsED S e>ltTMaND REPORTE RS e,,
o,*}',' ,
. satseass.ssee OEPO% TION NotamiES p .\, >,n 1
. - - .. ~ . - . . . . . . _ . . - -
23
k 2 USELESS IF WE SAT HERE AND WE'RE CONJECTURING WHETHER CYG 4
< 3 SHOULD HAVE GONE FURTHER.
CYGNA HAS A CALCULATION.
AND THE INPUT 4 MR. CALVO:
5 TO THAT CALCULATION REQUIRED THE REVIEW OF THE CAL THAT 6 AND YOU FEEL THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE, IT'S APPROPRI ATE- TO SAY, WELL, i 7 THE CONSULTANT HAD THE CHOICE.
8 I CAN'T REVIEW THAT CALCULATION BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THl5 I
9 INFORMATION AND YOUR SER SHOULD INDICATE THAT IT'S A 10 ISSUE.
OR IF YOU FEEL THAT IT 'S RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT, 11 12 THEN YOU CAN ASK, YES, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW THAT INCLUDES 13 IN THE OTHER CALCULATION.
14 NOW, KEEP IN MIND THERE MAY BE ANOTHER CALCULATION I .
INTO THAT ONE.
15 THAT FITS INTO THAT ONE OR ANOTHER ONE THAT FITS 16 50 SOMEWHERE -- SOME POINT IN TIME, A DECI510N HAS TO BE 17 MADE --
18 MR. NORKIN: I THINK WE HAVE A PR ACTIC AL CUT-OFF 19 POINT.
! MR. CALVO: AGAIN, THOSE WILL COHE UP AS PART OF THE 20 l
! 21 DISCUSSION AGAIN, AND WE CAN HIGHLIGHT THEM UP, 22 THE CONSULTANTS 50 INDICATE, EITHER FEEL THEY WANT TO GO
~ 23 B ACKWARDS TO REACH THE CONCLUSIONS,.
MR. STUART: ADDRES$1NG THIS PARTICULAR POINT, WE 24 25 HAVE JACK REDDING FROM TEXA5 UTILITIES HERE TODAY ITEMS 26 EXPECT THAT SY THE END OF THIS MEETING IF THERE WAS SO f
{ 27 THAT THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE AGREE THAT ONE SHOUL 28 BEYOND THE BUSES IN SOME LOGIC AL F ASHION, AND I THINK NANCY
- e. ...-c. c o ooioosacammoLL c o ... c.a,.
CERTtFitD SHORTnAND mtpontens ,, , ,c o,v,, , , , ,
"M*j' DEPOlitsON NOTAmitS sa isi es e-ssee
~ . ---_ . _ . - -. . . . . _ _ _ , . . .--
24 1 EXPLAINED OUR BASIS FOR NOT GOING FURTHER, WAS WHERE DO YOU i
2 STOP WHEN YOU GO PAST THE BUS.
l 3 THEN I THINK WE'VE GOT THE PEOPLE REPRESENTED IN 4 THIS MEETING TO REALLY ADDRESS THAT !$$UE FROM TEXAS 5 VIEW BY THE T!HE THE MEETING'S DONE. AND ! THINK IT'S TEXAS'S I
TAKE 6 DECISION AS TO THEM EXPANDING OUR SCOPE OR WHETHER THEY 7 THIS ON THEMSELVES TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.
j 8 MR. CALVO: I THINK WHAT'S IM PORTANT IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO WITH YOUR FINDINGS. WHAT ARE THE OVERALL 9
10 CONCL US IONS. OKAY, YOU SAY, BASED ON MY FINDINGS I CANNOT l 11 REACH THIS FOREGONE CONCLUSION OF THE SAME QUALITY, THAT'S 12 PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT. BUT YOUR CONCLUSION IS FAR-REACHING.
13 YOU SAY BASED ON WHAT I DID, ALL THESE OTHER THINGS ARE HERE i
MAYBE WHAT TOU ARE SAi!NG, WE GOT
. 14 THEN WE GOT TO KNOW THAT.
15 DOING DEEPER 16 INTO --
17 MR. STUART: I THINK -- WE MADE SOME TENTATIVE i
18 FINDINGS WHICH TEND TO GO ALONG THE LINE OF GIVEN THESE DE 19 INPUTS, HERE'S WHAT WE LOOKED AT AND HERE'S WHAT WE FOUND.
20 AND I THINK IF OUT OF THIS MEETING THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE DECID 21 THAT SOME OF THOSE DESIGN INPUTS SHOULD BE SEARCHED FURTHER TO l
22 STRENGTHE N, REALLY, THC CONFIDENCE IN OUR REVIEW, THEN I THINK AGAIN, TEXAS 23 THAT THAT MIGHT BE AN APPROPRIATE CONCLUSION.
24 HAS GOT TO ENDORSE THAT.
MR. MARINOS: DICK, YOU HAD DEVELOPED A FEELING 25 26 ABOUT BEFORE YOU EMBARK IN THE SCOPE WHETHER THIS ' ADDITIONAL
' 27 RESEARCH WAS NECESSARY, 50 IF YOUR STAFF CAN GIVE US PROB ABLY 28 SOME KIND OF AN UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE YOU DID AND YOU l ... c sco ooiou . cannott . .....s,.
- '[,j' CEntsptED SMomTnamo REPostTEns to }*',,
sais esi-ssee OEPOSITION NOTAmitS
25 1 DONE THE WORK. AND SO YOU MUST HAVE SOME CONCLUS'!ONS ABOUT
( 2 HOW IMPORTANT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AND HOW WELL YOU HAVE AND, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS IMPORTANT WE 3 PERF ORMED WITHOUT IT.
4 SHOULD HAVE THEM IN.
5 MR. STUART: 1 THINK THAT'S TRUE BUT I WANT TO THRO 6 A CAVEAT IN THAT WE TRIED TO EXPRESS IN OUR APRIL MEET 7 AND THAT IS THAT THE ORIGINAL SCOPE WAS SELECTED PRIMARILY NOT AN ELECTRICAL POINT OF 8
FROM A MECHANICAL POINT OF VIEW, 9 VIEW, AND IN RETROSPECT, NOW LOOKING FROM IT FROM WEARING AN 10 ICC OR ELECTRICAL HAT, THAT MAY NOT HAVE SEEN THE BEST SYSTEM 11 TO SELECT FROM AN ELECTRICAL ISC POINT OF VIEW.
12 AND WE ARE WHERE WE ARE FOR THE REASON THAT WAS AND I THINK WE -- WE i
13 SEING EMPHASIZED AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
IN ELECTRICAL AND ICC REVIEW OF 14 LOOKED AT THE OVERALL SYSTEMS 15 THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM, BUT AGAIN IT WAS ALMOST AN ADD-ON TO 16 THE ORIGINAL MECHANICAL SELECTION BASED ON ME 17 NOW, IF THAT BECOMES AN IMPORTANT STEP IN THE 18 PROCESS, THAT BECAUSE OF THE IDIOSYNCRACIES OF THIS PA IF YOU WILL, TO 19 SYSTEM IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH SOPHISTICATION, 20 REALLY TEST OUT WHETHER THE ELECTRICAL AND I THE R EF OR E, 21 GIB85 & HILL, THIS WOULD TAX THE!R CAPABILITY AND, TEST WHETHER, IN FACT, THIS WOULD BE A REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM, 22 THAT MAY BE A CONCLUSION FROM THIS MEETING, AS I ENVISION ONE
'3 2
24 OF THE 08dECTIVES.
YOU IN TERMS OF THE MECHANIC AL SYSTEM, 25 MR. MARINOS:
26 ARE COMFORTABLE THAT YOU HAVE ADDRESSED I 27 GIVE YOU WHATEVER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR7 MR. CALVO: THE OVERALL CONCLUSIONS THAT THEY A 28 cos,.. c os..
o.= e.. cisco DosDGE & CARROLL Cow ***
- '* '**' CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS * *" '
DEPOSITION PeOTAmits is . Nases
- - . - - - . ~ , -
26 1 GOING TO COME UP IN THE FUTURE WILL DETERMINE WHAT THEY HAD t
- 2 DONE. I THINK WE ARE ASKING THEM TO REACH INTO THE FUTURE 3 SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE NOT QUITE THERE YET.
4 MR. NORKIN: l'D LIKE TO ALSO SAY THAT THE KIND OF 5 QUESTIONS THESE TEAM MEMBERS WILL BE ADDRES$1NG, GOING ONE 6 STEP FURTHER, WILL BE BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCE IN LOOKING AT 7 A SIMILAR SYSTEM AND WHERE THEY FOUND THAT THE SOURCE CALCULATION MAY BE VERY PERTINENT. THEY WOULDN'T JUST BE 8
9 ASKING THAT KIND OF QUESTION TO CYCLE YOU.
10 MR. STUART: YES.
11 MR. CALVO: NE XT . WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO NEXT7 12 MR. MARINOS: SHOULD WE GO THROUGH THE QUESTIONS 13 THEN. I GUESS WE'LL PUT THEM ON THE RECORD.
I -
14 ,
THE REPORTER: COULD WE TAKE A MINUTE?
15 MR. MARINOS: YES, PLEASE.
16 (RECESS.)
1 17 MR. CALVO: YOU READY?
MR. MARINOS: WHAT I AM GOING TO 00, l'M GOING TO 18 l
19 READ THE QUESTIONS FROM THE DOCUMENT WE HAVE MAILED TO CYGNA 20 ON MAY 3RD, '85 FROM NRC, AND I'M GOING TO START WITH l 21 QUESTIONS ON MECHANICAL SYSTEMS.
22 AND QUESTION NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE ASKED FOR A LIST OF AND I DO NOT KNOW
'23 DOCUMENTS USED TO DEVELOP THE CHECKLIST.
24 WHETHER YOU HAVE A PREPARED LIST OR YOU HAVE THE DOCUMENTS 25 HERE OR HOW WOULD YOU, NANCY, PROPOSE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTICN 26 FOR US.
' 27 MR. CALVO: WAIT A MINUTE. BEF ORE SHE ANSWER S --
28 THE ONE WHO HAD THE QUESTION, GARY, MAYBE -- 00 YOU NEED TO
- = * ** c'sc o coioae a cAmmoLL c.,,......
c o.%"
"' CERTIFIED SMORTMAND mapOmTERS
'*['
amts* asi ssee Ot *OSITION NOT ARIE S l
27 1 CLARIFY THAT THING ANY FURTHER7
( MR. OVERBECK:
WELL, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE 2
3 CHECKLIST AND TRYING TO ASCERTAIN HOW YOU ARRIVED AT WHAT YOU NEXT QUESTION, WHAT 4 WERE GOING TO WRITE IT OFF AGAINST.
5 DOCUMENTS DID YOU USE TO GENERATE THE CHECKLIST, TO IDENTIFY 6 WHAT IT IS THE DESIGN WAS SUPPOSED TO SE.
7 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY. THE DOCUMENTS ARE ALL LISTED YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU COULD 8 IN THE DESIGN CRITERIA DOCUMENT AND, NOT ASCERTAIN THAT FROM THE CHECKLIST. WE CAN GO THROUGH IT 9
10 IF YOU WANT. IT'S SECTION 3.0 OF THE REVIEW CRITERI A DOCUME 11 WHICH IS IN OUR LETTER NUMBER 65. AND THAT WOULD SE IN DESIGN 12 CRITERIA DC-4, SECTION 3, IF YOU HAVE GOT IT IN FRONT OF YOU.
WHICH LETTER WOULD THAT BE7 DO WE 13 MR. MARINOS:
j .
14 HAVE A COPY OF THAT7 15 MS. WILLIAMS: IT'S THE APRIL 29TH LETTER 84056.065.
16 AND IN IT IS THE MECHANICAL DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA WHICH IS DOCUMENT NUMBER DC-4, REV 1, DATED 8-29-84. AND IF YOU TURN 17 18 TO SECTION 3.0, YOU'LL SEE CODE STANDARDS AND REFERENCES THA 19 ARE LISTED WHICH ARE' MADE UP OF REGULATORY DOCUMENTS, REG 20 GUIDES, COMANCHE PEAK LICENSING DOCUMENTS, AND. STANDARD 21 INDUSTRY PRACTICE FROM OUR EXPERIENCE.
MR. CALV0: THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT, GARY.
22 MR. OVER8 ECK: YE S , 1 KNOW WHEN WE WERE GOING 23 24 THROUGH HERE, SEEMED LIKE A HEAVY RELIANCE PLACED ON THE 25 WESTINGHOUSE DOCUMENT, 15 THAT A CORRECT, OR IS THAT A 26 MISSTATEMENT 7 I 27 MS. WILLIAMS: WHERE ARE YOU READING FROM NOW7
{
l MR. OVERSECK: WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE 28
- e. a.=c..e o cosoot a canmoLL e.,,......
co -
""*"" cantipico s=ominamo asponisms "'"'"'
u *,"70.. caposmon notamies
28 1 CHECKLIST. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE DESIGN CRITERIA. YOU
\ 2 MENTIONED A WESTINGHOUSE DDCUMENT SOMEWHERE ALONG IN HERE. I 3 MR. HESS: BOP FR-1.
4 MS. WILLI AMS: WE DID TAKE THE WESTINGHOUSE DOCUMENT 5 AS AN INPUT, AS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SYSTEM DESIGN AND WE 6 REEVALUATED GISBS S HILL'S EXECUTION.
7 MR. OVERB EC K: DOES GIBBS S HILL HAVE A SYSTEM 8 DESCRIPTION 7 9 MR. HESS: THEY HAD A TD0229 WHICH IS A SYSTEM 10 DESCRIPTION WHICH THEY ORIGINALLY USED IN THE DESIGN OF THE 11 SYSTEM THAT BY THEIR PROCEDURES HAS NOT BEEN KEPT UP TO DA TE 12 IN RECENT YEAR $ SINCE THE DESIGN HAS BEEN COMPLETED AS FAR AS 13 THEY ARE CONCERNED. NOW THE DESIGN !$ DOCUMENTED BY
. 14 SPECIF ICATIONS AND DR AWINGS.
15 MR. OVERBECK: 50 INITIALLY GIBBS S HILL USES A 16 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION DURING THE -- AT WHAT PHASE OF THE DESIGN 17 DID THEY USE THE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 7 18 MR. HESS: THAT LAST UPDATE OF THAT THAT WE WERE 19 AWARE OF ON THAT W AS' 6 -- I 'M SORR Y, 3-1-79 WAS THE LAST 20 REVISION THAT WE MAD $1GNED OFF.
21 MR. OVER8ECK: WHAT REVISION WAS THAT7 22 MR. HESS: IT SAYS REVISION 1.
..23 MR. OVER8ECK: WHAT WAS THE PREVIOUS REVISION TO 24 THAT DOCUMENT 7 25 MR. HESS: THE DRIGINAL DATE DF THE THING WAS 6-4-76.
26 MR. OVERBECK: AND WHEN 010 THIS PLANT DESIGN f i 27 C OMMENC E7 28 MS. WILLIAMS: YOU HAVE TO PULL 007 --
coloog a cannott ,,,,...,,,,,
- y,,*,y,';ll s o n' .
ou s.,, CtatititD swontMAND merontens *ses ess eies idese ese see# OtrositiON NOTAmit S
l l
l 29 1 MR. HESS: YE S, WE'D HAVE TO GO AND DOUBLE CHECK ON 2 THE CALCULATIONS.
3 MR. OVERB ECK: WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE REV!$!ON 4 FROM ZERO REV 1, DO YOU KNOW7 5 MR. HFSS: NO, ! CAN'T ANSWER THAT WITHOUT LOOKING 6 B ACK THROUGH WHAT T8 E REV!5!ONS WERE IN THAT DOCUMENT. .THEY 7 WERE BASICALLY A5 I REMEMBER THEM BEING CORRECTIONS OR 8 CLARIFICATIONS.
9 MR. OVERB EC K: YOU ARE SAYING ACCORDING TO THE GIBBS 10 $ HILL PROCEDURE, THEY DO NOT NEED TO KEEP SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS 11 UP TO DATE?
12 MR. HESS: THAT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING AT THE TlHE WE 13 WERE IN GIBBS S HILL'S --
14 MR. OVERB ECK: DID YOU VERIFY THAT BY LOOKING AT 15 THEIR PROCEDURES?
16 Ms. WILLIAM 5: THAT PART OF THE PROCESS 15 STILL 17 UNDER REVIEW. THAT GOES WITH THE DESIGN PROCESS OVERVIEW THAT 4 18 I WAS TALKING ABOUT, ALL THE PROCEDURAL TYPE QUESTIONS.
19 MR. OVERBECK: 15 THAT STANDARD PRACTICE THAT YOU 20 FOUND IN YOUR REVIEW OF OTHER AREAS, OTHER PLANT 57 21 MS. WILLIAMS: THAT THEY WOULDN'T KEEP IT UP TO DATE7 22 MR. OVERB ECK: UH-HUH.
'23 MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, ONCE THE DESIGN IS 00NE, !
24 GUESS WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY SEE A REASON WHY OTHER THAN 25 KEEPING THE DRAWINGS UP TO DATE, WHY YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT.
26 MR. OVERBECK: OKAY. WHAT GRAVITATED YOU TO USE THE i 27 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FROM WESTINGHOUSE 7 28 MR. HESS: THOSE WERE THE INPUT TO GISBS S HILL FOR
.......... ooioa ea==o u. ........
~;,:ja,;a+
crati. iso . o m.~o an.oareas ,,pg,y,,,,
- ........... on.o. m o or... .
30 I
1 THE ORIGINAL SYSTEM DESIGN. ,
MR. OVERBECK: REPOSE MY QUESTION. DID YOU USE A 2 :
3 DESIGN SYSTEM DESCRIPTION FROM CYGNA POR THIS REVIEW, AND THE 4 ANSWER I THINK IS NO, BECAUSE IT'S NOT UP TO DATE.
5 MR. HESS: No, THE 8ASIC DOCUMENT THAT WE USED TO 6 DENELOP THE CHECKLIST FROM AS FAR AS A SYSTEM DESCRIPTION OR 7 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS WAS THE WESTINGHOUSE 80P FR-1 DOCUMENT.
i 8 WE LOOKED AT THE TD029 AFTER WE WERE AT G1885 & HILL'S OF 9 IN NEW YORK.
10 MS. WILLI AHS: FOR COMPLI ANCE.
11 MR. HESS: FOR COMPLI ANCE.
13 MR. HESS: IN ALL THE AREAS THAT WERE WITHIN OUR i . 14 SCOPE.
! 15 THE ONLY AREA THAT MAY HAVE BEEN QUESTIONABLE WOULD 16 MAVE BEEN ON THE TEMPERATURES OF THE HAX CCW WATER TEMPERATURE, 17 BUT WE HAVE ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST WHERE WE MAVE BEEN 18 FOLLOWING UP DN THAT BASED ON OTHER CALCULATIONS SINCE THEN.
19 THAT'S TYPICAL CCW DESIGN TEMPERATURES CHANGE AS LOADS CHANGE.
20 MR. FOLEY: THE WESTINGHOUSE DOCUMENT ALSO 21 RECOMMENDED OR SPECIFIED SOME ISOLATION FUNCTIONS WHICH G1885
& HILL DID A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. NOW WHETHER OR NOT THOSE 22 i 23 WERE ACTUALLY IN THE G1885 & HILL DESCRIPTION OR NOT, l'M NOT SURE, BUT THEY WERE BASICALLY THE SAME. THERE WERE SOME 24 25 D I F F ER E NC ES . EXACTLY WHICH DOCUMENTS THOSE DIFFERENCES SECAME 26 EVI DENT I N, I CAN'T SAY THIS IS ONE OF THEM, BUT THERE WERE
> 27 SOME OTHER DIFFERENCES.
28 MS. WILLIAMS: WE CAN GO OUT AND PULL THAT TOGETHER sa= se.=c sco DOiDGE & CARROLL ca.... co...
CtatisiEO SMOminAND mtpreftml to a**
- se N 'ssee DEPOSITION NOTAmit 3
I l
_. .. . c.-..
31 1
F OR YOU B UT , IN FACT, WE HAVE ONE OSSERVATION WH'!CH NOTES 2 DISCREPANCIES FROM THE ORIGINAL WESTINGHOUSE DOCUMENT TO THE 50 WE LOOKED 3 FSAR AND THEN TO THE GIBBS S MILL CALCULATIONS.
4 FOR CONS!$TENCY ACROSS FROM THE ORIGINAL DESIGN BASIS 5 THROUGH THE CALCULATIONS AND ANY INTERIM DOCUMENTS THAT G188S 8 HILL WAS OPERATING WITH. AND THE TEMPERATUARES THAT 6
7 THEY'RE SPEAKING OF NOW IS THE MOST 06VIOUS EXAMPLE OF A 8 DISCREPANCY.
9 MR. OVERBECK: MY QUESTION RIGHT NOW IS -- GO AHEAD.
10 MR. NEVSHEMAL: YOU MADE A STATEMENT EARLIER THAT 11 THE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION IS NOT KEPT UP TO DATE AND YOU GAVE US 12 A REV 1 DATE ON THAT.
13 CAN YOU RELATE THAT TO THE DESIGN PROCESS, THE STAGE 15
} '
14 IN THE DESIGN PROCESS THAT THAT REVISION WAS LAST MADE7 15 IT -- IS IT AFTER PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS, 15 IT AFTER 16 VER IF ICAT ION CALCULAT IONS, IS IT AFTER DRAWING -- I'M ASKING I
17 - THIS AS A QUEST ION. ON HAVING A DATE DOES NOT HELP ME.
18 HAVE TO KNOW WHEN WITHIN THE DESIGN PROCESS DID THEY STOP 19 UPDATING THAT DOCUMENT.
20 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY, YOU'RE ASKING A GOOD QUESTION A 21 LITTLE EARLY, AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE NOW KNOW WHAT ALL 22 OF OUR TECHNICAL ERRORS ARE. AND WE KNOW WHAT THE DATES ON
'23 THE CALCULATIONS ARE, WE KNOW WHAT, CALCULATIONS WE FOUND THE 24 ERRORS IN, WE KNOW WHAT STAGE THE DESIGN WAS IN, BUT WE 25 HAVEN'T PUT IT ALL TOGETHER IN TERMS OF ASKING THE QUESTION 26 WHICH YOU ARE ASKING WHICH IS, 15 IT REASONABLE TO LET THE I 27 DOCUMENT LAPSE IN 1979 BECAUSE OF THE STAGE THE DE 28 AND HDW DID THE PROCEDURES GOVERN THE CONTROL OF THE D0tDGE & CARROLL e 3c... e o,p.
e ss'
'y,'.*,*jtj,',c,o
- o. .
CERTitlED SMORTMAND mtponisms **'''''
sais, ese spoe OtpOSITION NOT Amit S
32 1 DOCUMENTS THAT CARRY THE INFORMATION HENCEF ORTH IS ALL PART OF 5 AND WE CAN REALLY ONLY 2 THE DESIGN PROCESS TYPE OVERVIEW.
3 SPEAK DIRECTLY TODAY ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF OUR REVIEW, BUT 4 NOTHING THAT GETS DOWN TO THE CONTROL AREA WHICH IS I THINK 5 WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
6 MR. OVERBECK: IN ESSENCE, IS THE FUNCTIONAL 7 REOUIREMENTS SY WESTINGHOUSE, 15 THAT A CONTROL DOCUMENT BY 8 GISBS S HILL? IS THAT IN A FORM PRINT FILE OR WHATEVER YOU 9 CALL IT, A FORM PRINT FILE?
i 10 MS. WILLIAMS: I SELIEVE THAT WE CHECKED THE 11 TRANSMITTAL OF THAT IN QA, IN OUR QA REVIEWS, AND WE CAN CHECK 12 THAT FOR YOU.
14 MS. WILLIAMS: WE DID AN INTERFACE CONTROL, i .
15 CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL REVIEW IN QA. WE ALSO DID A DESIGN 16 VERIFICATION REVIEW WHICH GETS BACK TO YOUR QUESTION WHERE WE 17 HAVE NOTED ON EVERY CALCULATION THAT THE TECHNIC AL PEOPLE DID 18 THEIR ASSESSMENT ON. WE SENT OUR QA PEOPLE IN TO CHECK ALL OF 19 THE PAPER WORK, THE VERIFICATION STATUS, THE DATES ON IT, ANY 20 COMMENTS IN THE VERIF ICATIONS AND THf 5 SORT OF ' THING.
21 NOW, WHAT WE HAVEN'T QUITE FINISHED YET !$ HAVING 22 OUR QA WORK INTEGRATED WITH THE TECHNICAL WORK WHICH IS WHAT
'I23 HAPPENS IN THIS DATA BASE WHERE WE,'RE LOOKING FOR THE TRENDS, 24 WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE DATES, WE'RE LOOK!NG FOR THE DIFFERENCES 25 IN THE VERIF IC ATION FORMS AND THE TECHNIC AL ERRORS. .
26 AND WE'RE TRYING TO ASSESS, OKAY7 -- IF A i 27 CALCULATION WAS VERIFIED, SHOULD THEY HAVE CAUGHT THE ERROR 28 THAT WE FOUND. !$ THERE A TREND IN THE VERIFICATION PROCESS f
sa= ema=cesco DOIDGE e CARROLL ca ,.. co.,. '
" CtatipitD SMOmTMAND mtPORTEms cow =**
. ' , , 7'
'j ""' e sa e n s ut se es o sses Otpos TION NOTAmits
33 r 1 THAT'S NOT WDRKING RIGHT. AND ALL PARTS OF THAT'!NCLUDE 2 LOOKING AT THE DATES, THE CALCS, AND INTEGRATING OUR QA WITH 3 OUR TECHNICAL, 50 OTHER THAN GOING AND GETTING YOU SPECIFIC 4 ANSWERS ON THE DATES THAT YOU WANT TODAY, ! CAN'T ANSWER ANY 5 OF THE CONTROL TYPE.
6 MR. NEVSHEMAL: AT GIBBS 8 HILL IS WESTINGHOUSE 7 CONSIDERED AS A VENDOR AND IS THERE INFORMATION IN 8 CORRESPONDENCE INCLUDED IN VENDOR FILES?
MS. WILLIAMS: ! NEED TO CHECK THAT, BUT l'M GOING 9
10 TO TENTATIVELY SAY NO, BECAUSE l 'M NOT AW A RE OF GIBBS & HILL 11 PERFORMING ANY AUDIT FUNCTIONS ON WESTINGHOUSE WHICH I WOULD 12 EXPECT IF THEY WERE TREATING THEM AS A VENDOR.
13 MR. OVERB EC K: THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM 15 ,
j ,
14 A GIBBS & HILL DESIGN SYSTEM 7 15 MS. WILLI AMS: YES. GIBBS E HILL IMPLEMENTED IN THE 16 DESIGN. IT'S A WESTINGHOUSE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION THAT THEY 17 WOtKED FROM.
18 MR. OVERBECK: CONTRACTUALLY WESTINGHOUSE WAS 19 REQUIRED TO SUPPLY T'HE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION? YOU HAVE CONFUSED 20 ME. TYPICALLY WESTINGHOUSE WILL SUPPLY THE REACTOR SYSTEM.
THEY MAY SUPPLY 21 THEY MAY SUPPLY RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM.
22 THE CHARGING SYSTEM.
l 23 AT ONE POINT, SOME A/ E'S. GET IN THERE AND THEY SAY, 24 OKAY, HE Y, LOOK, WE CAN 00 THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEMS JUST 25 AS WELL AS WESTINGHOUSE AND WE CAN DO THE COMPONENT COOLING 26 WATER BETTER THAN WESTINGHOUSE. WE 'LL TAKE THAT IN OUR SCOPE.
g 27 THE QUESTION I HAVE IS THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER IN GIBBS &
28 HILL'S SCOPE OF SUPPLY?
- = *a c'oc o ooioot a cAnmoLL . ... .....
'j**,',"'
g CERTipsto SMORTHAND mtpos
- gas tow *
seats as e ss** DEPOliTION NOTAnttS
34
' MR. MARINOS: THE HEAT REMOVAL REQUIREMENT WILL COME 1
( 2 FROM WESTINGHOUSE.
MR. CALV0: GISBS S HILL, TYPICAL WESTINGHOUSE 3
4 CLAIM, THE COMPONENT 5 COOLING WATER SYSTEN USED TO B THCY WESTINGHOUSE, WITH THE TURNKEY, WHEN THE A/E TAKES OVER, 3
$ DE51GN THOSE SYSTEMS FOR THE FUNCTIONAL REQ 7
SY WESTINGHOUSE, ALL THE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS SOMETIME5 IF IT 15 INCLUDED IN
$ INCLUDE THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM.
COMANCHE PEAK OR NOT.
THEY USED TO 00 THAT IN THE DAYS WHEN I 9
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DID AT 10 USED TO WORK FOR WESTINGHOUSET 11 COMANCHE PEAKT MR. OVER8 ECK: THE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS MAY NOT 12 THAT'S MY 13 NECESSARILY BE DESIGN INPUT TO THE SYSTEM.
l - 14 QUESTION. I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THE DESIGN INP 15 SYSTEM, MAY NOT BE WESTINGHOUSE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
16 THERE MAY BE A LOT MORE REQUIREMENTS IN THE WESTINGHOU 15 NOT 'NECESSARILY REQUIRED, BUT NICE TO HAVE 17 DOCUMENT THAT 50 I WANT 70 KNOW WHAT ARE 18 FROM WESTINGHOUSE POINT OF VIEW.
19 THE REQUIREMENTS.
20 MR. HESS: WE DID PULL STUFF FROM THE --
THEIR 21 WESTINGHOUSE ON WHAT THE SCOPE OF SUPPLY WAS FROM 22 DOCUMENTS AND FOR THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER --
MR. OVERBECK: WHAT DOCUMENT ARE YOU LOOKING AT 23 2k THER E1 IT WAS OUT OF -- UNF OR T UN A TE L Y, THE PAGE5 I
25 MR. HESS:
26 I HAVE DO NOT HAVE A ACTUAL IDENTIFIER OTH 27 SCOP 31 TEX. l'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT DOCUMENT NUMBER !$
28 REFERRING T0. IT WAS GIVEN 70 ME SY WESTINGHOUSE AS THEI
... n. <.n o posoos a cAmmou. ...........
e e. .
"'""" centeeiso s=ontaawo aseoatsas d"'"8'"'
i osposmow otamiea
! u YOs'en
\
l 35 1 SCOPE OF SUPPLY DOCUMENT FOR COMANCHE PEAK.
k- 2 AND IN THE SECTION ON DESIGN MATERIAL AND EQUIPM 3
SUPPLY RESPON5181LITIES, UNDER COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM, 4 IT LISTS DE51GN CRITERIA A5 BEING OW WHICH 15, BY THEIR CODES, 5 OWNER WESTINGHOUSE WITH OWNER HAVING RESPONSISLE COORDI 6 A UTHOR IT Y.
7 AND THEN THERE 15 A FOOTNOTE ON THAT THAT SAYS S WESTINGHOUSE WILL PROVIDE DE51GN CRITERI A SUCH A P 9 WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR RE51 DUAL HEAT REMOVAL AND COMPONENT 10 COOLING WATER. DETAIL DEstGN !$ OWNER RESPON518 t LITY AND MATERI AL AND EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 15 OWNER RESPON5181LITY, 50...
11 12 MR. CALV0: 50 THERE MUST BE A DOCUMENT SOMEWHERE 13 FROM WESTINGHOUSE TO GISBS S HILL OR FROM WESTINGHOUSE T 14 UTILITIES BACK TO Gl885 5 HILL ABOUT THOSE CRITERI A.
MR. HESS: YES, THERE WAS SOME SCOPE CF SUPPLY 15 AND THAT NUMBER I 16 00CUMENT THAT THIS C AME OUT OF, ALL RIGHT.
17 READ YOU OFF 15 THE ONLY THING THAT'S ON THE PAGES WHICH I 18 XER0xED OUT OF THAT DOCUMENT IN WESTINGHOUSE'S OFF I 19 SITE.
MR. NORKIN: YOU REFERRED TO A WESTINGHOUSE FR 20 21 DOC UME NT.
22 MR. OVER B EC K: 80P FR-1.
23 MR. NORKIN: 1 REMEMBER WHEN WE REVIEWED THE 24 AUXILI ARY FEED W ATER SYSTEM, WESTINGHOUSE HAD A RECOMMENDAtl0N THE A/E DE5f GN -- THERE ,
25 HOW SUCH A SYSTEM SHOULD SE DE5!GNED.
26 WAS AN EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM WESTINGHOUSE A
- t 27 A/E AS TO WHAT WERE RECOMMENDATIONS AND WHAT W AND F OR E XAMPLE, IN THE AUXILI ARY FEED WATER SYSTEM 28
............ poioos a cannotL ...........
" "' " ' l,*" confiriso saonta**o aseoatsas ,, <*f,*,',',,,
.......... oseositio* *otanis s i
36 f 1 THEY RECOMMENDED A 3-PUMP SYSTEM BUT ONE A/E CHOSE TO MAKE IT
'- 2 A TWO PUMP SYSTEM. 50 THERE 'S THAT KIND OF INTERPLAY WHICH I 3 MIGHT HAVE EXPECTED ON TH15 SYSTEM.
4 MR. HESS: THERE WAS INTERPLAY $1MILAR TO THAT ON 5 THis SYSTEM. AND THERE WAS INTERPLAY ON THE B0P FR-1 AS F AR 6 A5 WHAT WESTINGHOUSE GAVE AS MAX TEMPERATURES FOR CER 7 COMPONENTS AND LATER ALLJ4ED HIGHER TEMPERATUARES BASED ON ALL RIGHT, AND WE DID REVIEW SOME OF 8 SPECIF IC CONDITIONS.
9 THAT DOCUMENTATION AND WHERE IT CAME INTO OUR SCOPE.
MR. MARINOS: BOB, CAN YOU TELL US, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, 10 11 WHAT DOES THE BOP FR-1 INCLUDE IN TERMS OF COM PONE NT 12 REQUIREMENTS FROM WESTINGHOUSE TO GIBBS & HILL IF YOU 13 SUMMARIZE IT.
14 MR. HESS: IN
SUMMARY
, IT BA51CALLY GIVES THE j .
15 OVERALL FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SYSTEM, WHAT IT'S 16 $UPPOSED TO BE DE51GNED TO D0, WHICH 15 PROVIDE COOLING FOR 17 SAFEGUARDS LOADS, PROVIDING COOLING FOR NON-5AFEGUARDS LOADS, 18 IT GIVES CERTAIN !$0LATl0N REQUIREMENTS, IT THEN GIVES MANY AND THERE 19 PAGES OF HEAT LOADS FOR DIFFERENT DESIGN PLANTS.
20 ARE MANY TABLES IN THERE FOR RHR FOUR HOURS AFTER SHUT DOW N, IT 21 WHAT THE MAX EXPECTED HEAT LOAD !$ FROM THE SYSTEM.
22 G I VE 5 --
MR. MARINOS: RATE OF REMOVALS, DO THEY SPECIFY 23 24 RATES SY WHICH -- FOR REMOVAL.
25 MR. HESS: THEY GIVE FLOW RATES THROUGH THE 26 EQUIPMENT, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM FLOW RATES THROUGH CQUIPMENT
- 27 AND EXPECTED PRES $URE DROPS AT THOSE FLOW RATES.
WHAT AGOUT INPUT CUTPUT TEMPERATURES, 28 MR. MARINOS:
............ cosoot a canaou. ......n...
'j, *,'j,',*" csatiriao s=oate aho aspoatsas ,,yg*',,,,
.......... oseositio= =ormais s
37 1 HEAT EXCHANGERS?
k MR. HESS: YE S , MOS T OF THOSE ARE SPECIFIED IN THE 2
3 MA X IMUM, IF 1 REMEMBER CORRECTLY, ARE JUST IN THE MAXIMUP.
4 MR. MARINOS: DO THEY GIVE YOU -- ALSO REMOVAL 5 REQUIREMENTS FOR RHR AND CONTAINMENT SPRAY AND COMPON 6 AS THOSE?
MR. HESS: YE S . AND THEY ALSO GIVE $DME CONTROL 7
8 F UNCT IONS IN THERE OF HOW THINGS SHOULD BE CONTROLLED.
9
- MR. MARINOS: THAT WAS THE DOCUMEh4 YOU USED IN 10 ORDER TO CHECK THE ACTUAL DESIGN OF THE COMPONENT CO 11 WATER A5 G1885 8 HILL DE51GNED IT ON THE BASIS OF THIS 12 CRITERIA ESTABLISHED AT WESTINGHOUSE BASICALLY?
13 MR. HESS: THAT WAS THE BASE DOCUMENT, BUT IT'S NOT I
- 14 THE ONLY DOCUMENT. WHAT I AM SAYING IN THE LIGHT WE USED THE 15 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS, YOU KNOW, THEY MAY OR 16 MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN THE BOP FR-1, BUT 17 THEY WERE INFERRED AND THOSE ARE DE51GN CRITERI A MR. MARINOS: DESIGN CRITERIA, NRC DESIGN 18 19 CRITERI A --
20 MR. HESS: CFR-50, APPENDIX A WERE ALSO USED, REG 21 GUIDES THAT WERE APPLICABLE WERE ALSO USED.
22 MR. MARINOS: YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT WESTINGHOUSE TO THOSE
'3 2 HA VE T HAT IN THEIR FUNCTIONAL REQUJREMENTS DOCUMENTS.
24 ARE SEYOND THAT.
25 MR. HESS: THAT'S RIGHT. 50 THOSE WERE THE BASIC 26 DOCUMENTS THAT WERE USED TO DEVELOP THE CHECKLIST.
t' 27 MR. STANLEY: DIO THE WESTINGHOUSE THING CONTAIN 28 REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANICAL SEPARATION -- SEPARATION OF 0oiooa e CAaaoLL s .........
'y,',,',;*y;;ll cantiniao saoat awo aspont as ... ..
d6"'
......... oseosmos notaa'ss
[
38
- 1 MECHANICAL EQUI PMENT INCLUDING AS F AR DOWN AS INSTRUMENT MR. HESS: NO, NOT AS FAR AS DOWN AS INSTRUMENT 2
3 LINES. IT DID REQUIRE INDEPENDENT FLOW PATHS AND REDUNDANC 4 IN COMPONENTS, SUT IT DID NOT SPECIFY ANYTHING, TO MY 5
KNOWLEDGE, ON AN INSTRUMENT LINE SEPARATION.
MR. STANLEY: 1 DIDN'T SEE THAT REFLECTED IN DC4 OR 6
7 THE CHECKLIST, IS THAT CORRECT 7 i
MR. FOLEY: SEPARATION 7 8
MR. STANLEY: MECHANICAL SEPARATION FOR EOUIPHENT 9
10 AND SENSING.
MR. HESS: WELL, WE DID LOOK AT SEPARATION OF Il IN SEPARATE ROOMS, 12 EQUIPHENT SUCH AS THAT THE CCW PUMPS WERE
. 14 DID A HAZARDS ANALYS15 AS FAR AS LOOKING AT FLOODIN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL MISSILES. WE DID LOOK AT FIRE 15 16 PROTECTION AS FAR AS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE FIR 17 EQUIPMENT SENSORS, DETECTOR $, SUPPRESSION EQUIPHENT IN THE 18 VAR IOUS ROOMS. WE DID NOT BOUNCE THAT AND GO BACK TO THE FIRE 19 HAZARDS ANALYSIS AS 'SUCH AND CHECK THE FIRE HAZ ARDS ANAL ,
MR. FOLEY: WE MAD THE SEPARATION AND THE
! 20 21 INDEPENDENCE IN THis MECHANICAL CHECKLIST INITI ALLY AND I AND 22 BELIEVE THAT WE MOVED IT TO THE FIELD WALKDOWN CH 23 WE DID DEVELOP CRITERIA FOR SEPARATION AND PROTECTION OF 24 REDUNDANT COMPONENTS WHICH WE MOVED TO THE FIELD 25 CHECKLIST AND VERIFIED IT AS PART OF THE PHYS IC AL W i
26 0F THE PLANT.
MR. STANLEY: NOTICE NO ELECTRICAL IN THE FIELD
( 27 28 W ALKDOW N.
go,,.....,.
saa. es.=c eco 00lDGE ai CAmmoLL 80 '
- ' . *,'(( CERftFit0 SMORTHAND REPORTERS ie'e' e"sa e s t e seie, ese spoo OgPOS#flON NOTAmitt l
l l
. l 39 ]
THERE IS SOME. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
1 MR. OVER8ECK:
MR. FOLEY: GETTING BACK JUST TO THE INPUTS FROM THE 2
3 80P F R-1 --
4 MR. CALV0: YOU IDENTIFIED THE FIELD WALKDOWN
$ CHECKLIST. CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE DATE OF THAT7 THE 6 MR. HESS: THE DATE OF THE WALKDOWN ITSELF7 7 WALKDOWN OCCURRED --
MR. CALV0: NO.
8 MS. WILLIAM 5: BETTER KNOWN A5 CC7.
9 10 MR. MARINOS: MAY 3RD --
BY THE WAY, ARE ANY OF US MISSING 11 MR. NORKIN:
12 COPIES OF THAT DOCUMENT 7 MR. MARINOS: YES.
13 MR. NORKIN: l'D LIKE TO GET A COPY, IF ! CAN GET 14 ONE TODAY OF THAT, IF POSSIBLE. I DON 'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE 15 16 15 MISSING IT.
MR. CALV0: LET ME TRY AND -- 1 GUESS THE QUESTION, 17 18 TRYING TO SUMMARIZE IT, WE ARE NOT ONLY CONCERNED HOW THE 19 INTERFACE REQUIREMENT, HOW THE INPUT FROM WESTINGHOUSE OR 20 WHATEVER ELSE THAT YOU HAD FOR USE IN GISBS S HILL TO 21 IMPLEMENT THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM.
22 1 THINK WHAT 15 SIGNIFICANT 15 HOW YOU DID THE 23 COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM 15 AGAIN WHAT ARE YI INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS 24 INFER FROM THOSE DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE 25 ABOUT ALL THE SYSTEMS WITH WESTINGHOUSE ALSO SUPPLYING 26 INFORMATION TO GISBS S HILL AND ALSO IMPLE l AGAIN, THE HORIZONTAL COMPONENT. 50 THAT'S WHY IT'S 1 27 28 VERY SIGNIFICANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU DID AT THE ooicos a cAmmou. . ...cos c o.
.. l l
- y,'.a,*-cy,o coatiseso saontwaNo aspoatsas """'"'
.. .. . . s n. oseosmom notamiss
40 1 YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE CONCLUSIONS IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
( YOU DID SO WE CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS.
2 3 MS. WILLIAMS: THE INTERFACE WITH WESTINGHOUSE IS 4 PRO 8 ABLY ONE OF THE SMALLER PARTS OF OUR INTERFACES THAT WE 5 LOOKED AT.
6 MR. CALV0: RIGHT. 50 MAYBE SOME OTHER INTERFACES 7 WITH OTHER SUPPLIERS HAS ALSO GOT TO BE OR MAYBE THE WAY THE 8 INTERFACE WAS HANDLED BY GISBS S HILL AND THEY GIVE YOU A CLUE 9 THAT MAYBE IF YOU DID THE SAME THING WITH THE OTHERS, IT CAN 10 BE GOOD OR IT CAN BE BAD.
11 SO MAYBE, I GUESS THE POINT I WAS TRYlhG TO MAKE, i 12 THINK SOME KIND OF WAY WE NEED THAT KIND OF A ROAD MAP BECAUSE 13 AT THE END YOU'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK AGAIN TO DO THE I
- 14 DESIGN KEYWAY PROCESS TO MAKE THIS HORIZONTAL COMPONENT TO 15 MOVE ACROSS. SO WITH THAT INFORHATION IS NEEDED, MAYBE YOU 16 SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN YOU PREPARE YOUR REPORT TO ADDRESS THAT 17 AREA.
18 AND INSOFAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, WHAT 00 WE NEED IF 19 THIS WILL SATISFY THE ANSWER 1. ~ ~ ~ . OUESTION, DOCUMENTED THAT 20 INFORMATION WHEN YOU COME UP WITH THIS OVERALL' CONCLUSION.
, 21 GARY?
22 MR. CVERBECK: SATISFY.
23 MR. CALV0: SAT I SF Y. WHAT ELSE 00 WE NEED SO YOU 24 CAN --
25 MR. OVERB ECK: YOU CALL OUT THE WESTINGHOUSE BOP 26 FR-1 AS A WESTINGHOUSE GUIDELINE. TYPICALLY, GUIDELINES ARE I 27 SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED, BUT NOT NECESSARILY IF 28 THERE IS ANOTHER WAY EQUALLY TO DO IT. AND I WOULD HAVE s.= e..=cesc o DOIDGE & CARROLL c o.... c o s,.
"'M**[*
g wiss ase sess CERTIFIED SMORTHAND REPORTERS DE POSITION NOTARIE $
c 0 *',',
41 1 THOUGHT THAT GIBBS 8 HILL MIGMT HAVE MAD A SYSTEM' DESCRIPTION.
IT'S NOT KEPT UP TO DATE, 2 THEY 08VIOUSLY DID AT SOME POINT.
3 THEREFORE, ONE WHO IS DOING AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF i
4 THE SYSTEM HAS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM, ALL THE 5 VARIOUS INPUTS THAT GO INTO IT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THE 6 SYSTEM 15 $UPPOSED TO D0.
7 AND THAT MAKE5 THE JOB A LITTLE HARDER IF YOU DON'T AND ! JUST WANTED TO 8 HAVE AN UP-TO-DATE DESCRIPTION SYSTEM.
9 KNOW WHERE YOUR STARTING PolNT WAS. IT LOOKS LIKE -- 1 THINK 10 I UNDERSTAND.
Il MR. MARINOS: ARE YOU SAYING WHAT IS THE SYSTEM 12 DESCRIPTION -- THE FSAR HAS A SYSTEM DESCRI PTION.
13 MR. OVERBECK: THE FSAR -- THAT'S THE NEXT QUESTION.
14 THE F5AR, HOW 15 THE FSAR TREATED --
15 MS. WILLIAMS: LET ME CLARIFY ONE THING. I DON'T 16 THINK THAT WE SAID THAT THE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION WAS OUT OF DATE 17 AT THE TIME THEY WERE BEGINNING TO DO THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM.
a 18 IT IS OUT OF DATE TODAY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE CLEAR.
19 IT'S A 197 9 DOCUMENT', BUT THEY STARTED THE DESIGN PRIOR TO '79 20 MR. OVERBECK: I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS OUT OF DATE WHEN 21 THEY WERE DOING IT.
22 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY, T HAT ' S WHAT --
MR. OVERBECK: WHAT l'M TRYING TO SAY, IT 'S OUT OF k) 24 DATE NOW AND ! DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S YOUR CONCLUSION OR GIBBS 25 HILL'S CONCLUSION.
26 MR. HESS: I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY. WHAT I ALL RIGHT, 27 5 AID WAS THAT IT HASN'T BEEN UPDATED $1NCE 1979 28 AS FAR AS A PolNT BY PolNT OF WHETHER OR NOT IT ACCURATELY l
- s. * ===c e c o ooiooe a cAnaoLL e...c...
- centwiso s=ontmano aseomtsas ,, , ,c o, ;', , , ,
"'7.,.'.'.'.,'.,'.*.*.
- u. osmosmow notaa,es
42
' 1 REFLECTS THE DESIGN, WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH A POINT BY POINT l
2 COMPARISON OF THAT DOCUMENT AT THIS POINT.
3 BASED ON THE THINGS THAT WE REVIEWED IN OUR SCOPE, 4 WE DIDN'T FIND MAJOR DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THAT TD0229 AND THE 5 DESIGN AS REFLECTED BY THE CALCULATIONS, DR AW INGS , AND 6 S PEC IF ICAT IONS. ,
7 MR. OVERBECK: THIS OPENS THE QUESTION AGAIN -- GO 8 AHEAD, JOHN.
MR. NEVSHEMAL: LET ME ASK THE QUESTION. YOU HAD 9
10 INDICATED BEFORE THAT YOU FOUND SOME DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN 11 WESTINGHOUSE DOCUMENT AND THE GIBBS S HILL DESIGN DESCRIPTION.
12 MR. HESS: RIGHT.
13 MR. NEVSHEMAL: DID YOU FIND THAT THOSE 14 DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED IN SOME WAY AND CORRESPONDENCE 15 EXISTING BETWEEN GIBBS & HILL AND WESTINGHOJSE FOR RELIEF 7 16 MR. HESS: IN SOME CASES, YES, BUT WE -- 1 GUESS THE 17 ONLY WAY --
18 MR. NEVSHEMAL: SHAKING HER HEAD N0, AND YOU ARE 19 SAYING YES.
20 MS. WILLIAMS: l'M THINKING OF THE TEMPERATURES.
21 MR. HESS: IN SOME CASES, YES, SUCH AS THE TEMPERATURES, THERE WAS CORRESPONDENCE B ACK AND FORTH. IN,0NE 22 "23 OTHER CASE THERE WAS A STATEMENT ON HOW A VALVE SHOULO BE 24 CONTROLLED. AND THE WESTINGHOUSE DOCUMENT SAID THAT IT SHOULD 25 BE CONTROLLED BASED ON FLDW. GIBBS & HILL DID IT BASED ON 26 TEMPERATURE.
27 F UNCT IONALLY, THAT REALLY DOESN'T CHANGE THE 28 FUNCTION OF THE VALVE BECAUSE IT WOULD SAVE -- SERVE THE SAME e.= e.. c. c o ooioot a cAmmoLL c o.... c o.. .
1 esiseese. nee CantePito snomfMAND atPomfERS Of POSITION NOT Amit S
,, , ,8,,* f,',' , , ,
43 f
1 F UNC TIO N. AND WE ACCEPTED THAT A5 AN ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF
\ 2 DOING -- MEETING THE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT WAS IN THE 3 BOP FR-1. THERE WAS -- OBVIOUSLY, ANY TIME YOU ARE INTO THIS 4 TYPE OF DESIGN REVIEW, THERE ARE JUDGMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE 5 MADE AS FAR A5 WHAT THE INTENT OF SOMETHING 15.
6 MR. NEV5 HEMAL: DOES -- AS FAR A5 YOU KNOW, DOES 7 WESTINGHOUSE MAINTAIN ANY PROOF DF DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY 8 CALCULATIONS ON THIS SYSTEM 7 9 MS. WILLIAMS: WE DI DN 'T CHEC K THAT, DID WE7 10 MR. HESS: ! SAID NONE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF. WE 11 DIDN'T REALLY GO SACK IN TO --
12 MS. WILLIAMS: CHECK IT. I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THE 13 IMPRESSION THERE WAS OR WASN'T. WE DIDN'T CHECK IT.
14 .MR. NE VS HEMAL: AS FAR AS THE DESIGN IS CONCERNED, 15 15 THERE A CONTROLLED DOCUMENT THAT CAN RE CONSIDERED AS THE 16 BASIS FOR THIS DESIGN 1 17 MR. OVER8ECK: WHAT ARE THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS -- 1 18 GUESS l'LL REPHRASE IT.
19 WHAT ARE THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS FOR THIS SYSTEM 7
~
20 MR. NEVS HEMAL: SECAUSE WHAT I HEARD HERE 15 T HA T i
21 THE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 15 NOT CONTROLLED.
22 MR. OVER8ECK: NO, NE HA SN ' T SA I D T HA T .
23 MR. NEV5 HEM AL: OH, YES, HE --
24 MR. OVER8ECK: THIS ALL STARTED BECAUSE WE LOOKED AT 25 THE CHEcr. LIST AND WE DIDN'T SEE A SYSTEM DESCRIPfl0N, 50 WE 26 KIND OF FIGURED IN, WELL, MAYBE THEY DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM i 27 DESCRIPTION. THEN WE FOUND OUT THEY HAVE A SYSTEM DESCRIPfl0N.
28 IF YOU ASK THE QUESTION IF YOU DIDN'T USE IT, THE QUEST ION 15 sy,'t**,jll ooioot a CAmmoLL e.......o..
oneu=e Clefs ##to SM04fMAND 8tPO#ft#8 ** ' ' "8 ' ' 1 esis, es e ssee Ot*0sitiO% Notamitt
i 44 4
1 WHY. AND IF IT 15 A DESIGN DOCUMENT AT GISBS E HILL, AND IF 2 IT 'S NOT, WHAT 15.
3 OUR CONCERN IS THE DESIGN PROCESS HAS TO BE 4 TRACEA8LE FROM DESIGN INPUT THROUGH TO DE51GN OUTPUT, AND WE 5 WANT TO KNOW -- I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A FEELING FOR HOW THAT 15 6 ACCOMPLISHED AT GISBS & HILL AND YOU MUST KNOW THAT BY NOW BY 7 HAVING DONE TH15 MUCH OF THE SYSTEM REVIEW.
j 8 MR. CALV0: WHY DON'T WE HAKE NOTE OF THAT7 NA NC Y, 9 MAKE NOTE OF THAT.
1 10 MR. STUA RT: SPEAK UP PLEASE. B08, ANSWER HIS 11 QUEST 10N.
12 MR. HESS: THE TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 15 A NUCLEAR 13 SAFETY RELATED DOCUMENT AND WAS CONTROLLED AS SUCH.
14 MR. OVER B EC K: 50 IT'S IN EFFECT NOW. IF l'M AN 15 ENGINEER WORKING AT GIB85 5 HILL, I COULD TAKE THIS DOCUMENT 15 AND USE IT TO UNDER$7AND HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.
17 MR. HESS: YES.
18 MR. OVER8ECK: AND IT HASN'T 8EEN UPDATED SINCE 19 7 '79 1
20 MR. HESS: THAT'S RIGHT. THA T ' S THE ONE THA T HA S N 'T 1
21 BEEN UPDATED SINCE '79.
22 MR. OVERB EC K: BUT THAT'S NOT THE DOCUMENT USED TO
'23 GENERATE YOUR CHECKLIST. ,
24 MR. HES$1 NO. THAT WAS NOT THE BASE DOCUMENT. THE 25 BASE DOCUMENT WA5 THE WESTINGHOUSE -- WE TOCK THE WESTINGHOUSE 26 INPUT AS THE GIVEN. l I 27 MR. OVE R B EC K: !$ THAT BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING 28 0F WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE OR WAS THAT INPUT FROM THE OWNER 7 00:008 & C AMROLL go......s..
- y,'.',.8,**gif
. a., Centipito SmontMAND ngoontems sowe.
esiseeseas** **'8#'
DEPOSITION NOTAn't S l
45 1 MR. HESS: THAT WAS --
r' 2 MS. WILLIAMS: I'M LOOKING AT A DRAFT ! HAVE OF THE 3 DESIGN PROCESS OVERVIEW FLOW CHARTS. WE'VE CIRCULATED THESE 4 AROUND TO GISBS S HILL AND TEXAS UTILITIES AND THE APPROPRIATE 5 PEOPLE TO SAY THIS IS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CONTROLLED 6 YOUR DESIGN PROCESS. ,
7 ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAD WAS THE SYSTEM 8 DESCRIPTIONS AND WHETHER THEY SERVED AS DESIGN BASES OR 9 WHETHER THE FSAR SERVED AS THE DESIGN BASES. WHAT I HAVE B ACK 10 ARE GISBS S HILL RESPONSES OR COMMENTS, AND ONE OF THEM IS THE 11 SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS ARE NOT DESIGN DOCUMENTS, DISCIPLINE 12 CALCULATIONS INCLUDE ALL APPROPRIATE DESIGN CRITERI A UTILIZED.
13 AND WE HAVE NOT ASSESSED WHAT THIS MEANS TO THE PROCESS YET, 14 BUT THAT 'S THE EXTENT OF THE COMMENTS WE GOT BACK.
s 15 AND YOU ARE ASKING SOME QUESTIONS THAT ARE RIGHT IN 16 LINE WITH WHAT WE'RE GOING TO 00 WITH THESE Flow CHARTS.
17 MR. STANLEY: 15 THERE AN ANSWER THERE WITH RESPECT 18 TO THE FSAR7 19 MS. WILLIAMS: YES, THERE !$.
20 MR. NORKIN: YOU INDICATED THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE 21 LOOKING AT THE FLOW CHARTS DOWNSTREAM NOW AFTER THE REVIEWS 22 ARE COMPLETED. DID ! HEAR YOU CORRECTLY?
'23 MS. WILLIAMS: WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING THAT RIGHT NOW.
THAT SEEMS A LITTLE BACKWARDS. IT 24 MR. NOR KIN:
25 SEEMS YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE FLOW CHARTS BEFORE THE REVIEW IS 26 CONDUCTED SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE THE QUESTIONS ARE.
27 MS. WILLIAMS: WE HAD FLOW CHARTS AVAILABLE SEFORE 20 WE STARTED. THEY WERE NOT AS DETAILED AS THESE FLOW CHARTS.
- e. a.eme ooicot a cammoLL ...........
cantisiso s oat aa.o masontras co "
.I';*'.*.. os aoaition, e.otaa.e s
1 46 I l
' 1 THESE EVOLVED THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE REVIEW AS WE LEARNED
- 2 MORE ABOUT THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AND INTERFACES AND THAT 3 SORT OF THING. WE DID HAVE OVERVIEW TYPE FLOW CHARTS TELLING 4 US WHO THE MAIN PLAYERS WERE FOR WHAT PORTIONS OF THE DESIGN 5 AND WHAT THEY ARE RESPONS!8LE FOR, 50 THAT'WE KNEW WHO TO GO 6 TO FOR WHAT INFORMATION.
7 MR. NORKIN: WERE THOSE OVERVIEW FLOW CHARTS USED AS 8 A BASIS FOR YOUR CHECKLIST AND FOR YOUR PLAN OF ATTACK AND IT 9 WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPING THE CHECKLIST SCOPE THAT WE 10 HAVE REVIEWED OR IS THIS SOMETHING YOU'RE JUST 00!NG AFTER THE 11 FACT NOW7 12 MS. WILLIAHS: NO, NO, THEY WERE SOMETHING THAT WE 13 HAD SKETCHED UP REALLY AS PART OF THE SCOPING SO THAT WE COUL
. 14 DECIDE, ALL RIGHT, WHO !$ RESPONS!8LE FOR THE ANALYS IS AND WHO 15 IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INPUT DOCUMENTS AND THIS SORT OF THING 16 50 THAT WE KNEW WE HAD TO GO TO WESTINGHOUSE TO GET 80P FR-1.
17 WE KNEW THAT WE HAD TO GO TO GIB85 & HILL TO DO THE 18 ANALYS IS REVIEW, BUT THEY WERE MAJOR STEPS IN THE DESIGN 19 PROCESS AND NOTHING ANYWHERE NEAR AS DETAILED AS WHAT WE 'RE 20 WORKING WITH NOW TO REALLY SEE WHAT THE INTERFACES ARE IN THE 21 PROCESS WHICH WE'VE LEARNED AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH.
22 SOME OF THESE ARE AVAILABLE IN SOME OF OUR PRE'/!OUS 23 F INAL RE PORTS. IN PHASE 1 AND 2 WE HAD SOME VERY GENERAL FLOW 24 CHARTS BUT, AS I SAY, THESE ARE MUCH MORE DETAILED.
YOU HAVE 25 MR. CALV0: LET ME ASK A QUESTION, GARY.
26 ENOUGH INFORMATION F0R YOU To, UNDERSTAND NOW HOW THEY DID THIS?
l I 27 THE JUDGMENT ON THAT BASIS, WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO 00 WITH THE 28 I NF ORM AT ION, THAT WILL COME LATER. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW WHAT
.......c..<. ooioot a cAmmoLL e ... . . c o . . .
"' * *a au cent ..so saoateaamo memoatens *a"
,'" ;* *, , n os positiow notamie s
X 47
' 1 THEY USED, THE DOCUMENTS TO DO THIS?
(' MR. OVERBECK: THEY USED THE BOP FOR A LOT OF 2
3 CRITERIA AND ! GUESS THE FSAR TO REFERENCE IT BACK HERE TO --
4 MR. CALV0: WE CAN GO BACK TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
5 MR. NOR KIN: B EF OR E YO U GO TO THE NE XT QUE S T I ON, i 6 WANT TO ASK ONE QUESTION. I WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION BEFORE 7 GARY'S INITIAL QUESTION THAT WE HAVEN'T ASKED YET. AND THAT 8 15, IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THIS REVIEW OF THE COMPONENT 9 COOLING WATER SYSTEM, WAS THERE SOME KIND OF A CUT-OFF DATE -
10 THAT WE FOUND FROM EXPERIENCE THAT WHEN YOU ANNOUNCE YOU ARE 11 GOING TO DO A SYSTEM, THERE !$ A PERIOD OF TIME FROM THE TIME 12 YOU SAY YOU ARE G0 LNG TO DO IT TO THE TIME THAT YOU ACTUALLY 13 START DOING IT.
. 14 AND THERE !$ A CONCERN THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A 15 C UT -OF F DATE THAT BY THE TIME YOU ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY START 16 THE REVIEW, YOU WIND UP WITH A POLISHED SYSTEM. l'M CURIOUS 17 H OW YOU CONTENDED WITH THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WEREN'T 18 REVIEWING A SYSTEM THAT GOT, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T THINK OF A 19 BETTER WORD THAN POL ISHE D. .
20 MR. ANKR UM : I THINK THE WORD YOU WANT !$ IN A 21 VERTICAL SLICE, YOU WANT TO TAKE A VERTICAL SLICE OF SOMETHING 22 THAT 15 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE DESIGN, AND 12 3 THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT THIS MIGHT NO LONGER REPRESENT WHAT 24 THE REST OF THE DESIGN IS LIKE.
25 MR. NORKIN: WELL, I CAN GIVE YOU AN EXPERIENCE THAT 26 1 HAD IN THE VERY FIRST EFFORT I EVER PARTICIPATED IN. THE 27 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION, THE PNID AND A F EW OTHER IMPORTANT 28 DOCUMENTS WERE ALL DATED THE DAY WE BEGAN THE REVIEW AND WE HA e.. ...e,se e DOIDGE e C ARROLL co....co...
"8"** cgatipite smontM AND REP 0mtgms s ow ="
- "8
ase7efaste Dg *0sitiON Notamig g
1 48 1 ANNOUNCED IT TWO HONTHS BEFORE. 50 I'M CURIOUS $1NCE THIS 2 S YST EM IS A REPRESENTATIVE SLICE, HOW DO YOU CONTEND WITH THAT
'~
3 PROBLEM?
4 WAS THERE A CUT-OFF DATE, FOR EXAM PLE?
5 MS. WILLI AMS: THE ANSWER IS NO, THERE WASN'T A 6 CUT-OFF DATE AND THAT WE WENT IN AND ASKED FOR THE MOST RECENT 7 CALCULATIONS. HOWEVER, THERE WERE CALCULATIONS IN PROCESS AT 8 THE TIME WE DID OUR REVIEW. THE PRESSURE CALCULATION, I THINK 9 IS ONE, AND 808 YOU CAN GIVE SOME DETAILS. '
10 WE AS OF GETTING READY FOR THIS. MEETING AND UPDATING 11 OUR FILES HAVE 08TAINED THE FINAL COPY On THOSE CALCULATIONS 12 WHICH WERE BEING UPDATED TO REFLECT THE AS-8UILT CONDITION.
13 S UT I WANT TO ASK 8 08 HOW Mt'CH WE GOT INTO THE CALCULATIONS 14 THAT EXISTED PREVIOUS TO THIS ONE THAT WAS IN THE STATE'OF 15 REVISION WHEN WE WERE DOING OUR REVIEW.
16 MR. HESS: WE R'! VIEWED ALL OF THE PRESSURE DROP AND 17 FLOW CALCS AND THE SE!SMIC CALCS, NPSH TYPE CALCS THAT EXISTED 18 ON THE SYSTEM. WE GOT A HAND DRAWN INTERRELATIONSHIP THAT WE 19 PUT TOGETHER OF HOW ALL THE CALCS FIT TOGETHER AND WHICH DATES 20 WERE WHICH. THERE WAS -- THOSE WERE THE INITIAL CALCS.
21 AND ONE OF, THE CALCULATIONAL METHODS THAT Gl885.4 22 HILL USED WAS A PROGRAM CALLED P DROP FOR PRES $URE DROP C ALC S.
23 THAT'S 8ASICALLY A PROGRAM WHERE YOU GIVE IN A CERTAIN FLOW 24 PATH AND IT TELLS YOU WHAT THE OVERALL DROP IS FOR A GIVEN 25 FLOW THROUGH THAT FLOW PATH.
26 TH2 CALCULATION THAT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING
$ 27 REVISED OR PERFORMED AT THE TIME OF OUR REVIEW WAS A PIP" FLOW i
28 ANALYS IS CALCULATION, AND 1Hl$ !$ A FLOW BALANCING TYPE /
esa csco 00iDGE e CAmmoLL s*a=is. sas e+ee j co....cos..
l CtatirstD swontMAND mtponttas tow *'
{ esi7afssee 08 POSITION Novanit a '4 s. o sa '+ e s
( i
l 49 1 PROGRAM WHERE YOU PUT IN THE WHOLE SYSTEM AND THEN YOU CAN
( 2 RESTRICT FLOW PATHS, OPEN UP FLOW PATHS, IT DOES LOOP FLOW.
3 So, THAT CALCULATION WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING i 4 UPDATED AT THE TIME OF OUR REVIEW. WE ALSO REVIEWED THE INPUT 4
5 AND OUTPUT OF THAT CALCULATION AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF t
6 THE REVIEW.
7 MR. NE YSHEM AL: LET ME ASK A PROCEDURAL THING ALONG
$ THE LINES OF WHAT DON WAS ASKING.
9 SOME OF THESE CALCULATIONS THAT YOU REVIEWED THAT 10 YOU FELT WERE FINISHED CALCULATIONS OR THEY SAID THEY WERE 11 FINISHED, DID YOU FIND ANY -- DID YOU FIND ERRORS IN THEM 12 WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY, THEN, CORRECTED AND 00 NOT SHOW AS A 13 FINDING OR INCIDENT OR WHATEVER YOU CALL IT IN THE CURRENT 14 CHECKLIST 7 15 MR. HESS: 1 BELIEVE THAT ALL THE DISCREPANCIES WE 4
j 16 FOUND, WHETHER THEY WERE WITHIN THE OLD CALCULATIONS OR THE 17 NEW, ARE AT LEAST DOCUMENTED IN THE COMMENTS COLUMN IN THE 18 CHECKLIST. IF THERE WERE ERRORS LIKE USING THE WRONG CV FOR A 19 VALVE, THAT W AS ASSESSED, NO MATTER WHICH CALCULATION IT WAS 20 IN. FRICTION F ACTOR $, L OVER D'$, THOSE ITEMS WERE ALL j 21 CHECKED BASICALLY ON A LINE-BY-LINE TYPE CHECK IN THE CALCS.
~
22 MR. NEYSHEMAL: 50, ES SE NT I ALLY, YOU DID HAVE A k3 CUT-OFF DATE WHICH WAS WHEN YOU LOOKED AT IT.
MR. HESS: THAT'S RIGHT. IT WAS -- THE CUTOFF DATE, 24 25 IF YOU WANTED A CUT-OFF DATE, WAS JUNE OF '84. .
26 MR. OVER8ECK: THESE CALCULATIONS MARKED FINAL OR f
27 PRELIMINARY OR WHAT?
! 28 MR. MESS: THEY WERE -- I DON'T KNOW OF ANY THAT s.= ee..c.sc o DOIDGE & CAMROLL ce'.. cos .
centspeso swontMawo mapomitas cow *
" ','j *g'.7, ' ""8'"'
wisi asi sm OspositioN Notamiga
.g .. _ _
.\ [ ,
50 1
1- WERE MARKED FINAL, ALL RIGHT AS SUCH. THEY WERE THE LATEST t.
2 REVISION.
3 MR. OVERB ECK: IS THERE SUCH A TMING AT GIBBS S HILL, 4 PRELIMINARY CALC 7 SOMETIMES A/E'S GENERATE PRELIMINARY CALCS 5 PRIOR TO PROCURING EQUIPMENT AND AFTER THE EQUIPMENT IS 6 PR OC URE D, THEN THEY GENERATE SOME FINAL CALCS WHICH GET. IN
'7 VARIOUS REVISIONS.
8 MR. HESS: OKA Y, NY RECOLLECTION OF THEIR 9 CALCULATIONAL SYSTEM WAS THAT THEY JUST HAD VARIOUS REVISION 10 N UM B ER S . THEY WEREN'T MARKED PRELIMINARY OR FINAL.
11 MS. WILLIAMS: IN THE IR S YS T EM T HAT ' S A F I NAL 12 CALCULATION. I THINK THAT WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE TIME OF 13 OUR REVIEW WAS THEY WERE STILL VERIFYING THE INDEPENDENT
. 14 VERIF IC ATION OF THE C ALCULATION, BUT IT 'S AN OFF IC I AL, NOT A 15 PRELIMINARY CALCULATION.
16 MR. OVERBECK: LET ME PURSUE THAT A LITTLE BIT.
17 THESE CALCULATIONS WERE NOT VERIFIED PRIOR TO PROCUREMENT OF 18 EQUIPMENT?
19 MS. WILLIAMS: NO, NO, NO. THE MOST RECENT 20 CALCULATION INVOLVED --
21 MR. HESS: THE PIPE FLOW ANALYS IS WAS NOT COMPLETE 22 THROUGH ITS CHECK AND VERIFICATION AT THE TIME OF OUR REVIEW.
23 THE OTHEk1CALCS WERE ALL SIGNED. .
24 MR. OVERhkCK: 'YOU WERE LOOKING AT A -- NOT A REV 25 ZERO. IT WAS NEVER VER Ir IEO.
26 MR. HESS: IT WA5N 'T C OKPLETE. IT WAS IN PROCESS AT I
27 THE TIME.
MR. STUART: IF YOU MIS INTERPR ET VER IF IC ATION. !
28 sy,en.=,c,,
o s 00:0c:1 & CARROLL co *..cos'.
CERTipsEC Sa'C8tTMAND REPORTERS C ow*"
..v.,, e earsits saisi as t.asee ' OEPOSlf10N NOTAmiES
, 's Li
51 1 THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AS-8UILT VE R IF IC AT I ON.
2 MS. WILLI AMS: NO. QA PAPERWORK.
3 MR. STUART: WASN'T THAT DONE ON A PER-REVISION l
4 BASIS? ,
1 5 MS. WILLIAMS: YE S . THEY HAVE -- YE S, THE 6 APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES IN PLACE. THEY CONTROL THEIR 7 CALCULATIONS. WE DID CHECK ALL THAT, BUT THE CALCULATION THAT 8 WAS IN PROCESS, I THINK, WAS AN AMALGAMATION OF MANY DIFFERENT 9 HAND CALCULATIONS PRIOR TO THAT.
10 MR. HESS: WHAT ENCOMPASSED ALL OF THOSE, WHAT IT 11 BASICALLY DID WAS THE AS-BUILT SYSTEM WAS -- YOU KNOW, TAKING 12 THE AS-BUILT SYSTEM AND THEN RUNNING A FLOW BALANCE 13 CALCULATION ON THAT SYSTEM.
. 14 MR. OVERBECK: LET ME START OVER. WHAT REVISION WAS 15 THAT CALCULATION 7 16 MR. HESS: I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK THE FILES AS TO --
17 MS. WILLIAMS: IT 'S THE F IRST ONE OF ITS TYPE.
18 MR. HESS: IT'S PROB ABLY THE FIRST ONE. IT'S 19 PROBABLY A REV ZERO.'
. 20 MS. WILLIAMS: IT'S THE FIRST TIME THEY RAN THAT 21 PROGR AM ON THAT SYSTEH, IS THAT CORRECT?
22 MR. HESS: AS FAR AS I KNOW.
23 MS. WILLI AMS: AND BEFORE THEY HAD INDIVIDUAL 24 CALCULATIONS WHICH COVERED THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE SYSTEM 25 DESIGN. AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY WENT IN HAVING 26 AS-BUILT DATA AND RAN IT ON A COMPUTER PROGRAM, 50 IT WOULD 27 PROBABLY BE REV ZERO.
28 MR. OVERBECK: 50 THE CALCULATION WAS NOT PERFORMED sa= .a.=c.sco DOIDGE & CARROLL c o ,.. c os..
- 4*8****
CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTE RS c ow
ui7.fases DEPOSITION NOTAmitS
52 1 AND VERIFIED PRIOR TO YOUR COMMENCING YOUR INS PECTION7 MS. WILLIAMS: THE AS-BUILT CALCULATION WAS NOT.
2 3 MR. HESS: THAT'S RIGHT.
4 MR. STANLEY: CAN WE GET THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION?
MR. NORKIN: WAIT A MINUTE. WE'RE STILL WORKING ON 5
6 IT.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE FSAR. WE 7 MR. CALVO:
BEFORE WE SAY THAT, DO YOU 8 WOULD LIKE TO FINISH ONE FIRST.
9 GUYS, GARY, GEORGE, DO YOU ALL HAVE ANYTHING ELSE IN THE FRONT 10 END OF IT, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT QUEST
.11 YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ARE ASKING NOW, YOU YOU KNOW, 12 ARE GOING TO ATTACH THEM LATER ON WITH THE OTHERS, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY.
13 14 MR. NORKIN: I STILL DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER TO THIS CAN YOU TELL ME APPROXIMATELY 15 QUESTION'ON THE CUT-OFF DATE.
16 OR EXACTLY, IF POSSIBLE, WHEN IT WAS KNOWN BY ALL PARTIES THAT 15 17 THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM WAS BEING REVIEWED 7 18 THERE ANY DATE OR LETTER OR SOMETHING WHEN IT WAS KNOWN 19 GIBBS S HILL, FOR EXAMPLE?
MS. WILLI AMS: THERE WAS A PROGRAM PLAN, IF I CAN 20 21 GET MY HANDS ON IT HERE.
22 MR. FOLEY: IS THIS THE ONE YOU WANT?
23 MS. WILLIAMS: I NEED THE COVER LETTER.
24 MR. FOLEY: I DON'T HAVE THE COVER LETTER.
25 MS. WILLIAMS: I CAN GO GET THE DATE FOR YOU.
26 APPROXIMATELY, THOUGH, I BELIEVE WE SENT THE PROGRAM PLAN OUT APRIL OF 1984, SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE. WE COMMENC ED 27 28 COLLECTING DOCUMENTS AROUND EARLY MAY, AND WE FOUND OUT DUR ING i
s.= ..=c.sco DOIDGE & CARROLL c o.. .. o s..
"'
- CERTIFIED SMORTM AND REPORTERS ,, , ,C 0,-]* ,,,,
esise ass asee DEpOllTION NOTARIES l
l l - .
. . a
53
' 1 THAT PROCESS OF COLLECTING DOCUMENTS THAT THEY WERE IN THE
/\
2 PROCESS OF REVISING THE CALCULATIONS THAT BO8 HAS SPOKE OF 3 HERE.
4 AND WE HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH TEXAS 5 UTILITIES REGARDING THIS CONCERN BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT 6 PERHAPS THEY WOULD WANT TO SELECT ANOTHER SYSTEH, SINCE.WHERE 7 THEY WERE IN TIME OR FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT IT WAS DECIDED 8 THAT THEY WOULD UPDATE THESE CALCULATIONS, THAT MAYBE IT THE DECISION WAS 9 WASN'T APPROPRI ATE FOR US TO 00 THE REVIEW.
10 MADE BY TEXAS TO CONTINUE OUR REVIEW ON THE CCW SYSTEM, 50 WE 11 REALLY LOOKED AT BOTH SETS OF CALCULATIONS EVENTUALLY, THE 12 EARLIER AND --
13 MR. NORKIN: WELL, WAS THERE ANY -- BY LOOKING AT
- 14 BOTH' SETS, DID YOU ATTEMPT TO DISCRIMINATE ANY DIFFERENCE 15 BETWEEN THE SETS IN ANY WAY? HOW DO WE KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, 16 T HAT IF YOU LOOKED AT THE LATEST SET THAT THAT WAS 17 R EPR ES ENT AT I VE, THAT A SET WAS BEING DEVELOPED AFTER THE 18 SYSTEM WAS ANNOUNCED. HOW DO YOU KNOW FROM YOUR REPORT THAT 19 THAT -- THE SIGNIF IC ANCE OF THAT?
LET ME EXPAND ON THAT OUESTION. WHAT 20 MR. ANKRUM:
21 WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS THE BASIS UPON WHICH CYGNA HAS COME TO 22 THE CONCLUSION THAT THE VERTICAL SLICE LOOKED AT IS 23 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REMAINDER OF.THE DESIGN OR A CONCLUSION 24 ON YOUR PART THAT THE VERTICAL SLICE YOU LOOKED AT, THERE IS 25 NO WAY FOR YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT IT IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 26 REMAINDER OF THE DESIGN.
- 27 I THINK THIS REMAINS TO BE YOUR FINAL CONCLUSION.
28 AND WHEN YOU COME TO THAT CONCLUSION, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE sa= *=a c'oco ocioos a CARROLL co....co...
"I,l* CERTIFIED SMORTMAND RE PORTERS c,0f*,' '
u t si es o ssee DEPOSitlON NOTAmit S
54 1 WILL ASK IN ASSESSING THE VALIDITY OF YOUR CONCLUSION IS WAS l 2 THERE A REASONASLE SASIS FOR YOU TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION.
3 AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE'LL ASK IN DO!NG THAT IS l 4 DO WE AGREE THAT THE VERTICAL SLICE WAS, IN FACT, 5 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE DESIGN. I THINK WE 6 PROBABLY DON'T NEED TO 80RE INTO THIS IN ANY GREATER DETAIL, 7 8 UT --
8 MR. STUART: I THINK THAT THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS 9 A GOOD ONE. YOUR CLARIF ICATION HAS ME CONFUSED BECAUSE THE 10 SCOPE AS WE'VE MAD HANDED TO US FROM TEXAS UTILITIES WAS NOT 11 F OR US TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SUCH A GENERAL SWEEPING STATEMENT 12 AFTER OUR REVIEW IS DONE IN EACH OF THE TECHNICAL AREAS.
13 RATHER, GIVEN THE GROUND RULES OF OUR REVIEW WHICH i , 14 ASSUMES CERTAIN INPUTS AND CERTAIN OUTPUTS OF THE REVIEW, WE 15 CAN THEN ATTEST TO WHETHER BOTH THE DEPARTMENTS THAT WE 'VE 16 LOOKED AT AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUAL DESIGNS ARE REPRESENTATIVE, 17 IT GIVEN THAT THE SYSTEMS THAT WE HAVE SELECTED ARE A 18 RELATIVELY LIMITED SAMPLE.
19 AND I THIN'K IF YOU REALLY WENT OUT -- THROUGHOUT THE 20 ENTIRE PLANT, ONE COULD ALWAYS GO ONE STEP FURTHER AND FIND A 21 SYSTEM THAT'S GOT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN ANY INDIVIDUAL 22 SYSTEM THAT YOU HAPPEN TO LOOK AT. .
23 AND GIVEN THAT THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM WAS SELECTED
- 24 PRIMARILY FOR MECHANICAL REASONING, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO 25 FIND IT HARD-PRESSED FOR A CYGNA PERSON TO SE ASLE TO GO 26 UP -- TO STAND UP AND MAKE AS SWEEPING A STATEMENT 'AS Y s 27 INDICATED.
I 23 MR. ANKR UM: IF YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT, THEN WE l
l sa, ena=cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL co ,.. c as,. i camTipico sMoninaNo espomTtms _ , ,c o ,,,,,
- + . )
"1,'*j" uisi asi ssee Deposition Notamits 1
1
55 1 WOULD QUESTION IT.
2 MR. STUART. I'M GLAD WE'RE ON THE SAME WAVELENGTH.
MR. ANKRUM: YES. IF YOU MADE THAT STATEHENT, THEN 3
4 THERE WOULD BE SOME QUESTION IN OUR MIND AS TO HOW YOU ARRIVED 5 AT IT.
6 MR. STUART: JUSTIFIABLY, THIS SYSTEM AND IN THE AND I THINK AS 7 !$C AND ELECTRICAL AREA IS RELATIVELY LIMITED.
8 PART OF THE -- AS I VIEW IT, PART OF THIS PROCESS, AS I 9 INDICATED EARLIER, I WOULD GUESS AT LEAST, WOULD BE FOR CYGNA, 10 TE XA S, AND NRC REALLY TO GIVE SOME COMMENT AS TO WHETHER THE 11 ORIGINAL BASIS FOR SELECTING CCW SYSTEM FOR MECHANICAL 12 PURPOSES NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED SOMEWHAT TO INCLUDE WHATEVER THE CONCERNS ARE IN THE ELECTRICAL AND ISC AREA TO ENSURE THAT AT 13
! . 14 LEAST IN THE EXTRAPOLATION OF THE IMPLICATIONS IN ELECTRICAL
,r i 15 AND !$C FOR THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM THAT WE'VE BEEN RELATI veLY 16 C OM PLE TE .
17 AND THEN THE NEXT QUESTION, I GUESS, WOULD BE IS 18 THIS SYSTEM RIGOROUS ENOUGH TO REALLY BE ABLE TO -- TO, AT 19 LEAST, MAKE SOME STEPS TOWARDS THE KINDS OF STATEHENTS YOU 20 WERE MAKING.
21 MR. ANKR UM: SIR, WE WANT TO KNOW TO WHAT DEGREE WE 22 CAN PLACE RELIANCE ON YOUR PHASE 4 REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE 23 OVERALL DESIGN OF THE PLA NT . AS !.SAY, YOURS IS A PIECE IN PIECE IT 24 THE OVERALL AND WE'RE TRYING TO ASSESS HOW MUCH OF A 25 IS IN THAT OVERALL --
26 MR. STUART: OKAY, BUT WHAT I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND, i
i 27 THOUGH, IS THAT WE'RE LIMITED BY THE SCOPE THAT WAS AGREED 28 UPON BETWEEN TEXAS AND THE NRC.
== .. c . c o poions a cammoLL co.... :....
cantimito swomTwaNo memoatsas co "
. .i"U',*> oeposmos Novanies
56 1 MR. ANKRUM: NO QUESTION.
2 MR. STUART: OKAY. 50 THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET l 3 UNLIMITED BY THAT IS TO AGREE UPON SOME VARIATION OF THAT 4 SCOPE.
5 MR. CALVO: BUT THAT'S NOT RELEVANT AT THIS TIME.
6 RELEVANT AT THIS TIME IS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DID. YOU ARE 7 ONE POINT AMONG 20 POINTS OR DATA OR BENCH MARKS AND WE'RE 8 TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DID SO WE KNOW WHAT WE 'RE GOING 9 TO DO NEXT.
10 MR. STUA RT: UN DE R STA ND.
11 MR. CALVO: WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU DID. IT'S OUR 12 JUDGMENT BASED ON WHAT WE FIND OUT HERE AND OUR EVALUATION IN 13 TALKING TO YOU, THAT THIS IS A A BENCHMARK OR SOMEWHERE
, ?
14 BETWEEN A BENCHMARK AND A DATA POINT IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER 15 THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, AND THEN 16 DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S ENOUGH TO REACH THE ORIGINAL ASSURANCE.
17 IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT TO FIND OUT WITH YOU ALONG 18 WITH PHASE 4 GIVE YOU THE OVERALL ASSURANCE, BUT IT WILL HELP 19 US OUT TO REACH THAT FINAL ORIGINAL ASSURANCE.
20 MR. ANKR UM: WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN DUPLICATING 21 THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE.
22 MR, CA LVO: THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO KNOW THIS QUESTION, 23 bECAUSE WE GOT THE SLIDING SCALE, EVERYTHING DONE, SEE HOW YOU 24 FIT IN THERE AND WHAT IS OUR JUDGMENT OF HOW YOU CONTRIBUTE TO 25 THIS OVERALL PRINCIPLE ASSURANCE. WHAT ELSE NEEDS ,TO BE DONE 26 THAT WE ALREADY ACCEPTED BECAUSE YOU HAD DONE IT AND IT J
1 1
i 27 DOESN'T NEED TO BE DONE INTO THE FUTURE.
28 . MR. NORKIN: HOW E VER, YOU KNOW, JUS T -- W HA T I HEARD
- =aacmo ootoGE a cannott . , . . . . . .
CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTERS C oe
eNanoe ****88''
sa i DE POS6 TION NOTaRtt s
l 57 1 WAS THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT CALCULATIONS WERE k SEING PERFORMED EVEN AFTER A PROGRAM PLAN WAS ISSUED AND YOU 2
3 WERE -- YOU MADE NO ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH THOSE CALCULATIONS 4 BEFORE AND AFTER.
5 MS. WILLIAMS: B OB , CAN YOU ANSWER THAT?
6 MR. MESS: 1 DON'T THINK THAT'S EXACTLY A CORRECT 7 AS SUM PT ION. FIRST OF ALL, THE CALCULATIONS THAT WE REVIEWED RANGED ALL THE WAY B ACK TO THE '74-75 TIME PERIOD. ALL RIGHT.
8
- 9 NOW, WHEN YOU GO THROUGH RUNNING INDIVIDUAL CALCS ON 10 SEGMENTS OF A SYSTEM AND THEN YOU PUT THE WHOLE THING TOGETHER, 11 I GUESS WE DIDN'T INTERPRET THAT AS POLISHING THE SYSTEM FOR 12 OUR REVIEW. THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE NORMAL DESIGN PR OC ESS f
13 OF PUTTING THE WHOLE THING TOGETHER.
. 14 50, YES, SOME OF THE CALCS, THE LATEST REVISION OF 15 THOSE CALCS MAY HAVE BEEN JUNE OR EVEN THE FINAL SIGNOFF ON 16 THIS PIPE FLOW CALC MAY BE JULY, BUT THAT WAS NOT WHAT WE 17 WOULD CONSIDER TO BE POLISHING OF THE SYSTEM OTHER THAN l
18 REF INEMENT OF THE SYSTEM DURING THE NORMAL DESIGN PROCESS.
19 CERTAIN OF THE CALCS ARE DATED '82, SOME OF THEM ARE 20 DATED MARCH OF '84 OR JANUARY OF 884. YOU KNOW, THOSE WERE WHEN THE LATEST REVISION WAS COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF. THAT 21 22 WAS NOT WHAT WE VIEWED AS BEING POLISHING, AS FAR AS YOU
'3 2 TALKING ABOUT CUT-OFF DATE. ,
24 50 I GUESS OUR -- FROM WHAT I SEE YOU GETTING AT IS, l
25 NO, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF AFTER WE NOTIFIED EVERYBODY 26 OF WHAT SYSTEM WE WERE LOOKING AT OF EVERY8ODY GOING B ACK IN 27 AND POLISHING WHAT THEY HAD DONE TO MAKE SURE THERE WEREN'T 28 ANY ERRORS.
Sasu 8ma=cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL co=,..cos..
* '** **** Cod"
, CERT 6FIED SMORTMAND RE*CRTE45 *
se,7eNasee DE politiON NOT Am.E 5
.. . . l 58 l MR. NORKIN: I THOUGHT I HEARD A COMMENT BEFORE THAT 1 '
(,. YOU SHOULD BACK 2 YOU SAW THAT EVIDENCE AND YOU WONDERED WHETHER 3 OFF THAT SYSTEM.
MR. MESS: WE SAW THAT THERE WERE CALCS UNDER 4
5 REVISION AND WE QUESTIONED WHY THEY WERE UNDE MR. NORKIN: ALL RIGHT.
6 7 MR. HESS: AND WE FOUND THAT IT WAS THIS PIPE FLOW IN THE 8 CALCULATION WHICH PUT THE WHOLE SYSTEM TOGETHER 9
AS-BUILT CONF IGURATION, AND THAT RESOLVED THAT QUESTION ON WHY 10 THAT CALC WAS BEING REVISED OR PERFORMED.
MR. NORKIN: NANCY WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.
II MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, I GUESS I WOULDN'T HAVE STATED 12 YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS IT'S TOTALLY TEXAS'S CALL, 13 IT THAT WAY.
AS TO WHAT THEY W ANT US TO REVIEW OR WHAT 'YOU GUYS AG
( 14 15 I THINK IT 'S SPECULATION AS TO WHY IT WAS BEING RE 16 AND I GUESS I WOULDN'T GO SO FAR AS TO MAKE A 17 STATEMENT AS TO WHY IT WAS BEING REVISED ALTHOUGH IT SOUNDS 18 LOGICAL THAT THEY WERE INTEGRATING THE ENTIRE AS-B BUT WE 19 AND IT'S A REASONABLE STEP IN THE DESIGN PROCESS.
20 CAN'T PROVE THAT TO YOU, ANYWAY MR. CALVO: CAN YOU PROVIDE US WITH THE I NF ORM AT 21 22 NEEDED IN ORDER TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT.
I?
23 ANY MORE QUESTIONS OF NUMBER MR. NEVSHEMAL: I HAVE A QUESTION.
24 MR. CALVO: THE QUESTION IS STRICTLY FOCUSING TO 25 26 THIS FRONT END OF IT.
6 MR. NEVSHEMAL: YE S . AT THE RISK OF GETTING BOOED 27 l 28 OUT OF THE ROOM, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE DOIDGE & CARROLL co ...cose. l s =e..=csco Cow *" i
- '*'*8" CEmToplED SMOmTMAND REPORTEms **' #
m iN** 3,s DEPCstTION NOT AmitS i
59 1 SCOPE AND HOW YOU GOT TO THE SCOPE.
l k- 2 DURING THE PRESENTATION IT WAS INDICATED THAT YOU 3 WENT TO ONE THERMAL B ARRIER WHICH WAS RC1, AND THAT WAS NOT l
)
4 THE FURTHEST LOAD AWAY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF HYDRAULICS.
5 THAT TELLS ME THAT THERE WAS SOME PHYSICAL LIMITATION ON THE ,
6 SCOPE. COULD YOU THEN -- AND THERE IS ALSO I THINK IN ONE OF 7 YOUR CHECKLISTS THAT A SIMILAR SITUATION IS IDENT IF IE D.
8 COULD YOU GIVE ME SOME IDEA AS TO HOW THE SCOPE WAS 9 DEVELOPED TO ALLOW THAT VERY IMPORTANT FEATURE OF A HYDRAULICS 10 SYSTEM TO FALL THROUGH THE CRACK 7 11 MR. FOLEY: WELL, IT DIDN'T.
MR. NEVSHEMAL: YOU FOUND IT, BUT HOW DID YOU GET 12 13 THE SCOPE THAT YOU ENDED UP WITH -- THAT YOU STARTED OUT WITH?
MR. FOLEY: YOU SAY WE FOUND IT. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING 14 s
15 IS YOU RECOGNIZE THAT WE DID GO AND REVIEW THE THERMAL S ARRIER 16 PUM P, ACTUALLY PUMP 3, ONCE WE DETERMINED' WHICH WAS THE S YSTEM 17 C OM PONE NT. YOU RECOGNIZ E THAT.
MR. NEVSHEMAL: I DO RECOGNIZE THAT, BUT WHAT I AM 18 19 ASKING IS HOW DID YO'U DEVELOP THE SCOPE IN THE BEGINNING TO 20 ALLOW A VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF HYDRAULIC DESIGN TO NOT BE 21 INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE.
22 MR. HESS: THE -- DO YOU WANT ME --
23 MR. STUART: IT'S A PROGRAMMATIC QUESTION.
l 24 MS. WILLIAMS: WE CHOSE THE SCOPE ON A MUCH MORE 25 GENERAL BASIS. AND THAT WAS, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE 26 CCW SYSTEM, TRAIN "A". HERE 'S WHAT WE THINK THE MAJOR
) BUT AT THAT STAGE, WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE j 27 COMPONENTS ARE.
IN 28 CALCULATIONS, WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE PART ICULARS SUCH AS, e.= ...-c sco poioot a CARROLL c o%... c es*.
msjaseoso g CERTIFIED SMQRTMAND REPORTERS ,, c o ,,','
sees asi ssee OE POSITION NOT ARSE S
60 1 THIS CASE, THAT IT WAS THE MOST DISTANT COMPONENT.
t 2 THEN WHEN WE SENT THE REVIEWERS TO GIBBS & HILL AND 3 THEY STARTED REVIEWING THE CALCULATIONS AND THEY FOUND OUT, IN 4 FACT, THAT THEY NEEDED TO CONSIDER THAT, THEN WE 50 DID IN 5 LOOKING AT THE CALCULATIONS. BUT THAT'S KIND OF A LEVEL OF 6 DETAIL THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN KNOWLEDGEABLE OF AT THE TIME 7 THE DISCUSSIONS ON THE HARDWARE SCOPE WERE BEING SELECTED.
8 B UT IF WE SAW SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY COULDN'T 9 COMPLETE OUR ASSESSMENT OF THE CALCULATIONS, GIVEN THE 10 SPECIF IC HARDWARE SCOPE, THEN WE WOULD TALK TO TEXAS OR WE 11 WOULD JUST GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT THAT ASPECT OF THE CALCULATION 12 WHICH GAVE US THE ANSWERS THAT WE NEEDED.
13 MR. NEVS HEM AL: BASICALLY, WHAT YOU'R E S A YING --
1 . 14 WHAT I UNDERSTAND YOU JUST INDICATED IS THAT THE SCOPE WAS 15 DEVELOPED FROM LOOKING AT THE HYDRAULICS OF INDIVIDUAL MAJOR 16 COMPONENTS OF SYSTEM.
17 MR. HESS: NO.
18 MR. FOLEY: I THINK IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
19 MR. HESS: BASICALLY, WE DEVELOPED THE SCOPE BY 20 LOOKING ORIGINALLY AT THE FLOW DIAGRAM.
21 MS. WILLI AMS: THAT 'S ALL WE MAD.
22 MR. HESS: THAT'S ALL WE MAD AT THAT INITIAL SCOPING 23 SESSION WHEN WE INITIALLY SET DOWN THE SCOPE, WHAT FLOW PATHS 24 WE WANTED TO LOOK AT. AFTER WE GOT INTO THE REVIEW, EVE N 25 THOUGH WE MAD WRITTEN THE CHECKLIST AND PICKED THE FIRST 26 REACTOR COOLING PUMP 01, WE REALIZED THAT FROM THE GENERAL 1, 27 ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS AND THE PIPING DRAWINGS THAT 01 WAS NOT 28 THE MOST DISTANT COMPONENT, SO THEN WE LOOKED AT 03, WHICH WAS 8,'",'",*jego DotDGE e CARROLL ca....co...
CEnfaFIED swomTMAND mEmORTEms COW' oasu=o *a's es esis se n si as t.aaee DEPCsiTION NOTAmit S l
1 -.
.s . . . . : :- -- -
61 1 THE MOST DISTANT.
k- 2 MR. OVERB EC K: 50 YOU WEREN'T LIMITING THE SCOPE IN 3 THAT REGARD, THEN ?
4 MR. FOLEY: 1 THINK IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN 5 T HAT. I THINK THAT AFTER WE SAID, ALL RIGHT, WE WANT TO LOOK 6 AT THE HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SYSTEM, ALL RIGHT, THAT WAS KIND OF THE INITIAL SCOPE DEFINITION. AND 7
8 WE SAID, ALL RIGHT, NOW, WHAT DO YOU NEED FOR CRITERIA TO 9 DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT 'S PROPERLY S PECIF IED 10 OR NOT.
11 AND I BELIEVE THAT THE MOST DISTANT COMPONENT WAS 12 ONE OF THE CRITERIA THAT WAS DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE 13 CHECKLIST, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE WENT AND STARTED THE REVIEW, 14 BUT AFTER .THE MORE GENERAL SCOPE WAS DESIGNED, I MEAN, WAS 15 DEFINED.
16 SO WHEN WE WERE COMING UP WITH THESE CHECKLISTS, WE 17 SAID ONE OF THE IMPORTANT FEATURES TO LOOK AT THAT, IN FACT, 18 WAS ONE OF THEM. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT 01 WAS 19 S PEC IF IED I N T HE -- E VEN IF IT WAS, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS IN 20 THE INITI AL SCOPE, AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE 03 IS VERY 21 INCIDENTAL TO THE REVIEW, B U T T HE --
22 MS. WILLIAMS: WE JUST DEFINED, IF YOU LOOK IN THE h3 PROGR AM PLAN, THE MAJOR ASPECTS OF,THE DESIGiv THAT WE WOULD BE 24 LOOKING AT, THE MAJOR TYPE OF CALCULATION THAT WE WOULD BE 25 LOOKING AT. AND AS JIM SAYS, THAT 'S A DETAIL IN REVIEWING 26 THAT CALC.
27 MR. CALV0: I GUESS WE FINISHED QUESTION 1. WE'RE WOULD YOU 28 GETTING INTO QUESTION 2 FOR THE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS.
! saw .ma=c sco DolOGE & CARROLL co=,.. c os..
"u,...
'g','. *, "n".. cearmso smontmaso menontens ,,,,co',',',,,
.n r cenosmos Notamies
62 1 PLEASE READ THE QUESTION IN?
( 2 MR. MARINOS: IN YOUR INSPECTION, WHAT IS THE STATUS 3 OF THE FSAR? THIS WAS COVERED A LITTLE BIT, BUT WOULD YOU 4 TELL US IN MORE DETAIL. THE FOLLOWING QUESTION, WAS IT 5 CONSIDERED A DESIGN DOCUMENT BY GIBBS S HILL, THE FSAR7 6 MR. CALvo: DO YOU WANT To --
7 MR. MARINOS: YOU GUYS HAVE AN ELABORATION TO MAKE 8 ON THIS?
9 MR. OVERB EC K: I THINK THAT QUESTION IS CLEAR ENOUGH.
10 (PAUSE.)
11 MR. MARINOS: BACK ON THE RECORD.
12 I HAVE STATED THE SECOND QUESTION. WE'RE EXPECTING 13 THE ANSWER.
14 MR. NOR KIN: NANCY WANTED TO GIVE US SOMETHING.
15 MS. WILLI AMS: I HAVE THE DATES ASKING ON THE 16 PROGRAM PL A N, THE FIRST PRELIMINARY SCOPING DISCUSSION TOOK 17 PLACE ON MARCH 6, 1984. AND CYGNA SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED A 18 PROGRAM PLAN DOCUMENT ON MAY 15TH, 884 AND STARTED DATA 19 COLLECTION JUST ABOUT IN THAT SAME TIME FRAME.
20 THE QUESTION THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING BEFORE WE WENT 21 0FF THE RECORD, I GUESS, WAS ON THE STATUS DF THE SAR AND THE 22 RESPONSE THAT WE HAVE FROM GIBBS S HILL IS THE FOLLOWING, 23 QUOTE, .
24 "THE SAR IS A DESIGN BASES DOCUMENT. DESIGN 25 VERIFICATION IS To CONFIRM THAT THE DESIGN IS IN COMPLI ANCE 26 WITH THE SAR." ,
I
(
27 THIS COMMENT WAS GIVEN TO US WHEN WE SHOWED THEM OUR 28 PRELIMINARY FLOW CHARTS AND ASKED THEM TO COMMENT ON IT AND WE l
ta= saa=cesco DOIDGE a CARROLL co....co...
'*****' C ow**
- CanfiPitD SMORTMAND #tPORTERS
,7.fssee OEPositiON NOTAmitS **** " '' '
l
63 1 HAVEN'T ASSIMILATED THIS INFORMATION ANY FURTHER AT THIS POINT 2 IN TIME.
3 MR. OVERB ECK: RESTATE THAT AGAIN?
4 MS. WILLIAMS: YES. THE SAR IS A DESIGN BASES 5 DOC UM ENT. DESIGN VERIFICATION IS TO CONFIRM THAT THE DESIGN 6 IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SAR."
7 THIS IS GIBBS S HILL'S RESPONSE TO OUR SAME QUESTION 8 THAT YOU ARE ASKING.
9 MR. OVERBECK: THAT MEANS IT'S ALLOWED TO BE USED 10 AS DESIGN INPUT IN THE CALCULATIONS 7 WHAT DOE 5 THAT MEAN7 11 MS. WILLIAMS: DESIGN B ASES DOCUMENT TO ME MEANS 12 THAT IT SERVES AS AN INPUT TO THE CALCULATIONS OR, CONVERSELY, 13 THAT THE CALCULATIONS MUST CONFORM WITH THE FSAR.
14 MR. OVERBECK: THE TWO AREN 'T THE S AME 15 NECESSARILY THE SAME.
36 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY, ! SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
17 YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.
18 MR. NEVSHEMAL: LET ME ASK THIS. WHEN YOU REVIEWED 19 YOUR CALCULATIONS AN'D WE'LL GET INTO WHICH ONES YOU DID IN 20 YOUR NEXT QUESTION, BUT DID YOU SEE INPUT AND/OR ASSUM PT IONS --
21 I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY LAID THEM OUT -- THAT SAID F SAR NUMBER 22 50 AND SO, FSAR TABLE SO AND SO AS AN INPUT.
MR. HESS: ! BELIEVE WE DID, B UT I REALLY HAVE TO GO 23 24 B ACK AND CHECK THE SPECIF IC CALCS.
25 MS. WILLIAMS: CAN WE PULL ONE OF THE CALCULATIONS 26 TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTION? CAN SOMEONE GO AND PULL OUT 27 MR. OVERBECK: ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE IS LIST 28 THE CALCULATIONS. WE PROB ABLY WILL ASK FOR SOME OF THOSE
- *=* ceo coiost a cAmmoLL .....:...
jj'j,'l'.' caatiairo swontaamo areoattas ,,,,ca,;,,,,
......>>. oepositiow notamias
64 1 CALCULATIONS TO BE PULLED 50 WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THEM. 50 t
\ 2 WE'LL PULL A COUPLE AND SEE FOR OURSELVES.
3 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY. !
4 MR. NORKIN: SINCE YOU REFER TO THE FSAR AS THE
. 5 DESIGN INPUT, HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THE FIRST QUESTION WHEN 6 YOU REFER TO DDCUMENTS THAT DEVELOPED THE CHECKLIST. YOU 7 DIDN'T REFER TO IT AS ONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, I DON'T THINK.
8 MS. WILLI AMS: YES, WE DID. WE USED BOTH, THE BOP 9 AND FSAR.
10 MR. CALV0: OKAY, THAT TAKES CARE OF NUM B ER 2.
11 MR. OVERBECK: WELL, NOT QUITE. THE FSAR IS 12 CONS I DE R ED THE DE S I GN B A S ES DOC UM ENT -- A ND I 'M NOT S UR E I 13 KNOW EXACTLY WHAT GIBBS S HILL MEANS BY THAT STATEMENT.
k* 14 BUT THE QUESTION WE'RE ASKING HERE IS, IS THE FSAR 15 USED FOR DESIGN INPUT AND !$ THAT INPUT CONTROL -- THERE IS A 16 LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS THE INPUT IS CONTROLLED, SO4ETIMES 17 THERE'S DESIGN INPUT DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF DESIGN CRITERIA i 18 DOCUMENTS OR SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS.
19 TYPICALLY, A/E 'S DO NOT REVIEW THE FSAR AS A SOURCE 20 0F DESIGN INPUT BECAUSE THE FSAR IS BEHIND DESIGN AND THERE'S 21 BEEN MANY NUMEROUS MISTAKES IN IT. AND I GUESS WE 'LL BE 22 INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT YOUR RESPONSES WHEN YOU 00 YOUR
'3 2 PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, YOUR TREATMENT.
24 MS. WILLIAMS: I CAN TELL YOU HOW I THINK IT 25 PROB ABLY C AME TO PASS, BUT YOU 'RE RIGHT. I'M NOT QUITE READY 26 TO ANSWER IT, B UT I THINK THEY PR08 ABLY USED THE WESTINGHOUSE l
27 INPUT DOCUMENT TO DEVELOP THEIR CRITERIA WHICH THEY CONTROLLED 28 INTERNALLY AND, YE S , THE FSAR WAS IN DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT
'* *Q8 DOIOGE & CARROLL co.,..go,,,.
w ,o CE#t8tED SwOntesaNo REpositas cow iaise asi asse DEPOlitiON NOTA #iES
\
. . . . . .. a r -- , . . . . . . .
65 i
2 AND IT EVOLVED AND, IN FACT, WE FOUND CERTAIN FACETS 3 WHERE THE FSAR WAS OUT OF DATE. 50 IT REALLY COULD NOT SERVE 4 AS A DESIGN INPUT DOCUMENT, IF YOU WILL, IF THAT'S *THE CASE.
5 SO THAT'S WHAT WE STILL NEED TO PUT TOGETHER. I THINK THAT'S 6 WHAT YOU ARE DRIVING AT.
7 MR. MARINOS: AND THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST PART OF 8 THE QUESTION IS THAT YOU HAVE USED THE FSAR AS THE DESIGN 9 DOC UM ENT, TOO, OR YOU REVIEWED THAT IN YOUR INSPECTION.
10 MS. WILLI AMS: YES, WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE FSAR SAID 11 VERSUS WHAT WE SAW IN THE CALCULATION VERSUS WHAT WESTINGHOUSE 12 REQUIRED. WE WERE REALLY COMPARING ALL OF THOSE INPUTS TO SEE 13 WHAT THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM DESIGN WAS RELATIVE TO ALL OF THE 14 REQUIREMENTS. AND WE DID CITE AN INCONS ISTENCY BETWEEN THOSE 15 DOC UM ENT S .
16 MR. MARINOS; O KA Y. YOU RECONCILED THE DIFFERENCE 17 BECAUSE THE FSAR DOES HAVE, IN PARTICULAR, THE TABLES OF THE 18 COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM THAT'S PICTURED, INF ORM A T ION 19 THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE WESTINGHOUSE BOP FR-I 20 APPEARS TO REQUIRE. AND I THINK YOU HAVE MADE SOME 21 I DENT IF ICAT ION IN THAT CHECKLIST THAT YOU MAVE.
22 MS. WILLIAMS: YE S .
23 MR. CALVO: NE XT QUESTION, NUMB ER 3, IS THAT WE NEED 24 A LIST 25 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION NUMBER 3 IS WE NEED A LIST OF 26 THE CALCULATIONS REVIEWED DURING THE INSPECTION ON THE GIBBS E
' 27 HILL EFFORT. NOW, IN WHAT FORM COULD YOU RESPOND TO THIS 28 QUESTION?
8,**,**C
, C,8 DOIDGE & CARROLL go.,,..,,,,,
i ,,, ,, Ctatipito swominaNo atPontems c ov**
- capositioN NotamitS **''''
! .a i s. an osses l
i
66 1 MS. WILLIAMS: WE HAVE A TYPED LIST OF THEM OR A CUT 2 AND PASTED LIST WHICH WE COULD GIVE YOU A XEROX OF. IT'S 3 THREE PAGES LONG. I CAN GET A COPY.
4 MR. MARINOS: DOES THAT GIVE US A LIST OF VARIOUS 5 COM PONE NT S, VARIOUS PARTS OF THE SYSTEM 7 6 MS. WILLI AMS: WELL, LET ME SHOW IT TO YOU AND YOU 7 CAN SEE WHAT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL --
8 MR. MARINOS: EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT.
9 MS. WILLIAMS: IT 'S NOT SELF-EXPLANATORY 10 UNF ORTUNATELY IN THE SENSE THAT THE DESCRIPTION IS VERY BRIEF.
11 MR. CALVO: GARY, WHA T ' S THE PUR PO S E F OR THE LIST 7 12 HOW ARE YOU GOING TO USE IT?
13 MR. OVERB EC K: I WILL KNOW BY LOOKING AT THE LIST 14 THE TYPE OF CALCULATIONS THAT WERE AVAILABLE. ! WOULD HOPE I 15 WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT CALCULATIONS WERE AVAILABLE AT GIBBS &
16 HILL ORIGINALLY AND WHICH ONES YOU DECIDED TO REVIEW.
17 MR. MARINOS: THEY ARE LISTED HERE 50 WE CAN LOOK AT 18 THEM AND LOOK AT THE LIST AND COHE BACK WITH OTHER QUESTIONS 19 LATER, NOT TODAY, THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, HECHANICAL, AND 20 INSTRUMENTATION.
21 MR. CALVO: LET THE RECORD NOTE THAT A LIST HAS BEEN 22 GIVEN TO US AND WE 'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AND...
23 MR. NORKIN: CAN THIS LIST BE CROSS-REFERENCED, ALL 24 THE CHECKLIST QUESTIONS? ISN'T THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR 25 WHEN WE COME TO THE CHECKLIST QUESTIONS, WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT 26 KIND OF DETAIL WAS GOTTEN INTO F OR THAT PART ICULAR QUEST ION.
I 27 MS. WILLIAMS: NOT WITH THE INF ORMATION THAT YOU 28 HAVE. IT COULD CERTAINLY BE DONE. ! THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A sa= eaa.c.sco DotDGE & CARROLL c o ... c' os .
' ',e
, s ooso p Cantipito SMomTMaNo espontsms ,, , ,c og'*, , , ,,
seese est asse DEPOSITsON NOTAmiES
l l
l 67 1 FAIRLY LABOR-INTENSIVE PROCESS.
I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE WORK. I'M JUST 2 MR. NORKIN:
3 SORT OF THINKING THAT EVENTUALLY WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO ASK 4 QUESTIONS FOR SPECIFIC CHECKLIST ITEMS, WHAT CALCULATIONS WERE 5 GOTTEN INTO.
6 MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, YE S, B UT YO U A SKE D --
7 MR. NOR KIN: THOSE CALCULATIONS IN ALL CASES WILL BE 8 ON THAT LIST, RIGHT7 9 MS. WILLIAMS: THAT'S CORRECT. AND IF YOU ASK US A 10 QUESTION, WE 'LL GO GET THE APPROPRI ATE CALCULATION TO DISCUSS 11 IT WITH YOU.
12 MR. MARINOS: BUT THIS LIST IS COMPLETE OF ALL 13 CALCULATIONS IN ALL AREAS, MEANING MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL
~
. 14 SYSTEMS, I,NS TRUMENT AT ION?
15 MS. WILLIAMS: HOPEFULLY, 95 PERCENT. WE LISTED 16 EVERY ONE THAT WE COULD THINK OF IN PREPARATION FOR THIS 17 MEETING.
18 MR. CALVO: THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION WAS TO LOOK 19 AT THE LIST AND THEN PICK OUT THOSE CALCULATIONS THAT WE WANT 20 TO ASK THEM ABOUT. IS THAT RIGHT, GARY ?
21 MR. OVdRBECK: M-HM.
22 MR. CALVO: OKAY. SO HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
'23 WHAT 'S THE NEXT QUESTION. ,
24 MR. NORKIN: THE CALCULATIONS ARE ALL AVAILABLE HERE7 ALL THE ONES THAT I HAVE BLUED OUT ON l 25 MS. WILLIAMS:
4 26 THIS LIST ARE AVAILABLE HERE. IF YOU ASK US A QUESTION, WE'LL 27 GO GET THE ONE THAT 'S APPROPRIATE.
28 MR. CALVO: QUESTION NUMBER 4, LIST THE DRAWINGS sa= .es=cesco DOIDGE a CARROLL c m ,..cas,.
- '***"' CERTIFIED SMORTMAND RE PORTERS
, ,, ,, , ,C og,', , ,
ie t s' as e.ssee DEPO 5tTION NOTAmiE S
68 1 REVIEWED DURING THE INS PEC T ION.
2 MR. MARINOS: WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A COPY OF THAT 3 LIST. WE NEED MORE THAN ONE COPY ACTUALLY, SO WE NEED ABOUT 5 4 COPIES.
5 MS. WILLIAMS: 57 6 MR. MARINOS: OKAY. QUESTION NUMBER 4 IS THE LIST 7 OF DRAWINGS --
8 MS. WILLIAMS: I NEED TO CLARIFY ONE THING. JUST 9
FROM A LOGISTIC STANDPOINT, FROM HOW OUR INFORMATION IS LAID 10 OUT, IT'S PROB ABLY EASIER FOR US TO ANSWER A QUESTION AND GET 11 THE CALC AS OPPOSED TO SITTING HERE TELLING YOU WHAT CALC 12 NUMBERS YOU ARE GOING TO WANT TO PULL OUT FROM THIS LIST 13 BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT VERY DESCRIPTIVE ON THIS LIST OF 14 DOC UMENTS . B UT IF YOU GET INTO THE PRESSURE DROP CALC, WE 15 WILL BRING IN ALL THE PERTINENT DOCUMENTS.
16 MR. MARINOS: I'M NOT EVEN CERTAIN WE HAVE THIS -
17 DETAIL RIGHT NOW.
13 MR. OVERBECK: HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS YOU 19 HAVE FROM GIBBS & HI'LL? HAVEN'T YOU KEPT A CONTROLLED LIST 07 20 DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM GIBBS E HILL?
MS. WILLI AMS: YES, WE MAVE.
21 22 MR. OVERB ECK: CAN'T YOU JUST REPRODUCE THAT
~
EVERY 23 CONTROLLED LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND THAT WILL COVER 24 DOCUMENT YOU'VE EVER GOTTEN?
25 MS. WILLI AMS: WE DID NOT TAKE XEROX COPIES OF EVERY WHAT 'WE DI D F OR 26 DOCUMENT BEC AUSE WE DID THE REVIEWS ON-S ITE.
{ 27 THIS MEETING WAS TO OBTAIN SOME OF THE COPIES TO BALANCE OU 28 OUR F ILES, B UT , YE AH, THIS LIST HERE IS ESSENTIALLY AN ECHO OF s.. ..a=c.sc o DOIDGE & C ARROLL c a.,.. c e ,, .
- ********* CgatipagD SMomTMAND mgpontgms c os**
- es e aU"ssee DEPCstTeoN NOTAmig5
69 OUR DOCUMENTS REVIEW LIST, OF WHICH PR06 ABLY 80 PERCENT OF 1
r 2 THEM ARE IN OUR CONTROLLED CALCULATION FILE FOR TH15 PROJECT MR. CALV0: OKAY. NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.
3 4 MR. MARINOS: NUMB ER 4 IS LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED 5 DURING THE INSPECTION. DO YOU HAVE A WRITTEN LIST OF THE 6 DRAWINGS THAT YOU REVIEWED?
MS. WILLIAMS: YES, WE DO, AND I CAN GET THAT PULLED 7
8 TOGETHER F OR YOU AS WELL. , IT 'S ABOUT EQUAL IN LENGTH, 50 I 9 HAVE TO GET A COPY OF THAT.
10 MR. CALVO: THE PURPOSE OF THAT QUESTION 157 11 MR. OVERB ECK: I WANT TO SEE THE DEPTH OF REVIEW.
12 BY LOOKING AT THOSE DRAWINGS I MIGHT HAVE SOME IDEA WHAT 13 WANT TO LOOK AT IN TERMS OF THAT REVIEW.
14 MR. MARINOS: 50 WE NEED THE DRAWINGS.
s MR. OVERBECK: NO, WHA T I WANT IS A LIST OF DRAWINGS 15 16 50 I CAN ASCERTAIN WHAT, IF ANY, CALCULATIONS ARE DRAWINGS 17 THAT I W ANT TO LOOK AT TO VERIF Y.
18 MR. NORKIN: WHAT ARE THE LOGISTICS OF YOU GETTING 19 THEM IF CYGNA DOESN'T HAVE THEM7 WE CAN GET THEM. WHAT HAPPENED WAS 20 MS. WILLI AMS:
21 GIBBS & HILL JUST -- WE MADE A REQUEST A WEEK AND A HALF AGO 22 TO GET THE BALANCE OF THE FILES AND THEY DIDN'T ALL GET HERE.
'23 MR. NORKIN: THESE GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT CALCS AND 24 DRAWINGS THAT ARE ON A MECHANICAL LIST, BUT HAVE YOU GOT A 25 LIST -- DOES YOUR LIST JUST ADDRESS MECHANICAL OR DOES IT 26 INCLUDE ELECTRICAL AND ISC AS WELL?
27 MS. WILLIAMS: THAT ' S B OT H F OR THE C ALCUL ATIONS.
WE 00 ISSUE 28 AND WE'LL GET A $1MILAR LIST FOR THE DRAWINGS.
sa= se.=cesco DOIDGE & CARROLL g o.. .. c o ,, .
'**"*' c o w %
CERTIFIED SMORTMAND mEponTERS ** ' n a s i i s se e sN.Is#
su OEpositioN NOTamiES
_. . . , _ _ _. ...a _- __ A _m
. . _ . . . . . . , , ; , ,q . : . ,a 70 1 ALL THE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED AS PART OF OUR FINAL REPORT, AND 2 THERE ARE THINGS IN -- YOU'LL FIND THERE'S THINGS IN THE 3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED LIST THAT ARE NOT CALCS AND NOT DRAWINGS.
4 WE LIST LETTERS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND THE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 5 LIST IS QUITE EXTENSIVE.
6 MR. MARINOS: THE NEXT QUESTION, NUMBER 5, DESCRIB E 7 THE METHOD USED TO REVIEW CALCULATIONS. THIS WILL PROBABLY
$ NEED A CLARIFICATION ON THAT, GARY.
9 MR. OVERBECK: WELL, I GUESS NUMBER 5 AND NUMBER II 10 GO TOGETHER. WHAT DETAIL TECHNIC AL CHECKS WERE CONDUCTED OF 11 THE CALCULATIONS REVIEWED. AND, IN ESSENCE, WHAT WE'RE ASKING 12 HERE IS, I DIDN'T -- I SAW CHECKLIST ITEMS.
13 I DIDN'T SEE MAYBE EVERYTHING ON THE CHECKLIST THAT 14 I WOULD HAVE PUT ON THERE, BUT MAYB E NOW I UNDER STAND THAT YOU 15 HAVE GOT SOME DESIGN CONTROL REVIEW GOING ON THAT'S GOING TO 16 PICK SOME OF THOSE THINGS UP. BUT WHAT PROCESS WAS USED TO 17 IDENTIFY INCORRECT ITEMS ON THE CALCULATION, WHETHER IT'S 18 TECHNICAL OR DESIGN CONTROL?
19 MS. WILLI MS: WE BASICALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT ANSI 20 N45 2.11, IF YOU LOOK AT VERIF IC ATION, YOU'VE GOT THREE 21 METHODS. ONE IS ALTERNATE CALCS, ONE IS REVIEW OF THE 22 EXISTING CALCULATIONS. THE OTHER IS TESTING. WE BASICALLY WE 23 FOLLOWED A SIMILAR PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING A REVIEW.
24 WOULD CHECK THE ASSUMPT IONS, THE METHODOLOGY, SPOT CHECKS, l
(
l 25 SPECIFIC MATHEMATICAL FACETS OF THE CALCULATIONS TO MAKE SURE 26 THAT THOSE WERE CORRECT.
i I WOULDN'T SAY THAT WE DID A 100 PERCENT LINE BY 27 28 LINE CHECK, BUT WE DID SPEND CONSIDERABLE TIME LOOKING AT THE sa= en.=cisco DOIDGE & CAmmoLL c os... c os..
wise sas eese CERTIFIED SMORTwaNO REpomTEnS C o '*
- w M s1"ase, DEPOSITION NOTanit S #' * ' ' '
l
. ..,~y .... u. . ..-a--- l 71 1 CALCULATIONS FROM BOTH ITS PURPOSE AND ITS REFERENCES AND THE 2 WHOLE PICTURE TOGETHER AND THEN DID MATH CHECKS TO 800T.
3 MR. STANLEY: 50 WHAT YOU ARE INDICATING !$ THAT YOU 4 DID INDEED GO THROUGH A CALCULATION AND DO A NUMBER 8Y NUMBER 5 ARITHMETIC CHECK OF THE CALCULATIONS.
WE DID IN SPECIFIC INSTANCES. WE 6 MS. WILLI AMS:
7 WOULD -- MAYBE YOU COULD GIVE SOME EXAMPLES WHERE, IN FACT, WE 8 WENT THROUGH AND DID SOME SIDE CALCULATIONS OF OUR OWN IN A AND 9 COUPLE CASES WHERE THEY WERE VOID IN THEIR CALCULATIONS.
10 YOU CAN PROB ABLY PULL OUT A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
11 MR. HESS: ONE EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE NPSH CALC WHERE 12 THINGS SUCH AS THE PRESSURE DROP THROUGH THE 6-INCH FEEDER 13 LINE FROM THE -- THE SALANCE LINE FROM THE SURGE TANK WAS NOT I
- 14 INCLUDED IN THE NPSH CALC.
15 WE RAN AN INDEPENDENT CHECK CALC TO SEE THE EFFECT 16 OF T HA T, THE EFFECT FOR ADdUSTING FOR ALTITUDE THAT WAS NOT 17 DOCUMENTED IN THE CALC, AND VERIFIED THAT IT WAS STILL 18 CONSERVATIVE IN THE F ACT THAT THERE WAS HUCH GREATER NPSH 19 AVA I LAB LE THA N R E QUI'R ED, SPECIFIC NUMBERS SE!NG SOMETHING LIKE 80 20 34 FEET A HEAD REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE BEING GREATER THAN 21 FEET A HEAD.
22 WE DID GO BACK AND SPECIFICALLY CHECK IN CALCULATIONS THE L OVER D'S AND CV,'S FOR VALVES. WE DID 23 24 CHECKS OF PIPE LENGTHS AS -- FROM THE PIPING DRAWINGS TO WHAT 25 WAS USED IN THE CALCULATIONS, NUMBERS OF ELBOWS, TEE'S, 26 WHETHER THEY BRANCH FLOW OR FLOW THROUGH THE LINE IN A GIVEN 27 CALC.
28 AS NANCY SAID, IT WAS NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT LINE BY sa= esa=c sco DOIDGE & CARROLL c o**e c os'a !
I sei saseoso CgmTIFiED SMORTM A*eO REpomTras
,_p ,,,,C,0,*',',,,
7,
.s,.s,.33,e DEPOSITION NOT Amit 5
72 1 LINE CHECK IN ALL CASES, BUT WE CHECKED ENOUGH TO ASSURE
- i 2 OURSELVES TMAT THE CALCULATION WAS ACCURATE.
3 MR. NEVSHEMAL: HOW DID YOU VERIFY THAT THE CORRECT S PEC IF ICALLY, LET'S 4 METHODOLOGY WAS USED IN THE CALCULATION 7 5 CHOOSE NPSH. HOW DID YOU DO THAT7 6 MR. HESS: l'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE REALLY GETTING 7 AT THERE. I MEAN, AN NPSH CALC IS A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND WE USED THE EQUATIONS 8 CALC FROM A HYDRAULIC STANDPOINT.
9 EITHER FROM THE HYDRAULIC INSTITUTE AND/OR EQUATIONS FROM 20 CRANE 410.
11 MR. STANLEY: IF THERE WAS AN INPUT ON A CALCULATION 12 THAT SAID REFERENCE THIS AND SO ON AND SO ON, AND THERE WAS A 13 NUMBER EXTRACTED FROM THAT, DI D YOU GO B ACK TO THA T REF ER ENC E a
14 TO SEE IF, INDEED, THE NUMBER WAS CORRECTLY --
1 15 MR. MESS: TRANSPOSED 7 16 MR. STANLEY: YES.
17 MR. HESS: YES.
18 MR. NORKIN: AREN'T YOU REALLY ASKING ABOUT THE 19 INPUT IN -- YOU A?SbHED IT WAS CORRECTLY TRANSPOSED, BUT YOU 20 ARE LOOKING AT THE INPUT, THE SOURCE OF THAT INPUT, AREN'T YOU7 21 IT'S NOT A MATTER OF --
22 MS. WILLIAMS: WE WOULD CHECK -- WE WOULD GO TO THE
'23 INPUT SOURCE AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY TOOK THE RIGHT 24 INFORMATION FROM THAT INPUT DOCUMENT AND USED IT CORRECTLY IN 25 THE CALCULATION. !$ THAT THE QUESTION 7 26 MR. NOR KIN: YES.
t YES.
27 MR. NEVSHEMAL:
28 MR. OVERBECK: YOU MADE A STATEMENT -- CORRECT ME IF
..........e.
eoes ooiooe a emou. .. ...e.,...
- ',4a
, ,p CtatioitD SMORTeeaND mtromites , ,go , , ,
saisi es e tsee OtPOSITION Not amits
73 1 I 'M W RONG -- YO U HA VE US E D THE C R IT E R I A OF ANS I N 4 5. 2.11 A S 2 THE BASIS OF THE DESIGN CONTROL GOING THROUGH !T, WHAT NEEDS 3 TO BE CHECKED, WHAT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED, WHAT INTERFACE 4 REQUIREMENTS ARE -- EXIST AND WHERE THAT INFORMATION C AME FROM.
5 W HA T ' S -- I 'M S OR R Y F OR NOT DOING MY HOMEWORK F AR ENOUGH, BUT 6 WHAT 'S THE UTILITIES ' COMMITMENT TO ANS! N4 5. 2.117 7 MS. WILLIAMS: THEY HAVE COMMITTED TO DRAFT 2, REV 2 8 OF THAT DOC UME NT IN THEIR LICENSING BASIS.
10 MS. WILLI AMS: DRAFT 2, REV 2 IS THE SPECIFIC 11 VERSION OF N45.2.11 THAT THEY HAVE COMHITTED TO AS A LICENSING 12 BASIS AND BECAUSE THAT'S THE IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENT FOR DESIGN 13 CONTROL 10 CFR, APPENDIX B, CRITERION 3, THAT'S WHAT WE USED.
' . 14 ,M R . OVERBECK: WHAT 'S GIBBS S HILL 'S COMMITMENT IN 15 THEIR PROCEDURES FOR ANSI N45.2.117 16 MS. WILLI AMS: THEY ARE ALSO COMMITTED TO N4 5. 2.11.
17 WE CHECKED THEIR PROGRAM AGAINST DRAFT 2, REV 2 OF ANSI 18 N45.2.11.
19 MR. OVERB EC K: ARE THEY DOING MORE OR LESS7 20 MS. WILLI AMS: IN SOME CASES THEY ARE DOING MORE.
21 WE DIDN'T FIND ANY PROGRAMMATIC TYPE OMISSIONS. AND WHEN WE 22 WENT AND LOOKED AT THE IMPLEMENTATION SIDE AS TO HOW WELL ARE 23 THEY FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES THAT THEY COMMITTED TO, WE FOUND I
24 THAT IN A COUPLE CASES THEY WERE DOING MORE THAN REQUIRED.
25 BELIEVE IN DESIGN VERIFICATION THEY WERE DOING A LITTLE MORE.
26 AND IN SOME CASES, THEY WERE DOING WHAT WAS REQUIRED.
1 27 MR. NORKIN: FINISHED WITH YOUR OVESTION, GARY?
28 YOU WERE REFERRING TO THAT NET POSITIVE SUCTION HEAD sa= se =c eco DOIDGE & CARROLL co**e.coe'.
CtatipiED swontmaNo esponttes t oy,*,',+ , , ,
"use Ma*j,,'.**
seasee
- OEPCsitiON Notam Es 1
74 1 CALCULATION A MINUTE AGO ABOUT AVAILABLC VERSUS REQUIRED, 80 2 VERSUS 3 4, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND YOU MENT IONED THAT YOU 3 DID AN INDEPENDENT CALCULATION IN SOME AREAS WHERE GIBBS S 4 HILL HAD NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CERTAIN FACTORS.
5 AS I RECALL, IN LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL CHECKLIST ITEM, 6 THAT NET POSITIVE SUCTION HEAD CALCULATION, YOU HAD A L.OT OF 7 INFORMATION THERE AND YOU POINTED OUT A LOT OF THINGS THAT --
8 A LOT OF ERRORS -- I 'LL STATE I T, A LOT OF IRREGULARITIES, 9 THINGS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE CALLED INTO QUESTION.
10 BUT THE FINAL AND BOTTOM LINE WAS THAT IT WAS --
11 THEPE WAS -- IT WAS CONSERVATIVE. I'M WONDERING IF THAT --
12 GIVEN THERE WERE A LOT OF ERRORS IN THAT CALCULATION AND MAY 13 HAVE BEEN CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE 14 C OM PONE NT, BUT WHAT DID THAT TELL YOU ABOUT THE CALCULATION IF, 1 ,
15 IN FACT, THINGS WCRKED OUT RIGHT BEC AUS E CF, YOU KNOW, THE 16 PUMP BEING LOCATED AT THE RIGHT ELEVATION, NOT HAVING A REAL
- 17 FRANTIC MARGIN PROBLEM, BUT STILL THE CALCULATION HAD A LOT OF 18 PR DB LEM S.
19 IF YOU HAD LOOKED -- IF SOMEBODY HAD LOOKED AT A NET 20 POSITIVE SUCTION CALCULATION FOR ANOTHER PUMP,' ANOTHER SYSTEM, 21 I T WOUL DN 'T HAVE TUR NE D OUT THAT W AY. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE 22 GENERIC, THE HORIZONTAL ASPECT OF THAT PARTICULAR PORTION OF 23 THE DESIGN PROCESS. ,
24 MS. WILLI AMS: YES.
25 MR. PARIN05: MAY I ADD A SPECIFIC TO THAT. WHEN YOU DETERMINE THE FRICTION LOSSES, WHAT WAS USED7 WAS CRANE 26 I
- ! 27 410 THE STANDARD AT THAT COMPANY, AT GIBBS & HILL 7 28 MR. HESS
- YES.
se= en.=c sco DOIDGE a CARROLL co='s. c o se.
- '* a esso CE RTipitD SMORTMAND ptPORTE RS ******
uiU,Tesee DE POSITION NOTAmit S
75 HS. WILLIAMS: TO ANSWER THE PREVIOUS 00ESTION, YOU 1
2 ARE RIGHT ON TARGET, AND THAT IS A QUESTION THAT WE 'RE 3 WRESTLING WITH RIGHT NOW.
4 REALLY, THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO THAT IS TO SAY WHAT 5 ARE THE PERCENTAGE OF THOSE TYPES OF ERRORS THAT WE 'VE 6 THEIR CALCULATIONS SUCH THAT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE, CYGNA, FEEL 7 ABOUT THE QUALITY LEVEL AND THE COMPLETENESS OF THE 8 CALCULATIONS BEC AUSE ALTHOUGH THE ISOLATED INSTANCE MAY BE 1
TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE FOR, AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT, HANY 9
10 REASONS, WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO EXECUTE AND 11 CONTROL THE CALCULATIONS AND, THEREFORE, HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT 12 THEIR PROGRAM AS A WHOLE.
13 WE MAD THE QA PEOPLE FROM CYGNA GO IN AND LOOK AT THING.
14 THE INPUT CONTROL, CALCULATION CONTROL, AND THIS SORT OF g
15 BUT NOW WE STILL ARE -- HAVE TO TAKE THE ERRORS THAT CAME OUT IS CF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW AND COMPARE THE TWO AND SAY, WELL, 16 17 THEIR PROCEDURE LACKING, ARE THEY FALLING DOWN IN THE 18 EXECUTION OF THE CALCULATIONS, OR ARE THE ERRORS INDICATIVE OF 19 THE F ACT THAT THE VE"RIFIC ATION PROGRAM IS NOT PICKING UP TH 20 KINDS OF ERRORS AND IT SHOULD BE.
21 AND THERE 15 A LITTLE BIT OF JUD GMENT IN THERE 22 BECAUSE YOU ARE DEALING WITH STATISTICS AND NUM6ERS IT
'23 ARE NEVER GOING TO SEE A SET OF CALCULATIONS THAT'S IDEAL.
24 WOULD BE NICE, BUT PR06 ABLY IT 'S NOT REALITY.
25 50 WE'RE TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER A BASIS 50 THAT WHEN 26 YOU PEOPLE READ THE REPORT YOU CAN SAY, OKAY, ! UNDERSTAND t
27 CYGNA'S CRITERIA FOR JUDGING THE CALCULATIONS.
I 28 AND ! ALSO SEE THE INFORMATION THEY WERE DEALING l DOIDGE 4 CARROLL co.... e....
l
- g *y*,',8,',8 CanTipito SuomTwaNo at pomTams c oe'.
' .g.,o "' ' " ' " '
uis.esi asee Depositione NOTARit S i
76 1 WITH WHICH WAS HOW MANY ERRORS, WHAT TYPE OF ER R OR S, AND IT 2 WOULD BE LAID OUT AND TRENDED FOR YOU TMT WAY WITHIN ~ A GI VE N 3 -DESIGN ORGANIZATION SUCH AS GIBBS S HILL .50 YOU CAN ISOLATE IT 4 TO THE ORGANIZATION.
5 THEN YOU CAN LOOK AT CUR CRITERIA, YOU CAN DEB ATE 6 WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH OUR CRITERIA OR NOT, BUT YOU WOULD 7 STILL SEE WHAT THE INFORMATION WAS WE WERE DEALING WITH AND 8 HOW WE TRIED TO,MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY 9 FURTHER PROSLEMS IN OTHER GROUPS BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF THE 10 WORK THAT WE SAW COMING OUT OF A GIVEN GROUP.
11 AND I CEN'T SPECIFIC ALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OTHER 12 THAN TO SAY THAT 'S HOW WE 'RE APPROACHING IT RIGHT NOW. AND 13 THAT's A GOOD QUESTION.
14 HR. HARINOS: WAS THAT THE ONLY SAMPLE OF NPSH t t 15 CALCULATIONS THAT YOU 'OID WITHIN THAT SYSTEH THAT GIVES 16 YOU -- YOU DON'T HAVE - ENOUGH INPUT TO TELL WHETHER THE Y ARE 17 USING THE RIGHT METHODOLOGY OR THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING THINGS ,
18 CORRECTLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE CHECKED OTHER SYSTEMS? YOU HAVE
~
19 NOT CHECKED ANY OTHER NPSH ANYWHERE ELSE7 ,
20 HS. WILLIAMS: NO, WE DIDN'T FIND ANY PROBLENS WITH 21 IT. IF WE'D FOUND -- AND WE DIDN'T FIND TECHNICALLY THAT 22 THERE VAS SOMETHING THA7 CAUSES CONCERN, 50 FROM A TECHNICAL 23 SIDE iF THf' HOUSE, NO, WE DIDN 'T _ PURS UE IT AND ASK TO LOOK AT 24 OTHER C#LCULATIONS- AND OTHER SYSTEMS., 1 25 MAD WE FOUND SIGNIFICANT ERRORS, WE WOULD, HAVE DONE 26 THAT, BUT IT COULD BE THAT WHEM WE FINISH THIS TRENDING '
27 PROCESS I'M TALKING ABOUT, IHAT THE VERDICT IS, WELL, THERE'S 28 A COUPLE OF AREAS WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DATA AND THEN sa= emanc4eco DOIDGE & CARROLL emisi tas sees c a.. .. c o .. .
CERTIFIED SMORTHAND mtpomTERS c os***
istIeYases DEPOSittON NOTamit S ****~'8# '
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .i . _
77 1 WE'LL HAVE TO TALK TO TEXAS ABOUT THAT.
3 SPECIFIC AND THAT IS WITH RESPECT TO THE RUNOFF FLOW, WAS 4 THERE A SPECIFIC CALCULATION TO DETERMINE THE RUNOFF FLOW ON 5 THESE PUMPS 7 6 MR. HESS: THE RUNOUT FLOW THAT YOU SEE QUOTED IN 7 THE CHECKLIST IS BASED ON VENDOR DATA, THE VENDOR PUM P C UR VE 8 AND ATTACHED TEST DATA SHEET WHICH SHOWED A MAX FLOW OF 18- --
9 APPROXIMATELY 18,000 GPM.
10 MR. OVERB EC K: WE GOT A QUESTION ON THAT RIGHT HERE.
11 MR. MARINOS: NEXT QUESTION, QUESTION NUMBER 6 WE 12 ASK FOR THE BREAKDOWN IN PERCENTAGE OF TIME SPENT AT GIBBS S 13 HILL AND AT THE TEXAS UTILITIES' OFFICES AND WESTINGHOUSE AND
- . 14 AT HOM E OF F IC E.
, 15 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY. WE DID NO WORK IN THE l
16 WESTINGHOUSE OFFICES FOR PHASE 4. THE ONLY* TIME WE SENT 17 ANYONE TO WESTINGHOUSE OFFICE WAS FOR EOUIPMENT QUALIFICATION 18 ON PHASE 2. TUGCO'S OFF ICES WE DEF INE AS DALLAS OFF ICES AND 19 IN THE TECHNIC AL ARE'A THEY DIDN'T PERFORM ANY OF THE 20 CALCULATIONS THERE, 50 WE DID NOT SEND TECHNICAL PEOPLE THERE 21 ALTHOUGH QA PEOPLE WENT THERE.
22 AT GISBS S HILL PROBABLY ABOUT 35 PERCENT, I'M 23 SPEAKING BOTH FOR MECHANICAL AND ELECTRIC AL. AT COMANCHE PE AK 24 WHICH WAS FOR DATA COLLECTION AND SUBSEQUENT WALKDOWNS, ABOUT 25 7 PERCENT.
26 AND HOME OFFICE, MEANING CYGNA, WHICH IS WHEN WE l 27 CAME BACK AND WERE ASSIMILATING THE DATA, DOC UME NT IN G I T, 28 REVIEWING THE OBSERVATIONS, FOLLOWING UP WITH TELEPHONE
.. . ...c c o polDGE & CARROLL co .. cos,.
- n,".'
" '7.. '.'.*.
caatmao sao=Tmano memoattsas osposmow Notanits
,, , ,c o,p, , , , ,
i
--..-. ._ ..__ =-._ -
l
\
78 1 CONVERSATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS WITH GIBBS S HILL b- 2 PERSONNEL, ABOUT 58 PERCENT.
3 MR. NORKIN: REALLY THE 58 AND THE 35 ESSENTIALLY 4 RE PRESENT INTERACTION SETWEEN GIBBS S HILL AND CYGNA, WHETHER 5 IT BE HERE OR AT THE GISBS S HILL OFFICES? 1 6 MS. WILLI AMS: THAT 'S TRUE. .
7 MR. MARINOS: 50 THE 7 PERCENT INCLUDES TEXAS 8 UTILITIES ' OFF ICES AND $ !TE OR YOU HAVE NO S ITE --
9 MS. WILLIAMS: NO, THAT'S ALL SITE. ALL TUGCO IS 10 S ITE AT COMANCHE PEAK, YES. WE DID NOT GO TO THE DALLAS 11 OFFICES FOR TECHNIC AL. 50 THERE'S THREE PLACES, GIBBS S HILL, 12 COMANCHE PEAK, AND CYGNA HOME OFF ICES.
13 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION NUMBER 7, I GUESS WE HAVE TOUCHED ON ALREADY, BUT WE WANT TO RESTATE IT? YOU'VE HAD
- 14 15 ENOUGH --
16 MR. OVERBECK: I GUESS WE KNOW THE ANSWER. WE KNOW 17 WNAT ANSI N4 5. 2.11 DOCUMENT THEY USED. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING 18 ELSE TO ADD TO THAT7 19 MS. WILLIAMS: YE S, I THINK JUST ONE THING. WE 20 CHECKED FOR -- SPECIFICALLY FROM A QA PAPER WORK PROCEDURAL 21 STANDPOINT, WE SPECIFIC ALLY LOOKED AT DESIGN CHANGE CONTROL, 22 DESIGN ANALYSIS CONTROL, DESIGN VERIFICATION, DESIGN INPUT, 23 AND INTERF ACE CONTROL. ,
I 24 NOW, IF YOU PICK UP ANSI N45.2.11, YOU WILL SEE 5 ;
25 OTHER ATTRIBUTES DEPENDING HOW YOU SLICE THAT DOCUMENT UP.
26 SO IF YOU WERE TO DO A FULL IMPLEMENTATION
! 27 EVALUATION OF ANSI N4 5. 2.11, YOU WOULD HAVE THINGS LIKE 28 DOCUMENT CONTROL. ALTHOUGH WE DID GET INTO DOCUMENT CONTROL,
- = *aa c'ac o ooicot a cAmmoLL e ........
- *[.'j,*o*
o
- CERTIFIED SHORTMAND REPORTERS , Cog',',,,
sa i s, as e-ssee OE POSITION NOTA RIE S
79 THESE CALCULATIONS.
' 1 SUT WE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY LOOK AT IT FOR
(' 2 50 THE QA SIDE OF OUR REVIEW WAS FROM AN IMPLEMENTATION ,
STANDPOINT, THOSE 5 ASPECTS OF 2.11. OKAY.
3 15 DO THEY FROM A PROGRAMMATIC STANDPO!NT, WHICH 4 l 5
HAVE A PROGRAM IN PLACE TO COMPLY WITH 2.11, WE DID IT ACROSS 6 THE BOARD.
7 50, IN ONE CASE WE'RE ASKING WHETHER THEY HAVE THE 2.11 AND 8 PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO COMPLY WITH ALL ASPECTS OF THAT WE DID FOR TUGCO, FOR GIBBS S HILL, AND FOR THE TWO PI PE 9
WHEN IT COMES T0, ARE THEY 10 SUPPORT DESIGN ORGANIZATIONS.
' 11 FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES, THEN WE FOCUSED ON 5 AREAS IN 2.11.
AND THAT WAS, AGAIN, NOT A SELECTION FROM A 12 13 TECHNICAL STANDPOINT. THAT WAS A SPECIFIC SCOPE LAID DOWN i . 14 BEFORE WE STARTED THE REVIEWS FROM A QA STANDPOINT.
x MR. NEVSHEHAL: WITH RESPECT TO THESE CALCULATIONS, 15 MAY I JUST ASK A SPECIFIC. WHAT DID YOU SEE AS FAR AS A 16 17 'S IGN-OFF SHEET IS CONCERNED OR INDIVIDUAL SHEETS, WHAT USING, 18 METHODOLOGY ARE THEY' USING OR WHAT PROCEDURES ARE THEY 4
19 ARE ALL THE SHEETS SIGNED OFF BY THE PREPARER, CHECKER, 20 VER IF I ER, WHAT IS THEIR APPROACH 7 21 MS. WILLI AMS: THEY USE THE REVIEW OPTION FOR DOING 22 THEIR DESIGN VERIFICATION AS OPPOSED TO ALTERNATE CA 23 THEY ARE DOING A HUNDRED PERCENT INDEPENDENT REVIEW IN IS ATTACHED TO OR 24 FORM OF DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKLIST WHICH 25 FILED WITH SOMEHOW THE CALCULATIONS, AND THEN THE CALCULATIONS l
4 26 ARE EACH SIGNED BY A PREPARER AND CHECKER.
MR. NEVSHEMAL: EVERY SHEET 7 4 27 MS. WILLIAMS: IN ALL THE ONES THAT I S/>W .
28 cos,.. c a...
DOIDGE & CARROLL co=***
Q',*ycgo
,, ,, cEntistED SHORTHAND REPOntEns ''''''
ieise esi.ssee DEPOSITION NOTARIES
,, - _ . _ . , . , - - - _ _ _ , _ . . , . - - , . . . . - - . . . . --n-
80 1 MR. OVERBECK: IS THE DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKLIST 2 REFLECT THE ANSI N4 5.2.11, IS THAT THE BASIS 7 3 MS. WILLIAMS: YE S , IT DID. YE S . l IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN THERE THAT YOU l 4 MR. CALVO: l 5 MAY WANT TO PUT ON THE TABLE THAT BOTHERS YOU ABOUT ANSI 6 N45.2.11 IN ADDITION TO THIS?
7 MR. OVERBECK: I GUESS WE WOULD BE CONCERNED IF THEY 8 WEREN 'T US ING THE ANS I N4 5. 2.11.
9 MS. WILLIAMS: 1 THINK FROM YOUR STANDPOINT TODAY AS 10 FAR AS WANTING TO KNOW HOW THE TECHNICAL WORK WAS CONTROLLED, 11 WE LOOKED AT THE PARTS OF 2.11 THAT ARE NECESSARY TO CONTROL 12 CALCULATIONS, 50 I HOPE I DIDN'T CONFUSE THAT WHEN I ADOED THE 13 OTHER ELEMENTS IN.
i 14 MR. OVERB ECK: A LITTLE BIT. I MEAN, 1 DON'T KNOW o
15 HOW CAN SEPARATE ASPECTS OF ANSI -- ATTR IBUTES OF ANSI 16 N45.2.11. I WOULD HAVE HOPED OR AT LEAST MAYBE HAVE, WE'LL 17 SEE I T, IS THAT WHEN YOU CAME ACROSS A DESIGN CONTROL PROBLEH, 18 FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU WERE AT GISBS S HILL AND YOU WERE 19 LOOKING AT A ST ICK FILE, IF YOU DIDN'T EXAMINE WHETHER THOSE 20 DOCUMENTS WERE THE LATEST DOCUMENTS, THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT 21 YOU WERE LOOKING AT7 DKAY, WE DID THOSE KINDS DF 08 VIOUS l 22 MS. WILLIAMS:
IS 23 THINGS, BUT WHAT WE WOULD DO IS GO. DOWN TO THE SOURCE WHICH 24 DCC TO GET ALL OF THE CONTROL DOCUMENTS AND WE ACTED AS A USER IN F AC T, 25 TO THE SYSTEM TO EXTRACT THE CONTROL DOCUMENTS AND, 26 WE DID DO A REVIEW USING OUR QA PERSONNEL TO ASSESS HOW GOOD 4 27 THAT DOCUMENT CONTROL SYSTEM W AS, 50. . .
28 MR. OVERB ECK: TYPICALLY, ENGINEERS HAVE NICE LITTLE
- a= ' = a***co DOIDGE & CARROLL co.,..co... i l
tow =*
CERTIFito suomTHAND #E PomTgns
"'a :':'"' * .. oc, osmo ~ ~of...is l
81
' 1 FILE DRAWERS WHERE THEY HAVE GOT THEIR OWN LITTLE' DRAWINGS.
($. AND IF YOU DON'T GET DOWN TO THE WORKING LEVEL, SOMET IMES YOU 2
3 HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW THE PROCESS WORKS, REALLY.
RIGHT, I AGREE. WELL, THAT ' S WHY WE 4 MS. WILLI AMS:
5 WENT TO TEST HOW GOOD THE GIB85 E HILL WORK WAS, USING WHAT WE 6 WERE GIVEN AS THE LATEST DOCUMENTS. IF THE IR WORK DIDN 'T 7 ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE CONTROL DOCUMENTS THAT WE KNEW HAVING 8 GONE TO THE SOURCE THAT CONTROLS DOCUMENTS WERE THE RIGHT SET 9 OF DOC UMENT S, THEN WE WOULD HAVE SAID, WELL, YOU GUYS HAVE 10 S OME SORT OF PROBLEM HERE AND WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO INVESTIGATE 11 IT FURTHER.
12 MR. CALVO: ALSO ON YOUR CHECKLIST OBSERVATION YOU 13 INDICATE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT GARY IS BRINGING UP, THE 14 F ACT THAT SOME OF THE INPUT, THAT INPUT WAS NOT QUITE READILY i .
AVAILABLE, SOMEBODY ELSE NOT CONTROLLING THE DOCUMENTS. I 15 16 THINK YOU HIGHLIGHTED THAT ONE ONE OF THE THINGS YOU REQUIRED 17 FULL EVALUATION ON YOUR PART.
18 MS. WILLIAMS: YES, WE DID CITE ALL THE THINGS THAT 19 ARE CRITICAL TO CONTROLLING AN ANALYSIS WHICH I THINK 15 W HA T 20 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. AND, SEE, WHEN I TALK IN ANSI 21 N4 5. 2.11 TERMS, IF I PUT ON MY QA HAT, DESIGN ANALYSIS CONTROL 22 IS ONLY ONE ASPECT OF 211. THAT'S ALL l'M SAYING.
23 MR. STUART. I THINK, HEARING YOUR QUESTIONS, I 24 THINK THERE'S SOMETHING ON THE TABLE HERE I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
25 NA NC Y, IT 'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WENT THROUGH 26 AND THOSE DEPARTMENTS THAT WE DID THE REVIEW OR ANALYSIS YOU
! 27 BASICALLY REVIEWED THOSE ASPECTS OF N4 5.2.11 THAT WERE 28 APPLICABLE WITHIN THAT DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS DOING AN OVERALL sa= esa=croco DOIDGE e CARROLL sa c
- 'N',8*"'
CEmTirito SwoninANo espomTEns DEpollTsON NOTamitS cow'o' , =} , costa saisi es o ssee l
l I
82 1 PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT INTERFACES WITH OTHER 2 DEPARTMENTS WERE SATISFIED.
3 50, FOR INS TANC E, THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU CITED WHICH 4 IS AN ENGINEER WITH DESIGN DOCUMENTS 51TTING IN HIS FILE 5 DRAWER, WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED IF, IN FACT -- IF THAT WAS THE 6 APPROVED STORAGE LOCATION WHICH I KIND OF 0006T THAT I T. W A S, 7 IN AN A/E'S OFFICE. AM I CORRECT 7 8 MS. WILLI AMS: YES, ONLY IT WASN 'T A PR OB LEH, SO WE 9 DIDN'T END UP INVESTIGATING.
10 MR. STUART: MY POINT I S, THE WAY THE QUESTION WAS 11 ASKED, IT WAS ASKED AS THOUGH THERE WAS A PR06LEM THAT WE 12 DIDN'T -- THAT WE WOULDN'T FIND GOING INTO THE DEPARTMENT 13 LOOKING AT DOCUMENT CONTROL AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.
, 14 WHAT WE WOULDN 'T LOOK AT IN THIS REVIEW IS TO GO 15 OVER TO THE DOCUMENT CONTROL CENTER AND REVIEW WHETHER, IN 16 FACT, THEY'RE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL OF THE VARIOUS ASPECTS J
17 0F N45.2.11 IN THE DOCUMENT CONTROL CENTER AWAY FROM THE 18 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING OR ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT.
19 MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, WE REALLY DID 00 THAT.
20 MR. STUART: OKAY. WELL, 1 THINK YOU OUGHT TO 1
21 CLARIFY THAT POINT BECAUSE I THINK THAT WHERE THOSE INTERF ACES 22 DID OCCUR, I BELIEVE YOU CHASED THEM DOWN TO THE EXTENT "23 NEC ESSA RY TO -- .
l 24 MS. WILLIAMS: TO ASSURE THAT ALL THE RIGHTS 25 DOCUMENTS WERE BEING USED, YES.
26 MR. STUA RT: LET ME SAY ONE MORE THING ABOUT WHAT WE k 27 DIDN'T 00, OKAY. BUT WE DIDN'T THEN -- IF YOU DIDN'T REVIEW 28 THEM, ALL SECTIONS OF 45.2.11, YOU D I DN 'T THE N DO A DE TA I LE D i l
- **, '",'*C;jl,8 DOIDGE & CARROLL go.,,.......
casueeo CEnflFIED SHOmTMAND REPomf tms t ow**
- seiss es e.ssee OEPOSITION NOTAmit s '8 '88''
83 1 REVIEW OF DESIGN CONTROL -- OR EXCUSE ME -- DOCUM'ENT CONTROL 2 AND VARIOUS OTHER ASPECTS OF 4 5. 2.11 T HAT DI DN ' T FALL W I TH IN 3 THAT AREA, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL. OT HERW IS E, IT WOULD HAVE 4 SEEN IN YOUR PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW.
MS. WILLIAMS: WE'RE CONFUSING TERMS HERE. SHOULD I 5
IT'S NOT 6 TAKE 5 MINUTES TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE TERMS OF THIS?
7 QUITE ON TARGET YET OR NOT.
8 MR. CALVO: PLEASE.
9 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY. WHEN WE START OUT TO DEFINE ,
10 THE SCOPE, WE HAVE TECHNICAL REVIEWS WHICH WE DEFINE HARDWARE 11 REVIEW SCOPE FOR, AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE CONDUCTING 12 DESIGN CONTROL, WE'LL CALL THEM QA TYPE REVIEWS.
13 NOW, WHEN WE WERE SELECTING THE SCOPE FOR THE
, 14 TECHNICAL, WE WOULD CONSIDER WHAT ASPECTS OF THE SYSTEH WERE 15 NECESSARY, POW MANY PIPE SUPPORTS THEY WANT US TO REVIEW OR 16 WHATEVER THE CRITERI A WAS AND SO A HARDWARE SCOPE WAS SET.
17 THEN, IN PARALLEL TO THAT, WE WERE ALSO FORMULATING 18 A TE AM OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL WHO WERE GOING IN AND, 19 NUMBER ONE, ASKING NHETHER THEIR PROGRAMS COMPLIED WITH THEIR 20 LICENSING COMMITMENTS, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS ANSI N45.2.11.
21 NOW, THAT'S GOING ON IN PARALLEL TO THIS TECHNICAL EFFORT THAT 22 WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
'23 THEN WE TAKE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE GISBS S HILL 24 PROGRAM AND OF THE TEXAS UTILITIES PROGRAM AND THE PIPE 25 SUPPORT DESIGN ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS AND WE ASSESS HOW WELL 26 THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE ALREADY j 27 DETERMINED TO BE ADEQUATE IN THE SENSE THAT THEY COVER ALL 28 ASPECTS OF A DESIGN CONTROL PROGRAM THAT'S REQUIRED.
e a,ge ,sc,o DOIDGE & CARROLL c o., . . c ,, .
CEntipetD SMORTHAND REPORTgns c oe'
- ommu=o '88
saisi ese spee OE POSITION NOT Amit 3
84 i
W'E GO THROUGH AND CHECK WHETHER THEY ARE DOING THE l 1 ,
WE TAKE 2
bCRIFICATIONS, WHAT KIND OF HETHODS DO THEY USE.
3 EVERY CALCULATION THAT OUR TECHNIC AL PEOPLE ARE USING FOR 4
THEIR REVIEW SCOPE, THEIR HARDWARE REVIEW SCOPE, AND WE SEND 5 OUR QA PE OPLE IN TO ASSESS HOW WELL ALL THE CONTROL ASSOCI ATED 50 WE DO GO IN 6 WITH THOSE CALCULATIONS IS BEING PERFORMED.
l'S AND 7 AND CHECK WHETHER THEY'RE LITERALLY DOTTING THE 8 CROS$1NG THE T'S AND $1GNING THEM OFF.
9 SUT NOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO TAKE THE QA REVIEW 10 TRENDS THAT WE SAW AND THEN TAKE ALL THE TECHNICAL DAT 11 WE HAVE COMING OUT OF THE TECHNIC AL REVIEWS AND SAY, OKAY, WE 12 KEEP SEEING THIS PROBLEM WITH THE FACT THAT THEY ARE 13 SOME SYSTEMATIC TYPE ERROR THROUGH ALL THE CALCULATIONS IN
. 14 THIS ONE GROUP.
AND 1 SAY, 15 AND I GO OVER TO MY QA REVIEW RESULTS.
WELL, THEY GOT A PROCEDURE IN PLACE. 50 YOU MIGHT NOT CATCH 16 17 THAT UNTIL YOU PUT THE TWO TOGETHER AND YOU PUT THE TWO TOGETHER.
AND YOU SAY, THE PROCEDURE IS PRETTY WEAK OR HAYBE 18 19 THEY'RE JUST NOT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES.
20 8UT WE DIDN'T SEND THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE IN TO ASK 21 THE DESIGN CONTROL QUESTIONS. I WANTED A OA PERSON WHO 22 UNDERSTOOD 2.11 TO GO IN AND CHECK THE SAME DOCUMENTS T
'3 2
TECHNICAL PEOPLE WERE USING AS THE,lR HARDW ARE SCOPE TO ASSESS 24 HOW WELL THEY'RE BEING CONTROLLED.
25 AND WE TOOK THAT ALL THE WAY FROM THE DOCUMENT 26 CONTROL CENTER WHERE THE DDCUMENTS SHOULD BE O f 27 THEY ARE THE CONTROLLED SET AND THAT IS WHAT'S BEING ISSUED T 28 THE F IELD AND THAT IS WHAT THE CONSTRUCTORS ARE USING.
s== e .=e see ooioot a cAnnou. ...,,.......
Cove'
'** " " CtatlPsED SMQatMAND REPORTERS "'''''
sei eNases DE*0SitlON 'vot ARIE S
(
85 1 AND WE MADE SURE, THEN, THAT IT FLOWED ALL THE WAY 2 THROUGH THE CALCULATIONS INCLUDING THE CONTROL OF THE 3 C ALC ULA TIONS .
4 AND TO DO THAT, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT EVERY ASPECT 5 OF ANSI N45. 2.11 AND PERHAPS l'M GETTING A LITTLE TOO DETAILED 6 BY TRYING TO SPLIT HAIRS AND SAY WE REALLY DIDN'T DO ALL 7 ASPECTS OF IT. WE DID FROM A PROGRAMMATIC STANDPOINT, BUT AS 8 IT PERTAINS TO CONTROLLING THE HARDWARE WORK THAT WE'RE 9 LOOKING AT, THERE'S CERTAIN KEY ELEMENTS IN 2.11 kE LOOK AT 10 AND, YES, WE DID LOOK A THEM.
11 MR. MARINOS: YOU USED THIS PROCESS FDR PHASE 4 ALSO7 12 MS. WILLIAMS: YES, WE DID.
13 MR. CALV0: ONE THING THAT YOU GUYS FOUND THAT QA 1 .
14 COULD DO WITH THE DESIGN INPUTS, SOMETIMES YOU FOUND IT WAS 15 NOT PROPERLY JUSTIFIED. YOU COMMENT THAT IT WAS IN THE 16 ENGINEER'S DESK, YOU KNOW, LEFT DRAWER AND IT WAS A PR OB LEM 17 FINDING THAT.
18 MR. OVER8ECK: ENGINEERING JUDGMENTS THAT ARE NOT 19 DOCUMENTED ARE ALWAYS A PROBLEM.
20 MR. CALV0: 50 HAVE YOU FOUND THAT IN YOUR REVIEW IN 21 THE COMPONENT CDOLING WATER SYSTEM 7 22 MS. WILLIAMS: YE S . WHAT WE ASKED THE TECHNICAL 23 REVIEWERS TO DO IN PARALLEL TO DOING THE DESIGN INPUT CONTROL 24 R EVI EW, FROM A 0A STANDPOINT REALLY ALL YOU CAN GET GUT OF 25 THAT IS ARE THEY SHOWING INPUTS, BUT THE QA PEOPLE CAN'T TELL 26 IF THEY ARE THE RIGHT INPUTS.
I 27 50 WHAT YOU D0 is YOU ASK YOUR TECHNICAL PEOPLE TO 28 NOTE WHETHER THEY AGREE WITH ALL THE INPUTS AND ALSO NOTE sa= *eaa.c'oco DOiDGE e CARROLL seite saa e+ee e CEntipitD SHOmfMAND atPOmites c o='ov.
C =" c os's saiN's'see DEPOtitlON NOTAmig 3 '*'* ' " '
86 1 WHETHER THERE'S ANY MISSING INPUTS. AND THAT INF ORM AT ION IS 2 IN THE DATA BASIS, OA INF ORMATION IS IN THE DATA BASIS AND 3 THEN YOU CAN JUDGE WHETHER THE PROCESS --
4 MR. CALV0: 50 YOU FOUND SOME OF THOSE THINGS.
5 MS. WILLIAMS: YES, WE DI D, ABSOLUTELY, AND SO NOW 6 WE'RE PUTTING IT TOGETHER.
7 MR. MARINOS: YOUR CHECKLIST IS NOT REFLECTING MUCH 8 OF T HA T.
9 MS. WILLI AMS: THAT'S CORRECT.
10 MR. MARINOS: YOU HAVE THAT SOMEPLACE ELSE, T HAT 11 INFORMATION ABOUT THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE QA AND THE 12 TECHNICAL STAFF 7 13 MS. WILLIAMS: YE S, THIS IS THE DATA BASE WHICH IS
. 14 OUR TOOL TO SORT ALL THIS INF ORMATION OUT. AND WE'RE DOING IT IS ACROSS ALL FOUR PH A S ES . WE'RE NOT JUST DOING IT WITHIN PHASE 16 4, WHICH IS WHY IT 'S BE ING DONE NOW AND NOT AS PART OF THE 17 INDIVIDUAL PHASES.
18 MR. MARINOS: YOU IDENTIFIED THAT, IF ! REMEMBER 19 CORRECTLY, ON ONE OF THOSE GENERIC DEFICIENCY LISTS SUBMITTED 20 TO THE NRC.
21 MS. WILLIAMS: THAT'S CORRECT, IN THE DESIGN CONTROL 22 AREA.
23 MR. MARINOS: WE CAN BREAK HERE FOR LUNCH, I THINK.
24 COME B ACK AT 1: 00 0' CLOCK 7 25 l
26 1 27 28
... ....c sc o ooioot a cammoLL co ..... ..
"',j',"' contiairO sacatwa~o maaOatsas ,, , ,c o,-; ,' , , , j use,esi.ssee OtaOssitON NOtanitS l
87
' 1 AFTERNOON SESSION - 1:15 P.M.
4 MR. MARINOS: OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO QUESTION 3 NUMB ER 8, ! GUESS. WHERE IS JOHN 7 MR. OVERBECK: HE IS NOT HERE. HE IS NOT HERE.
6 7 MR. MARINOS: WELL, ! GUESS YOU CAN AMPLIFY THIS NUMB ER B, WE ASK FOR YOU TO DESCRIBE THE 8 QUESTION.
9 CORRECTNESS OF THE CALCULATIONAL METHODOLOGY ASCERTAINED, 10 PARENTHESES, YOU SAY RUNOUT FLOW AND NPSH, S UB R, WHATEVER THE 11 AREA YOU WANT TO CLARIFY OR AMPLIFY.
12 MR. OVERBECK: ! THINK WE DISCUSSED THl$ IN THE 13 PREVIOUS QUESTION THAT YOU'VE USED, THAT IN YOUR REVIEW OF 1 14 CALCULATIONS, YOU DID LOOK AT METHODOLOGY AND YOU USED 15 INDUSTRI AL DOCUMENTS, HANDBOOKS, I SHOULD SAY, HYDRAULIC I GUESS, DOES 16 INST ITUTE DOC UMENTS, TO CHECK THE EQUATIONS.
i GIBBS & HILL HAVE ENGINEERING DESIGN GUIDELINES PUBLISHED FOR 17 a
i 18 THEIR USE BY THEIR ENGINEER $7 19 MR. FOLEY: WE DIDN'T REVIEW THEM.
MS. WILLI AMS: WELL, WE 01D REVIEW THEM IN THE SENSE 20 I KNOW THA T 21 THAT THEY GO WITH THE DESIGN PROCESS FLOW CHARTS.
- I 22 THEY HAD THEM IN PIPE STRESS AND I'VE LOOKED AT THOSE.
13 HAVEN'T LOOKED AT MECHANICAL, THE INDICES ON THEM, 50 I DON'T 24 KNOW IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT YET OR NOT.
I 25 MR. HESS: I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE --
26 MS. WILLI AMS: THAT'S THE HORIZONTAL CUT AT
! 27 EXTR APOLATING INF ORM AT ION, HOW DETAILED THEY ARE IN TERMS OF WE'RE PROSABLY TWU WEEKS 28 EACH OF THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT AREAS.
i sa=*e. c.sco DO'OGE & CARROLL co% e.coe's f
'* 'y, * 'j' cgatipigD SMontMANO mtpomism5 OgpollTION NOTamit 3
,,,,88,***',,,
sees.ese.ssee
88 1 AWAY FROM GETTING THOSE FROM G!BBS S HILL.
( AS PART OF THE SPECIF IC MECHANICAL AND 2 MR. FOLEY:
3 TECHNICAL REVIEW, WE DID NOT REVIEW ENGINEERING PROCEDURES 4 PROVIDED INSTRUCTION ON MOW TO PROVIDE -- MOW TO FORM 5 CALCULATIONS OR ANYTHING.
6 MS. WILLIAMS: S UT IT'S BEING DONE AS PART OF. THE 7 REVIEW SCOPE, ULTIMATELY SPEAKING.
8 MR. OVERBECK: WELL, IN THE REVIEW OF THE CHECKLIST, 9 I SAW NO AREAS WHERE YOU FELT THE METHODOLOGY WAS AN INCORRECT 10 METHODOLOGY.
11 MR. HESS: THAT 'S CORR ECT.
12 MR. MARINOS: WE CAN JUMP TO THE ELECTRICAL 13 QUESTIONS.
14 MR. OVERB EC K: THAT MIGHT BE THE SHARTEST THING TO 15 DO. WE 'LL GO TO THE ELECTRICAL QUESTIONS AND THEN COME B ACK.
16 MR. MARINOS: WE'LL GO TO THE ELECTRIC AL QUESTIONS.
17 AND THE QUESTIONS ARE FORMULATED, THEY 'RE NUMBERED HERE 18 ACCORDING TO THE CHECKLIST.
19 AND THEY MAVE THE SAME NUMBER AND SUB NUMBER, !
20 GUESS NUMBER AND LETTER, 50 THE NUMBER 1 QUESTION -- CORRECT 21 ME IF I'M WRONG, GEORGE -- IT REFERS TO THE FIRST CHECKLIST 22 ITEM.
'23 MR. MORR IS : YE S , THAT 'S, CORRECT.
24 MR. MARINOS: AND ITEM "A" OF THE FIRST CHECKLIST 25 ITEM IN VOLTAGE, THERE WAS VOLTAGE AT MOTOR REVIEWED OR AT THE 1 1
- 26 BUS.
I 27 MR. MARTIN: WHAT WE DID FOR THE VOLTAGE REVIEW, !
28 GUESS THE ANSWER I S, IT WAS REVIEWED AT THE SWITCHGEAR BUS.
poiDot a cAmmoLL ..,...e....
- y,'.*,*,gc;;e,o CtatiPIED SMontM AND mtpomit pS c os=**
.43 6 e sa s i t t sait. as e sses DEPOSITION Notants S
8
, 1 WE REVIEWED THOSE SYSTEM TO ASSURE THAT OFF-SITE -- B ASIC A:
('
2 OUR SYSTEM VOLTAGE CALC WERE ADEQUATE VOLTAGE, LOW GRID 3
VOLTAGE AND HIGH GRID VOLTAGE ON-SITE POWER AND THEN THAT 4
CALCULATION GAVE US THE VOLTAGE LEVEL OF THE BUS 69KV 5 SW ITCHGE A R.
6 THE REPORTER: SORRY, ! CAN'T HEAR YOU.
7 MR. MARTIN: THAT CALCULATION GAVE US THE VOLTAGE 8 THE 69 KV SWITCHGEAR.
9 MR. MORRIS: YOU SAID YOU DID IT FOR SOTH THE 10 0FF-SITE AS WELL AS THE ON-SITE?
11 MR. KNOX:
THEY BOTH WERE INCLUDED IN THE SANE --
12 MR. MORR I5: THERE IS TWO OFF-5ITE CIRCUITS.
13 MR. KNOX: ! MEAN BOTH OFF-SITE, THE PREFERRED AN 14 A L TER NA TE.
15 MR. MARINOS: WHAT O!D YOU LOOK AT, HI5TORICAL DA' 16 PROFILES COLLECTED OVER THE YEARS FOR THE OFF-SITE POWEROR 17 JUST ONE INS TA NC E --
18 MR. MARTIN: FOR THAT VOLTAGE LEVEL 7 19 MR. MARINOS: YES.
20 MR. MARTIN: THE Y, A5 AN INPUT THE IR S YSTEN HI GH A 21 LOW VOLTAGES AS A REFERENCE AND INPUT TO THE CALCULATION 80 22 345 KV AND 138 KV CIRCUITS.
23 MR. MORRIS: HOW DID THAT INFORMATION GET TO G!885 24 HILL 7 25 MR. MARTIN: WE REVIEWED THAT AS BASI,C ALLY BEING At 26 INPUT CALCULATION. WE DIDN'T LOOK IN IT FARTHER THAN THAT.
28 MR. MARTIN: I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CALC TO SEE oo,oas e e*==ott g: ;,+; c a .r .. o ..o v..~o . .o., .. .. ... .....
on.o.a.o~ ~or .... ,,..,.,p,,,
90 i
1 E XAC TLY W HA T --
/
N- 2 MS. WILLIAMS: DO WE HAVE THA T DOC UM ENT 7 15 THAT 3 ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE'VE RECEIVED THAT WE CAN CHECK?
4 MR. MARTIN: I BELIEVE IT IS. WE'RE GETTING INTO 5 THE SECOND QUESTION HERE ALREADY.
6 MR. MDRRIS: YOU TOOK THOSE INPUTS, OR YOU LOOKED 7 THOSE AS INPUTS TO YOUR CALCULATION. YOU DIDN 'T TR Y TO VER I 8 IT7 9 MR. MARTIN: NO, WE DI DN'T TRY TO VER IF Y THEM. WE 10 JUST VER IF IED THE -- TDOK THE 45 KV, STARTED FROM A LOW
't 11 VOLTAGE LEVEL AND THEY ANALYZED FOR A HIGH VOLTAGE LEVEL CAS j
12 AND S AME F OR 138.
13 MR. MARINOS: 50 YOU CHECKED WHETHER THEY CALCULAT
, 14 THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM CONDITIONS?
15 MR. FOLEY: DID YOUR CALCULATIONS GO THROUGH A 16 NORMAL CONFIGURATION OR SOME TYPE 7 17 MR. MARTIN: TH15 CALCULATION GOES THROUGH NUMEROU 18 CASES. I FORGET JUST HOW MANY WE REVIEWED FOR THE WORST CAS 19 LOW VOLTAGE THAT THEY IDENTIFIED AS BEING ON A NON KV BUS AN 20 WORST CASE HIGH VOLTAGE.
21 MR. KNOX: TO GET THE WDRST C ASE, WAS THAT THE WOR 22 CASE CONFIGURATION 7 23 MR. MAGGIO: WHA T DO YOU ME AN B Y WOR S T C A S E 24 CONF I GURAT ION 7 25 MR. KNOX: IT WAS A NUMBER OF ALL DIFFERENT 26 SITUATIONS. WE LOSE ONE OFF-SITE SOURCE, . LOADS TRANSF ERRED g ( 27 A NOTHER SOURCE.
28 MR. MARTIN: THE CALC WENT THROUGH A NUMBER OF saw esa=4 sco DOIDGE & CAmmoLL g o.,, . . g , . .
Ctatspit0 SMontaaND Rtponttet t ow=
- '["',,*a,'s*s*
sais es - e D8 8086110% Nota mig s '88"**
91 e 1 51TUAT10NS WHERE ONE OFF-SITE SOURCE !$ LOST WITH THE DESIGN ,
' f 2 BASE ACCIDENT. THEY HAD A CASE WHERE IT WAS STARTING UP j 3 ASSUMING LOS$ OF POWER AND LOADING SEQUENTIAL, A BLACKOUT. I 4 MS. WILLI AM5: AND WE CHECKED ALL OF THESE SCENAR!
5 !$ THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, TOM, OR DID WE PICK THE WORST 6 CASE 7 7 MR. MARTIN: WE WENT THROUGH THERE AND VERIFIED TF 8 A NUMBER OF CASE 5 --
9 MR. MARINOS: LET'S SEPARATE. WE WANT TO TALK ABC 4
10 THE OFF-SITE AND THE ON-51TE. YOU SAID THAT WE HAD A 11 517UAT10N WHERE IT HAPPENED THERE WAS A LOSS OF POWER. WE 12 WANT TO ESTA8LISH MINIMUMS AND MAXIMUMS THAT THEY USED FOR 13 CALCULATING VARIOUS COMPONENT NEEDS AND WANT MINIMUM AND 14 MAXIMUM CONDITIONS OF THE OFF-SITE POWER AND THEN WE CAN TAL
( ,
15 AB OUT THE ON-S ITE POWER.
16 MR. KNOX: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OFF-S ITE RIGHT NOW, 17 STRICTLY OFF-SITE.
18 MS. WILLIAMS: IT WAS IN THE SAME CALCULATION, 19 THOUGH.
20 MR. MARTIN: NO.
I 21 MS. WILLIAMS: O KA Y, l'M SORRY.
22 MR. KN0X: 50 WAS THE CONF IGURATION CON 5 f DERED WHE 23 YOU HAVE DB A, DE51GN BASIS ACCIDENT,
- CNE UNIT, 5AY, SHUTDOWN i
24 AND THE OTHER UNIT ONE OFF-S f f E, SUPPLYING ALL THE LOADS FRC 25 130 KV TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND THE F5AR THEY TALKED ABOUT A 26 PERCENT OR THE 42 PERCENT, ON THAT ORDER, CVERLOAD OF THE
! 27 TRANSFORMER. WAS THAT CONDITION -- THAT, TO ME, SOUNDS LIK!
28 THE WORST CASE CONDIT10N. WAS THAT THE CONDIT10N YOU LOOKEC
... .. ..c . . e e ooioor a cAmmoLL . ...e....
a'******** ** "
centmoo saoataaso assontaas
, l .1'.'... os sosmoa. wota a'a s *''"'"'
t 1
AT OR WAS THAT CONSIDERED?
s 2 MR. MARTIN: WELL, ! GUESS WHAT WE'RE SAYING 15 3 REVIEWED THE CALC TO ENSURE OURSELVES THAT A NUMBER OF 4
DI F F ER E NT C A S E5 -- R I GHT NOW, I CAN'T SAY ALL THE SPECIFIC 5
THE TABLE ARE EXACTLY WHICH CALCS WE LOOKED AT. IT'S BEEN 6 LENGTH OF TIME.
7 BUT WE DID TRY TO -- IS GAIN CONF IDENCE THAT THE 8
HAD LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CASES AND IT WOULD 9
PR06 ABLY BE A REASONABLE VOLTAGE TO EXPECT AT THAT BUS.
10 MR. MORR IS: DID YOU PERSONALLY LOOK AT THE 11 CALCULATION OR DID SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE GROUP 7 12 MR. MARTIN: I BELIEVE I DID.
13 MS. WILLIAMS: IT WAS 9 MONTHS TO A YEAR AGO THA1
, 14 DID 00 THE REVIEW. WHAT WE CAN 00 IS PULL THE CALC OUT ANC 15 SHOW YO U, TONIGHT -- PULL IT OUT TONIGHT AND HAVE THAT 16 T OM ORR OW, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO HANDLE THE LOGISTICS OF THi$.
17 BUT TO GET THE SPECIFIC ANSWERS, WE'LL 00 !T TONIGHT.
18 MR. CALV0: LET ME SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU WANT FOR HI 19 I GUESS WHAT WAS THE DESIGN B A515, THE USE OF THE C ALCULATI<
20 WHAT WAS THE WDRST CASE CONDITIONS YOU ASSUMED, RIGHT, MINI.
21 AND MAXIMUM, WHER E THA T INF DRM AT ION -- WHA T DOC UM ENT S TA TE S 22 THAT I NF ORMA T ION.
~
AND YOU WANT TO D0 IT FOR THE OFF-S ITE 23 POWER. .
24 MR. MORRIS: WELL, CONTINUING WITH THAT AND JOHN'!
25 STATEMENT ABOUT THE FSAR, DID THE CALCULATION ASSUME DIFFERE 26 CONDITIONS IN THE PLANT SUCH AS THE TRANSFDRHER BEING g l 27 OVERLOADED AND RESULTANT VOLTAGE DROP THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN
, 20 THAT TRANSP ORMER.
. . . . . . .< . . c o
- '* ***
- ooioae a cAmnoLL centiesso saoamaNo atsoattas .........
,7 * ;* *.*, . . * = ' "
osposmo% Notames **'"
i i
L_
1 MR. MARTIN: YE S, LIKE THE 345, 138 KV TRANSFDR k 2 RIGHT NOW I CAN SAY ! REMEMBER SEEING THOSE IN THERE.
3 MR. CALV0: BUT I DON'T UNDER STAND, JOHN, WHA T 4 ARE WORRYING A80UT THE OVERLCAD, OVERLOADING, WHEN YOU AR 5
POSTULATING OFF-5ITE POWER AT THE DESIGN BASIS ACTUALLY 6 COMPOUND THE FACT YOU ALSO GOT TO SHUTDOWN THE OTHER UNIT 7
THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT7 8 MR. KN0X: THEY HAVE ANOTHER OPERATION WHERE TH!
9 HAVE AUTOMATIC TRAN$rERS 8ETWEEN ONE OFF-SITE SOURCE AND 10 ANOTHER OFF-SITE SOURCE, 50 WITHIN THESE AUTOMATIC TRANSFi 11 YOU GET DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION IN THE PLANT 8ASED ON THE 12 CONDITIONS IN THE PLANT.
13 THAT MAY CREATE A SITUATION WHERE ONE OF THE l
( 14 TRANSF ORM ERS IS OVERLOADED. THEY TAKE CREDIT FOR THE OPES 15 ACTION TO REMOVE LOADS OR TO REDUCE THE -- ! GUESS THE LOA 16 ON THE TRANSFORMER.
17 I JUST WONDERED IF THEY LOOKED AT THE CALCULATIO 18 FOR A VOLTAGE DROP FOR THOSE OVERLOADED CONDITIONS, IF TH0 l
19 PARTICULAR CONFIGURATIONS WERE CONSIDERED IN THIS VOLTAGE 20 ANALYSIS THAT GIBBS & HILL DID.
21 MR. MARTIN: MAY8E I SHOULD MAKE A CLARIF YING 22 S TA T EME NT. AS FAR A5 OUR ELECTRICAL REVIEW SCOPE WENT, WE 23 CUT OFF AT 6.9 KV SWITCH AT YOUR SWITCHGEAR. THE INTENT!0F
,e 24 ELECTRICAL SCOPE HERE WASN'T 50 MUCH A COMPLETE ELECTRICAL l 25 SYSTEM BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING INTO 80X POWER, DIESEL 26 GENERATOR DISTR IBUTION.
, 27 OUR ELECTRICAL REVIEW CONCENTRATED ON REVIEWING T i
28 THE MECHANICALS COMPONENT COOLING WATER S YSTEM FROM THOSE e.= a.=c no poioor a cannoLL e ........
". .'d..
. . .. n.
- j,',,'". continito s oat aNo napontsas
,, , s o,g',' , , ,
caros teo* Notamia s
I 1 POINTS DOWN WAS DESIGNED ADEQUATELY. AND M A Y8 E F R OM THA T l e.
2 WERE REVIEWING THEIR METHODOLOGY FROM THAT POINT DOWN.
3 MR. MARINOS: THAT'S THE SCOPE.
4 MR. CALV0: IT GOES B ACK AGAIN, THE SAME POINT.
5 ARE NOT TRYING -- WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU HAVE 6 WE'RE NOT TRYING TO INFLUENCE FOR YOU TO DO ANYTHING ELSE 7 LATER. WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT IT 15. THAT'S OUR 8 PURPOSE, OUR ONLY PUR POSE. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN 9 ESTABLISH THIS PHASE 4, YOU HAD A PURPOSE IN MIND. AT TH!
10 YOU ARE GOING TO PROVE WHAT THAT PURPOSE IN MIND 15. IT
11 OUR PURPOSE HERE TO INFLUENCE YOU WHAT IS GOING TO COME U 12 THE END.
13 YOU ARE GOING TO ESTABLISH WHAT THE RESULT IS 8,
, , 14 ON YOUR FINDINGS. ONLY OUR PURPOSE, ! REPEAT THAT AGAIN, 15 TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU HAD DONE. SOMETIMES WE APP!
16 THAT %E SAY THINGS, WHY YOU DIDN'T 00 IT THIS WAY OR THE <
17 WAY, WHY YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER THAT, ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE Ts i
18 UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DID.
19 BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THA T IS THE DAlm 20 THAT'S GOING TO BE USED IN THE OVERALL OVERVIEW TO ASSESS 21 FINAL OVERALL REASONABLE ASSURANCE FOR THE SANE QUALITY.
22 THAT IN MIND AS WE ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.
23 MR. NORKIN: ON YOUR STATEMENT JUS T NOW, I THINk 24 IMPLIED YOU ARE GOING TO BE DOING MORE ELECTRICAL POWER.
25 1 HER THAT7 DID YOU INDICATE YOU WERE GOING TO BE USING 26 AUXILIARY POWER OR SOMETHING?
I / 27 MR. MARTIN: NO.
28 MS. WILLIAMS: I THINK THAT HE WAS REFERRING T0 s.= es.=c.sc o DOIOGE e CARROLL cov..c=,
"'*j'*,',*** craterito suontaaNo assomitas y**
,, , ,c o ,, , ,
u.......s,.. orpositioN Notan,its
1 OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE HERE WHICH GETS BACK TO 01 1 k
2 ORIGINAL SCOPE OF DISCUSSION AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MI ;
3 WAS THAT, YE S, WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THOSE DISCUSSION! I 4 YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT OUR ANSWER ! $, NO, IT WAS OUT 5 SCOPE, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAD THAT INTRODUCTORY --
6 MR. MARINOS: WE 'RE NOT GIVING YOU ANY INS TR UC 7
OR GUIDANCE TO CHANGE YOUR SCOPE. THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN 8 AND THE UTILITY WHAT YOU DECIDE TO CO.
9 MS. WILLIAMS: NO, WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF-10 EXPANDING THAT RIGHT NOW.
Il MR. OVER8 ECK: IF YOU FEEL THAT IT IS AN OUT O 12 SCOPE, MAYBE IF YOU TELL US UP FRONT IT'S OUT OF SCOPE, 13 THAT WE WON'T KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT H g 14 COME ACROSS IT IN REVIEWING SOME OF THE STUFF. I WOULD L 15 KNOW UP FRONT IF IT 'S OUT OF YOUR SC OPE . WE NEED TO PUT 16 ARMS AROUND WHAT THE SCOPE 15.
17 MR. MARINOS: GE OR GE, YOU NEED ANY MORE 18 CLARIFICATION 7 19 MR. MORRIS: WELL, WE JUST STARTED GE TTING INT (
20 WHAT -- WHAT THE BASIS FOR THE VOLTAGE WAS AT THE SWITCH (
21 AND I HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THAT. SHALL ! CONTINL 22 MR. MARINOS: S UR E .
23 MR. MORRIS: WAS THE LOAD FLOW STUDY THAT YOU L 24 AT, WAS THAT A G1885 8 MILL COMPUTERIZED CALCULATION 7 25 MR. MARTIN: ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE OFF-SITE 26 VOLTAGE LEVELS 7 i
. 27 MR. MORRIS: NO, THE OFF-SITE VOLTAGE LEVELS WE
)
28 USED IN SOME TYPE OF A LOAD FLOW STUDY ON THE $1TE OR WAS sa= eaa=c sco esis, ses esse DOIDGE e CAMROLL co...ce CgstetigD SMontMAND mgmontgas co=="
seiN Y ases OgPOSetiON PeOtamit 3 '** "#*
1 THERE A -- MAY8E IT WAS A LOAD FLOW STUDY THAT WAS DC l C 2 UTILITY THAT CAME DOWN AND TOUCHED THE 6.9 KV SWITCHG 3 DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BASIS IS. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING 4 OUT, WHAT THE BASIS IS, WHAT TYPE OF CALCULATION IT I 5 MR. MARTIN: THERE IS --
6 MR. MORRIS: IT APPEARED FROM THE NUMBER OF 7 C ALCULATION THAT IT WAS A GIBBS & HILL CALCULATION.
8 MR. MARTIN: RIGHT. WE REVIEWED 6.9 KV AND 9 BUS VOLTAGE CALC WHICH USED INPUT FROM THEIR OFF-SITE 10 SOURCES.
11 MR. MORRIS: WAS THIS A COMPUTERIZED CALCUL 12 MR. MARTIN: I BELIEVE THIS ONE WAS JUST A 13 HILL HAND CALC OF THEIR SYSTEMS CONF IGURATION. IT WA
. 14 DI AGRAMS OF A NUMB ER OF DIFFERENT CASES. LET ME CHEC
(
15 COULD YOU RESTATE YOUR QUESTION 7 16 MR. MORRIS: THE GIBB S & HILL CALC, 2323 RO 17 NUMERAL Ill-7, WAS THAT A COMPUTERIZED CALCULATION?
18 MR. MARTIN: NO, IT WAS A GISBS & HILL MAND 19 C ALC ULA T ION.
20 MR. MARINOS: TO YOUR UNDER STAND, ING THE Y- Gi 1
21 87.5 PERCENT AFTER THEY WERE GIVEN FROM THE UTILITY T 22 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM VOLTAGE CONDITION AT THE GRID AND 23 THEY B ACK CALCULATED WHAT THEY WILL HAVE AT THE 6.9 Kt 24 THOSE CONDITIONS WITHOUT YOU CONCERNING YOURSELF WITH 25 FLOW CALCULATIONS, CONFIGURATIONS OF SWITCHYARD, TRANt 26 REALIGNMENTS, 15 THAT CORRECT?
i I 27 MR. MARTIN: RIGHT.
28 HR. MARINOS: THAT WAS YOUR POINT -- INITIA*
- e. e..=cisco DOfDGE & CARROLL
" tea sees c o.
CtatssetO SmontwaNo atPOntgen u, Y sse. Otp0SitiON NOTA #'E S ""
- w. -- -
y-,w y , . . - . . _ , , - - . _ , - - - - - .
97 1 POINT FOR YOUR CALCULATIONS. THAT'S FINE.
2 MR. MORRIS: IS THIS ALSO THE 8A515 FOR THE 3 UNDERVOLTAGE RELAY, THIS SAME CALCULATION?
4 MR. KNOX: DID YOU LOOK AT THE UNDERVOLTAGE RELAY TO 5 START WITH7 6 MR. MARTIN: I 'M NOT S UR E R I GHT NOW . I WOULD HAVE 7 70 LOOK.
8 MS. WILLIAMS: 15 THAT SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT AT A 9 BREAK 7 10 MR. MARTIN: YE S .
11 MR. CALV0: MAKE A NOTE.
12 MR. MARTIN: WAIT, NO, IT WASN'T. LET ME CLARIFY I
13 T HA T. THE UNDERVOLTAGE FOR THE 6.9 KV SWITCHGEAR I S F OR THE
. 14 ENTIRE BUS, AND WE VERIFIED THAT UNDERVOLTAGE CONTACTS EXISTED 15 IN C IRCUITRY, BUT WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 16 UNDERVOLTAGE SWITCHING OFF SEQUENCE.
17 MR. MORRIS: 50 YOU DON 'T KNOW I F T HE --
18 MR. MARTIN: MAY8E TO HELP CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT, IF 19 YOU TAKE IT FROM THE 6.9 KV CUS ICLE DOWN WHERE WE START.
20 MR. MORRIS: BUT NOT THE SUS VOLTAGE.
21 MR. MARTIN: NOT THE BUS PROTECTION FEATURES.
22 MS. WILLIAMS: JOH N, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK UP.
'3 2 MR. MARTIN: SORRY. .
24 MR. MARINOS: JOH N, THIS 87.5 THAT YOU USED IN ORDER 25 TO CALCULATE VOLTAGE REQUIREMENTS, ARE YOU CON 510ERjNG THE 26 LOADING ALREADY OF THE S US ES OF OTHER COMP 0NENis OR YOU LOOKED 27 AT IN ISOLATION 7 Do YOU LOOK AT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER 28 COMPONENTS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE 805 OR YOU CONSIDER THAT
... ... s c o coicot a cammoLL canteeino swonts.%o aeroatsas <e
,,,,.,g*,,,, .
". .'n.. .'. ' '. .,,.l.*.
- o . .o ,,,o ~ ,, o t . . . . .
98 1 86.8.
2 MR. MARTIN: THAT'S 87. 5. THIS IS A MOTOR STARTING 3 CASE.
' 4 MR. MARINOS: OKA Y.
MR. MARTIN: IN CTHER WORDS, THESE ARE ADEQUATE 5
VOLTAGE WHEN THIS PUMP TURNS ON TO START.
6 MR. MARINOS: YOU ASSUME THAT VOLTAGE TO BE THERE, 7
8 ALL THE OTHER LOADS ALREADY CONNECTED, WHATEVER THE OTHER 9 LOADS ARE ON THE BUS.
10 MR. KNOX: IS THAT 87.5 A STARTING VOLTAGE OR 11 CONTINUOUS RUNNING VOLTAGE?
f 12 MR. MARTIN: THIS WAS -- THIS VOLTAGE HERE WAS THE 13 SUS VOLTAGE, STARTING HAND CALC TO VERIFY THAT ADEOUATE i
s 14 VOLTAGE WOULD BE AT THE TERMINALS.
15 MR. KNOX: 50 THE 87.5 15 RUNNING.
16 MR. MARTIN: IT'S THE BUS RUNNING, YEAH.
17 MR. KNOX: IT'S A CONTINUQUS -- DID YOU VERIFY THAT 18 THE MOTOR WAS DESIGNED AND QUALIFIED TO OPERATE IN 87.57 19 MR. MARTIN: IT WAS SPECIFIED AT 460 AND in.
20 FSAR -- ! BELIEVE THE PROCUREMENTS - I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK, 80 21 PERCENT -- 80 PERCENT IS THE NORMAL INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR 22 MOTORS.
23 MR. KNOX: FOR MOTOR STARTING, YE A H, I UNDERSTAND 24 THAT, BUT NORMALLY THEY GO UP TO 90 PERCENT AND THEN THEY 25 EXPECT THE MOTOR TO BE RUNNING AT 90 PERCENT AS AN. INDUSTRY 26 STANDARD.
I 27 MR. MARTIN: WELL, THIS 87 5 IS ALSO 69 KV AND THE 28 MOTOR $ ARE -- THE MOTORS ARE LESS THAN 69KV.
... ... e c e ooicot a cAmmoLL . ... .....
a'*'*** eenti. iso suontan%o atmonte as * *v "
. *"M'.*... a.....,,a=....... "'* * '"'
I 99 1 MR. KN0X: THE QUESTION I HAD --
MR. MAGGIO: 1 THINK MAYSE WE COULD LOOK AT THE 2 l 3 MOTOR SPEC, AND FROM MY RECOLLECTION, THE MECHANICAL 4 APPEARANCE, THE MOTOR WAS SPECIFIED TO START AT 80 PERCENT OF 5 THE VOLTAGE.
6 MS. WILLIAM 5: AND WE DID LOOK AT THE PURCHASE SPECS 7 As PART OF OUR REVIEW SCOPE.
8 MR. MAGGIO: 1 THINK THE MOTOR WILL START ON 80 9 PERCENT YOLTAGE.
MR. KNOX: I HAVE NO PR 06 LEM WIT H T HA T. IT'S THE 10 I WOULD ASSUME THE 11 RUNNING VOLTAGE THAT l'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
12 NORMAL SPEC WOULD CALL FOR 90 PERCENT RUNNING VOLTAGE. THIS 13 IS 87.5. I JUST WONDERED A800T THE DE51GN AND QUALIF ICAT ION 14 0F THE MOTOR RUNNING AT 87. 5. MAYSE IT 15 DESIGNED AND 1
15 0UALIF IED TO RUN AT THAT. 1 JUST WANT TO KNOW IF YOU DID 16 CHECK THAT, DID YOU LOOK INTO THAT.
MR. CALvo: IF YOU DON 'T KNOW, WRITE IT DOWN AND 17 18 THEN YOU CAN COME BACK TO US LATER.
19 MR. MARTIN: l'M NOT $URE HOW YOU'RE --
20 MR. MARINOS: WELL, IP YOUR MINIMUM VOLTAGE START 21 CONDITIONS WHERE THE MOTOR WAS 80 PERCENT --
22 MR. MAGGIO: 1 BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE.
23 MR. MA21N05: -- 87.5 PERCENT START AND RUN
, 24 08V10USLY 15 ADEQUATE. I WOULD IMAGINE YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE 25 CONF IRMED IN 'f 0VR CA LCULAT ION.
MR. CALV0: IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT, 26 4
27 YOU LOOK AT THE SPECIFICATIONS, IF YOU DID LOOK AT IT, l'M 28 $URE THAT THAT NUM8ER$ WILL HAVE COME UP AGAIN THAT -- THE
............ ooioon . eaaaou ...........
e .,........,..~o ...o.,s.. ,,,p,,y,,,,
gya.
.;.*.*. o. .. . ., ,o ~o , . . . . .
100 1 ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION MAD TO COME FROM YOU.
'2 MS. WILLIAM 5: 1 THINK THAT THE ANSWER IS -- CORRECT ME IF l'M WRONG, GUYS -- YES, WE LOOKED AT THE SPEC. N0, WE
! 3 4 DI DN'T F IND A PR OBLEM, AND IF YOU WANT THE NUMBERS, WE'LL 5 CHECK IT AT BREAK.
6 MR. MORRIS: l'D BE SURPRISED IF THE RUNNING VOLTAGE 7 15 87 PERCENT.
i 8 MR. MARTIN: WELL, THIS IS AL50 A WOR 5T CASE.
9 MR. MARINOS: THEY CALCULATED THIS 15 THE HIN! HUM 10 THAT THEY EXPECT ON THAT 4.9 KV SOMETIME AT AN UPSET CONDITION.
11 THAT 'S THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT. 5 0, ON T HAT B AS IS OF T HAT 12 M IN IM UM, THESE GUYS CHECKED THE CALCULATION TO SEE THAT THOSE l 13 MOTORS WILL ACCELERATE, BUT YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT TO BE A I - 14 ROUT INE LEVEL, BUT IT CAN APPROACH THAT LEVEL. ;
s 15 MR. CALV0: YOU ARE RIGHT. THE PROCUREMENT 16 DOCUMENTS AND SPEC WILL NOT HAVE A 87.5, 80 PERCENT OR 90 17 PERCENT SY MULTIPLES OF 5 18 MS. WILLIAMS: THIS 86.7 PERCENT, THAT'$ CYGNA'S j
19 N UMB E R . WE -- 1 DON ' T KN OW IF TH I S I S 8 7. 5 OR --
20 MR. MARINOS: 87.5.
21 MR. MARTIN: T HE Y DON ' T HA VE TH i s .
22 MR. MARINOS: IT 'S NOT CYGNA 'S NUMBER. IT'S A 23 NUMBER THAT YOU GOT FROM -- ALL RIGHT, ANY MORE QUE5fl0NS ON i 24 T HA T?
25 MR. STANLEY: VER IF Y THE C ALC INCLUDED THAT C ASE, 15 26 THAT LEFT OPEN 04 IS --
I 27 MR. CALV0: THEY ARE GolNG TO GIVE US THAT i
28 INFORMATION THAT WAS THE WOR $T CASE FOR THOSE MINIMUM AND e.. ....e .e e s ooicos a cammou. . ........
caafieiso sacataaso asaoatsas ,, , ',';;',' , , ,
"'f,,".j
. , , . .",,c'e ossosmow notamiss
- _. .- - . - . - - -..-v , - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - e,. - -,
101 1 MAXIMUM VOLTAGE LEVEL 5.
2 MR. KNOX: ! HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. DID YOU LOOK 3 INTO WHERE ALL LOADS, SLDCK LOADED ONTO THE OFFSET POWER 4 SYSTEM, WAS THAT A CONFIGURATION THAT WAS CONSIDERED A5 FAR AS 5 THE 87.5 PERCENT WORST CASE 7 6 MR. MARTIN: THIS 87.5 CASE, 1 SELIEVE, 15 - ,15 7 IDENTIFYING A LOSS OF OFF-SITE POWER AND THE DESIGN OF D8A ON 8 ONE UNIT DURING STARTUP OF THE OTHER.
9 MR. MAGG10: DIO YOU WANT TO RESTATE YOUR QUESTION?
10 MAY8E WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. !$ IT SPECIFIC 11 CRITERIA THAT YOU EXPECTED TO FIND A5 AN ASSUMPTION?
12 MR. KNOX: THE F5AR SAYS THAT THE OFF5ET POWER HA S 13 THE CAPABILITY TO BLOCK LOAD ALL THE SAFETY LOADS ONTO THE SUS i . 14 51M ULT A NE OUS L Y. I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THIS WAS ONE OF THE t
15 CONFIGURAT10NS WHERE YOU GOT THE 87.5 PERCENT.
16 MR. MAGGIO: OKAY.
17 MR. CALV0: MAY8E IT GOES SACK AGAIN TO THE ORIGINAL 18 QUESTION.
19 Mi . KNOX: ' IT DOES GO B ACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUE5fl0N.
20 MR. CALV0: 50 WHY DON'T YOU F ACTOR THAT -- AS PART 21 0F THE ORIGINAL QUESTION, WHAT WAS THE WOR $T CASE CONDITION 22 YOU ASSUMED AND WHAT WAS THE ELEMENTS OF THE WOR $7 CONDITION 23 THAT YOU CON 51DERED?
24 MR. KN0X: RIGHT, THAT WOULD Glvt ME THE 87.5.
25 MR. CALvo: WHE THER IT WAS CON 510ERED OR NOT, IT 26 WILL TELL US THEN.
27 , MR. MARINOS: ARE YOU FINISHED, JOH N, GE OR GE ?
28 MR. MORR IS: WE MAD A NUM8ER OF SUBSET QUESTIONS.
- e. .*a e.ot e poioor a camaoa "4""" ...........
- cantieino smontwano aseemtsas so. "
. ," d '.*
- oseosition motaa s s *""'
1 102 1 MR. MARINOS: l'M GOING TO ASK THE OTHER SUSSET (B).
2 I HAVE (8). (8) !$, DID THE GISBS $ HILL CALCULATION INCLUDE 3 THE UTILITY DATA FOR SYSTEM SWINGS, MINIMLM OR MAXIMUM 4 VOLTAGE -- WE ijuST COVERED THAT -- THROUGH BOTH THE PREFERRED 5 AND ALTERNATE SOURCES OF 0FF-51TE POWERT 6 I THINK WE COVERED THAT, BUT WE HAVE A Ll5T 0,F 7 THINGS HERE. DID THE CALCULATION INCLUDE VOLTAGE DIPS CAUSED 8 BY LOADING THE DIESEL GENERATOR WHEN ONLY THE STANDBY SOURCE 9 15 AVAILABLE.
10 THl5 !$ A SEPARATE QUESTION HERE.
11 MR. MORRIS: BUT WE 'RE ADDRESSING THE OFF-S ITE 12 SOURCE. WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THE ON-51TE SOURCE. ,
13 MR. MARIN05; l'M CONF USE D. THis SAYS SU8 LISTING IS 14 UNDER THE OFF-51TE POWER, SUT l'M ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE 15 DIESEL UNIT.
! 16 MR. KN0X: WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VOLTAGE 17 DROP CALCULATION. WE HAVE TWO SOURCES OF POWER, ONE IS A 18 DIESEL GENERATOR. WHAT WAS THE VOLTAGE AT THE BUS WHEN YOU 19 USED THE DIESEL GENERATOR.
20 MR. MARINOS: YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS QUESTION. CAN 21 YOU ANSWER IT.
22 MR. MARTIN: THE ANSWER !$ No, WE DI DN 'T REVIEW THE 23 DIESEL GENERATOR DESIGN AT ALL. ,
24 MR. KNOX: WE'RE NOT ASKING THAT. THE DIESEL 25 GENERATOR WILL COME DOWN SY DE51GN AND GIVE YOU A CERTAIN I 26 VOLTAGE DROP. l 'M NOT S UR E WHA T IT !$ AT COMANCHE PEAK, BUT 1
27 GIVEN THAT VOLTAGE DROP, DID YOU LOOK AT THE CALCULATION 28 DOWN TO THE -- 1 GUESS DOWN TO THE LOAD !$ WHAT WE'RE A$ KING.
............ oo.oas e eaanou. ...........
- * ' ' ' , ' ,,, " , * " ' Ct Afif et0 SMO4fM A**D mt Pomit al , ,,.*w*',',,,
ie....si esee Ot #0Siticas mof an>t 6
. - .~ . . . . . - -- z . . . . . .
103 1 MR. MARTIN: WHAT QUESTION ARE YOU ASKING7 MR. MARINOS: WE ARE ON THE DIESELS NOW, RIGHT?
2 MR. KN0X: THE DIESEL GENERATOR SUPPLYING THE POWER 3
IN 4 TO THE 805 WILL HAVE CERTAIN YOLTAGE DROPS DUE TO LOADING.
5 OTHER WORDS, THE DIESEL GENERATOR VOLTAGE WILL DROP DOWN TO A 6 CERTAIN LEVEL, 80 OR 75 PERCENT, DID YOU LOOK AT THE 7 CALCULATION 00WN FOR THAT SITUATION ON THE DIESEL GE 8 MR. CALV0: ARE THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, PUMPS AND MOTORS, CAPABLE OF PERFORMING 9
10 THE INTENDED FUNCTIONS WHEN THE VOLTAGE IN THE SUS WHERE THEY 11 ARE COLLECTED DIPS?
MR. MAGGIO: YE S , BUT THl$ 15 8 ASED ON THE DIESEL 12
- 1) GENERATOR MR. CALV0: 1 DON'T CARE HOW IT DIPS. HOW THAT DIP 14 15 GOT IN THERE, 1 DON'T KNOW, OKAY, BUT...
16 MR. MARTIN: THE DIPS IDENTIFIED IN THE SYSTEM VOLTAGE CALCS WERE REVIEWED. DI PS WOULD SEQUENCE LOADING OF 17 18 THE DIESEL GENERATOR WERE NOT.
19 MR. MARINOS: WHAT 010 YOU CONSIDER A5 AN INITIAL 20 CONDITION FOR YOLTAGE DIESEL AT THE SUS FROM SOURCE 8 IN THE 21 DIESEL GENERATOR IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THAT THE COMPONENT 22 COOLING WATER PUMP MOTOR WILL START 1 WHAT 010 YOU USE A5 AN
- 2) INITIAL VOLTAGE 1 24 MS. WILLIAMS: EXCUSE ME JUST A MINUTE.
MR. CALvo: NANCY, WE CAN GO OFF THE RECORD FOR A 25 l
26 M INUT E . <
f MS. WILLIAM 5: YES, THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE 27 28 SURE THAT YOU ARE ANSWERING THE QUESTION. )
s.=***=8*** DOiDGE 4 C Amm0LL e.........
tow ="
- '"" ctatit6tD Saomina%0 memonttes '"
,e i **
- Is'e n Of notitION N0f a8't S
104 1 (PA US E. )
{ -
MS. WILLIAMS: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.
2 ,
3 MR. MARINOS: OKAY, WE 'RE 8 ACK.
4 MS. WILLIAMS: I WANT TO TRY AND RECAP THE OUESTION 5 TMAT I MAVE JUST EXPLAINED TO OUR PEOPLE.
6 MR. MARINOS: DO YOU WANT US TO RESTATE THE QUESTION 7 OR WHAT ARE YOU G0 LNG TO DO?
8 MS. WILLIAMS: LET ME TAKE SHOT AT IT AND IF I AH 9 0FF BASE -- WHAT I THINK YOU SUMMAR IZED, IT WAS, YES, WE 10 UNDERSTAND, CYGNA, YOU DID NOT LOOK AT THE LOADING SEQUENCES 11 FDR THE DIESELS, OR YOU DID NOT LOOK AT WHAT DEFINED THE WORST 12 CASE VOLTAGE DIP, BUT DID YOU CHECK THE COMPONENTS TO MAKE 13 SURE THAT WHATEVER THAT WORST CASE WAS, THAT THEY REHAIN k 14 FUNCTIONAL.
15 WAS THAT WHAT YOU WERE -- WHEN YOU WERE SUMMARIZ ING 16 RIGHT AT THE END -
17 MR. MARINOS: N0, LE T M E R E S UMM AR 12 f. IF THE OTHER l
18 F E LLOW S DON ' T A GR E E, T HE Y CAN JUMP IN. I'M TRYING TO 19 UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU ASSUMED THE OFF-S ITE. POWER IS NOT 20 AVAILABLE AND NOW YOU HAVE THE SOURCE OF POWER IS A DIESEL 21 GENERATOR AND 00 YOU THE CALCULATIONS AGAIN TO CONFIRM THAT 22 THE MOTOR WILL START AND ACCELERATE AND DELIVER UNDER THE 23 VOLTAGE CONDITIONS THAT THE DIESEL.WILL PROV10E FOR YOU.
24 WHAT ARE THOSE CONDITIONS THAT YOU ASSUME THAT THE 25 DIESEL WILL PROVIDE FOR YOU FOR D0 LNG THIS CALCULATION 7 l
26 MS. WILLI AMSI WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE DIESEL, BUT YOU ;
I 27 DID LOOK AT THE SITUATION WHERE THE DIESEL WAS SUPPLYING THE 28 POWER AND WHATEVER THE ASSDCIATED VOLTAGE DIP WAS, IS T HA T
. . . . . ..< c e cotook a cammoLL e .. . . . w .
- p"* <*a" esatie,so s=oatnamo aseoatsas
,7;;/,.. oseositio= =otaairs
l 105 1 TR UE?
t 2 MR. MARINOS: YOU DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATIONS WITH l 3 THE DIESEL?
4 MR. MARTIN: WE DID REVIEW OUR DIESEL CALCS. LET ME 5 VERIFY WHETHER IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE SYSTEM CALCULATION WE 6 LOOKED AT.
7 MS. WILLIAMS: IT 'S NOT THE DIESEL CALC.
8 MR. MARTIN: WELL, THE DIESEL VOLTAGE LEVEL --
9 MR. MARINOS: OKA Y, WE'RE GOING TO WAIT FOR THIS FOR 10 ANOTHER TIME.
11 MR. MARTIN: YE S .
12 MR. ANGELO: OKAY. WE CAN G0 ON TO THE NEXT 13 QUESTION AND WE'LL GET BACK TO IT AT ANOTHER TIME.
[ 14 MS. WILLI AMS: I GUESS I'M A LITTLE PUZZLED MYSELF 15 HERE BECAUSE I THINK, AS TOM EXPLAINED, WE LOOKED AT ALL THE 16 COMPONENTS TO MAKE SURE THEY FUNCTIONED tD WE HAD CERTAIN 1
17 GIVENS. AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF YOU GUYS HERE ARE TELLING ME 18 T HA T WE DI DN ' T 00 T HA T. YOU ALWAYS LOOKED AT THE COMPONENTS 19 TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY FUNCTIONED FOR WHATEVER THE GIVEN 20 SCENAR IO WAS, IS THAT TRUE7 WE 'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DEF INING 21 SC E NA R IO.
22 MR. MARTIN: WELL, THE PR OB LEM I'M HAVING RIGHT NOW 23 !$ ! DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE CASES THAT WELL.
24 MS. WILLIAMS: OKA Y . THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO BOIL IT 25 D DWN T0, S0 THE QUESTION !$ WHETHER WE NEED TO MAP 0UT THE 26 SC E NA R IOS, FINE, BUT WE CAN'T ATTEST TO THE VALIDITY OF THE 27 SCENARIOS, BUT WE DID REVIEW THE COMPONENTS FOR SCENARIOS.
28 WHETHER YOU CAN REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE SCENARIOS WERE OR
... . ...c . c o coicar a cAmmoLL ...... ....
centiciso saontaamo napomisas co "
...T,*,'* .. or eositio~ morame s " ' ' " * ' " '
l I
. . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . _ . . , .,,s . , ,,
106 1 NOT, WE 'LL GO GET THAT DETAIL. S UT I DON ' T WANT TO LEA VE W ITH 2 THE IMPRES$10N THAT WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE COMPONENTS FOR WHAT 3 WAS GIVEN IN THE DOCUMENTS AS THE WORST CASE SCENAR10 AND I 4 WAS AFRAID THAT WAS THE IMPRESSION THAT'S SEING LEFT HERE AND 5 THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
6 MR. M*RINOS: 1 DO N 'T KNOW . I DO N 'T HA VE A N .
7 IMPRESSION. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU DID.
8 MS. WILLIAMS: 50 WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO S ACK AND DO 9 IS PULL THE CALCULATION AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON 10 THIS AND FIND OUT WHAT THOSE SCENARIOS WERE.
11 DO WE HAVE THAT INFORHATION TO DO THAT, DO WE?
12 MR. MARTIN: I BELIEVE WE DO, YE S .
13 MS. WILLI AMS: OKAY.
14 MR. NORKIN: DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT TELLS YOU 15 WHAT YOU LOOKED AT IN THE CALCULATION 7 I MEAN YOU CAN LOOK AT ,
16 THE CALCULATION, BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU LOOKED AT IN THE 17 CALC 7 18 MS. WILLIAMS: YE S .
19 MR. MARTIN: WE HAVE SOME NOTES THAT WE COMPILED 20 DUR ING OUR REVIEW.
21 MR. MARINOS: LET'S GO TO THE NEXT hESTION. WE CAN 22 GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION WITHIN THE SAME SUSGROUP.
23 DID THE CALCULATION INCLUDE DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT 24 AS-8UILT DATA. DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY THAT, GE OR GE7 25 MR. MORRIS: THERE IS A STATEMENT IN THE CHECKLIST 26 THAT SAYS THAT YOU REVIEWED THE CALCULATION AND I WAS TRYING I 27 TO FIND OUT TO WHAT DEPTH -YOU REVIEWED THAT C ALCULATION.
28 APPARENTLY FROM WHAT I AM HEARING, WHAT YOU LOOKED AT WAS THE l
ea **a c'*co conoGE a cammoLL c o.. .. n .. . '
"'*'****** cantmso swontwaso aspo= Tams co -
"''8'"
wii'lIs . caposmow Novaniss fI l
107
! 1 RESULTS OF THAT CALCULATION AND NOT THE BASIS OR 'THE DETAILS f
OF THAT CALCULATION AT ALL.
~
2 3 SO THE bus NAS THREE SOURCES OF POWER, WHERE OR HOW 4 THAT POWER GETS THERE OR WHETHER THOSE ASSUMPTIONS WERE VALID 5 OR NOT, YOU DID NOT LOOK AT THAT. AND YOUR STATEMENT TFAT YOU 6 REVIEWED THE CALCULATION REALLY MEANS YOU LOOKED AT THE 7 RESULTS OF THAT CALCULATION FOR INPUTS INTO THE SPECIF IC ATION.
8 MR. MARTIN: ARE WE TALKING 1-E RATHER THAN 1-A7 9
MR. NORKIN: ALL THEY ARE SAYING IS THEY CHECKED FOR 10 THE NUCLEAR I DE NT IF IC AT ION. THEY DON ' T S E EM TO HA VE NOTH f NG 11 MORE. THEY JUST SAY THAT THEY CONFIRM THAT THE THING HAD AN 12 I DE NT IF ICAT ION, PERIOD. THEY DON'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE.
13 MR. MARTIN: QUESTION 1-A IS WHERE WE SAY WE
. 14 REVIEWED THE CALC FOR MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE VOLTAGE.
15 MS. WILLIAMS: CAN YOU TELL THEM HOW WE DIO THAT7 16 MR. MARTIN: THERE WAS A CURSORY REVIEW OF LINE-UPS 17 IN THIS CALC. BASICALLY, WE WERE LOOKING FOR A VOLTAGE LEVEL AND THAT 'S 18 TO VERIFY THE COMPONENT COOLING PUMP WOULD WORK.
19 MAINLY WHAT -- THE E'XTENT THAT THIS CALC WAS REVIEWED.
20 MR. NOR KIN: THE RESULTS, WOULD THE RESULTS HAVE 21 SUPPORTED THE NECESSARY VOLTAGES, NOT NECESSARILY HOW YOU GOT 22 THE RESULTS.
23 MR. MARTIN: RIGHT. YES, I BELIEVE THAT'S A TRUE 24 STATEMENT.
1 25 MR. MARINOS: ARE YOU F INISHED, GE OR GE , JOHN 7 26 MR. KNOX: I'M FINISHED.
27 MR. MARINOS: ONE MORE ITEM IN THIS OUESTION IS WAS DEGRADED GRID VOLTAGE PROTECTION REVIEWED BY CYGNA.
I THINK 28 OOIDGE 4 CARROLL e o,.... e o s. .
- yo '.",',jc,',s,c,o u,,, CEmT4FIED SMORTHAND mtponTERS c ow'*
" esa i ns utsease ssee DE POSITION NOTamtE 5 1
108 1 WE COVERED THIS UNDER ITEM 1-A, DIDN 'T WE, GEORGE 7 k MR. MORRIS: ! THINK THAT HAS BEEN ANSWERED.
2 3 MR. MARINOS: UNDER 87.5 IS WHAT YOU GUYS USED AS A 4 MINIMUM VOLTAGE.
5 MR. MORRIS: THEY DID NOT LOOK AT DEGRADED GR ID- --
6 MR. MARINOS: NO. WE ESTABLISHED THAT THEY DJD AND 7 JUST TOOK A GIVEN MINIMUM AND THEY --
8 MR. MORRIS: THEY DIDN'T LOOK AT THE DEGRADED GRID 9 VOLTAGE PROTECTION.
10 MR. MARINOS: OH, PARDON ME, YES.
11 MR. CALVO: THE PROTECTION THAT REFLECTED WHICH 12 BUSES --
13 THE REPORTER: WAIT, I'M NOT HEARING ANYTHING RIGHT 4
, 14 NOW EXCEPT A LOT OF NO I S E. ONE AT A TIME, PLEASE7 15 MR. MARINOS: WE STATED THE QUESTION. DO YOU WANT 16 TO ANSWER IT?
17 MS. WILLIAMS: MAYBE YOU BETTER R ES TA TE IT, PL E A S E.
18 MR. CALVO: THE QUESTION WAS, WAS THE DEGRADED GRID 19 VOLTAGE PROTECTION REVIEWED BY CYGNA.
l AND WE ANSWERED NO BEFORE, BECAUSE THAT
! 20 MR. MARTIN:
21 WAS IN THE SWITCHGEAR, THE SWITCHGEAR, MAIN GATE SWITCHGEAR
,22 C UB IC L E.
23 MR. MORRIS: TO THE EXTENT --
l 24 MR. MARTIN: WE VERIFIED PRIME VOLTAGE CONTACTS WERE 25 IN THE MOTOR CONTROL CIRCUIT.
l 26 MR. MARINOS: WE 'RE GOING TO GO B ACK TO MECHANICAL l'
27 NOW.
28 MR. CALVO: YE S .
sa= eaa.c.sco DOIDGE & CARROLL co=, .. os,.
CERTIFIED SMORTwaNo mEPORTERS C ow%"
sei eNases DEPOSITION NOTA #tES
109 1 MR. KNOX: 50, NA NC Y, I WILL GO B ACK TO MECHANIC AL, l
2 JUMP B ACK TO MECHANICAL.
3 THE REPORTER: CAN WE TAKE A MINUTE? i 4 (PAUSE.)
5 MR. MARINOS: BACK ON THE RECORD.
6 WE HAVE GONE TO MECHANICAL QUESTIONS UNLESS YOU WANT 7 TO REOPEN ELECTRICAL FOR ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, NA NC Y, OR CLARIF Y 8 ANYTHING OR GET S ACK TO IT AT ANOTHER TIME.
9 MS. WILLIAMS: NO, I THINK WE DO WANT TO CLARIFY 10 SOME THINGS, BUT WHY DON'T WE PICK IT UP WHEN WE 00 ELECTRICAL 11 ALL AT ONCE --
12 MR. MARINOS: OKAY. IT MAY NOT BE TODAY --
13 MS. WILLI AMS: START FRESH AGAIN.
, 14 MR. MARINOS: -- M AYB E TOMORROW --
15 MS. WILLI AMS: O KAY.
16 MR. MARINOS: -- MOR E LI KE LY, WELL, UNLESS WE GET 17 THROUGH WITH THESE MECHANICAL QUESTIONS TOOAY, AND I DON'T 18 KNOW IF WE CAN.
19 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY, THAT'S FINE.
20 MR. MARINOS: 50 WE'RE GOING TO BE ON QUESTION 21 NUMBER 9 OF THE MECHANICAL SYSTEM QUESTIONS. AND WE ARE 22 ASKING YOU TO DESCRIBE HOW THE WALKDOWN PLAYED A ROLE IN THE .
'23 OVERALL SCHEME OF THE INSPECTION. ,
PHILOSOPHIC AL ENOUGH.
24 MR. OVERBECK: I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT 25 WHEN WE ASKED THE QUESTION, WE WERE NOT IN RECEIPT OF THE 26 PRELIMINARY --
( 27 MS. WILLIAMS: IS THERE A PARTICULAR THRUST TO THE 28 QUESTION NOW THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THAT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US T
- = * ===c s c o DOIDGE & CARROLL c o=,.. c as,.
"','j,',"' CERTIFIED SMORTMAND RE PORTERS
,,c oy,, , ,,
utseasiasee DEPOStTION NOTARIES
1 i
110 l 1 ADDRESS OR HAVE YOU NOT HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THOSE.
MR. OVERBECK: NO, WE HAVE. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO 2
3 KNOW IS HOW YOU USED THE WALKDOWN TO DETERMINE THAT THE 4 SYSTEMS -- THE CALCULATIONS YOU PERFORMED ON THE SYSTEMS WERE 5 CORRECT. DID YOU USE THE WALKDOWN TO HELP YOU WITH THE 6 CALCULATIONS OR IS THE WALKDOWN A SEPARATE ITEM 7 7 MR. HESS: THE WALKDOWN WAS USED B ASIC ALLY TO VER IFY WE WALKED DOWN THE 8 WHAT WE HAD SEEN IN THE ANALYTICAL REVIEW.
9 PIPING SYSTEM THAT WE MAD REVIEWED AND VERIFIED THE GEOMETRY IN 10 OF THE PIPING SYSTEM MATCHED THE DRAWINGS THAT WE HAD USED 11 THE ANALYTIC AL REVIEW. WE VERIF IED NAMEPLATE DATA FROM WHAT WAS IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS. WE 12 13 VERIFIED APPROXIMATE PIPE LENS FITTINGS, VALVE ORIENTATIONS
- 14 AND LOCATIONS. WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE HAZARDS ANALYSIS IN THE 15 WALKDOWN AS F AR AS SEPARATION AND FIRE PROTECTION SUPPRESSION 16 SYSTEMS AND SEPARATIONS OF REDUNDANT COMPONENTS.
17 MR. OVERBECK: WHO DID THE WALKDOWN7 YOU TWO 18 GENTLEMEN?
i 19 MR. HESS: MR. FOLEY AND MYSELF.
l MR. OVERSECK: AND DID YOU DO THEM ALL AT ONE TIME, f 20 21 ONE WALKDOWN, NUMBER OF WALKDOWNS ON DIFFERENT SUB JECTS?
22 MR. HESS: IT WAS ONE COMPLETE WEEK.
23 MR. OVERBECK: ONE WEEK AT THE PLANT SITE.
24 MR. HESS: ONE WEEK AT THE PLANT SITE.
25 MR. OVER8ECK: DID YOU WALK DOWN ALL THOSE BLUED-IN 26 ITEMS ON THIS DRAWING?
i 27 MR. HESS: YE S .
28 MR. OVERBECK: EVERYTHING THAT WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE ODIDGE & CARROLL c os... co.,.
,,7 ",'," *,'g* C Ow%'s
- o. .u w, CERTerato sMORT*9AND REPORTER $ **''''
wise ase ss** Deposition NOTARIES
l
- .. . n. .. . .. ,.
111 1 0F CYGNA, YOU WALKED DOWN AND VERIFIED.
MR. HESS: THAT 'S CORRECT. l x 2 3 MR. STANLEY: THE MECHANICAL SEPARATION ASPECTS THAT 4 YOU SAID HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT IN THE WALKDOWN, WHAT KIND OF 5 CRITERIA DID YOU USE FOR MECHANICAL SEPARATION?
6 MR. FOLEY: WE ASSURED CERTAINLY THAT REDUNDANT 7 COMPONENTS SUCH AS PUMPS AND WHATEVER ELSE WAS REDUNDANT WERE 8 SEPARATED BY A SOLID BARRIER, CONCRETE WALL AS OPPOSED TO -
9 AGAIN, WE WOULD NOT HAVE CHECKED TO SEE THAT THAT PARTICULAR 10 BARRIER WAS A SEISMIC MISSILE PROOF 8ARRIER BECAUSE THAT WOULD 11 HAVE BEEN DONE BY OTHER DISCIPLINES IN OTHER PARTS OF THE 12 R EVI EW S.
13 SUT WE LOOKED AT THE SEPARATION TO MAKE SURE THAT, 14 F OR E X AM PLE, F OR T HE F LOODING, THAT THERE WERE WATERTIGHT 15 DOORS BETWEEN CUBICLES, THAT THERE WERE WHAT APPEARED TO BE 16 STANDARD MISSILE TYPE BARRIERS BETWEEN REDUNDANT PARTS OF THE 17 SYSTEH, THAT THEY WERE SEPARATED BY FIRE DOORS.
18 MR. STANLEY: WHAT WAS THE DISTANCE USED IF YOU 19 DIDN 'T HAVE A B ARRIER, IF YOU QUANTIF IED IT7 l 20 MR. FOLEY: ! DON'T REMEMBER THAT WE QUANT IF IED IT.
21 I ALSO DON'T REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS ANYPLACE THAT COMPONENTS 22 WERE NOT --
'23 MR. HESS: THE CCW HEAT EXCHANGERS ARE ALL IN A COMMON ROOM, BUT THEY ARE SEPARATED BY QUITE A DISTANCE. IN 24 25 OTHER WDRDS, TRAIN " A" AND 8 HEAT EXCHANGERS ARE SEPARATED BY l 26 UNIT 2, TRAIN "A" AND 8 HEAT EXCHANGERS -- SORRY, STRI KE THAT.
l -
! 27 THE -- THERE ARE FOUR HEAT EXCHANGERS IN THAT ROOM.
28 MR. FOLEY: RIGHT, IT GOES UNIT 2-8, UNIT 1 -8, UNIT Sy * *,*,','Cgo DOIDGE & CARROLL co....ca ,.
Cow = '
oang=o CERTIFIED SMORTMAND RE*ORTEms **
- s' s aa'm i s wes asi ssee Depo $lilON NOTAmit S
. . . . . . ._.g ,
l l
112 t
1 2-A, UNIT 1-A. YOU KNOW, UNIT 2-A IS BETWEEN 1-A AND B.
2 MR. HESS: 50 THOSE WERE SEPARATED BY DISTANCE.
3 THERE WERE COLUMNS IN THERE, BUT THERE IS NOT AN INTERVENING 4 WALL. THE PLMPS ARE IN SEPARATE ROOMS.
5 MR. STANLEY: IT ' S COR R EC T TO S AY YO U DI DN 'T HA VE 6 ANY CR ITER I A TO JUDGE -- ,
7 MR. HESS: THAT WAS A QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT.
8 MR. STANLEY: DID GIBBS S HILL HAVE ANY CRITERIA ON 9 IT THAT YOU USED?
10 MR. FOLEY: I DON'T REMEMBER. THE FSAR HAD -- WE 11 REVIEWED THE FSAR, AND THE FSAR, THEY HAD A GOOD DEAL OF WHAT 12 WE USE FOR CRITERIA FOR THESE HAZARD REVIEWS, THE ONES 13 INVOLVING THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT. I DON'T S PEC IF ICALLY R EHEHBER 14 WHETHER THERE WAS A DISTANCE SEPARATION CRITERIA OR NOT.
15 MR. OVERBECK: LET'S GO -- I'M LOOKING AT CHECKLIST 16 NUMBER WD MS-01, THE WALKDOWN ON THE CCW SURGE TANK.
17 MR. FOLEY: YES.
18 MR. OVERB EC K: ANS IT SAYS THE CHECKLIST SHOULD BE 19 PROTECTED FROM ROTATING EQUIPMENT IN VICINITY OF SURGE TANK 20 WHICH COULD GENERATE A MISSILE WHICH COULD DAMAGE THE TRAINS.
21 SATISFACTORILY. WHAT ROTATING MACHINERY WAS IN THAT VICINITY 22 OF THE SURGE TANK THAT YOU VERIFIED IT AGAINST?
~
23 MR FOLEY: I DON 'T REMEMB ER' THAT THERE WAS -- THE 24 NEAREST ONES I REMEMBER ARE THE NON-NUCLEAR CHILLERS, OKAY, 25 WHICH WERE LOCATED, I WOULD GUESS FROM MEMORY, PR OB ABLY 30 26 FEET TOWARD THE BACK WALL AND ThEN ANOTHER 20 TO 30 FEET ALONG 1
THE WALL THAT WAY.
27 28 THE ORIENTATION OF THOSE CHILLERS WAS SUCH THAT ANY sa- *==~c'oco DOIDGE 4 CARROLL c o.... c os, .
centiairo swo=TaaNo aspomisas c ow *
- l w.STsa. osmosmom novames + ' " * ' " '
I 113 1 ROTATION WAS NOT IN THE PLANE WHICH WOULD HAVE DIRECTED ANY k.~
2 MISSILES TOWARD THE SURGE TANK.
3 WE DID VERIFY FOR THESE COMPONENTS, WE LOOKED FOR 4 FANS, WE LOOKED FOR PUNPS, AND WE LOOKED AT THE ORIENTATION IF 5 THEY WERE THERE AND THAT KIND OF THING. WE ALSO --
6 MR. OVER8 ECK: DID YOU LOOK AT DESIGN ANALYSES DONE 7 BY GISBS S HILL 7 8 MR. FOLEY: NO.
- 9 MR. OVERB EC K
- WAS THERE DESIGN ANALYSIS DONE BY 10 GIBBS S HILL FOR THE SYSTEM 7 11 MS. WILLI AMS: THAT 'S OUT OF SCOPE.
12 MR. OVERBECK: OUT OF SCO PE IN THAT YOU DIDN'T 13 REVIEW ANY MISSILE ANALYSIS DONE BY GIBBS S HILL?
," 14 MS, WILLIAMS: THAT ' S CORRECT.
15 MR. OVERB ECK: INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL?
16 MS. WILLI AMS: THAT ' S CORRECT.
17 MR. OVERB EC K: 50 TURBINE MISSILES IS NOT ONE OF THE 18 THINGS THAT --
19 MR. FOLEY: THAT'S CORRECT.
20 MR. OVERBECK: HIGH ENERGYLINE BREAKS, HOW DID YOU 21 PROTECT FROM HIGH ENERGY LINE BREAK LINES IN THE VICINITY ,
! 22 WHICH COULD RUPTURE AND DAMAGE BOTH SIDES OF THE SURGE TANK.
"23 MR. HESS: THERE WERE NONE THAT WE NOTED IN THE 24 VICINITY OF THAT SURGE TANK.
25 MR. OVERS ECK: IT WAS MARKED YES. WOUL DN.' T NA B E 26 MORE APPLICABLE THERE7 I'M LOOKING AT PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST.
27 IF THERE ARE NO HIGH ENERGY LINES THAT WOULD PROB ABLY BE A 28 CLARIFYING STATEMENT. IMPLIED HERE IS SOMETHING THAT HIGH s . ee..c.sco DotDGE & CARROLL co.,..cas,.
- d,$).".S. . .I . .. ** 8 '*
114 l 1 ENERGY LINES TO BE IN THAT VICINITY AND THERE WAS NONE.
\ MS. WILLIAMS: YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRET.
2 3 MR. FOLEY: WELL, THE HEADING ON THE COLUMN IS 4 SAT I SF ACT OR Y.
5 MS. WILLIAMS: B UT, GE NER ALLY, WE DIDN'T F IND ANY EXAMPLES OF SOMETHING, YOU ARE RIGHT, IT'S NA. AND AS FAR AS 6
7 GOING THROUGH AND PROOFING THIS KIND OF STUF F IS YET TO BE 8 DONE.
9 MR. OVERBECK: WELL, HOW DIO YOU GO ABOUT 10 ESTABLISHING WHETHER THE LINE WAS HIGH ENERGY OR NOT7 11 MR. FOLEY: WE HAD THE LAYOUTS.
12 MR. HESS: BASICALLY LOOKING AT THE PIPING THAT WAS 13 IN THE AREA AND IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CLOSE TO THAT I ,
TANK THAT WAS NOT CCW PIPING, WE LOOKED AT IT TO SEE WHAT IT 14 15 WAS, AND THE ONLY PIPING THAT I RECOLLECT IN THAT AREA WERE 16 SOME F IRE WATER PIPES.
17 iR . OVERB ECK: LET'S TALK MORE GLOB AL CCW SYSTEM IN 18 THE VEIN WHICH YOU GOT MARKED UP' HERE, ARE THERE ANY HIGH 19 ENERGY LINES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SYSTEM, IN THE VICINITY OF THIS SYSTEM COMPONENTS.
20 21 MS. WILLIAMS: YOU ASKED TWO QUESTIONS, IN THE 22 SYSTEM OR IN THE VICINITY OF THE SYSTEM COMPONENTS.
"23 MR. OVERBECK: THIS SYSTEM IS A LOW ENERGY 24 SYSTEM --
25 MS. WILLIAMS: YE S .
26 MR. OVERBECK: -- 50 HIGH ENERGY LINES IN THE i
, 27 VICINITY OF THIS SYSTEM, WERE THERE ANY7 28 MR. HESS: IN THE VICINITY OF THE SPECIF IC EQUIPMENT
... . .. c .ec o poioor a cAmmoLL c =,.....,.
- '"'# CERTipsED SMOmTMAND REPORTEms cow"'
m afssee DEPOSITION NOTamits
115 f
1 WITHIN OUR SCOPE, I DON'T RECALL ANY.
k MR. OVERBECK: 50 THERE WAS NO HIGH ENERGY LINE 2
3 BREAK ANALYSIS PER SE.
l 4 MR. FOLEY: I CAN'T RECALL ANY, BUT I ALSO RECALL, 5 THOUGH, TMAT THE MAJOR COMPONENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HEAT 6 EXCHANGERS WERE IN SEPARATE CUBICLES SEPARATED BY WALLS --
7 HEAVY WALLS AND THAT KIND OF THING.
8 MR. HESS: THAT'S CORRECT.
9 MS. WILLI AMS: THE REASON THAT 'S IN THE WALKDOWN 10 CHECKLIST IS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET INTO -- TUGCO HAS A DAMAGE 11 STUDY GROUP WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PERFORMING THE LINE BREAK 12 ANALYSIS AND THE BREAK LOCATIONS AND CHECKING HOW THAT ALL 13 INTERACTS IN THE PLANT AS A WHOLE.
i
\
15 OF OUR REVIEW SCOPE. BOB AND JIM HAVE PUT THIS HAZARDS REVIEW 16 ON THE WALKDOWN CHECKLIST BECAUSE IT'S A REASONABLE AND WHAT 17 WE THOUGHT PRUDENT THING TO DO, BUT IT WAS A QUALITATIVE, NOT 18 QUANT IT AT IVE, ASSESSMENT OF THE SURROUNDINGS OF THE COMPONENTS 19 AS WE WALKED THROUGH THE PLANT. BUT WE DIDN'T GET INTO DEPTH 20 INTO DAMAGE STUDY ANALYSIS OR IF ANY OF YOUR OUESTIONS ARE I 21 GOING TO BE LEADING DOWN THAT PATH.
22 MR. OVERB ECK: THEY ARE. THE NEXT ONE LEADS DOWN NONSEISMIC. SAME QUEST ION 23 THAT PATH. SEISMIC PROTECTION.
24 YOU GOT CHECKED YES, BUT C AN YOU I DE NT IF Y THE NONS E ISM IC 25 EQUIPMENT IN THE VICINITY?
26 MR. FOLEY: THAT REVIEW CENTERED MAINLY AROUND 4
27 LOOKING ABOVE OR NEAR SAFETY RELATED PARTS OF THE COMPONENT 28 COOLING WATER SYSTEM TO SEE IF THERE WERE, FIRST OF ALL, IF
.. ... c..c o ooiooE a cAmmoLL co . .. c o.. .
" ' ';',' *l,"' ce=Tmeo suominamo napoavans ,, , ,c oy,y, , , ,
........n.. orposmos wovam es
1 116 3 1 THERE WAS EQUIPMENT THERE WHICH COULD FALL AND POTENTI ALLY k 2 DAMAGE THE 5YSTEM. IF WE IDENTIFIED SUCH EQUI PMENT, THEN WE 3 WENT 8ACK AND TRIED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS, IN 4 FACT, SEISMIC OR AT LEAST SEISMICALLY SUPPORTED.
5 ONE INSTANCE COMES TO MIND, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE 6 CHILLERS FOR THE CRAWL ROOM VENTILATION SYSTEM, HAD SOME 7 F AIRLY 8IG LIGHTS OVER THEM. BUT THEY WERE TETHERED AND WE 8 CONFIRMED THROUGH DISCUSSIONS WITH SITE PERSONNEL THAT THEY 9 WERE TETHERED TO PREVENT THEIR FALLING ON THIS EQUIPMENT IN 10 THE EVENT OF A SEISMIC EVENT.
Il BUT, AGAIN, IT WAS A RATHER GROSS KIND OF A REVIEW 12 AND NOT SOMETHING -- IT WASN'T A SEISMIC TOOL OF ONE STARTING, 13 F OR E XAM PLE, IN POINT 3 ON THE SYSTEMS AND DIRECTIONS STUDY, I - 14 BUT MORE GROSS THAN THAT. WE DID LOOK ALSO AT MONORAILS AND s
15 DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE SEISMIC ALLY SUPPORTED, REVIEW.
16 MR. OVERBECK: SEISMIC IS OUTSIDE YOUR SCOPE, T HA T 17 ANALYS IS .
)
18 MS. WILLIAMS: THAT'S CORRECT. BUT WE KIND OF 19 PICKED UP A LITTLE A'DD-ON. SINCE WE WERE IN THE AREA LOOKING 20 AT IT, WE CHECKED FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS.
21 MR. OVER8ECK: NOW, THERE WERE -- THERE 'S NO 22 NON-SAFETY STUFF OVER SAFETY STUFF. I SHOULDN'T SAY I
i '23 SAFETY -- NONSEISMIC OR SEISMIC STUFF WITH RESPECT TO YOUR 24 SCOPE. YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY EXCEPT THIS ONE INSTANCE WHERE YOU 25 HAD THE LIGHTING.
26 MR. FOLEY: THAT 'S CORRECT.
27 MR. HESS: WE HAD THE LIGHTING AND WE ALSO 28 QUESTIONED ONE OF THE MONORAILS OVER THE CCW PUMP, AND THE
... ...-cisco . ooiost a cAnnoLL c. ,,.. ....
'****** ce=Tipito saoaTuaNo armoniens c o
'*'88'"'
sai a spee DEPOSITION NOTanits t
.- ? .:; 7 . .
117 4 1 RAIL IS SUPPORTED AND THE HOIST MECHANISM IS NOT ON EXCEPT FOR 2 MA INTENANC E.
3 MR. OVERB ECK: YO U DI DN 'T LOOK AT NUR E G 612 I S S UE S .
4 THAT WAS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE 7 5 MR. HESS: THAT WAS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.
6 MR. FOLEY: THAT'S RIGHT. .
7 MR. MARINOS: NE XT QUE S T ION, NUMBER 10, DESCRIB E HOW 8 TE VENTING SCHEME FOR THE COMPONENT WATER COOLING SURGE TANK 9 WAS CONSIDERED TO SATISFY SINGLE FAILURE.
10 MR. HESS: O KA Y. THE TANK VENT VALVE IN CONJUNCTION 11 WITH THE RELIEF VALVE AND THE VACUUM BREAKER PROVIDES j 12 REDUNDANCY FOR OVERPRESSURIZATION AND PREVENTING VACUUM IN THE 13 TANK. THAT COMBINATION IS WHAT WE VER IF IED.
I -
14 M R. OVERBECK: 50 WITH FAILURE, ONE HAD THE OTHER --
15 MR. HESS: YOU HAVE THE OTHER. IF THE VE NT VA LVE IS 16 HELD CLOSED, THE RELIEF VALVE WILL PROVIDE THERHAL RELIEF 17 C APAB I LIT Y. IF THE RELIEF VALVE FAILS, THEN THE VENT VALVE 4
18 CAN BE OPENED TO RELIEVE PRESSURE IN THE TANK.
19 MR. OVERB ECK: DID YOU FIND ANYWHERE THAT WAS AN 20 ACCEPTABLE METHOD THAT THEY DESCRIBE THIS IS THE REDUNDANCY 21 REQUIRED FOR PROTECTING THE TANK OR YOU DETERMINED THAT 22 YOURSELVES?
'23 MR. HESS: THAT WAS BASED ON OUR ASSESSMENT. I DO 24 NOT REMEMBER A SPECIFIC CRITERIA IN THEIR DOCUMENTATION THAT 25 REQUIRED THAT. THE BOP FR-1 SPECIFIED -- ! BELIEVE, SPECIFIED l
l 26 SOME -- THAT THE TANK HAD TO BE PROTECTED FROM I
27 OVERPRESSUR IZ ATION AND FROM VACUUM. WE ASSESSED THIS VENTING 28 AND VACUUM SCHEME TO BE ACCEPTABLE.
DOIDGE e CARROLL e ,,,,.. go...
7,".yCg' CtefiPitD SMORTMAND mtpomTERS coww
- '88
ee 's e s e a s** DEPOSITION NOTARIE S
118 1 MR. KNOX: DOES GIBBS S HILL AND FMEA THAT SPECIFIES 2 THIS ACTION.
THERE IS AN FMEA IN TME FSAR. I WOULD 3 MR. HESS: \
DETAIL 4 HAVE TO GO B ACK AND CHECK THAT -- WHETHER TMAT LEVEL OF 5 WAS IN THAT FMEA. MY RECOLLECTION OF IT IS IT CONSIDERED 6
THINGS LIKE LOSS OF THE HEAT EXCHANGER, LOSS OF A PUMP, THE 7 LARGE COMPONENTS.
MR. OVERB ECK: THIS COMMON COMPONENT HERE, AND I 8
9 CAN'T READ FROM MY LITTLE DRAWING, LOOKS LIKE 1-RV-4 50 8.
THAT'S THE VENT VALVE, 10 MR. HESS: YES, THAT'S 4506.
11 THAT'S THE SOLENOID.
12 MR. OVERBECK: THAT VENT VALVE IS BOTH A RELIEVING 13 PATH AS WELL AS THE --
14 ,MR. NESS: IT IS A NORMALLY OPEN VALVE.
\
15 MR. OVERB ECK: IS THERE A POSITION INDICATION 16 PROVIDED WITH THAT VALVE 7 MR. HESS: IN THE CONTROL ROOM, YES.
17 18 MR. OVERBECK: DID YOU RELATE POSITION INDICATION 7 19 , MR. FOLEY: I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.
MR. OVERBECK: THEN THE VALVE IS CLOSED. HOW DO YOU 20 21 KNOW IT'S OPEN?
i 22 MS. WILLIAMS: I TRIED TO DO THAT QUIETLY. -
'3 2 MR. HESS: I'M AFRAID I'(4 NOT GETTING THE DRIFT OF 24 YOUR QUESTION.
25 MR. OVERBECK: MY POINT IS THAT THE VALVE -- I W ANT 26 TO KNOW IF THE SAFETY RELATED POSITION INDICATION SUCH THAT i THE OPERATOR KNOWS THAT THAT VALVE IS IN THE WRONG POSITION 27 IN OTHER WORDS, THE 28 PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACCIDENT.
s.= esa=cisco DOIDGE e CARROLL co w .. ce...
- " ' '*** CantiPiED swCmTMamo mtponTams c os%' *
- '* esa**et esiIeNasee DEPCstTION NOTanit3
119 VALVE !$ NOT IN A CLOSED POSITION, THER EF OR E, UNDE TEC TED 1
2 SINGLE FAILURE.
3 MR. STANLEY: THE OTHER ONE IS THAT THE RELIEF VA LVE IS NOT NORHALLY TESTED.
IT'S ASSUMED TO OE FAILED, ALSO.
4 5 MR. OVERBECK: NOT FROM A MECHANIC AL STANDPOINT.
6 $1NGLE FAILURE COULO BE THE RELIEF VALVE.
8 MR. HESS: THAT VALVE IS A SAFETY CLASS VALVE ON THE 9 TANK TO MAINTAIN PRESSURE INTEGRITY, THE PRESSURE FOUNDARY OF 10 THE TANK. IT DOES NOT SERVE A SAFETY FUNCTION A3 FAR AS THE 11 POWER SUPPLY TO THAT VALVE IS CONCERNED. IN OTHER WORDS, IT 12 FAILS IN ITS SAFE POSITION WHICH IS CLOSED. IT FAILS CLOSED 1
13 TO MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE INTEGRITY OF THE TANK.
I
- 14 MR. STANLEY: TWO SAFETY FUNCTIONS.
15 MR. OVERBECK: TWO SAFETY FUNCTIONS. ONE PURPOSE 16 WAS TO LET AIR IN AND ONE IS TO LET AIR OUT.
17 MR. HESS: THAT'S CORRECT, BUT WHAT -- YOU KNOd, GET 18 INTO YOUR SINGLE FAILURE AS TO WHAT ARE YOUR SINGLE FAILURES.
19 I MEAN, HOW MANY SINGLE FAILURES ARE YOU GOING TO OESIGN FOR, 20 WHICH ONE. YOU HAVE TOLD ME YOU GOT A DESIGN BAS!$ ACCIDENT 21 AND I F AILED THAT VALVE CLOSED, 1 DON'T HAVE TO TAKE A F AILURE 22 ON A RELIEF VALVE.
53 MR. STANLEY: NO, YOU DON'T.
24 MR. HESS: IF I TAKE A $1NGLE FAILURE ON A RELIEF 25 VA LVE, ! DON'T HAVE TO ASSUME A $1NGLE FAILURE ON THE VALVE.
26 MR. OVERBECK: THE VALVE !$ IN A CLOSED POSITION.
! 27 THE OPERATOR DOESN'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT NOW THAT 'S THE OPEN ISSUE. IS 28 SAFETY RELATED POSITION,
..~ ...=c c o coicot a CARROLL go ... gg,,,
seistoms soee c ow=. .
CE RTIFIE D SMORTH AND REPORTE RS "#'
seIeNasee OE POSITION NOTARIE S
120 i
1 THERE A SAFETY RELATED POSITION. IF THERE 15, THE N M Y k 2 QUESTION'S MOOT.
3 MR. FOLEY: THE ANSWER 15, THERE !$ NOT A SAFETY 4 RELATED POSITION.
MR. OVER8 ECK: 50 THE VALVE IS CLOSED. NOW THE 5
6 ACCIDENT OCCURS. NOW I NEED EITHER A VENT PATH OR A RELIEF 7 PATH. NOW I ASSUME MY SINGLE FAILURE IS THE OTHER VENT PATH 8 OR THE OTHER RELIEF PATH.
1 9 MR. HESS: OKA Y. THE OTHER MITIGATING DEAL THERE IS 10 THERE A PRESSURE SWITCH ON THE TANK WHICH HAS AN ALARM 11 FUNCTION, I BELIEVE.
12 MR. FOLEY: SAFETY RELATED7 13 MR. HESS: WE WILL HAVE TO DOUSLE CHECK (NAT.
14 MR. OVERBECK: WELL, THE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE 15 VALVE VENTS VALVE AND RELIEF VALVE, THE COMBINATION VENT VALVE 16 AND RELIEF VALVE IS NOT SAFETY RELATED.
17 MR. STANLEY: HE IS TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR 18 OPERATOR ACCIDENT.
19 MR. CALVO: YOU HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SINGLE 20 FAILURES, SAFETY RELATED INDICATIONS AND N000DY HAS SAID YET 21 WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCES IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THAT TANK.
22 WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF COMPONENT COOLING
! 23 SYSTEM TO PERFORM THE ATTEMPTED FUNCTION OR NOT. CAN YOU 24 ARGUE FROM THAT POINT 7 25 YOU GOT ONE SOURCE TANK THAT IS COMING TO A 26 REDUNDANT SYSTEM. THAT'S WHY THE SINGLE FAILURE GET5 INTO THE 4
', 27 P I C TUR E. THE NEXT QUESTION WAS, I ALSO GOT ONE REACTOR VESSEL.
28 THE QUESTION !$, HOW DO YOU PROVE YOUR CASE OR HOW DO YOU
=*a c4co poioot a cAmmou. .. ........
"''"** CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTEms co w' sai sYasee OEposit ON NOTamits l
121 ;
1 1 RATIONALIZE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THAT TANK, WHAT HAS I 2 HAPPENED TO THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM.
3 IF SOMETHING HAPPENED, THEN YOU MUST BE SURE THAT 4 YOU MITIGATE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT WITH WHATEVER OTHER 5 EQUIPMENT OR INDICATIONS OR WHATEVER. 50 F AR YOU HAVE TA KE N 6 IT FOR GRANTED THAT EVERYTHING NOW HAS TO BE SAFETY RELATED 7 AND YOU GOT TO DO THIS AND THAT. GO S ACK TO THE PR EM IS E F IR ST S AND SEE WHAT GIB85 & HILL DECIDED AND WHAT WAS THE 8 ASIS FOR 9 THE DESIGN.
10 MR. HESS: IF YOU OVERPRESSURIZE AND RUPTURED THE 11 TANK, THEN YOU COULD LOSE CCW.
12 MR. CALVO: HOW YOU GOING TO OVERPRESSURIZE IT7 I
13 MR. HESS: WITH THE SCENAR10 THAT 'S BEING POSTULATED 14 NOW, THAT THE RELIEF VALVE FAILS AND THE OPERATOR DOESN'T KNOW g
15 THAT THE VENT VALVE IS CLOSED, THE TANK IS DESIGNED FOR 15 PSI
! 16 AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE, THEN, SOME OTHER INFLOW INTO THE 17 SYSTEM FROM A -- ANOTHER SYSTEM IN ORDER TO GET 18 OVE R PR ES SUR IZ AT ION.
MR. OVERBECK: YOUR SYSTEM IS HEATING UP. IT'S A 19 20 HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM. IT'S QUITE COMMON FOR THOSE THINGS TO 21 EXPAND. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE EXPANSION SYSTEMS. .
22 MR. HESS: THAT'S TRUE. BUT THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED
'23 SUCH THAT IT CAN -- THE SURGE TANK, IS $! ZED 8 ASED ON THAT 24 HEAT-UP, THAT THERMAL LOAD FROM A NORMAL WATER LEVEL AND THERE 25 IS A FREE VOLUME ABOVE THE NORMAL WATER LEVEL FOR THAT 26 E XPA NS ION. AND THAT'S PART OF THE 5IZING CALCULATION ON THE l
27 SURGE TANK.
28 SO NOW IF YOU WANT TO ASSUME THAT THE THING WAS 87,' *,***,'$' DOIDGE e CARROLL cow..ce,,,
CERTIFIED SMORTHAND RsponTERS co ee
.po **#'
esis esi.ssee DEPOSITION NOTARIES
122 f
1 ALREADY SOLID OR ALMOST SOLID AT THAT POINT AND THEN YOU GOT A 2 HEAT UP DUE TO KICKING IN RHR OR CONTAINMENTS SPRAY, I THINK 3 YOU'RE GETTING INTO THE RANGE OF ASSUMING AGAIN MULTIPLE 4 F AILURES TO GET TO THAT POINT.
5 MR. CALVO: YOU STILL DON'T GO BACK TO THE 6 FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IT IS SUPPOSEDLY REDUNDANT AND 7 INDEPENDENT SYSTEM TWO TRAINS ALL THE WAY. THE COMMON POINT 8 IS THAT TANK.
9 MR. HESS: THE COMMON POINT IS THE TANK AND IT HAS A 10 BARRIER THAT CAN HANDLE NO WATER ON ONE SIDE AND FULL ON THE 11 OTHER.
12 MR. CALVO: WHAT I AM SAYING, SOMEBODY MUST HAVE 13 JUSTIFIED THE DESIGN ON THOSE BASES. SOMEWHERE AT GIBBS S 5
. 14 HILL, SOM EB ODY IS GOING TO BE THE DOCUMENTATION ON A DESIGN 15 BASIS, NOT REDUNDANCY REQUIRED IN THIS CASE. BECAUSE ONE WAY 16 TO GET AROUND IT IS TO PUT ANOTHER TANK. YOU ALSO IDENTIFIED 17 A PROBLEM RIGHT AT THE REACTOR COOLING PUMP AREAS, RIGHT?
, 18 THAT WAS JUST A COMMON PROBLEM THAT IT CAN CAUSE BOTH SYSTEMS
.. TO FAIL. WHEN YOU -- YOU KNOW, YOU HAD ACCEPTED THAT DESIGN 20 F EA TUR E OR YOU NOT ACCEPTED IT. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
21 BECAUSE WHAT YOU TRYING TO DO NOW IS BAND-AIDS, 22 WHETHER YOU ARE GOING TO KEEP YOUR VALVE OPEN, WHETHER YO U ' R E 23 GOING TO PUT ANOTHER IN THE CONTROL ROOM. ARE YOU GOING TO GO 24 TO THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL ONE, !$ THAT ONE THING AND HOW DID 25 GIBBS & HILL DEFEND THAT KIND OF DESIGN. SO IT'S NOT TO l 26 $!NGLE FAILURES -- ! CAN BE DREAMING OF A THOUSAND $1NGLE f
27 FAILURES RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THAT TANK.
28 MR. OVERB ECK: I GUESS THE BOTTOM -- WHAT I AM s.= e ..cisco DOIDGE & CARMOLL co 's. cos'.
$.**j' CEntipsED SMomTMAND REpomTEms co e
ne t si es ossee DEPOSITION NotamiE5
o -- .. ,.... . . . - .
l 123
' TRYING TO SAY HERE IS, IF TOU -- HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE DESIGN 1
2 CALCULATION AND CONFIRMED TO YOURSELF, EITHER THROUGH Gl885 &
3 HILL'S CALCULATION OR YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT CALCULAT ION, THAT 4 THE TANK CAN TAKE THE SITUATION I DESCRIBED AND STILL BE 5 FUNCTIONAL. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN LOSE THE TANK.
6 MR. MSS: WE VERIFIED THE TANK SIZING CALCULATION TANK 7 AS FAR AS THE THERMAL HEAT-UP AND VOLUMES REQUIRED IN THE 8 BOTH FROM HIGH LEVEL AND LOW LEVEL. WE VERIFIED THAT THE TANK 9
BASICALLY ACTED AS TWO SEPARATE TANKS, EXCEPT FOR THE VENT 10 SPACE ABOVE IT.
II WE DID IDENTIFY A SCENARIO WHERE THE TANK -- THIS 12 ARRANGEMENT COULD BE A PROBLEM COMBINED WITH ANOTHER FAILURE 13 IN THE SYSTEM WHICH YOU JUST REFERRED TO WITH THE REACTOR 14 COOLANT PUHP THERMAL BARRIER. THAT SCENARIO CAN BE FIXED AND 15 HAVE THIS TANK BE ADEQUATE IN THE WAY IT IS TO MEET ITS NORMAL 16 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. ALL RIGHT7 OR YOU CAN 00 THINGS SUCH AS 17 ' YOU SAID, HAVING TWO SEPARATE TANKS. THAT'S NOT OUR DEC IS ION.
18 MS. WILLI AMS: WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RESPONSE 8 ACK ON 19 THAT SCENARIO YET AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE FIRMED UP OUR 20 FEELINGS ON THE SYSTEM UNTIL WE FIND OUT HOW TEXAS UTILITIES 21 EVALUATED THAT SCENARIO AND WHETHER THERE IS A HUNDRED OTHER l
22 DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN THE SAME THING l
! 23 WHICH I BELIEVE IS WHAT YOU ARE DR,IVING AT. AND TO US RIGHT l
24 NOW, IT 'S STILL OPEN. IT'S ON OU REVIEW ISSUES LIST AND 25 WE'RE WAITING TO FIND OUT WHAT KIND OF EVALUATION HAS BEEN 26 DONE, 50...
I 27 MR. FOLE Y: ARE YOU CONSIDERING THE RELIEF VALVE TO 28 BE AN ACTIVE OR A PAS $1VE PERFORMER.
8,,' * ',;C,',8 C,0 DOIDGE & CARROLL co c .. ces,.
cantipito SwoRTHAND atoomttas Coav' saise esosies OtpOSITION NOTAmits
4 124 1 MR. HESS: I BELIEVE IN THE EVALUATION WE LOOKED AT 2 IT AS A PASSIVE COMPONENT, MECHANICAL.
3 MR. OVERB ECK: IT HAS TO OPEN TO OPERATE LIKE A 4 CHECK VALVE.
5 MR. FOLEY: TRUE.
YOU MEAN BY THAT UNIT FROM FAILURES, 6
7 IS THAT WHY YOU ARE ASKING THE QUESTION IF IT WAS TO BE 8 ASSUMED A PASSIVE COMPONENT IT WOULD NOT CONSIDERED FAIL.
MR. FOLEY: THAT WAS THE THRUST OF MY QUESTION, YE S .
9 10 MR. MARINOS: 50 THAT WE DO NOT GIVE CREDIT FOR 11 PASSIVE COMPONEhn, THEY HAVE TO FAIL AS ACTIVE COMPONENTS.
IN S UMMAR Y, THEN, AS I READ IT, WHAT 12 MR. STANLEY:
13 YOU'E SAYING IS YOU FIND THE PRESENT DESIGN -- YOU FOUND THE 14 PRESENT DESIGN TO BE OKAY FOR BOTH OVERPRESSURIZATION AND DRAWING A VACUUM, IS THAT CORRECT? NO?
15 16 MR. HESS: WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE OTHER SCENARIO 17 WITH THE REACTOR COOLANT PUMP THERMAL B ARRIER, YES.
18 MR. OVERBECK: WAS THERE A GIBBS & HILL CALCULATION 19 THAT ASSUMED THAT THE NORMAL VENT PATH WAS CLOSED AND THE WE 20 VACUUM BREAKER THAT -- WE 'RE GETTING TO LATER QUESTION OUR 21 MADE THESE QUESTIONS UP JUST WHAT CAME OFF THE TOP OF NEADS AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH. THERE IS NO RHYME OR REASON 22
(
"kJ HERE. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SANDBAG ANYBODY.
24 HOW DID YOU VERIFY THE SIZE OF THE RELIEF VALVE AND 25 HOW DID YOU VER IF Y T HE S IZ E OF THE VACUUM BREAKER, AND KNOWING 26 WHETHER THIS PARTICULAR VENT VALVE -- VENT, SLASH, ' RELIEF l
i 27 VALVE WAS CLOSED AND THESE OTHER POTENTI AL SYSTEM INTERACTIO 28 GOING TO HEAT-UPS, CONTRACTIONS, COOLDOWNS, HOW'D YOU VER IFY --
sa= en.=c sco DOIDGE & CARROLL c o='o..
c ** cos's
" $',' * *,**' CtataritD SMontw AND mtPomites , ,,,,
wise ase ssee DEPOS8710N NOTAmit5
' 125 1 15 THAT -- WA5 THERE A CALCHLATION THAT YOU LOOKED AT TO
\ 2 VERIFY THAT7 3 MR. HESS: THERE WAS NO CALCULATION OF, YOU KNOW, 4 WHAT THE OVERPRESSURE IN THE TANK WOULD SE IF THE RELIEF VALVE 5 FAILED TO OPEN AND THE VENT VALVE WAS CLOSED THAT I AM AWARE 6 0F. .
7 MR. CVERBECK: CYGNA DIDN'T PERFORM AN INDEPENDENT 8 CALCULATION 7 i 9 MR. HESS: WHAT WE DID WAS LOOK AT THE VACUUM 10 BREAKER SIZE AND CV AND LOOK AT THE 583 GPM MODERATE ENERGY 11 LINE BREAK, WHICH IS THE OUTFLOW FROM THE MAX OUTFLOW FROM THE 12 TANK.
13 MR. OVERBECK: I'M NOT TALKING PASSIVE FAILURE. !
ALL I WANT
, 14 THAT'S ANOTHER FAILURE I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
15 TO TALK ABOUT RIGHT NOW 15 THE PARTICUL AR VENT -- VE NT, SLASH, 16 RELIEF VALVE IS CLOSED --
17 MR. HESS: THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING TO IF YOU JUST 18 HOLD A SECOND.
19 MR. CVER8 ECK: SUR E.
20 MR. HESS: WE LOOKED AT THE WORST CASE CONDITION 21 THAT WE ASSUMED, WHICH WAS THE MODERATE ENERGY LINE 8REAK DISCHARGING FROM THE SYSTEM 583 GPM. AND THEN WE LOOKED AT ,
! 22
'23 THE EQUIVALENT AIR FLOW RATE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE 80 24 THAT VOLUME OF WATER, ALL RIGHT, AND IT COMES OUT TO ABOUT 25 CUSIC FEET PER MINUTE.
26 AND WE LOOKED AT THE PRESSURE DROP, THE i.055ES l
1 27 THROUGH THAT FLOW PATH THAT WOULD SE INCURRED AND IT'S LESS 28 THAN 2 PSI DELTA P THROUGH THAT SYSTEM. AND WE 8ASED ON THE
- = ==. c ..c o poioGE a cannoLL .....co...
csatipiao swontaaNo mamoataas , ,e o,.;* , , ,
"'t..,.,*.'."*
. . . . . osmosmos notamias
126 4 1 F ACT THAT THAT ' S A, ! BELIEVE, A TWO-INCH CONNE'CTION WITH THE
\
2 VACUUM BREAKER AND ONE-INCH AND TWO-!NCH CONNECTION ON THE 3 VENT VALVE, WE DETERMINED THOSE TO BE ADEQUATE TO MEET THOSE 4 FLOW RATES. AND THAT'S THE WORST CASE FLOW RATE. THE NORMAL 5 DESIGN FLOW RATE FOR LEAKAGE IS 50 GPM AND THAT COMES OUT TO 6 ABOUT 7 OR 8 CUS IC FEET PER MINUTE.
7 MR. OVERBECK: W HAT ' S THE DES ! GN VAC UUM C A PAB I L IT Y 8 0F THE TANK 7 9 MR. HESS: I CAN'T ANSWER THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY 10 HEAD.
Il MR. OVERBECK: IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE 4
12 LOOKED AT7 13 MR. HESS: I BELIEVE WE LOOKED -- WE LOOKED AT THE 14 TANK SPEC AND IF IT WAS IN THERE, WE VERIFIED IT IN THERE.
15 MR. FOLEY: YES.
16 HR.'HESS: I DON 'T REMEMBER ANY , SPEC IF IC NUMBER.
17 MR. OVERB ECK: THE SIZING OF THE VENT I CAN 18 UNDERSTAND MAY BE SASED ON WHAT WOULD OCCUR BECAUSE OF THE 19 MODERATE ENERGY BREAK. THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER ONE WHERE YOU 20 DON'T HAVE THE MODERATE ENERGY 8REAK, NOW YOU JUST HAVE THE 21 HEAT-UP AND COOLING THAT SYSTES DOWN AND YOU'RE STILL TAKING 22 IT FR OM DELTA P, WHATEVER, COLD WATER INSTEAD OF HOT WATER, 23 AND NOW THE SYSTEM IS CONTRACTING. AND DID YOU LOOK AT THAT 24 SCENAR IO WITH --
25 MR. HESS: CONTRACTION WOULD BE, I'M SURE IT 26 DOESN 'T -- ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T RUN CHECK CALCS ON HT'AT, I DON'T l 27 THINK THE CONTRACTION IS ANYWHERE NEAR 583 G PM.
28 MR. OVERSECK: OKAY.
- *,f a ,* *'cy *,C,0 DoiDGE & CARROLL g a.,, .. c ,, .
CtatipigD SMORTHaND mt ponisms c o v'e's i , , , , , , ,
'*''88"
sessi asi snee OtrosifsON NotAmitS
t 127 f
1 MR. HESS: AM I MISSING YOUR QUESTION 7
!I 2 MR. OVERBECK: I THINK YOU ARE.
3 MR. HESS: RESTATE IT, PLEA SE.
4 MR. OVERBECK: l'M TRYING TO -- I'M STILL B ACK ON 5 THE SINGLE FAILURE OF THIS VENT VALVE -- NOT THE VENT VALVE.
6 THE VENT VALVE -- MY UNDERSTANDING 15 THE POSITION INDICATION 7 IS NOT SAFETY RELATED, THE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE OPENING OF 8 THE VALVE IS NOT SAFETY RELATED, AND THE VALVE IS CLOSED, 9 G I VE N, BEF ORE THE ACCIDENT OCCURS.
10 NOW I NEED A VENT AND RELIEF PATH FOR THE TANK AND I 11 ASSUME THE F AILUR E OF ONE OF THOS E VE NT OR RELIEF VA LVE S , THE 12 FUNCTION ON DEMAND, IS THAT A TANK PROTECT IT. I THINK THAT 'S
, 13 THE QUESTION WE HAVE ASKED B ACK HERE.
14 MR. STANLEY: LET ME JUST ADD ONE MORE THING. I 15 THOUGHT YOU HAD INDIC ATED WHEN YOU TRIED TO TELL US ABOUT THE 16 VAC UUM PROTECTION ON THAT THAT YOU TOOK INTO ACCOUNT BOTH FULL
- 17 PATHS.
18 MR. HESS: NO, NE ITHER ONE.
! 19 MR. STANLEY: NEITHER ONE.
20 MR. CALVO: I'M $URE THAT A COMPONENT COOLING WATER 21 SYSTEM -- THE RELIEF VALVES, T HE INDICATION ARE MOST PROB ABLY 22 NOT SAFETY RELATED. TYPICAL I TRIPLE E STUFF, OKAY.
l '23 50 EITHER YOU GOT TO PROVE YOUR CASE ON THE F ACT 24 THAT YOU GOT A GOOD TANK AND THAT TANK IS NOT GOING TO RUPTURE.
25 BECAUSE THE SAME BA515 THAT IT'S GOING RUPTURE, THEN THE 26 SYSTEM THAT YOU PROVIDED TO PRECLUDE THAT FROM RUPTURE, GOT TO I BE BAPTIZED WITH ALL THESE GOOD STANDARDS, OKAY.
l , 27 28 AND I DON'T THINK SO ON THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER l
saw eaa c.sco DOIDGE & CARRQLL $0='estos's
" "' "'**** CgmflFtED SMOmTHAND REPORTams C ow *"
f *'
i seiIafssee DEPOSITION Notamig5
128 1 SYSTEM. ALL THESE GOOD FEATURES IN HERE ARE SAFETY RELATED 2 AND MEET ALL THESE CODES AND STANDARDS, OKAY.
50 IT GOES BACK AGAIN TO WHAT I SAID BEFORE. YOU
> 3 THE 4 GOT TO PROVE YOUR CASE THAT ONE TANK !$ GOOD ENOUGH.
5 SYSTEM 15 SUPPOSED TO BE REDUNDANT AND INDEPENDENT.
6 YOU LOST THE FACT -- YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT CASE.
7 THEN YOU SAY THE ONLY WAY I CAN MAINTAIN INTEGRITY IN THE TANK 8 IS THAT I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE VALVES AND THE 9 INSTRUMENTATION !$ REDUNDANT AND CAPABLE OF BEING TESTED TO 10 ASSURE THAT IF THIS HAPPENS, I HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO PRECLUDE 1
11 IT FROM HAPPENING.
12 IF YOU CAN DO THAT, ALL RIGHT. I WOULO NOT GO ON l 13 THIS IF THAT'S THE CASE, I'M SURE THE INSTRUMENTATION PROVIDED 14 TODAY IN THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM FOR THE SURGE TANK 15 00ESN'T MEET ALL THOSE PROTECTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS.
16 THAT'S WHY I AM SAYING -- ! GOT TO Go B ACK TO -- ASK 17 GISB S L HILL OR SOMEWHERE WHY THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH.
18 MR. STUA RT: LET ME TRY TO HELP BEFORE GARY'S 19 FRUSTRATION LEVEL REACHES A PEAK. THERE ARE THREE POS$18LE 20 ANSWERS TO THIS QUESTION. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO SELECT ONE OF i
21 THE THREE. ANSWER ONE, WE DIDN'T LOOK AT IT AND WE WILL; 22 ANSWER TWO, WE LOOKED AT IT AND IT WAS OKAY; OR NUMBER THREE, I ..
23 WE LOOKED AT IT AND IT WASN'T OKAY.
24 NOW SELECT ONE OF THOSE THREE ANSWERS AND LET'S MOVE 25 ON.
26 MR. HESS: WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THAT SCENARIO.
l k 27 MR. STUART: AND WE WILL.
- y**,**c o DOIDGE & CARROLL go.... ge...
CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTE RS towa"
...g.,, **'"'
sense est asee DEPOSITION NOT ARiE S
129 1 MR. STUART: THANK YOU.
NUMBER 12,.
2 MR. MARINOS: GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
WAS THE DESIGN ADEQUACY OF THE HVAC SYSTEM FOR THE CCW PUMP l 3
l 4 ROOMS REVIEWED.
5 MR. HESS: NO, THIS WASN'T PART OF OUR SCOPE.
MR. ANGELO: NEXT QUEST ION, DID GISBS & HILL HAVE A 6
7 SCHEME --
8 MR. CALVO: EVERYBODY IS HAPPY WITH THE ANSWER 7 9 MR. MARINOS: NOT IN HIS SCOPE.
10 MR. CALVO: ALL RIGHT.
MR. MARINOS: WE ESTABLISHED THIS, RIGHT.
Il 12 MR. OVERB ECK: THE REASON FOR ONE OF THE QUESTIONS 13 IS THERE IS ENVIRO WENTAL STATEMENTS BACK HERE, IS THE s 14 ENVIR ONM ENI ADEQUATE FOR THE EQUIPMENT TO OPERATE. I CAN'T LAY MY HANDS RIGHT ON THE CHECKSHEET RIGHT NOW, C HEC KE D, YES, 15 16 SATISFACTORY.
17 - AND I WAS WONDERING HOW YOU HADE THAT DETERMINATION 18 IF YOU DID NOT HAVE THE HVAC SYSTEM TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT 19 TEMPERATURE THEY GO UP TO, HOW YOU VERIF IED THAT HE AT LOAD IN 20 THAT ROOM AND ITS ABILITY TO OPERATE CONTINUOUSLY.
21 MR. FOLEY: DO YOU KNOW WHICH CHECKLIST THAT 157.
MR. OVER8ECK: WELL, THAT ' S WHAT I AM SAYING, I 22
'23 COULDN'T GET MY HANDS ON IT RIGHT AWAY.
24 MR. HESS: WE MAD A STATEMENT IN ONE OF THE 25 ANALYTICAL CHECKLISTS ABOUT WHERE THE ENVIROWENTAL PROVISION 26 SPECIFIED, IDENT IF IED CHECK SPECIF ICATIONS, WE VER'IF IED THAT
! ! 27 THEY SPECIFIED THEM, SUT WE DIDN'T VERIFY THE ADEQUACY OF THEM.
I MR. OVERBECK: OKAY. 50 IT'S NOT A WRONG STATEMENT 28 o.= n.=c<sco coloGE a cAmmoLL ca.... c os .
CERTIFIED SMomTmaNo agponTEns ,, , ,c, 0,* ' , ,,,
- j'j(("
sets.ess asse OE*0SITION NOT amies
130 1 FOR ME TO SAY THAT YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CONTINUOUS 2 ENVIRONMENT NECESSARILY FOR THE SAFETY RELATED PUMP I N T HA T 3 SYSTEM.
4 MR. HESS: THAT 'S CDRRECT.
5 MR. CALV0: YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT IT, BUT YOU 6 CONSIDERED ITS IMPAC T. .
7 MR. NESS: WE CHECKED ON THE SPECIFICATIONS 8 GENERALLY THAT THEY HAD SPECIFIED SEISMIC OR ENVIRONMENTAL 9 R E QU I R EM ENTS F OR THE E QUI PM E NT. WE DI D NOT VER IF Y THAT THOS E 10 WERE THE SPECIFICS FOR THAT ROOM, T HAT LE VEL OR THAT F LOOR.
Il MR. CALV0: OKA Y.
12 MR. HESS: AND I GUESS AN ADD-0N IS LIKE THE CCW 13 PUMP ROOM, DURING THE WALKDOWN WE DID VERIFY THAT THERE WERE
. 14 CHILLERS IN THE ROOM, BUT WE DID NOT LOOK AT THE ADECUACY OF 15 DESIGN OF THOSE CHILLERS.
16 MR. MARINOS: OKAY. GO TO THE NEXT QUEST!0N, 13.
17 DID GIBBS & HILL HAVE A SCHEME TO IDENTIFY SAFETY-RELATED 18 CALCULATIONS AND WAS THERE A REQUIREMENT TO PERIODICALLY 19 REVIEW, S LA S H, UPDATE THEM.
20 00 YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
21 MS. WILLI AMS: YES. YES, THEY DID. YES, OUR QA 22 PEOPLE LOOKED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR CONTROL WAS EFFECTIVE 23 Ah D, YES, THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE CHECKED TO SEE THAT THE STAMP 24 WAS THERE.
25 MR. OVERSECK: ARE THEY REQUIRED TO PERIODIC ALLY l 26 REVIEW THEM, LIKE EVERY $1X MONTHS OR EVERY YEAR, TO SEE IF 1 27 THERE'S -- THE CALCULATION NEEDS REVISION BECAUSE NOW W E HA VE 28 VENDOR DATA AVAI LABLE, NDW WE HAVE AN AS-BUILT CONDITION e.= ea.=c sc o coicot a cammoLL ...... .....
- '*''"' CERTipsEO SMORTMAND REPORTERS Cow =
see7.Issee DE POSITION NOT Amit S
131 l l
f 1 AVA I LAB LE, NOW, THE CALCULATION AT THIS PO INT '--
t 2 MS. WILLI AMS: WELL, WE DID FIND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE, 3 IN FACT, THINGS HAD CHANGED THROUGH TIME, AND ALL THE 4 APPROPRIATE DDCUMENTS WERE NOT UPDATED, SAY, FOR CHANGES IN 5 TEMPER ATUR E, SYSTEM PRESSURES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AS TO 6 WHETHER THAT'S SECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PROCEDURE IN PLACE, 7 WE DON'T KNOW YET BECAUSE WE'RE STILL EXTRACTING THE B PR DCEDUR E S. BUT WE DID F IND EVIDENCE THAT THINGS WEREN 'T 9 SEING REVISED.
10 MR. OVER8ECK: ALL RIGHT. DOES THEIRg{ ALCULATION 11 PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT ASSUMPTIONS IN DESIGN INPUT THAT NEED 12 VERIFICATION AT A LATER DATE SE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED?
HAVE TO CHECK THAT FOR YO U. I KNOW 13 MS. WILLI AMS:
14 IT REQUIRES THAT THEY SPECIFY DESIGN INPUTS, BUT THE PROCESS 15 0F REVISING AND CHECKING AT A LATER DATE 15 WHAT WE 'RE STILL I 16 INVESTIGATING BEC AUSE OF OUR TECHNICAL F.INDINGS.
MR. MARINOS: WE'LL GO TO QUESTION 14. DESCRIBE HOW 17 18 THE INSPECTION VERIFIED THE INCLUSION OF CERTIF IED VENDOR 19 INF ORMAT ION IN THE DESIGN.
20 MR. HESS: OKAY. WE COMPARED THE DATA THAT WAS USED 21 IN THE CALCULATIONS TO EITHER N TRIPLE 5 SUPPLIED DATA, VENDOR 22 DATA, VENDOR DATA SHEETS, PUMP CURVES FOR CONSISTENCY.
23 MR. OVER8ECK: DOES THAT, MEAN YOU WENT B ACK TO THE 24 DOCUMENT CONTROL CENTER TO GET THAT INFORMATION AND THEN 25 BROUGHT THAT TO THE CALCULATION?
26 MR. HESS: YE S .
27 MR. OVER8 ECK: WAS THERE -- WERE THERE ANY INSTANCES
(
28 THAT YOU IDENTIFIED -- AND I DON'T RECALL HAVING SEEN ANY s.- * = c's c o ooicot a cAmmoLL c... . . c o . . .
cantisiso s ontmaNo asacatsas ,, , ,c,og,, , , , ,
"..'C.. .'.,'l.l.".
. osaosmow notamiss
?
132 i
1 WHERE THEY COULD HAVE USED VENDOR DATA THAT WAS AVAILABLE AND i
b' 2 THEY USED AN ASSUMPTION INSTEAD?
3 MR. FOLE Y: NO.
4 MR. OVER8ECK: WOULD YOU HAVE IDENT IF IED THA T A S A 5 PR OB LEM7 6 MR. FOLEY: YES, IN GENERAL WE WOULD HAVE, !.THINK, 7 IF -- IF THEY WERE CLOSE AND THE CALCULATION WAS CONSERVATIVE, l
8 WE MAY NOT HAVE IDENTIF IED IT AS A PR06LEM BUT, IN GENERAL, 9 YES, WE WOULD HAVE' 1 DENT IF IED THAT AS A PRD8LEM.
10 MR. NEVSHEHAL: IN OTHER WDRDS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING 11 HERE IS THA" WHEN YOU NEEDED TO LOOK AT A YE!JDOR HEAD CURVE, 12 YOU LOOKED FOR THAT IN THE ASSUMPTIONS WHEN YOU HEEDED THAT 4
13 INF ORMAT ION?
t WELL, WE VERIF IED WHAT THE PUHP VENDOR 14 MR. FOLEY:
15 CERTIFIED TO BE PUMP RU.'80UT ON CURVES AND VERIFIED THAT THOSE 16 N UM B ER S, IN FACT, THE NUM0ERS USED IN CALCULATIONS AGREED WITH 17 THOSE NUMBERS. ,
18 AND THE SAME FDR HEAT LOADS ON VARIOUS CHILLERS AND 19 COOLERS, THEY WERE ALL CALCULATED IN THE HEAT LOAD CALCULATION 20 WE VERIF IED THAT, IN FACT, WHAT THEY SPEC!riED AND PURCHASED ,
21 WE23 CONSISTENT WITH THOSE NUMBERS USF.D IN THE CALCULATION.
22 MR. NEVSCHEMAL: WHILE THIS MIGHT BE REDUNDANT
~
23 LITTLE PIT, BUT WHEN YOU LOOKED AT. A VENDOR CURVE AND HE SAYS I 24 HA T THE RUNOFF FLOW WAS 18,000 GPM, DID YOU VERIP Y iMAT, 25 1NDEED, THE SYSTEM WAS LIMI TED TO 18,000 GPM7 l
26 MR. HESS: No.
l i
27 MR. OVERBECK: THAT'S NOT AN ATTRIBUTE YOU WOULD 28 HAVE CONSIDERED IN THE TECHNICAL REVIEW RIGHT NOW.
- , ",* c,'gl coloot a cAmmoLL . ... . . e w .
cow % .
, CEmTs8 SED SMORTMAND #EPORTtml ee's esa'siis w e. eseas** DipOS6 TION NOTamit s
133 1 MR. HESS: NO, BECAUSE THE WAY THE CCW PUMP WOULD 2 HAVE SEEN OPERATED, YOU BRING YOUR LOADS ON. IF YOU GO TO 3 R UNO UT, YOU WOULD GO TO LOW PRESSURE ON THE THING AND SWITCH 4 OVER TO THE OTHER LEG, THE OTHER PUMP.
5 MR. FOLEY: THE PRES $URE WOULD GET THAT LOW?
6 MR. HESS: I BELIEVE 50. I'D WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK 7 AND CHECK THE --
8 MR. NEVSCHEMAL: 50 WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE IS THAT 9 YOU DID NOT SEE THE CALCULATION THAT HAD A CONSERVATIVE FOR 10 R UNOF F PURPOSES, PR ES S UR E DR OP, OR SYSTEM LOSS THAT WOULD 11 INDICATE THAT YOU ARE ABOVE THE MAXIMUM RUNOFF. DID I STATE 12 THAT PROPERLY?
13 MR. HESS: IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUE S T ION, YO U ' R E
~
I
- 14 SAYING THAT WE DIDN'T -- NO CALCULATION WE LOOKED AT SHOWED A 15 FLOW OUT OF THE PUMP GREATER THAN THE RUNOUT FLOW STATED BY j 16 THE VENDOR.
17 MR. NEVSHEMAL: NO. WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT, YOU 18 DID NOT SEE A CALCULATION THAT DETERMINED WHAT THE -- I'M 19 SORRY -- THAT DETERMINED THAT THE SYSTEM RESISTANT WAS 20 SUFFICIENT TO KEEP THE PUMP FROM NOT GOING INTO RUNOFF.
21 MR. HESS: I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS WE 22 SAW A CALCULATION THAT SHOWED THAT IT WOULD NOT GO INTO RUNOUT
~
23 BY THE PIPE FLOW CALC WHICH IS A 8ALANCING FLOW CALC WHICH IS 24 USED FOR ORIFICE SIZING AND THROTTLE VALVE POSITION.
25 THE TYPE OF CALCULATION YOU ARE REFERRING TO, I'M 26 NOT FAMILIAR WITH NORMALLY RUNNING ON A GIVEN SYSTEM. I MEAN, I 27 YOU CAN -- A LOT OF TIMES YOUR PUM P I S OVE R -- S OM EW HA T OVE R S IZ E 28 FOR THE TOTAL SYSTEM DEMAND THAT IT COULD GO INTO RUNOUT IF l
- s. ....c.s c o DOIDGE & CAmmOLL co.,... go... )
"''"' camTipsto suonTMAND REPORTERS co**** l
'*'88'"'
wi$'U'asu of position NOTamits J
i
134
~
1
< 1 YOU DIDN'T HAVE THROTTLE VALVES AND ORIFICE PLATES TO LIMIT 2 FLOW THROUGH THE SYSTEM.
3 THE SYSTEM IS SET UP WITH VARIOUS POINTS FDR DR IF IC E 4 PLATES AND VARIOUS THROTTLE VALVES THROUGMOUT IT THAT WOULD 5 US EU TO B ALANC E THE SYS TEM OR SUPPOSED TO BE USED TO BALANCE 6 THE SYSTEM DURING PRE-OP TESTING. WE WERE MORE VERIFYING THAT 7 THE P'JMP HAD ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO MEET ALL ITS FLOW DEM ANDS .
8 MR. OVERBECK: ISN'T IT NECESSARY TO GO AHEAD AND DETERMINE THE RUNOFF FLOW IN ORDER TO GET YOUR NPSH R, AND 9
10 S HO UL DN 'T -- I ' M S ORR Y .
11 MR. HESS: THAT'S A PUMP VENDOR CALC, NPSH R 12 REQUIRED.
13 MR. NEVSHEMAL: IT GETS WHERE YOU ARE ON THE CURVE i , 14 WHICH IS A FUNCTION OF THE FLOW RATE THAT THE SYSTEM IS GOING 15 TO BE GIVING UP.
16 MR. HESS: HPSH REQUIRED IS REQUIRED BY THE PUNP 17 VE N'D O R . NPSH AVAILABLE IS BY THE SYSTEM.
18 MR. OVERB EC K: WELL, DID THE NPSH AVAILABLE ALW AYS 19 EXCEED WHAT THE PUMP MANUFACTURER REQUIRED 7 20 MR. HESS: YES.
21 MR. OVERBECK: DID IT GO PAST 18,000 GPM AND NPSH R 22 N UMB E R?
> 23 MR. HESS: I CAN PULL OUT THE FIGURES.
24 O KAY, THr j,,MP CURVE SHOWS THE NPSH REQUIRED AT 18, 0 0 0 G PM AS AlE ' U A . ATELY 41 FEET A HEAD, ALL RIGHT. THE 25 26 WORST CASE NPSH AVAILABLE THAT WE CALCULATED, ! BELIEVE, THAT i 27 WE GOT ON THE CHECKLIST, WAS 80 FEET A HEAD OR 84 FEET A HEAD, 28 SO THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT MARGIN BETWEEN THE TWO.
saw sea =cisco COIDGE & CARROLL co.... c a . .
"'*8" t owv' CE%FiE D SMOmfMAND RE PCs.4 ms **'8# ''
r uiNesYssee OEPOSITION NOTAmiES i
135 1 1 MR. NORKIN: AGAIN, FOR THIS SYSTEM THEN IT'S NOT A
\ 2 FACTOR, IT'S NOT A REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM.
3 MR. NEVSHEMAL: I GUESS ONE OF THE POINTS THAT WE'RE 4 TRYING TO MAKE HERE OR GET A HANDLE ON IS ARE THEY AWARE OF 5 THE PROBLEMS WITH RESPECT TO RUNOFF AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO 6 NPSH R. AND DID -- DO THEY HAVE A METHODOLOGY FOR CALCUL,ATING 7 THE RUNOFF FLOW THAT IS CONSERVATIVE FOR RUNOFF, ..E., NOT 8 USING CRANE 410 SECAUSE THAT'S A VERY CONSERVATIVE PRESSURE 9 DROP CALCULATION. WHEREAS WHEN YOU CALCULATE FOR SYSTEM 10 R ES I S TA NC E F OR R UNOF F, YOU WANT TO HAVE THE MINIMUM PRESSURE 11 DROP SO YOU CAN DETERMINE IF YOU ARE INTO RUNOFF OR NOT.
12 WHAT WE 'RE TRYING TO EVALUATE HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT I 13 GIBBS S HILL, AS A GENERAL POLICY, UNDERSTANDS THE PROBLEM i .
14 WITH RUNOUT AND NPSH R WHICH COULD APPLY HORIZONTALLY ACROSS 15 TO OTHER SYSTEM,5 WHERE NPSH MAY BE A PROBLEM.
17 MR. OVER8ECK: AND WHA T YOU ARE SAYING TO ME IS THAT 18 YOU DON'T SEE A CALCULATION WHERE -- WHICH IS CONSERVATIVE FOR
20 MR. HESS: CORRECT.
21 MR. OVERB ECK: -- TO COME UP WITH A SYSTEM 22 RESISTANCE CURVE WHICH WILL DETERMINE WHAT YOUR RUNOUT I S FR OM ,
- 23 WHICH YOU THEN GET AN IDEA AS TO THE NEED OF OR IF IC ES OR WHAT i
24- THE NPSH R IS GOING TO SE.
25 MR. HESS: 1 THINK THE OTHER FACET OF THIS THAT I 26 WOULD LIKE TO BRING OUT IS THAT GIBBS S HILL DID NOT HAVE 27 RESPONSIBILITY FOR SIZING ORIFICES. WHAT THEY DID W AS SUPPLY
(
28 THE EXCESS HEAD AVAILABLE AS AN INPUT SACK TO THE SITE FOR
- ",'",'jc co DOIDGE & CARROLL c o,,.. c o , .
, c o w ="
l CERTipiED SMORTMAND REPORTEns ees si es e-ssee DEPOSITION NOTAmlES
136 1 ON-S ITE OR IF ICE SIZING.
2 MR. FOLEY: RIGHT, THAT 'S CORREC T. BUT WE DID NOT 3 REVIEW ANY CALCULATIONS THAT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE 4 CONDITION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY.
MR. OVERBECK: THAT THEY DID. BUT YOU ARE ALSO IN 5
6 THE POSITION THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING IN THAT AREA.
7 MR. HESS: ON THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM, WE DID NOT SEE 8 IT AS A PROBLEM.
N 9 MR. OVERBECK: BECAUSETHEYARNCC@{N))TOUSE 10 ORIF ICES AND THROTTLE VALVES --
11 MR. HESS: CORRECT.
12 MR. OVERBECK: -- AND NEVER GOING TO APPROACH RUNOUT 13 WHATEVER RUNOUT MIGHT BE FOR THIS SYSTEM.
14 - MR. HESS: WELL, NORMAL SYSTEM DEMAND ON THIS SYSTEM 15 IS SOMEWHERE AROUND 14,000 GPM.
16 MR. FOLEY: I ' M NOT S UR E WE -- HA VEN ' T TA KE N A 17 POSITION THAT WE DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR THAT. I MEAN WE 18 HAVEN'T SAID -- WE DIDN'T PASS JUDGMENT.
19 MR. HESS: I'M SAYING WE DIDN'T ASSESS IT, THAT'S 20 ALL. ,
21 MR. OVERBECK: THE SIZE OF THESE ORIF ICES IS BASED 22 ON FIELD TESTING, WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO? -
23 MR. HESS: THE PR OC ES S F ROM GIBBS S HILL IS TO 24 PROVIDE THE FLOW CALCULATIONS SHOWING WHAT THE EXCESS HEAD 25 AVAILABLE IS IN THE SYSTEM. THEY THEN RAN A FLOW B ALANC ING 26 CALC WHICH ARTIFICALLY PUT INTO THE COMPUTER PROGR AM THROTTL 27 POSITIONS OF VALVES OR ORIFICES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY COULD l
l
! 28 GET FLOW TO ALL THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS WITH THESE l s== ena=c.sco DOIDGE 4 CARROLL c o.. . . c o ,, .
- j *o*** CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS C ow ="
wise asi ssee OEPOSITION NOTARIES
137 1 RESTRICTIONS IN IT. BUT THE ACTUAL ORIFICE SIZING WAS TO BE
\
2 DONE BY OTHERS. THEY DID NOT HAVE DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY FOR J 3 SAYING IT'S GOT TO BE A .25 ORIFICE.
4 MS. WILLIAMS: IS IT ONE OF THE START-UP PROCEDURES?
5 IS IT ONE OF THE TESTING PROCEDURES? ! THINK THAT'S WHAT HE 6 IS ASKING. IS THERE A TESTING PROCEDURE IN PLACE OR DID WE 7 C HE C K --
8 MR. HESS: WE DID NOT CHECK THE TESTING PROCEDURE.
9 WE WERE TOLD IT WAS PART OF THE START-UP TESTING AND FLOW 10 SYSTEM B ALANC ING.
11 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY. THEN THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD 12 BY GIBBS S HILL. WE DID NOT GO TO TEXAS TEST GROUP TO LOOK AT 13 THAT PROCEDURE.
i . 14 MR. NEVSCHEMAL: DID YOU REVIEW THE FLOW DI AGR AMS 15 AND/OR ENID'S TO DETERMINE THAT THERE WERE ENOUGH FLOW 16 ORIFICES TO BE ABLE TO BALANCE THE SYSTEH7 17 MR. HESS: WE LOOKED AT THROTTLE VALVES AND ORIFICES 18 IN THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE REVIEWED WITHIN THAT SAFEGUARDS 19 TURNING IT OUT TO THE THERMAL BARRIER. WE DID NOT LOOK AT THE 20 FLOW PATHS TO THE CDCS OR OTHER LOADS THAT WERE OUT OF OUR 21 SCOPE.
22 MS. WILLIAMS: YES, WITHIN OUR SCOPE OR, NO, WE
'3 2 COUL DN 'T -- ,
24 MR. HESS: YE S, WITHIN OUR SCOPE; NO, WITH THE 25 OUTSIDE.
26 MR. MARINOS: WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT QUE S T ION?
k 27 SEEMS LIKE A WHOLE LIST OF QUESTIONS BELOW HAVE ALREADY BEEN l
28 ANSWERED, BUT I'LL ASK THEM, AN YW AY.
l l
- $ *[',',',C,' DOIDGE e CARROLL ,,,, . . c o s ' .
- o. . ,,,o CERTiptED SMORTMAND REPORTERS C o a'*
- * * ' ' 8 7 ' ' S u n si es s.asee OEPOSITsON NOTARiE5 1
l l
138 1 15 IS EXPLAIN HOW THE INSPECTION VERIFIED THE k 2 ADEQUACY OF THE SURGE TANK SIZE TO ACCCHMODATE CHANGES IN A 3 SYSTEM WATER INVENTORY DUE TO TEMPERATURE CHANGE AND SYSTEM 4 LEA KAGE.
5 MR. FOLE Y: ON TOP OF THE PAGE NOW7 l 6 MR. HESS: O KA Y, THAT WAS DONE BASED ON THE SURGE 7 TANK SIZING CALCULATION.
8 MR. OVERBECK: IS THAT IT7 9 MR. HESS: THAT'S IT.
10 MR. OVERBECK: DID IT START WITH THE TEMPERATURE 11 ASSUMED TO BE -- WHAT WAS THE MINIMUM TEMPERATURE ASSUMED IN 12 THE SYSTEM?
13 MR. HESS: WE CAN PULL THE CALC. I DO N ' T R EM EM B ER .
14 MR. OVERBECK: IS T HAT H OW DID THEY DID IT7 15 MR. HESS: THEY HAD A NOMINAL TEMPERATURE AND THEN 16 ASSUMED A HEAT-UP.
17 MR. OVERB ECK: NOMINAL TEMPERATURE BUT NOT A 18 DESIGNED LOW TEMPERATURE?
19 MR. HESS: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS LOW 20 TEMPERATURE OR NOT. ! SAID A NOMINAL, MEANING SOME 21 TEM PERAT UR E. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS THE LOW 60 DEGREES 22 OR 40 DEGREES OR WHETHER IT WAS 70 DEGREES. WE CAN GO BACK IN 23 AND PULL THAT CALC FOR YOU. .
24 MS. WILLI AMS: WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE CALCULATION, 25 DID WE LOOK TO SEE WHETHER THE TEMPERATURES WERE REASONABLE AS 26 FAR AS THE RANGE OF OPERATION FOR THE SYSTEM 7 27 MR. FOLEY: WHAT THE B ASIS OF THE TEMPERATURES WERE.
l 28 MR. STUART: ISN'T THE ANSWER TO HIS QUESTION YES7 s..... c..co ootoGE a cAnnott , , , , , , , , , , ,
Cow =
CERTar ED SMORTMAND RE*CmTERS " " '
win [no OEPOSITION NOTARIES
139
. 1 I DIDN'T HEAR YOU, 8 08 .
3 MR. STUA RT: THANK YOU.
4 MR. OVERBECK: WHICH CALCULATION IS THIS? I HA VE A J LIST OF CALCULATIONS IN FRONT OF ME. I'M LOOKING AT THE ONE 6 THAT SAYS SURGE TANK SIZING?
7 MR. HESS: YE S .
8 MR. OVERBECK! WHERE IS THAT?
9 MS. WILLIAMS: WHICH NUMBER IS THAT?
10 MR. HESS: 229-12 WHICH SAYS CCW STORAGE TANK. IT 11 SHOULD BE SURGE TANK.
12 MR. ANGELO: NUMBER 12.
13 MR. HESS: SHE HAS GOT A LIST.
14 MS. WILLI AMS: YES, AND WE DO HAVE THAT IN-HOUSE.
15 MR. OVERBECK: ARE THERE CALCULATIONS -- DESIGN 16 TEMPERATURES WITHIN THE SYSTEM AT VARIOUS POINTS THROUGHOUT 17 THE SYSTEM, WAS THERE A DESIGN ANALYSIS FOR THAT, NA X!M UM 18 MINIMUM TEMPERATUARES, NORMAL OPERATING, FOR ALL OPERATING 19 MODES?
20 MR. HESS: YE S .
21 MR. OVERBECK: AND THAT I NF ORM AT IO N, WAS THAT 22 TRANSFERRED TO THE PIPING?
l 23 MR. HESS: YES. ,
24 MR. OVERBECK: DID ONE OF THESE CALCULATIONS COME UP 25 WITH THOSE DESIGN TEMPERATURES AT VARIOUS POINTS IN THE SYSTEM?
! 26 MR. HESS: YES, AND I CAN'T TELL YOU SPECIFIC ALLY 1 27 RIGHT NOW WHICH ONE IT !$.
28 MR. OVERBECK: WILL YOU TELL ME BEFORE I LF A VE 7 l'D ta seanecisco cologg g CARROLL g,,,,,,,,,,
N'*,,*,** CERTi# LED SHORTHAND REPORTERS C ow*"
saise asi ssee DEPOSITION NOTARIES
i 1
140 i !
1 LIKE TO KNOW WHICH ONE. ,
i 2 MR. HESS: OKA Y.
i 3 MR. MARINOS: 16 OR 17, HAVE THEY BEEN ADDRESSED 4 ALREADY? YOU GUYS KICKED THAT ONE AROUND.
5 MR. OVERSECK: LET'S ASK IT. EXPLAIN HOW THE 6 INSPECTION VERIFIED THE ADEQUACY OF THREE-FOURTHS INCH RELIEF 7 VALVE ON THE SURGE TANK.
8 MR. HESS: THE RELIEF VALVE IS DESIGNED AS A THERMAL RELIEF VALVE AND IT'S $1 ZED AT 10 GPH. WE DETERMINED THAT 9
10 THAT WAS ADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSE.
11 MR. OVER8ECK: BASED ON THE SURGE TANK S! ZING 12 CALCULATION OR WHAT CALCULATION?
13 MR. FOLEY: IT WAS THE THERHAL EXPANSION.
14 MR. OVERBECK: SEE, 1 DON'T SEE A RELIEF VALVE 15 5IZING CALCULATION. THAT 8 5 WH'r ! ASKED THE QUEST ION.
16 MR. HESS: I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON I
17 THAT ONE AS TO WHICH EXACT CALC IT WAS.
18 MS. WILLIAMS: MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT IS --
19 MR. FOLEY: I BELIEVE THERE WAS ANOTHER REVIEWER 20 INVOLVED, AND I BELIEVE WHAT HE DID WAS LOOKED AT THE 21 EXPANSION INTO THE TANK BASED ON THERMAL CONSIDERATIONS AND 22 INDEPENDENTLY DID A CHECK TO SEE THAT THE THREE-QUARTER !NCH i
I 23 VALVE WAS ADEQUATE TO HANDLE THAT EXPANSION INTO THE TANK.
24 DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAD ACCESS TO AN ACTUAL $1 ZING 25 CALCULATION FROM GIBBS S HILL THEMSELVES ON THE VALVES.
26 MR. OVERBECK: WOULD YOU HAVE EXPECTED THEM TO DO i 27 THAT TYPE OF CALCULATION 7 28 MR. FOLE Y: I GUESS WE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED THEM, YES j
- ** ,",**C;
, 5,C,0 DOIDGE & CARROLL co....e....
CantimigD SHomtHAND manomisms c ov=' *
.. . **88*
se ese asi ssee DEmOSit ON Notamits
4 141 i 1 AS PART OF THE -- WE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED THEM TO DO THAT, YES.
\ 2 MR. OVERB ECK: THAT WASN'T AN OBSERVATION OF YOUR 3 INSPECTION?
4 MR. HESS: NO, NOT AS AN OBSERVATION.
MS. WILLI AMS: WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. MISSING 5
6 CALCULATIONS ARE A PART OF THE INSPECTION AND WE HAVE 7 RE-REQUESTED SOME CALCULATIONS FROM GIBBS & HILL TO GIVE THEM 8 A SECOND GO-ROUND AS TO WHETHER THEY CAN PRODUCE THEM OR NOT.
9 SOME OF THAT IS THIS LIST THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
10 IN THOSE CASES WHERE WE DID OUR OWN CALCULATIONS TO 11 VERIFY THE ADEQUACY OF IT, ALL OF THAT IS IN THIS DATA BASE AS 12 FAR AS OMISSIONS AND AS FAR AS HOW REASONABLE THE NUMBER OF 13 OMISSIONS !$, THESE GUYS HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVE D IN THAT 1 . 14 DISCUSSION YET.
15 MR. OVE RB ECK: WELL, 15 THIS -- THE FACT -- I DON'T 16 WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. I WANT TO BE CAREFUL HERE 17 BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO TELL ME HOW YOU VERIF IED IT. AND IF 18 THERE'S NOT A CALCULATION BY GIBBS S HILL, I WOULD LIKE TO 19 KNOW THAT. IF THAT'S THE CASE, DID THAT MAKE YOUR DATA BASE 4
20 FOR 0415510NS.
21 MS. WILLIAMS: THE ANSWER IS IF THEY DON'T PR ODUC E 22 ONE, YES. IT 'S TENTATIVELY IN THERE NOW AND JIM'S TOLD YOU
'3 2 WHAT HE THINKS THE OTHER REVIEWER DID AS FAR AS THE CYGNA.
24 MR. OVERBECK: YOU ARE CONF I RM ING T HAT IT IS IN YOUR 25 DATA B ASE AS AN OMIT -- CALCULATIONS.
i i
26 MS. WILLI AMS: WELL, WHEREVER THERE 'S CALCULATIONS l
l 27 THAT ARE OMITTED, THE Y ' R E IN THERE. NOW, I'LL HAVE TO GO 28 CHECK THE SPECIFIC ONE AND HOPEFULLY WE DIDN'T MISS I T. BUT, sa *=a o'co ooioot a cammoLL c .... ees..
'U,*o**
- CERTipsEO SMORTMAND mtponttms c o *"
- "8'
saise asi ss** DEPOSIT ON Notamits
1 142
' YES, CMITTED CALCULATIONS ARE CLEARLY IN THE DATA BASE.
1 T
2 MR. OVERSECK: I'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT.
3 MS. WILLIAMS: OKA Y.
4 MR. NOR KIN: I'M A LITTLE CURIOUS AS TO ONE THING.
i 5 SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING SO FAR ARE 6 PRETTY SPECIFIC, LIKE THIS ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, AND I THINK THE 7 RESPONSE ON THAT WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, SA51CALLY THE RESPONSE 8 WAS YOU THINK. AND I GUESS I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THE 9 ANSWER REALLY IS, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS -- WELL, THE 10 QUESTIONS WERE ALL POSED TO ELICIT A RESPONSE, AND WHERE IT'S l 11 VERY CLEAR LIKE THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE l'M NOT REALLY CERTAIN 12 WHAT THE ANSWER 15.
13 THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS WE'VE ASKED THAT ARE KIND l i . 14 0F BROAD, AND YOU COULDN'T NECESSARILY IMAGINE WHAT WE HAD IN 15 MIND UNTIL YOU SAT ACROSS THE TABLE FROM US, AND I C AN 16 UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHERE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ARE CONCISE, 17 I GUESS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE HERE j 18 WITH.
19 I THINK WE WERE LOOKING FOR THIS RECORD TO BE A 20 PRECISE ANSWER OF WHAT YOU DID, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IN 21 SOME CASES THAT YOU KNOW FOR $URE. THAT'S JUST MY PERSPECTIVE i
22 THAT I MAVE ON THIS THING. FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAD WRITTEN A
'23 LETTER AND YOU HAD GIVEN US A RESPQNSE, I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE 24 G! YEN US A LITTLE DIFFERENT RESPONSE. YOU ARE PROSABLY NOT 25 EVEN READY TO GIVE US A RESPONSE ON SOME OF THESE , ITEMS B ASED 26 ON WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
I 27 MR. STUART: LET ME TRY -- I WANT TO TRY A PARTIAL 28 ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. I DON'T SELIEVE THAT ALL THE
- ,'*y*g*
, DOIDGE e CARROLL CtateFIED SMontMAND REpomttes c o ... c o.. .
tow
.a.,,
saisiess.ssee ogposit:0N Notamigs '* ' ena es'='e s 's
- - - . - - _ _ - . , . _ _ . . _ . , - . - - . . - -. - . - - . . - .. - . . . - _ ~ . _ . - . ..--. - -- . - - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _
143
. 1 REVIEWERS THAT CONDUCTED REVIEW ARE SITTING HERE IN THIS ROOM.
- s. 2 50 WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE REPRESENTING SEVERAL REVIEWERS 3 ATTEMPTING AS BEST THEY CAN TO SET FORTH THE ANSWER TO A 4 QUESTION WHERE THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN PERSONALLY INVOL VE D IN 5 THAT REVIEW.
6 IN THOSE AREAS THAT -- WHERE THINGS ARE LEFT ON OPEN 7 ITEMS, I WUULD LIKE TO MAKE A PROCESS SUGGESTION THAT TOMORROW 8 MORNING'S MEETING OPEN UP WITH RESPONDING SPECIFICALLY TO 9 THOSE QUESTIONS TO CLOSE OUT EACH OF THOSE THAT I THINK NANCY 10 IS MAINTAINING A CHECKLIST ON FOR THAT AND, WHERE POSSIB LE, 11 FOR US TO GET THE SPECIFIC REVIEWER INVOLVED IN THAT CONCERN 12 INTO THIS ROOM.
13 AND IN SOME C ASES, I BELIEVE THERE MIGHT BE A FEW OF
- , 14 THOSE PEOPLE IN BOSTON SO THAT MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE, BUT 15 WHERE POS$1BLE, GET THEM HERE IN THIS ROOM TO ANSWER THOSE 16 SPECIF IC QOESTIONS. AND THE ONLY DAY THAT THAT HIGHT BE A 17 PR OB LEM IS THE LAST DAY OF THE MEETING, BUT THAT WOULD ALLOW 18 US TO GET THE PEOPLE IN HERE AND TRY TO ADDRESS MOST OF THOSE 19 CONCERNS.
20 MR. NORKIN: YES, ! UNDERSTAND.
21 MR. OVERBECK: WHO SAYS WE CAN'T COME B ACK.
22 MR. NORKIN: BUT I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KNOW 23 ANYTHING THAT GOES ON THE RECORD THAT'S INACCURATE YOU ARE 24 GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A NOTE OF THAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW 25 WHETHER THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO RESULT THINGS FROM GOING ON 26 THE RECORD THAT LATER COULD CONTRADICT IT. THA T ' S W HA T I AH j 27 CONCERNED ABOUT.
28 MS. WILLIAMS: WE NORMALLY DO REVIEW THEM WHEN THEY
'7,", *j,8,*, ' DOIDGE & CARROLL ca.,.. ,,,,.
oa na=o CEntiPIED SMontnAND mspomTEms '* ' cs.o .,* *
- osasitt l
ia's, asi ssee ogpositsoN Notamies
l 144 1 C OME IN AND WE 'LL MAKE IT A PARTICULAR POINT TO TAKE TH!$ ONE 2 51NCE THERE ARE 50 MANY I THINKS RUNNING THROUGHOUT IT TO TELL 3 YOU AND CONF IRM WHETHER THAT 'S THE CASE OR NOT.
4 MR. STUA RT: NA NC Y, I THINK, JUST POINTED OUT TO ME 5 A VARIATION ON THIS AND THAT IS THAT THERE IS ONE REVIEWER 6 THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THIS PARTICULAR REVIEW THAT'S NO LONGER 7 WITH THE COMPANY.
8 SO THAT MIGHT BE PART OF WHY YOU ARE GETTING SOME I THINKS AS OPPOSED TO CONCLUSIVE ANS'WERS. BUT NONETHELESS, TON 9
10 WHAT WE'LL TRY TO DO IS TAKE A LOOK AT THAT -- OUR REVIEW 11 PROCESS AGAIN AND GET BACK TO YOU TOMORROW MORNING WITH THOSE 12 ANSW ER S.
13 MR. MARINOS: WELL, LET'S HOPE THE DOCUMENT ATION IS 1 '
14 ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT ITSELF RATHER THAN DEPENDING ON
\
15 INDfVIDUALS. INDIVIDUALS DISAPPEAR ON A DAILY B ASIS. 50 16 LET 'S HOPE THAT YOU HAVE THE DDCUMENTATION.
17 MR. STUART: I'M SURE THAT OUR PROCESS IS AIRTIGHT 18 IN THAT REGARD.
19 MS. WILLIAMS: WE CAN RECREATE IT. THE PROBLEM 15 20 IT TAKES TIME TO RECREATE IT. AND IF YOU'RE NOT THE ORIGINAL 21 INDIVIDUAL, PLUS IT 'S A YE AR LATER, IT TAKES T!HE.
22 MR. MARINOS: WELL, WE WERE HOPING THAT WITH THE 23 OPPORTUNITY YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE THAT YOU 24 MIGHT HAVE DONE THE JOB THAT WAS NECESSARY --
25 MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, SOMETIMES --
26 MR. MARINOS: -- AND HAVE THE SPECIF ICS TODAY.
27 MS. WILLIAMS: IT 'S TRUE AND, BELI E VE IT OR NOT, WE 28 DID A LOT OF HOMEWORK FOR THE MEETING, BUT IN A COUPLE OF
... . ..=c ..c o coioot a cannoLL ,,,,,,,,,,,.
l
'j ',o** CEntspiED SHORTHAND REpomTgms ca.*"
sa i s. es'.s see DEPOSITION NOTAmtES
l
. 1 145 1 THESE CASES WE ANSWERED WHAT WE THOUGHT WHAT THE QUESTION WAS
\ 2 AND PERHAPS DIDN'T GO THE NEXT ONE OR TWO LAYERS DOWN WHERE I
3 WE'RE STARTING TO NOT BE A8LE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
4 FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE ONE WITH THE RELIEF VALVE, WE 5 HAD A WRITE-UP WHICH EXPLAINED HOW WE PHYSICALLY WENT ABOUT 6 CHECKING IT, BUT DID GISBS $ HILL GIVE US THE CALCULATION, 7 WHERE IS THE CALCULATION, IS IT IN THE DATA BASE, THOSE 8
FOLLOW-ON TYPE QUESTIONS, WE HAVE TO GO GET THE ANSWERS FOR 9 YOU AGAIN. THAT'S ALL.
10 MR. MARINOS: BUT YOU KNOW WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY DID 11 A CALCULATION OR YOU DID NOT 00 A CALCULATION. YOU CAN GIVE 12 US A YES OR NO ANSWER TO THIS, NOT ABOUT TRACING DOCUMENTS 13 THAT YOU USED FROM SOMEONE ELSE, THEN MAYSE, YES, ! CAN
. 14 APPRECIATE IT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO DETERMINE YOURSELF 15 IF THE REVIEWER IS NOT HERE. BUT WHETHER YOU HAVE DONE A 16 CERTAIN TYPE OF REVIEW OR CALCULATION, WE SHOULD HAVE THAT 4
17 ANSWER PRETTY CLEAR, YES OR NO.
18 MR. CALV0: EXCUSE ME. ALL THE THING 15 BEING 19 RECORDED AND l'M SURE WHEN THE TRANSCRIPT BECOMES AVAILA8LE Ti 20 E VE R YB ODY, I THINK WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT II AND IT WOULD APPE AR 21 THAT A DEGREE OF UNCERTAINTY, I'M SURE WE CAN CLEAR THOSE UP 22 LATER. AND ! THINK WE CAN DO THAT.
'23 A LOT OF THINGS B ACK AND, F ORTH, A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVI l
24 8EEN ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS, AND I GUESS -- THE END RESULT, l
l 25 TO BE ASKING A QUESTION STILL ! GUESS EVERYBODY'S MIND, WHAT 26 ARE YOU GOING TO D0 WITH THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION AND HOW 27 THAT QUESTION IS -- WHAT KIND OF ROLE THE ANSWER TO THE THE 28 QUESTION IS GOING TO PLAY WITH THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF DOlOGE e CARROLL gos,.. ..,.
'7,'.'.,'u'.'.f ',8,8 CtatirstD SMom? MAND mtposttas c oe' *
. **'88
imiseseosse* OtpOSITIO** Pe0T AmitS
, l
. I 146 r
1 QUALITY !$.
N. 2 YOU'RE RIGHT, S UT I GUESS WITH THE CONTEXT OF THIS 3 WORKING MEETING, A LOT OF GIVE AND TAKE IN HERE, AND I HO PE -
4 I GUESS THAT SOMEBODY READING THAT TRANSCRIPT IS GOING TO 5 UNDERSTAND WHAT WENT ON IN HERE.
6 AND WHAT YOU SAY IS GOOD TOMORROW, IF YOU CAN HAVE 7 THE ANSWER IF YOU CANNOT HAVE THE ANSWER THIS WEEK, WHEN YOU 8 READ THE TRANSCRIPT, ANY CLARIFICATION THAT IS NEEDED WE WILL 9 APPRECIATE IF YOU MAKE US AWARE OF IT. ALSO WE DO ALSO MAKE 10 AWARE OF IT. MR. STUA RT I WANT TO SAY THERE IS A 11 LOT OF MORE QUESTIONS COMING UP IN THIS MEETING THAN WERE EVEI 12 TRA NSM IT TE D. AND YOU'RE GOING INTO THIRD AND FOURTH LEVEL OF 13 DEPTH, AND THAT ' S F INE. AND THAT'S WHAT A WORKING MEETING 15
. 14 ALL ABOUT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THESE GUYS HAVE GOT TO HAVE 50HE 15 WARNING, IF YOU WILL, TO PREPARE TO GET THE ANSWERS.
16 MR. CALV0: AND I THINK YOU HAVE DONE AN EXCELLENT 17 JOS, YOU KNOW, ANSWER TO OUR QUESTIONS. AND I'M SURE YOU ARE 18 RIGHT, WE'VE BEEN GOING DEEPER INTO THIS QUESTION THAN THE 19 QUESTION ACTUALLY INDICATED IN HERE.
20 AND ! GUESS ANYTHING THAT !$ MIS $1NG WAS OBVIOUS TO 21 ME FROM THE BEGINNING. THERE WAS SOMETHING -- YOU DON'T HAVE 22 ALL THE ANSWERS. IF YOU 00, YOU WOULD BE A SUPERHAN OR SUPERW 23 TO ANSWER ALL THE THINGS.
24 THE TIME WILL COME WHEN YOU HAVE TlHE TO RECONSIDER
- 25 WHAT !$ IN THE RECORD AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT APPEARS THAT YOU 1
26 DISAGREE WITH IT, THEN YOU LET US KNOW.
i 27 MR. NORKIN: I DID ACKNDWLEDGE AT THE START OF HY 28 QUESTION THAT THE FOLLOW-ON QUESTIONS, I W OUL ON 'T HA VE 8,,'",",**e
, s e,o DOIDGE & CARROLL c ... . . c a . . .
oamu=o Cents #itD SMomtMAND REPoettas c ow =
sen se se ossee OgpossflON NOTAmitS ee's osa t o's
147 1 EXPECTED YOU TO ANTICIPATE.
. (
\ 2 MR. CALV0: OKA Y. LET'S GO WITH THE NEXT QUESTION.
3 MR. MARINOS: CLOSE 16, GARY?
4 QUESTION NUMBER 17 IS EXPLAIN HOW THE CORRECT SIZING 5 0F THE SURGE TANK -- EXCUSE ME -- VENT VALVE AND VACUUM 6 BREAKER WAS VERIFIED BY THE INSPECTION.
7 WHICH -- ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH WHAT HAS BEEN SAID 8 ABOUT THIS ALREADY?
9 MR. OVERB ECK: AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO HAVE CLARIFIC ATION 10 WHICH CALCULATION WAS USED TO VERIFY THE VACUUM BREAKER WAS 11 PROPERLY S IZED. IT'S LIKE THE RELIEF VALVE, JUST GOING IN THE 12 OTHER DIRECTION.
13 MR. HESS: WE DON'T HAVE THAT C ALC.
14 MS. WILLI AMS: AND DID WE HAVE IT DURING THE REVIEW 7
\
i 15 MR. HESS: ! DON'T BELIEVE WE DID. THE ONLY THING 16 THAT I REMEMB ER US DOING 15 RUNNING AN INDEPENDENT CHECK ON 17 THE AIR FLOW RATE.
18 MR. NORKIN: ! THOUGHT YOU SAID THERE WAS A CALC FOR 19 T HA T.
20 MS. WILLIAMS: IF YOU GO TO ITEM 41 ON THIS LIST, 21 YOU'LL NOTICE THERE'S CALCULATION, DASH, DASH. WE DID NOT 22 HAVE THE CALCULATION TO REFER GIBBS S HILL TO AND WE THOUGHT 23 IN PREPARATION FDR THIS MEETING THAT MAYBE THEY HAVE ONE 24 SOMEWHERE FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY COULDN'T FIND IT AT THE 25 TIME OF OUR REVIEW, BUT APPARENTLY IT WAS NOT PRODUCED.
l I 26 WE VER IF IED THE HARDWARE OUR SELVES, BUT WE 'R E STILL i
s 27 WAITING AND I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING ON THAT ONE FROM GISBS 28 8 HILL YET.
s.= ee =c sco DOIDGE e CARROLL ca ... cost.
- '* a oeso CERTIpit0 swontMAND mtposttes c o =* *
,,,$'[ssee DE80$stlON NotamitS * * ' ' '88'
148 1 MR. OVERSECK: 50 CYGNA TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO w 2 VERIFY AND VERIFY THAT THIS VENT VALVE WAS THE PROPER SIZE.
, 3 MR. HESS: WE DI D AN INDE PE NDE hR S AC K OF PAPER CHECK.
4 YES.
5 MR. CALVO: NA NC Y, WHEN WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE CAN 6 LIST OF CALCULATIONS THAT YOU PROVIDED TO US THIS MORNING, 7 YOU IDENTIFY THAT ONE FOR THE RECORD, YOU KNOW, THE PURPOSE OF THE CALCULATION, THE DATE, WHAT IS THE TITLE 7 1 THINK --
8 MR. OVER8 ECK: WE HAVE NO DATE AND NO TITLE. WE 9
10 JUST HAVE TWO SHEETS, THREE SHEETS OF LIST AND CALCULATIONS SO Il MAYSE WE OUGHT TO DATE IT TODAY OR WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?
12 MS. WILLI AMS: THE DATE ON IT IS MAY 9TH, '85 IN 13 THAT THIS WAS THE LIST THAT WAS TELECOPIED TO GISBS S HILL ON i - 14 THAT DA,TE TO COMPLETE OUR FILES HERE IN PREPARATION FOR THE 15 DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU PEOPLE TODAY.
16 MR. NORKIN: NANCY, WHY DON'T YOU JUST MARK THAT AS -
17 ATTACHMENT 1 TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF TODAY'S MEETING AND PROVIDE 18 THE RECORDER WITH A COPY OF IT TO INCLUDE WITH THE TRANSCRIPT.
i 19 MS. WILLIAMS: IS THERE AN EXTRA COPY OF THAT OR ARE 20 THEY ALL GONE?
21 MR. MARINOS: ! HAVE AN EXTRA COPY.
22 MR. CALVO: WHY DON'T WE TAKE A BREAK. .
23 MR. MARINOS: YE S, WE'LL,TAKE A BREAK NOW.
f 24 (R EC ES S .)
MR. MARINOS: BACK ON THE RECORD, ARE WE7 25 26 DID WE GET THE ANSWER WE WANTED FOR 17 OR ARE WE i ,' 27 SATISFIED, GARY AND JOHN?
28 MR. OVERSECK: 17, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT poiogg a CARROLL c a.. .. c o .. .
- y,'*,'je,'s c,o c ov**
- CtateFito SMontnaNo mtpontems '*'s, esa s iis o .w.o I
' seio, es t as+e OEPOSITION Notamit s l
149 8
1 THEY DO NOT HAVE A CALCULATION CURRENTLY IN HAND FROM GIBBS &
2 HILL TO VERIFY THE $1ZE OF THE VACUUM BREAK OR THE VENT VALVE, 3 AND THAT A CALCULATION -- FORM OF A CALCULATION OR EVA LUA T IO N 4 WAS DONE BY CYGNA ON THEIR OWN.
5 MS. WILLIAMS: THAT 'S CORREC T. AND THE PART THAT'S 6 STILL OPEN IS TO THE IMPLICATIONS OF NOT HAVING A CALCULATION.
7 MR. OVE RB ECK: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR GIBBS S HILL 8 TELL US THAT THAT 'S THE PROPER S IZ E.
9 MR. MARINOS: l'M GOING TO GO TO QUESTION 18. HOW 10 WAS THE BASIS FOR THE 50 GPM SYSTEM LEAKAGE RATE VERIFIED.
11 MR. FOLEY: WE DI DN 'T VER IF Y THE 50 GPM IN ANY l
12 DETERMINISTIC KIND OF ANALYSIS FOR THIS SYSTEM. H OW E VE R, BOTH l 13 NUREG 0800 -- USE THAT AS A STANDARD B AS!$ FOR COOLING WATER
' . 14 SYSTEMS AS DOES WESTINGHOUSE INPUT WHICH WAS USED FOR THIS 15 PL A NT F R OM THEIR RESAR DOCUMENT. I'M NOT SUR E THE E XAC T C ALC, 16 BUT THE 50 GPM WAS TAKEN AS A GIVEN KIND OF STANDARD NUMBER 17 FOR THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM.
18 MR. OVERB ECK: THAT 50 GPM WAS NOT IN THE SYSTEM 19 DESIGN DESCRIPTION OF GIBBS S HILL?
20 MR. FOLEY: 1 DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS.
21 MR. OVERBECK: WHAT WAS IN THERE?
22 MR. FOLE Y: ! DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY SPECIFIC
~
23 N UMB ER IN THAT DOCUMENT. THEY TALKED ABOUT HANDLING THE 24 LEAKAGE FROM THE SYSTEM, BUT WITHOUT MENTIONING A SPECIFIC 25 N UMB E R .
26 MR. OVE RB EC K: IN THE CALCULATION THAT WAS USED AS 27 THE NUMBER, HOW WAS IT REFERENCED?
28 MR. FOLE Y: CALCULATION REFERENCED RESAR CHAPTER 6.2
... . . ..e . . c o coions a cammoLL c...co...
- * " ' " " esatinito saoataawo aspoatsas **
J ',7,*,.. osposmow e.otamis s ''""'
( . - - - . - - - - __ _ .-_
150 1 POINT SOMETHING AS A BASIS FDR THE $0 GPM.
\( 2 MR. OVER8 ECK: !$ R ES A R A DOC UM ENT -- DE S I GN 3 DOCUMENT FOR THIS PLANT 7 4 MR. FOLEY: 1 DON'T BELIEVE IT !$, BUT I 'M NOT SUR E.
5 MR. OVER8ECK: CAN WE VERIFY THAT7 IS THAT 6 SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD IDENTIFY AS A IMPROPER REFER ENC E, 7 BECAUSE CERTAINLY QA GUYS WOULDN'T KNDW THAT.
8 MR. FOLE Y: WE WOULD NOT HAVE -- WE WOULD -- WE 9 WOULD HAVE MAD -- WE WOULD HAVE MADE A JUDGMEh6 ON WHETHER WE 10 FELT IT WAS A REASONABLE NUMBER TO USE BASED ON THE REFERENCE!
11 THAT ARE RECITED WHICH INCLUDED THE SRP. WE WOULD NOT HA VE 12 NECESSARILY CITED IT AS AN IMPROPER REF ERENC E. W E W O UL D -- WI 13 WERE JUDGING MORE WHAT WE FELT WAS THE DESIGN ADEQUACY, NOT 14 THE CONTROL OF INPUTS AND THAT KIND OF THING AS IS PROB ABLY
\'
15 COVERED.
16 MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, YE S, BUT FROM A TECHNIC AL 17 STANDPOINT YOU WOULD LOOK TO SAY, WELL, THAT DDC UME NT IS THE 18 REASON -- THE SRP IS A REASONABLE REFERENCE. IN THA T C ASE IT 19 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CITED BECAUSE WE DID NOT FEEL THAT THERE 20 WAS ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE WITH THE 50 GPM.
21 MR. CALVO: IS NOT THE RESAR REFERENCED BY THE FSAR7 22 IT !$ NOT PART OF FSAR IN THIS CASE 7
~
23 MR. FOLEY: 1 DON 'T KNOW THE RELAT IONSHI P BE TWEEN 24 THEM AT C OM A NC HE PE A K.
25 MR. CALVO: WHAT I AM SAYING, ! THINK THE SUBJECT 26 WITHIN THE FSAR C AME UP EARLIER AND YOU INDICATED THE FSAR WAS I ' 27 USED TO THE DESIGN INPUT DOCUMENT. I WAS WONDERING WHEN YOU 28 REVIEWED THIS DID YOU FIND OUT THE RESAR WAS PART OF THE FSAR.
! * * *',' ,, * *;*; *l,0 DOIDGE & CARROLL c , ... ....
... . CtatepsEO swontwaNo mspontgas t ow.
ases.sei asee DEposittON NOfAmit S te's esa i ne
. -.... -.... . . . . . ~ . .
l l
l 151 1 NORMALLY, THA T ' S W HAT YOU D0, YOU REVIEW THE RESAR, RESSAR 3 (L 2 FOR THIS TYPE. ALSO MADE USED AS PART OF THE FSAR, 50 THE 3 RESAR IS KEPT UP TO DATE AS GOOD AS FSAR. O!D YOU FIND THIS 4 WHEN YOU DID THE -
5 MS. WILLIAMS: THAT ' S WHAT W E 'R E GO ING TO GO C HEC K.
6 MR. KUMAR: PERHAPS I CAN CLARIFY THAT. RESAR IS A 7 PS AR DOC UMENT, 50 IT'S NOT REFERENCED IN THE FSAR. IT WAS 8 REFERENCED IN THE PSAR. COMANCHE PEAK PSAR AND RESAR TOGETHEl 9 FORMED THE SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. FSAR IS A 10 DOCUMENT THAT STANDS SY ITSELF.
- RESAR NEVER DEVELOPED BEYOND THAT 12 PSAR S TAGE. THAT ' S WHAT IT WAS. I UNDERSTAND WE WOULD HAVE 13 DRAWN THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 50 GPM IS A PROPER NUMBER TO US!
1
- 14 I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO SEEN IT COME FROM A SYSTEM DESIGN
\
(
15 DESCRIPTION REFERENCE, AND I WOULDN'T EXPECT THE FSAR TO BE 16 REFERENCED IN THE DESIGN CALCULATION INPUT.
17 MR. NORKIN: I WANTED TO BACK UP ONE QUESTION 18 WITHOUT SPENDING A LOT OF TIME ON IT. NUMBER 17 ON THE $1 ZINC 19 OF THE VENT VALVE AND VACUUM 8REAKER. I THINK GARY LEFT WITH 4
20 THE THOUGHT THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN GIBBS & HILL'S 21 CALCULATION OR OTHER TYPE OF ASSURANCE OF THE CORRECT $1ZE, 22 RIGHT, GARY? YOU LEFT WITH THAT THOUGHT. BECAUSE I THINK YOU 23 GOT THE IMPRES$10N CYGNA DID AN INDEPENDENT CALCULATION ON j 24 THAT, RIGHT7 l
25 MR. OVE RB ECK: CYGNA, MY UNDERSTANDING, DID AN 26 INDEPENDENT EVALUATION AND THEY ARE NOT ATTEMPTING TO ASSUME
/ 27 THE DESIGN RESPONS181LITY.
28 MR. FOLEY: WE DID A CALCULATION TO SATISFY l
ea= *aaac'sco coloor a cAmmoLL .........
I
" 'jj ',*,*l*
- csatireso smontwamo asaoatsas ,,, **g,',',,,
. .... ..... osposmow Notaniss
152 1 CURSELVES THAT THE NUMBER WAS REASONABLE.
2 MR. NORKIN: OKAY. ASSUMING YOU DON'T F IND A 3 CALCULATION AT G1885 8 HILL, THE ANSWER 15 PR08 ABLY THAT THE 4 THING 15 OKAY FOR THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM.
5 IF YOU FIND A CALCULATION THEN, EVERYTHING IC 6 H UN KY -DOR Y, YOUR PROBLEM GOES AWAY. IF YOU DON 8 Y F IND A l
7 C ALC UL A TION, THEN YOU HAVE ONE OF TWO CHOICES, ONE, ADDITIONAL 8 ASSURANCE FROM GIB85 & HILL, YOU PERHAPS DON'T NEED THAT 9 BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALREADY ESTA8L15HED YOUR OWN ASSUR ANCE.
10 GETTING GIB85 8 HILL TO 00 A CALCULATION IS NOT 11 G0ING TO ACCOMPLISH VERY MUCH PERHAPS. CHANCES ARE IT'S A 12 CORRECT DESIGN, BUT THE MORE IMPORTANT THING IN MY MIND 15 13 WHETHER THAT'S INDIC ATIVE OF A GENERIC PRACTICE THAT THEY
' . 14 DON'T 00 CALCULATIONS FOR THIS AND OTHER SYSTEMS AND I THINK 15 THAT OUGHT TO BE EXPLORED.
i 16 MS. WILLI AMS: YES, WE AGREE.
17 MR. CALV0: AGAIN, WE'RE USING THE WORD EXPLORE, 18 WE 'RE US ING THE WORD PREF ER. AGAIN, TAKING IT WITHIN THE 19 CONTEXT THAT WE'RE TRVING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU D10. WE ARE 20 NOT ASKING YOU TO DO ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO.
WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DID, THAT'S ALL. OUR --
21 22 A GA I N, THIS IS OUR CONCERNS, OUR QUESTIONS WILL BE --
23 EVENTUALLY OUR ASSESSMENT WHAT 00R SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT 24 WILL END UP SAYING WHEN WE EVALUATE YOUR FINAL CONCLUSION.
25 MS. WILLIAM 5: OKA Y. WELL, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE 26 WHENEVER YOU GET INTO THE DESIGN CONTROL IMPLICATIONS OF O l
! 27 TECHNICAL REVIEW RESULTS OF WHICH I CONSIDER A MIS $fNG 28 CALCULATION, AN EXAMPLE OF A TECHNICAL FINDING THAT COMES OUT e.~ e .. . c o ooioos a cammoLL c . . . . c o. . .
"'*****' ctat 8st0 SHontmaNo atPonttet tod
- u. U 7ssee OtP0letsON PeOTAmit S l
153 t
1 0F OUR TECHNIC AL PEOPLE, THAT'S NOT CLOSED.
2 50 I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT YOU DON'T THINK THAT THAT 15 PART OF OUR 3 WE'VE STATED THAT AND WE'RE MOVING ON.
THE FACT 4 ASSESSMENT OF THE -- MOREOVER ALL IMPLICATIONS OF 5 THAT THE CALCULATION WAS MISSING AND 1 THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU 6 WERE JUST EXPLAINING, AND IT'S STILL OPEN.
7 MR. CALV0: 1 JUST DON'T WANT TO CONVEY THAT WE ARE AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO 8 DIRECT ING YOU TO DO SOMETHING.
9 UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
10 MS. WILLIAMS: RIGHT.
MR. CALV0: TH15 15 00R FEELING. WE HAVE 8ROUGHT 11 12 THE QUESTION TO YOU, WE HAVE AN ANSWER, AND IT APPEARS WE ,
DON'T REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH IT. AND THis 15 0UR CONCERN.
13 I
1
," 14 MS. WILLIAMS: YES.
15 MR. CALV0: IT 'S UP TO YOU WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO 00 16 F R OM T HAT PO I NT O N.
17 MS. WILLIAMS: IT WILL BE IN THE FINAL REPORT 18 STATING WHAT CUR ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVEL OF DETAIL 19 CALCULATIONS AND WHdT WAS MI551NG AND WHETHER WE THINK THAT'S 20 SIGNIF ICANT OR NOT. AND YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT AND DECIDE HOW 21 YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT.
MR. CALVO! TAKE THAT COMMENT IN THAT KIND OF LIGHT, 22 23 THAT I THINK WILL HELP.
24 MR. NEV5HEMAL: MAY I ASK A QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO YOU SRING IT UP. I DID NOT, AT 25 THE M1551NG CALCULAT ION.
26 LEAST MTSELF, DID NOT SEE ANY MECHAN!$M IN THE REVIEW PR OC ES S BUT YOU
' '1 THAT SPOKE A800T IDENTIF YING MI551NG CALCULATIONS.
27 28 SROUGHT IT UP, 50 T HE R E I S -- S OM EW HE R E T HE R E 15 A L I S T OF p **.eco ooioot a cAamoLL . ........
- '*j,,,'"
centiriao saoavaamo as*ontsas os position sota=>e s
' 'go * *',,,
' 154 I
a 1 THESE MISSING CALCULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN UNCOVERED, THAT'S 2 THE FEELING I HAVE RIGHT NOW.
3 CAN WE GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THAT LIST OF i 4 MIS $!NG CALCULATIONS THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED 50 FAR? NOW l'M J
5 ASSUMING -- EXCUSE ME. I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS LIST OR THE 6 ITEMS ON IT COME FROM THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, 50 THAT HAS BEEN 7 ACCOMPLISHED AND $0, THEREFORE, THERE OUGHT TO BE A LIST OF 0 THESE SOMEPLACE.
9 MS. WILLIAM 5: YOU SAY LIST. IT IMPLIES LENGTH. WE 10 REALLY ONLY HIT ON ONE OR TWO.
11 MR. NEV5HEMAL: IF THERE !$ ONLY ONE OR TW O, I WOULD 12 LIKE TO SEE THAT.
1 13 MS. WILLIAM 5: WELL, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THOSE ONE OR l -
14 TWO 50 FAR, AND AS FAR A5 WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OTHER ONES, I i 15 HAVE TO GO --
16 MR. NEV5CHEMAL: No, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WE HAVE l
17 'IDENT IF IED HERE IN THE MEETING. Do YOU HAVE THAT LIST THAT I
! 18 CAN SAY THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED? MAY I LOOK AT IT?
! 19 MS. WILLIAM 5: WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN WAS
, 20 WE'RE NOT DONE WITH THE DATA BASE, AND WE ARE STILL HAVING OUR 21 CA REVIEWERS GO THROUGH AND TAKE THE RESULT 5 OF THE INPUT 22 VERIF IC ATION AND ANALYS !$ CONTROL RESULT 5, AND Sif DOWN AND f
l 23 INPUT TO THE DATA BASE WHAT WAS MIS $1NG AND, NO, THAT'S NOT i
j 24 COMPLETE YET.
25 MR. NEVSCHEMAL: SOMEPLACE IT OUGHT TO BE RECORDED 26 AS TO WHAT !$ MI551NG.
l i 27 MS. WILLIAM 5: YES.
28 MR. NEVSCHEMAL SOMEPLACE SOMEBCDY MUST HAVE
- = '**=** poions a cammoLL . ... .....
csatmeo saoatname memoatsas c o-=' -
"'t..,'.,*.,,'.,*.*.*
. . osmosmow wotamie s
"*'*88'"'
- 155 1
WRITTEN DOWN MISSING CALCULATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED ON THIS
( 2 LIST.
3 MR. STUART: NA NC Y, CAN 'T W E PR OVI DE, FOR INS TA NC E, 4 OB VIOUSL Y, IF WE DID OUR OWN DESIGN CALCULATION FOR THl5 j 5 PARTICULAR COMPONENT, WE MUST HAVE DETERMINED PRIOR TO DOING 2
6 THAT THAT IT WAS MISSING. THEREFORE, HOW CAN WE DEMONSTRATE 7 THl5 TO THE NRC AND THEIR CONSULTANTS THAT, IN FACT, WE HAVE 8 FOUND SOME MI55!NG CALCULATIONS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING.
! 9 MS. WILLIAMS: MOST OF THE -- THE WAY IT'S 1
10 IDENTIFIED ON MOST CHECKLISTS, AND I PMVEN'T GONE BACK THROUGH 11 THESE PARTICULAR CHECKLISTS FOR A LONG TIME, IT SHOULD BE OKAY
- 12 PER CYGNA INSPECTION 04 OKAY PER CYGNA CALCULATION OR
- 13 SOMETHING LIKE THAT INDIC ATES THAT WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING IN j , 14 ADDITION TO THE INFORMATION THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.
15 NOW WHETHER THESE ARE CLEARLY ANNOTATED THAT WAY, i 16 WE CAN GO THROUGH AND CONF IRM THAT FOR YOU TONIGHT. BUT IN I 17 THE -- I 'M MORE F AMILI AR AT THl5 POINT IN TIME HAVING SPENT l 18 MORE TIME W!TH THEM, WITH THE PIPE SUPPORT CALCULAT10NS AND 19 THERE YOU WILL SEE NUMEROUS INSTANCES WHERE IT'S OKAY PER 20 CYGNA CALCULATIONS. BUT THAT 'S GENERALLY HOW IT 'S EARMAR KED.
! 21 MR. NORKIN: YOU SAY IN THE CASES WHERE YOU DID A i
l 22 CALCULATION WAS ONLY BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A CALCULATION 23 AVAILABLE7 YOU DIDN'T DO A CALCULATION TO INDEPENDENTLY CHECK 24 A GIBBS S HILL CALCULATION 7 25 MS. WILLIAH5: NOT ON A NORMAL B A515. WE WOULD l 26 NORMALLY REVIEW WHAT EXISTED THERE.
l 27 MR. FOLEY: WELL, WE DID 00 -- WE DID 00 A FEW 28 INDEPENDENT, POR EXAMPLE, IN THE NPSH WE WENT THROUGH FROM '
{ *y,aggl poioor a cAmmoLL
.. esetmso saoataawo assontans s o.="
......u oeposmo* =otan'a s "'"'"'
i l
156 6
1 SOUP TO NUT 5 ON THAT AND DIO THE WHOLE CALCULATION FOR
( 2 OUR SEL VE S. AND WE DID SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME THING ON A 3 COUPLE OF OTHER CALCULATIONS INVOLVING PRES $UR E DROPS 4 THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM.
5 MR. NORKIN: SEEMS LIKE THE NPSH ONE YOU MIGHT HAVE I 6 HAD A MOTIVE -- WHEN YOU WROTE IT UP THERE WERE A LOT 7 OVERSIGHTS IN THE GIS85 8 HILL CAL.CULATI0h.
8 MR. FOLEY: POSSISLY.
9 Ms. WILLIAM 5: THAT'S ONE REASON WHY WE MIGHT DO IT.
10 BUT A5 A RULE, YOU KNOW, WE NORMALLY LOOKED AT WHAT WAS 3
11 AVAILABLE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE DID A HUNDRED PERCENT OF 12 THE TIME.
- 13 MR. MARINO5
- LET'S GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION. 19.
14 HOW WAS THE BASIS FOR THE 30 MINUTE LEAKAGE PERIOD l \
15 VERIFIED. ,
16 MR. FOLEY: THIS AL50 WAS NOT VERIF IED THROUGH ANY 17 DETERMINISTIC TYPE OF ANALYS!5. 30 MINUTE 5 15 AN INDUSTRYWIDI 18 AC'CEPTED TIME FOR OPERATOR ACTION TO TAKE PLACE, AND THAT WAS 19 THE SA515 0F OUR ACCEPTING THAT.
i 20 MR. NORKIN: WHEN YOU SAY INDUSTRYWIDE, 15 THERE A 21 DOCUMENT THAT YOU REFER TO?
22 MR. CALV0: THE NRC -- IF YOU LOOK IN THE STANDARD l
23 REVIEW PLAN, I THINK WE HAVE GIVEN. CREDIT -- OPERATOR CREDIT i'
24 UP TO 30 MINUTES AND THAT HAS SEEN USED AS THE 8 ASIS FOR 25 OPERATOR ACTIONS.
26 MR. OVER8 ECK: HAS THE OWNER COMMITTED TO, I THINK I
27 IT'S AN51 STANDARD N6607 I MIGHT HAVE THE WRONG NUMBERS, BUT 28 IT'S AN51 STANDARD ON OPERATOR ACTION RESPONSE TlHE? l
)
8,'y *,*,**j,8,8 DOIDGE e CARROLL ,,,,,,,,,,,
CERtititO $40et. sand pf pOntens cos=*.
oaau=o '*'88'"*
seio, esi a:H pgoolitiON Notam gs
157 1 MR. FOLEY: I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
\\'
2 MR. OVERB ECK: IT'S CURRENTLY AN EXISTING STANDARD, 3 ANS ! STANDARD.
' 4 MR. CALVO: MOST PRDS ASLY THEY HAVE NOT BEC AUSE THAT 5 THING, 1 DON'T THINK $0 WAS ENDORSED BY THE REGULATORY GUIDE.
6 BECAUSE NORMALLY THEY ARE GOING TO THE REGULATORY GUIDE, 1 7 DON'T THINK $0 THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IT AND STILL IN THE 8 REGULATORY GUIDE -- THAT ONE THERE BRINGS UP A KIND OF 9 COMBINATIONS -- ANSWER THE QUESTION.
10 MR. STUA RT: HE ALREADY ANSWERED IT.
-- W HAT 11 MR. CALV0: I GUESS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY 12 I WAS TALKING, I WAS THINKING OF THIS ANSI STANDARD 15 NOT 13 COINCIDENT WITH THE VINTAGE OF THIS PLAN WHEN IT WAS FIRST 1
14 DOC UM ENT E D, 50 MY FEELING IS THAT MAYBE IT DOESN'T APPLY IS
( t 15 WHAT I WAS SAYING.
16 MR. OVERB ECK: IN THE CALCULATION WHAT W AS THE 17 REFERENCE GIVEN FOR THE 30 MINUTES, NONE?
18 MR. FOLEY: ! DON'T REMEMBER IF THERE WAS A SPECIFIC 19 R EF ERE NC E. IF THERE WAS NONE, THAT, AS I SAY, IT ' S A -- YOU 20 KNOW, EVERY LICENSING PRDCEEDING Ti LT TAKES PLACE, YOU KNOW, !
21 BELIEVE THAT 30 MINUTES IS ACCEPTED AND IS A UNIVERSAL
- 22 CONSTANT ALMOST IN TH!$ PARTICULAR INDUSTRY.
MR. MARINOS: WE'LL GO TO 20. DESCRIBE HOW THE
'23 24 VENDOR CURVE WAS USED TO DETERMINE A RUNOUT FLOW OF 18,000 GPM.
> 25 MR. OVERBECK: WE ADDRESSED THAT.
26 MR. MARINOS: WE ADDRESSED THAT.
j
' i 27 21. DID YOUR REVIEW OF THE CCW HEAT EXCHANGER 28 INCLUDE ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FSAR COMMITMENT TO TEMA s.. ... e.se o ooiooe a eAmmou. ...........
canwiso s oat aso ma*ontans co -
..,M.."... "'""
- T opositioa. Nota mis s
158 1 NOT JUST THE FOULING FACTOR. EXPLAIN WHAT YOU REVIEWED.
(~
' 2 MR. HESS: NO, WE JUST REVIEWED THE FOULING F ACTOR 3 MS. WILLIAMS: d!M, WERE YOU INVOLVED IN TRACKING 4 THAT DOWN?
5 MR. FOLEY: YE S, I WAS AND, WELL, THE FOULING FACT 6 WAS WITHIN THE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES OF THE TEMA STAND,ARDS.
7 MR. OVE RB EC K: ARE THE HEAT EXCHANGERS DESIGN IN 8 ACCORDANCE WITH TEMA?
9 MR. FOLEY: TEMA !$ GIVEN IN THE FSAR WITH 10 APPLICABLE STANDARDS, AND I SEL: EVE IT'S --
11 MR. HESS: WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK THE 12 S PEC IF IC AT ION. I DON'T REMEMBER ANY DISCREPANCY WE FOUND 13 BETWEEN THE SPECIFICATION AND THE TEMA REQUIREMENT. IN OTHEl 14 W OR D S, I BELIEVE THAT THE TEMA REQUIREMENTS WERE SPEC IF IED 11
(
15 THE SPEC IF IC ATION, B UT IT WAS NOT PART OF OUR REV!EW.
16 MR. NOR KIN: FOULING FACTOR WAS APPLIED, JUST THAT, 17 NOT THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
j 18 MR. HESS: WE REVIEWED THE FACT THAT THEY HAD 19 INCLUDED A FOULING / ACTOR, YES, IN THEIR SPEC IF IC ATIONS.
20 MR. NOR KIN: WHAT OTHER REQUIREMENTS WERE THEY IN 21 TEMA? I 'M NOT FAMILI AR WITH IT.
22 MS. WILLIAMS: WAIT A MINUTE. THAT 'S NOT YOUR 23 R ES PONS IB ILIT Y. ,
24 MR. HESS: THAT'S TRUE. THAT WAS -- WELL, WE DIDN' 25 LOOK AT THE HEAT EXCHANGER DESIGN FABRICATION INSTALLATION OR 26 OPERATION OR MAINTENANCE WHICH WERE SPECIFIED BY TEMA. TEMA
' 27 !$ SIMILAR TO AN ASME CODE TYPE DOCUMENT, AND THAT WAS NOT IN l (
28 GIBBS 8 HILL'S DESIGN SCOPE. THEY SPECIFIED THAT IT $HOULD e== *=a c seo poiooe a cAnnoLL ...........
,,,seg,,,,,,
". '2*l,,,'"
' .. . ...'... cantisiso sacataaNo aseo=tses .
osmositio= mota+ s
.. . . - . . r :- - .. .. .
159 1 MEET TEMA REQUIREMENTS A5 $UCH, B UT T HAT ' S T HE -- T HE I R
(
2 MANUFACTURING REQUIREMENT AS SUCH.
3 M5. WILLIAMS: AND WE DIDN'T LOOK AT YENDOR OR 4 MANUF ACTURER CALCULATIONS.
MR. FOLEY:
5 TEMA HAS A LOT TO DO WITH WHAT GOES ON 6 IN510E THE MANUFACTURER 'S SHOP AND WE DIDN'T DELVE INTO THAT 7 IN ANY DEPTH.
8 MR. OVERB EC K: 50 IT'S AN INTERFACE LIKE 9 WESTINGHOUSE. I MEAN, ! UNDERSTAND WHAT TEMA IS. BUT YOU 10 DIDN'T LOOK AT IT BECAUSE IT'S A INTERFACE SIMILAR TO THE 11 WESTINGHOUSE INTERFACE. YOU DI DN 'T ASK -- YOU DI DN 'T LOOK A' 12 THEIR R HR HE A T E XC HA NGE R, EITHER.
13 MR. FOLEY: RIGHT.
i 14 MR. NOR KI N: YOU'RE SAYING YOU LOOKED AT FOULING 15 F ACTOR BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY TEMA REQUIREHENT THAT WAS 16 GISBS & HILL'S RESPONSIBILITY.
17 MR. FOLEY: NOT EXACTLY. WE FELT THAT THE FOULING 18 FACTOR WAS THE ONE THAT BORE MOST ON THE CRUX OF OUR REVIEW 19 WHICH WAS THE THERMAL ADEQUACY OF THE OVERALL SYSTEH, THE 20 THERM A L PERF ORM ANC E OF THE SYSTEM.
21 MR. OVERBECK: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WENT TO THE HEA1 22 LOAD CALCULATION AND YOU SAW THE FOULING F ACTOR OR WHA TE VE R
'3 2 THE FOULING FACTOR WAS.
24 MR. FOLEY: YES.
! 25 MR. NORKIN: THERE'S NO OTHER TEMA REQUIREMENTS IN 26 THAT CALCULATION OF THE FOULING FACTORT I
27 MR. OVE R B EC K: ON THE CALCULATION, NO. RIGHT HERE, 28 l'M LOCKING AT CHECKLIST F5 DASH 01, SHEET 2 0F 10. T HAT ' S sa=**a *ete ooicos a cAmmoLL e..........
- * [ ."s' *,[" Ctatt8st0 swontwaNO #f rontems 88.*
esis.see asee Ot #0sitica Not Asht s '*'88'
l
)
160 1 WHERE THE FOULING FACTOR FOR TEMA ON GUIDCLINES CAME UP.
k k 2 RIGHT BEL 0m IT 15 WHERE YOU TALK A80LT SOME CCW PUMP FLOW 3 SUFFICIENT 70 MEET CERTAIN FLOW RATES IN THE BOP DOCUMENT.
? 4 RIGHT THERE YOU IDENTIFY THREE DIFFERENT FLOW RATES, ONE FOR 5 R UNOUT IN THE PUMP SPECIFICATION, ITEM NUMBER 5.
6 MR. HE55: YES, RIGHT. ,
7 MR. OVER S ECK: WAS THERE ANY TRACEABLE PATH HOW i 8 GIBB$ $ HILL ARRIVED AT THE O EQUAL TO 16,400 GPM FOR THE 9 PROCUREMENT SPECT 10 MR. FOLEY: ! DON ' T R EM EMB ER .
11 MR. HESS: NO, NOT THAT I REMEMBER, OTHER THAN THE
- 12 POSSIBILITY OF GOING B ACK TO THE ORIGINAL PRES 5URE DROP CALC.
1 I 13 THERE WAS A PUMP TDH CALC THAT WE DID LOOK AT AS ONE OF THE 14 PRELIMINARY EARLY CALCS, AND WE MAY HAVE -- WE WOULD HAVE 15 CHECKED IT AGAINST THERE, ALL RIGHT. I DON'T REMEMBER THE 16 EXACT 8A515 0F THAT NUMBER. WE CAN CHECK THAT 007, 11 MR. NEV5 HEM AL: ! GUESS THE THING THAT I DOM'T 18 UNDERSTAND SPECIFICALLY IN THAT il1EM NUMBER 5 THERE 15 HU!
19 LOOKING AT THE PUMP SPECIFIC ATION WHICH GIVES YOU TWO NUMBERS 20 ! ASSUME FROM IT, AND THE HEAD CURVE ANSWERS TFE QUESTIONS.
. 21 THAT JUST 5AYS THAT THE PUMP !$ DE5!GNED TO 00 THAT, BUT !$
22 THE SYSTEM THAT IT'S INSTALLED IN,415 IT GOING 70 SE ASLE 70
'23 ALLOW THE PUMP TO DO THAT. .
24 M5. WILLI AM5: THE COMMENTS DON'T CONSTITUTE THE 2$ ENT IRETY OF THE ANSWER AND JIM CAN ELABORATE ON .5PECIF IC ALLY 26 WHAT WE LOOKED AT. B UT IN GENERAL, WHEN YOU SEE COMMENTS, I
a 27 THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TU REFLECT NECESSARILY THE SOLE 8 A515 28 FOR ANSWERING SAT OR UN5AT.
e.= ***=c u o poioot a c,ammoLL ...........
"'*""' cantisiaa wo=ta4=o aspo=tsas c ow ="
w.UU'E., ospositto8 =of amies
' I
-...,..e.... . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . .. ..
161 1 MR. FOLEY: WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TRUE. THE PUMP ks 2 MAS TO BE A8LE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE 3 REMAINDER OF THE SYSTEM HAS TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THE PUMP TO 4 MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND WE DID REVIEW BOTH ASPECTS OF 5 THAT QUESTION.
6 MR. NORKIN: SUT YOU IMPLY IN THIS RESPONSE THAT YOL 7 DIDN'T REVIEW THE CALCULATION TO DETERMINE THAT, YOU JUST 8 REVIEWED THE FACT THAT THE SPECIFICATION SAYS THAT IT WOULD 9 PRODUCE THAT. THAT ' S W HAT I SEE HERE. I THINK WHEN YOU ASK A 10 QUESTION CAN YOU MEET CERTAIN FLOW RA TE S, IT IMPLIES THAT YOU 11 WOULD LOOK AT A CALCULATION AND SUBSTANTIATE THAT RATHER THAN i
12 JUST A SPECIFICATION.
13 MR. HESS: YES, WE DID LOOK AT THE CALCS.
t '
14 MS. WILLIAMS: AND AGAIN, THESE COMMENTS ARE UP TO 15 THE REVIEWER. AND IF HE FEELS LIKE NOTING THAT INF ORM AT ION 16 BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE HELPFUL LATER ON TO RECALL WHAT THE 17 INFORMATION WAS THAT WE SAW, IT'S UP TO HIM TO WRITE WHATEVER 18 HE WANTS IN THE COMMENTS SECTION. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT 19 THAT'S THE BASIS FOR CHECKING SATISFACTORY OR UNS A T I S F AC TOR Y.
20 IN THIS CASE WE DID LOOK AT THE CALCULATIONS.
21 MR. FOLEY: THERE IS B ASIC ALLY A THREAT OF, I GUESS, l 22 0F FOUR DIFFERENT STAGES WHERE WE TRIED -- WHICH WE TRIED TO
~
23 USE TO DETERMINE THE DESIGN ADEQUACY OF THE SYSTEM, STARTING 24 WITH THE INPUTS WHICH AS WE INDICATED EARLIER.
a 25 GOING BACK TO, SAY, THE WESTINGHOUSE INPUTS, FOR EXAMPLE, 26 WHICH WE TOOK AS GIVENS, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF
(
27 WESTINGHOUS E EQUI PMENT. WE LOOKED TO SEE IF THOSE INPUTS WERE 28 IN FACT, USED IN THE CALCULATIONS AND ALSO THAT THE sa= e.a=cesco DOIDGE & CARROLL co....ces,.
- '*a eseo ctRiirstD Swo#TMAND REPORTE RS C##
sai D [saes * "#''
DEPOSIT 0N NOTAR E S
162 1 CALCULATIONS WERE PROPERLY DONE, IN OUR OPINION.
( I 2 AFTER HAVING REVIEWED THE CALCULATIONS, WE LD0KED 3
PRDCUREMENT DOCUMENTATION TO SEE THAT THE NUMBERS THAT WERE 4 USED AS INPUTS IN THE CALCULATIONS WERE THE SAME AS THE 5 NUMBERS US ED IN PR DCUREMENT DOC UMENTATION. AND, FINALLY, WE 6 USED FIELD REVIEW SUCH AS LOOKING AT NAMEPLATE RATINGS ON 7 PUM PS , HEAT EXCHANGERS, WHATE VE R, TO CONFIRM THAT WHAT WAS 8 ACTUALLY INSTALLED IN THE FIELD AGREED WITH THE.THREE PR IOR 9 DOC UM ENT S .
10 50 THE FACT THAT WE SAY WE LOOKED AT THE SPEC HERE 11 TO DETERMINE THAT THE NUMBERS WERE AS WE THOUGHT THEY SHOULD 12 HAVE BEEN DOESN'T IMPLY THAT WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE OTHER PAR 13 OF THAT SCENARIO FROM INPUT CREW IM PL EME NTAT IO N.
?
14 MR. NORKIN: DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC CHECKLIST THAT 15 ADDRESSES THOSE ITEMS? I ' ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S JUST TALKING 16 ABOUT THE SPEC IF IC ATION. DO YOU HAVE OTHER CHECKLISTS THAT 17 YOU COULD POINT TO THAT ADDRESS THOSE AREAS AS FAR AS LOOKINI 18 AT THE CALCULATIONS?
19 MR. FOLEY: I BELIEVE THEY'RE IN THESE CHECKLISTS 20 HERE.
21 MS. WILLIAMS: THE FLOW CALC S THAT FOLLOWED.
22 MR. HESS: IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT LINE ITEH, IT
! 23 SAYS FLOW CALCULATION THROUGH RHR HEAT EXCHANGER AND IT GIVES 24 A LIST OF THE THINGS THAT WE CHECKED. AND ONE OF THOSE THING 25 THAT WE CHECKED WAS PUMP CURVE OPERATING POINT. 50 FOR EACH j
26 ONE OF THESE FLOW PATHS, WE DID CHECK THAT THE PUMP FLOW WAS
. 27 ON THE CURVE AND WITHIN THE CAPABILITIES OF THE PUMP AND THE 28 SYSTEM.
sa= *ea=cisco
+ **
- sac DOIDGE & CARROLL c o=,s. c or.
,, ,w~,o.., ce=rmeo s ont-we. .areo=tras
,, , ,c o.c" , ,
- l. . .
163 l 1 MR. MARINOS: NE XT QUE S TION -- HA VE W E F IN I S HE D W I'
\" 22. I CAN READ IT, BUT YOU GUYS HAVE COVERED I T, !
2 THIS7 3 THINK, HAVEN'T YOU? OA YOU WANT ME TO READ IT FOR THE RECOR!
4 HOW WAS THE COMBINATION OF FLOW OR IF ICES AND/0R 5 8 ALANCE VALVES FOR THE VARIOUS LOADS, PA R E NT HE S ES, RHR, CS, I 6 CETERA, CLOSE PARENTHESES, SHOWN TO BE ADEQUATE TO PREVENT 7 FLOW STARVATION AT ANY SINGLE LOAD.
8 MR. HESS: WE VERIFIED THIS BY REVIEWING THC PUMP 9 FLOW OR PIPE FLOW COMPUTER OUTPUT CALCULATION, ALL RIGHT, THA 10 THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED FLOW TC 11 ALL COMPONENTS. AND THE THING THAT WE HAVE NOT VERIF IED IS 12 THE FINAL 8ALANCING OF THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF 13 OUR SCOPE AS FAR AS START-UP TESTING AND ACTUALLY PRE-OP
[g 14 TESTING FOR FLOW BALANCING.
15 MR. FOLEY: WELL, AND IT HADN'T BEEN DONE AS OF THE 16 TIME.
17 MR. HESS: AT THAT POINT ~.
18 MR. OVERBECK: DID YOU VERIFY THAT THERE'S ENOUGH C 19 OR FLOW ORIFICE RESTRICTING CAPABILITY TO SATISFY THE 20 BALANC ING SYSTEM?
21 MR. FOLEY: WHERE IT ENDED UP IS, I BELIEVE, WAS FO 22 VARIOUS BRANCHES WITHIN THE SYSTEM, THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM WAS 23 USED TO DETERMINE ADDITIONAL PRESSURE DROP WHICH WOULD BE 24 REQUIRED TO 8ALANCE THE SYSTEM, ALL RIGHT. THIS PRESSURE DRO 25 WAS AT THAT TIME IN THE PROCESS OF BEING USED IN
~
26 SPECIFICATIONS TO GO OUT TO ORIFICE MANUFACTURERS TO PROVIDE i-( 27 ORIFICES TO GET THAT DELTA P IN THOSE PARTICULAR BRANCHES.
28 AND THAT'S WHERE T'HE DESIGN WAS AT THE STAGE EITHER THROUGH sag esa=cisco sa+sitesosso DOIDGE & CARROLL co....cos,.
CEmTi81ED SMORTMAND mEpomTE85 Cow *
sa t Ysses Of POSITION NOTAmiE S ** ' O ' 3 # ' " '
l l
164
' 1 THE ORIF ICES OR THROUGH THROTTLING VALVES.
( MR. MARINOS: YOU DONE WITH THAT7 WE'LL GO TO 23.
2 3 WERE THE INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED IN CALCULATIONS 4 REVIEWED TO DETERMINE THE NEED FOR SUBSE0*f7NT VERIFICATION 7 5 DESCRIBE YOUR THRESHOLD ON USE OF UNDCCvMENTED ENGINEER ING 6 JUD GME NT S .
7 MR. CALVO: I THINK WE TOUC.1ED THIS A LITTLE BIT 8 B EF OR E.
9 MS. WILLIAMS: YES, I WAS GOING TO ANSWER THE SECOh
'10 PART FIRST AND WAS GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THE FIRST 11 PART. THE SECOND PART IS WE HAVE A LOT OF UNDOC UMENTE D 12 ENGINEERING JUDGMENTS THAT WE FOUND THROUGHOUT ALL THE 13 DISCIPLINES ON THE PR OJE C T.
- 14 THE THRESHOLD, THAT 'S A VERY DIFF ICULT QUEST ION.
15 IT'S A JUD GMENT, AND WE HAVEN'T DEVELOPED A CRITER I A YE T F OR 16 WHAT 'S ACCEPTABLE OR NOT, BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS COUNTC) TF 17 INSTANCES WHERE IT 'S HAPPENED. AND WE'RE STILL WORKING ON 18 WHAT'S REASONABLE AND WHAT WE'LL DO IS OFFER AN OPINION IN 19 THAT C ASE. AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF WHAT ALL 20 THE INSTANCES WERE AND DECIDE IF YOU CONCUR WITH THAT OR NOT.
21 MR. OVERB ECK: I THINK NANCY MISSED THE POINT OF 22 WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DRIVE AT. THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE WHEN THE
'3 2 ARE GOING THROUGH A CALCULATION HAVE IN THEIR OWN MIND WHAT 24 SHOULD BE -- WHAT 'S AN ASSUMPT ION AND WHAT 'S A DESI GN INPUT 25 AND WHAT THE REFERENCE IS AND WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED l
I 26 AT A LATER DATE. AND I WAS WONDERING IF THERE IS S OME i + 27 INSTRUCTIONS YOU GAVE YOUR TECHNICAL REVIEWERS PRIOR TO 28 C OMMENC EME NT OF INSTRUCTION ON NONENGINEERING JUDGHENTS AND g*,*jC C,0 DOIDGE & CARROLL co.,,..ca,,.
CERTiplED SMORTMAND REPORTgR$ COW e oansa.o ** * *' e s a s i i s saves as t.ssee DEPOSITION NOTARiE5
i 165 1 THE IR US E.
\ 2 MS. WILLI AMS: ON US USING ENGINEERING JUDGMENT 7 3 MR. OVERBECK: ON WHAT THEY ARE ti!LLING TO ACCEPT.
4 ! HAVE ONE OPINION OF ENGINEERING JUDGMENTS, YOU HAVE ANOTHET 5 AND HE HAS ANOTHER. AND IN ORDER TO GET SOME UNIFORHITY IN 6 THE REVIEW PROCESS ABOUT THE USE OF ENGINEERING JUDGHENTS, Il 7 MIGHT HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO HAVE SOME CRITERIA UP FRONT 8 IDENTIFYING WHEN AN ENGINEERING JUDGMENT WAS USED AND WHERE 9 THAT REFERENCE CAME FROM.
10 MS. WILLIAMS: WELL --
11 MR. OVERBECK: OR DID YOU JUST WAIT UNTIL YOU FOUNI 12 A PR OB LEM IN THE DESIGN AND THf 9 YOU TRACED IT BACK TO 13 NON-REFERENCED ENGINEERING JUDGhdNT THAT WAS WRONG.
14 MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, THAT S ITUATION HA S HAPPE NED.
s 15 AND l'M TRYING TO THINK HOW WOULD YOU -- HCW WOULD YOU SET OL 16 A SET OF INSTRUCTIONS LIKE THAT7 WOULD YOU TAKE EACH OF THE 17 DISCIPLINES AND SAY EVERY TIME THEY DON'T SPECIFY AN INPUT, 18 LET US KNOW? WE PRETTY MUCH DID DO THAT. WOUL D YO U S A Y E VE R 19 TIME YOU ARE LOOKINd AT A PUMP CALCULATION, HERE'S AS FAR AS
! 20 YOU C AN TAKE YOUR JUDGMENT?
21 YOU'RE DEALING WITH, HOPEF ULLY, PEOPLE WITH YEARS C 22 EXPERIENCE AND THEY KNOW WHAT'S REASONABLE WITHIN THE INDUS TR 23 AND THERE'S CLEARLY SOME JUDGMENT THAT GOES INTO EVERYONE 'S 1
24 B ACKGROUND IN WHAT THEY DEEM TO BE REASONABLE.
25 BUT AS FAR AS THE PURE QA SENSE OF THE WORD, WE 26 TRIED WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS A REASONABLE EFFORT TO ASSESS t 27 WHETHER THE CALCULATIONS WERE COMPLETE IN THE SENSE OF THE 28 DOCUMENTATION AND, OF CO URS E, THEY 'RE NOT IDEAL. NONE OF THE saw ee =cisco DotDGE & CARROLL co.,..ca .. l
"'" *"* centmso sao=TaaNo aspontras co -"
. .UUE.. orposmoN Novanics """'
i 1 61 4
1 WERE.
s 2 MR. OVERB EC K: I GUESS THE REASON THE QUESTION WA!
3 RAISED IN MY REVIEW OF THESE IN THE CHECKLIST, I SAW VERY FI 4
INSTANCES WHERE IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT AN INPUT OR ASSLHPTIC 5 WAS NOT PROPERLY REFERENCED.
6 MS. WILLI AMS: UH-HUH.
7 MR. OVERBECK: AND 50 I SAW -- IN FACT, I THINK I 8 SAW NONE. MA YB E THE R E A R E S OM E HE R E, BUT THERE ARE FEW, SO 9 NATURAL.LY I RAISED THE QUESTION BECAUEE IN OUR REVIEWS WE 10 TYPICALLY FIND THAT TO BE PREVALENT.
11 MS. WILLI AMS: O KA Y --
12 MR. OVERS ECK: THER EF OR E, I WANTED TO KNOW IF ANY 13 INSTRUCTION HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEWERS AND --
I
- 14 -
MS. WILLIAMS: YE S,
( THERE WAS INTER PLA Y B ETWEEN OUI 15 QA PEOPLE TELLING THEH, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO CHECK FOR THE 16 INPUT. I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY SAT DOWN WITH THIS GROUP OF 17 PEOPLE HERE TO GO THROUGH WHAT THEIR ASSESSHENT WAS IN THESE 18 CALCULATIONS. IF YOU TAKE ANY OF OUR OTHER CHECKLISTS FROM 19 THE OTHER DISCIPLINES, YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE THAT.
20 BUT THOSE HAPPEN TO BE THE DISCIPLINES THAT I HA VE 21 SPENT THE TIME WITH GOING THROUGH AND HAVE NOT SPENT THE TIME 22 WITH THESE YET. NONE OF THE CHECKLISTS ARE FINAL. WE SENT 23 THESE TO YOU SO WE COULD HAVE SOME. DISCUSSION AND, HOPEFULLY, t 24 GET YOUR FEEDS ACK, BUT I HAVEN'T COMPLETED EVERYTHING ON THIS 25 YET AND PARTICULARLY HAVEN'T COMPLETED ANY OF THE QA TYPE
! 26 ASPECTS OF THESE CHECKLISTS.
27 MR. MARINOS: WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
28 QUESTION NUMBER 24. HOW WAS IT ASCERTAINED THAT TH!
sa= esa=cisco
, , . DOIDGE & CARROLL co o..u o CERTiptED SMomTMAND RE *ORTE ns c...co.g,.
owe uisiestss**
DEPOSITION NOTAmtE S **'" '
~
167 )
1 BREAK LEAKAGE VALUES WERE CONSERVATIVE 7 g .-
I~
2 MR. OVERB EC K: THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO CHECKLIST 3 MS-06, SHEET 2 4 OF 4.
5 MR. HESS: OKAY. 2 OF 4, THE CRITERIA THAT WAS --
6 IS STATED THERE IN THE COMMENTS COLUMN /OR MODERATE ENERGY 7 LINE BREAK.
8 MR. FOLEY: THOSE WERE THE CRITERIA USED FOR THE 58 9 GPM.
10 MR. OVE RB ECK: THE ANSWER IS YES AND THE QUESTION 11 WAS, HOW DID YOU MAKE A DETERMINATION, WHAT EFFECT DID THE 12 PRESSURE -- WELL --
13 MR. NEVSHEMAL: COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR ANSWER, PLE A S 14 MR. HESS: WELL, THE -- OKAY, IT SAYS THE MODERATE g f 15 ENERGY LINE BREAK -- IF YOUR MS-06, SHEET 2 OF 4, ITEM 7, AND 16 IT GIVES THE THINGS THAT WERE USED FOR A 24-INCH PIPE WHICH I 17 THE LARGEST PIPE IN THE SYSTEM, AND THE BREAK SIZE THAT WAS 18 USED IN THEIR CALCULATION FOR A MODERATE ENERGY LINE BREAK.
19 MR. NEVS HEM AL: ESSENTIALLY, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING 20 HERE IS THAT BECAUSE THEY USED EQUATION 3-21 FROM CRANE, THAT 21 IT IS CONSERVATIVE.
22 MR. HESS: I THINK THAT'S REFERRING TO YOUR NEXT 23 QUESTION WHICH QUESTIONS CRANE 3-21 24 MR, NEVSHEMAL: NO, BUT IT'S WRITTEN DOWN HERE IN l
25 THE COMMENT COLUMio.
26 MR. HESS: I REALIZ E THAT, BUT YOUR NEXT QUESTION i
27 REFERS TO MS-02, SHEET 3 OF 7, AND IT'S REFERRING TO EQUATION 28 3-21.
s.* se.=c.sco DOIDGE a CARMOLL co=,..cos,.
- '*8****
a- CEmTiF#ED SHORTMAND REPomTERS C O **"
,,,1~,*,,, n. .n. v n~ ~nv. ... . * + = ' " '
168 1 MR. OVERBECK: THAT'S OUR NEXT QUESTION.
( ( 2 MR. NORKIN: STICK TO ONE QUESTION AT A TIME.
MR. NEVSHf'1AL: WAIT A MINUTE. IF YOU LOOK AT MS-(
3 4 SHEET 2 OF 4 -
5 MR. HESS: YE S .
MR. NEVSHEMAL: -- 7-C, YOU COME ACROSS TO THE 6
7 COMMENT COLUMN --
8 MR. HESS: RIGHT. AND IT REFERENCES EQUATION 3-21 9 OF CRANE.
MR. NEVSHEMAL: AND SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO ME, 10 11 THEN, IS THAT BECAUSE THEY USED THAT FORMULA, THEN THE FLOW 12 THE LEAK RATES ARE CONSERVATIVE.
13 MR. HESS: NO, THAT 'S NOT TOTALLY WHAT I'M SAYING.
14 I 'M SAYING THAT THEY US E THE PROPER METHOD FCR A MODERATE 15 ENERGY LINE BREAK, BREAK SIZE AND THEN THEY USED THAT BREAK 16 SIZE AS AN ORIFICE SIZE IN CRANE 3-21. CRANE 3-21 IS FOR 17 FLOW-THROUGH N0ZZLES AND ORIF ICES, AND IT ASSUMES A FOR SHAR 18 EDGE OR SMOOTH EXIT. A BREAK CRACK IS NOT A SMOOTH OR SHARP 19 EDGED THING. THAT E' QUAT lw. v0ES NOT ACCOUNT FOR TURNING OF 20 THE FLOW IN THAT TYPE OF ANALYSIS. EMPIRIC AL EQUATIONS FOR 21 THAT TYPE OF BRdAK TEND TO PREDICT LOWER RESULTS THAN WHA 22 3-21 PREDICTS.
'23 MR. NEVSHEMAL: LOWER FLOW RATES?
24 MR. HESS: YES, S IR.
25 MR. NEVSHEMAL: SAME PRESSURE.
26 MR. HESS: SAME PRESSURES.
a MR. MARINOS: OKAY. 25 IS ALREADY ANSWERED, TOO.
. ( 27 28 WE HAVE ADDRESSED 25, RIGHT. GO TO 26. DESCR IBE THE EXTEN1 s.~ e== c'oco ooioseacannoLL . ...e.e,.
- ''**'"" CERTIFIED SMORTHAND REPORTERS Cow %
ui [saos DE *OSITION NOT Amit S
~
. ---r -
l I
169 1 THE CCWS HEAT REMOVAL CAPABILITY WAS EXAMINED. IN PARTICULAR
\' 2 DESCRIBE THE EXTENT INPUT VALUES TO CCWS CALCULATIONS WERE 3 VERIFIED, THAT IS, THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY HEAT EXCHANGER HEAT 4 LOAD, THE HEAT REMOVAL CAPABILITY OF THE ULTIMATE HEAT SINK 5 THROUGH THE SERVICE WATER SYSTEM, ET CETERA.
6 MR. HESS: O KA Y. ALL HEAT LOADS ON THE CCW SYSTEM 7 WERE IDENTIFIED THROUGH REVIEW OF THE WESTINGHOUS E BOP F R-1.
8 USE OF THESE HEAT LOADS IN THE GIBBS & HILL CALCULATIONS WERE
~
9 VERIFIED, THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MANUF ACTURED EQUI PMENT 10 SHOW AS HEAT EXCHANGERS, ET CETERA, WERE REVIEWED TO ASSURE 11 THAT THOSE LOADS IMPOSED BY THESE SYSTEMS AGREE WITH THE 12 VALUES USED IN THE CALCS, AND THE SAFE SHUTDOWN CALCULATION 13 WAS REVIEWED TO ASSURE THAT THE INPUT LOAD TO THE CALCULATION g
14 AGREED WITH THE CCW HEAT EXCHANGER LOAD AND WHAT IT WAS 15 DISSIPATING TO THE SSI.
16 MR. NORKIN: DO YOU HAVE A CHECKLIST THAT ADDRESSES 17 THAT7 18 MR. FOLEY: I BELIEVE THERE 15.
19 MR. HESS: I BELIEVE THERE'S A CHECKLIST ITEM ON 20 T HAT, YES, SIR.
21 MR. NORKIN: I KNOW WE DI DN 'T -- WE DI DN 'T R EF ER ENC 22 A CHECKLIST. IT 'S ALMOST LIKE WE DIDN'T SEE IT.
23 MR. OVERB EC K: WHILE SOMEB ODY IS LOOKING FOR THE 24 CHECKLIST, LET ME QUESTION YOUR ANSWER -- YOUR RESPONSE.
25 THE WES T!NGHOUSE BOP DOCUMENT HAS A VALUE F OR A HEA 26 EXCHANGE -- CONTAINMENT SPRAY HEAT EXCHANGER HEAT REMOVAL s 27 REQUIREMENTS WITH TIME? AND IF IT DOES, HOW IS THAT PLAN 28 SPECIFIC TO CDMANCHE PEAK 7 s . . . c.sco coioGE a cAmmoLL c o ... c o. .
"'*8 '*** eDwe' CERTIFIED SMontMAND REPORTEms
" "8'"'
sais e asse DEposeTION NOTAmits
170 1 MR. MESS: THAT DOCUMENT PROVI DES DATA, GE NE R IC DA'
(
S' '
2 F OR PLANTS VERSUS NUMBER OF LOOPS, NUMBER OF LOOPS IN SERVICI 3 AND HEAT LOAD PER UNIT AND MILLIONS OF STU PER HOUR.
4 MR. OVERBECK: FOR THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEM 7 5 MR. HESS: RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL.
6 MR. FOLEY: YES, ! THINK SO. .
7 MR. HESS: YES, I'M LOOKING FOR IT RIGHT NOW.
8 MR. OVERBECK: THE DESIGN OF THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY
, 9 SYSTEM, WHOSE SCOPE AND DESIGN ON COMANCHE PEAK 7 10 MR. MARINOS: ARE YOU ASKING WHETHER IT'S 11 WESTINGHOUSE OR GIBBS S HILL.
12 MR. NDR KIN: MOST PLANTS IT'S THE A/E'S. I HAVEN'1 i
13 SEEN ANY PLANTS WHERE IT 'S NOT THE A/E'S RESPONSIB ILITY.
14 ARCHITECT ENGINEER. GIBBS & HILL WOULD TYPICALLY HAVE THE
\ (
15 CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEM FOR DESIGN.
16 MR. HESS: IT'S NOT ADDRESSED.
17 MS. WILLIAMS: WE DON'T KNOW .
19 MR. OVERB ECK: OKAY. THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT YO 20 CANNOT USE THE WESTINGHOUSE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS DESIGN l
21 CRITERIA FOR THIS SYSTEM THAT THEY MUST REFERENCE THE 22 APPROPRIATE DESIGN CALCULATION. THE DESIGN INPUT IS REQUIRED
? -
23 F OR THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEM HEAT LOAD, THAT IT MUST COME 24 FROM DESIGN CALCULATIONS ASSDCIATE. THAT 'S WHY THE QUEST ION 25 WHERE DO THEY COME FROM7 YOU TOLD ME YOU HAVE TAKEN IT F R OM 26 WESTINGHOUSE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
k 27 MR. HESS: LET ME CORRECT CNE THING. IN THE BOP
(
28 FR-1 IT GIVES THE RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM LOADS. IT DOE!
Sy,'j',"C,'go DOIDGE & CARROLL cc ...go ..
m.,, CERTIFIED SMORTHAND REPORTERS C oe'
- satse asi-saes DEPOSITION NCTARit$ '**88'"'
171 I 1 NOT GI VE, AS I'M LOOKING THROUGH IT, THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY.
(; 2 WE WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY HEAT EXCHANGER LOAC 3 FROM THE SPECIFICATION FOR THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY HEAT 4 EXCHANGER. T HE OT HER S I DE OF T HAT -- CONTA I NME NT S P RA Y S I DE 5 OF THE HEAT EXCHANGER WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN OUR SCOPE.
6 MR. OVERBECK: 50 YOU DID NOT, FOR THE HEAT L.OAD i 7 CALCULATIONS, YOU DI D NOT VER IF Y, YOU DID NOT GO B ACK AND 8 VERIFY THE DESIGN INPUT AND HOW THEY WERE ARRIVED AT7 9 MR. FOLE Y: THAT'S CORRECT.
10 MR. OVERBECK: YOU ACCEPTED WHATEVER DESIGN WAS IN 11 THE CALCULATION AS BEING THE CORRECT ONE.
12 MR. HESS: IN ORDER TO LIMIT OUR SCOPE, T HAT ' S 13 C OR R EC T, OR ELSE WE WOULD HAVE MAD TO DO THAT ON EVERY I '
i 14 CALCULATION ON EVERY HEAT EXCHANGER THAT THE CCW SERVED.
\ 15 MR. FOLEY: CONTROL ROOM AIR CONDITIONER AND 16 CHILLER S, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, WE DID NOT VER IF Y S OMEBODY l 17 WENT THROUGH AND SAID THERE WERE SO MANY --
18 MR. OVERBECK: THERE ARE SOME LOADS ON THE CCW 19 SYSTEM THAT ARE A LITTLE MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILLER LOADS ANI 20 SMALL PUMP LOADS, AND CONTAINMENT SPRAY IS AN A/E FUNCTION 21 WHICH, IF CHEC KE D, IS SIGNIFICANT.
22 MR. FOLEY: NEVERTHELESS, WAS NOT PART OF OUR' SCOPE.
23 MR. OVERB ECK: OKA Y. LET-ME TAKE IT DOWN THE NEXT l
24 STEP. HEAT COMES INTO THE-CCW SYSTEM, I GET SOME HEAT B ACK --
25 SOME TEMPERATURE CHANGE AND I HAVE TO TRANSFER THAT TO THE 26 ULT IMATE HEAT SINK. YOU DID NOT GO PAST THE CCW INTERFACE TO l
$ 27 THE ULTIMATE HEAT SINK.
l l
28 MR. HESS: WE ONLY LOOKED AT THAT INTERF ACE AS FAR Sy,'*,'jc,'s,c,o DOIDGE & CARROLL cos... c es,.
, , , , , , , CERTipaED SMORTMAND REPORTERS C C"' '
<aise est-asee OEDOSITION NOTARIES '***''"
l
. .. . . 2_ . . . . __ . .
172 1 AS THAT THE HEAT BEING REJECTED BY THE CCW HEAT EXCHANGER WAS
(( 2 INCLUDED IN THE SSI CALCULATION -- SAFE SHUTDOWN AND 3 IMPOUNDMENT CALCULATION AS FAR AS THE HEAT LOAD AND THE 4 TEMPERATUARES MATCHED AS FAR AS THE TEMPERATURE OF THE POND, 5 MAX SUMMERTIME TEMPERATURE.
6 MR. NOR KIN: YOU WERE GOING TO TELL ME WHAT .
7 CHECKLIST ADDRESSED THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
8 MR. FOLEY: I STOPPED WORKING ON IT. WE GOT ON TO 9 ANOTHER SUB JECT HERE.
10 MR. OVERB ECK: CYGNA WOULD NOT HAVE -- CYGNA WOULD 11 NOT HAVE DELTA HEAT SINK CALCULATION HERE IN YOUR FILES.
12 MR. HESS: THE SSI CALC, I BELIEVE, IS ONE THAT WE 13 REQUESTED.
4 14 - MS. WILLIAMS: LET ME SEE IF WE HAVE IT.
t i 15 SSI HEAT LOADS?
16 MR. HESS: YE S .
17 MS. WILLI AMS: NO, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT .YET, 18 BUT WE DID REQUEST IT.
19 MR. OVER8 E'CK: AND THE CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEM HEA 20 REJECTION RATES, THE CALCULATION TO DEVELOP THAT CONTAINMENT 21 PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE ANALYS !$, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, EITHE 22 MR. HESS: WE DID NOT HAVE IT AND DID NOT REQUEST I 23 MS. WILLIAMS: WAIT A MINUTE. THE SSI MEAT LOADS, 24 THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT REVISIONS TO IT THAT LOOKS LIKE WE DON' 25 HAVE THE ONE ON JANUARY 1980, BUT HERE IT IS AGAIN, 4-4-84.
26 IS THIS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS REVISED? SO WE DO HAVE THE s ( 27 SSI 1984 VERSION. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE 1980.
28 WOULD YOU LIKE US TO GET 8ACK TO YOU ON THIS
- ==.~4 se o DOIDGE & CARROLL go ,..ca...
"*'""*** cearmiso swo=TaaNo aepontras c ow -
u,$"73... osmosmon Novanies f
173 1 CHECKLIST QUESTION? O KA Y.
L. / 2 MR. NORKIN: THIS CALCULATION NUMBER 10 ON YOUR LIS1 3 OF CALCULATIONS, IS THAT THE ONE YOU SAID YOU REQUESTED YOU 4 HAVE N 'T R EC E I VE D, THE SSI HEAT LOADS?
5 MS. WILLI AMS: WAIT A MINUTE. I SAW THAT LISTED IN 6 MORE THAN ONE PLACE HERE. LET ME FIND THAT AGAIN. .
7 MR. NOR KIN: THAT'S THE ONE DATED APRIL 14TH, '84.
8 MS. WILLIAMS: YE S , HOLD ON A MINUTE. GO T O NUM B ER 9 23.
10 MR. NORKIN: IT 'S NUMBER 10 ON MY LIST.
11 MS. WILLI AMS: YES, IT 'S THE S AME THING. LET ME SEE 12 IF IT'S THE SAME DATE. SAME THING ON ITEM 23 AND I JUST 13 HAPPEN TO HAVE CHECKED IT OFF ON MY SHEET AS HAVING RECEIVED 4
14 ITEM 23 AND THE TWO ITEMS ARE THE SAME.
f 15 SO WE DO HAVE ITEM 23 WHICH IS THE CALCULATION I 16 THINK YOU ARE INTERESTED IN. THIS LIST WAS PUT TOGETHER VE R Y 17 HURRIEDLY, 50 THERE IS A COUPLE OF REPEATS IN THERE.
18 MR. NEVSHEMAL: LET ME ASK A CLARIFIC ATION QUESTION 19 ON THIS APPENDIX A T'O THE RECORD, I GUESS THAT ' S WHAT WE 'RE 20 CALLING THIS LIST --
21 MS. WILLI AMS: ATTAC HME NT 3.
22 MR. NEVSHEMAL: S DR R Y, ATTACHMENT 1.
'3 2 IS THIS THE LIST OF CALCULATIONS THAT YOU HAVE 24 REVIEWED IN DEPTH OR WHAT IS THIS LIST 7 IS THIS ONE THAT YOU 25 WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW OR SOME THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED GR SOME 26 THAT YOU HAVE REQUESTED OR WHAT IS THIS LIST 7
' 27 MS. WILLI AMS: THEY ARE VARYING DEGREES OF WHETHER
(
28 THEY WERE AN INPUT OR WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING WE EXTRACTED SOMI sa= eaa=casco DOIDGE & CARROLL co=,.. co e, .
- *8" CERTipsED SMORTMAND REPORTEm5 c D ^
( . N 'ssee DEPOSitsON NOTAmit s
174 1 INFORMATION FROM OR WHETHER WE DID A LINE FOR LINE VERY
2 DETAILED REVIEW.
3 THIS PARTICULAR LIST WAS PUT TOGETHER BY BOB AND 4 MYSELF FROM CHICAGO IN ORDER TO GET COPIES OF THE CALCULATION 5 HERE TO DISCUSS THEM WITH YOU PEOPLE. AND THE REASON WE 6 DI DN 'T HAVE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS BECAUSE WE CONDUCTED 7 THE REVIEW IN GISBS S HILL'S OFFICES AND AT THAT TIME WE WERE 8 NOT PERMITTED TO TAKE THE CALCULATIONS WITH US.
9 MR. NEVSHEMAL: SO YOU HAVE LOOKED AT EVERY ONE OF 10 THESE CALCULATIONS.
11 MS. WILLI AMS: IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.
12 MR. OVERBECK: SOME OF THEM WERE VERY IN-DEPTH.
13 MS. WILLI AMS: RIGHT, EXACTLY. BUT THIS IS NOT A g
14 N EW LIST OF CALCULATIONS WE WANT TO LOOK AT. IT'S JUST THAT 15 WE DI DN 'T HAVE HARD COPIES OF THEM.
16 MR. MARINOS: SHALL WE FINISH UP WITH THIS AND DO 17 THE ELECTRICAL TOMORROW 7 FINISH TODAY.
18 MR. MORR IS: B EF OR E WE F IN IS H, MAY I MAKE A QUESTIOl 19 ON THIS LIST? ATTACHMENT 1, I NOTICE THAT THERE ARE A FEW 20 ELECTRICAL CALCULATIONS THAT ARE NOT REFERENCED IN THE
- 21 CHECKLIST AND, CONVE R S ELY, THERE ARE A FEW CALCULATIONS THAT i
22 ARE REFERENCED IN THE CHECKLIST AND NOT ON THE LIST.
23 itS. WILLIAMS: IT 'S POSS !BLE.
24 MR. MORRIS: IS THERE ANOTHER LIST SOMEWHERE7 25 MS. WILLI AMS: NO. NO, SOMETIMES THE CHECKLIST --
{
26 YOU HA VE TO R EM EMB ER, THESE CHECKLISTS ARE 'REALLY WORK SHEETS l
6
( 27 AND WE TRIED TO GET THEM AS TYPED UP AND NICE AND UP TO DATE 28 AS WE CAN SO THAT YOU CAN GET A FEEL FOR OUR REVIEW, BUT THEY
- e =cisc o DOIDGE & CARROLL co.,..co.,.
CERTIFIED SMORTMAND RE RORTE RS C owa" sai s snee DEPOSIT ON hCTARIES "''"'
i
- 175 1 ARE NOT 100 PERCENT EVERY LITTLE NIT AND PIECE OF INF ORM AT ION
(~ 2 WE LOOKED AT.
3 THIS LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED WAS DEVELOPED FROM 4 THE REVIEWERS WHO MAINTAIN A LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED DUR IN 5 THE COURSE OF THEIR REVIEW, BUT E VER Y DOC UM ENT HE R E DO E S N 'T 6 NECESSARILY GET ANNOTATED IN THE CHECKLIST. ,
7 MR. MORRIS: AND ALSO SOME OF THE CALCULATIONS 8 LISTED HERE HAVE REVISION NUMBERS AND SOME OF THEM HAVE DATES 9 AND S OM E OF THEM MAVE BOTH.
10 WILL THE FINAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED HAVE THE 11 REVISION DATES ON THERE?
12 MS. WILLIAMS: I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT. WE CAN Dt 13 T HA T.
14 MR. NORKIN: REVISION ENDING.
I I 15 MS. WILLI AMS: OKAY.
16 MR. OVERBECK: REALLY WE NEED THAT.
17 MR. HESS: 'THE -- WHERE THE HEAT LOADS WERE ASSESSEI 18 ARE IN MS-01, ITEM 3, AND IN THE COMMENTS COLUMN THAT 19 SPECIFICALLY REFERENCES CALCULATION 233-16 WHICH IS THE 20 SHUTDOWN IMPOUNDMENT.
21 MR. NOR KIN: MS-01.
- 22 MR. HESS: MS-01, PAGE I, ITEM 3.
23 MR. MORRIS: AND ONE FINAL QUESTION.
24 IS THERE A SIMILAR LIST FOR THE SPECIF IC ATIONS AND 25 DRAWINGS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ? IS THAT AVAILABLE7 26 MS. WILLI AMS: YE S . I HAVE GOT SOMEONE PULLING THA1 27 TOGETHER FOR YOU RIGHT NOW.
(
28 MR. CALVO: WE DON 'T HAVE NO MOR E OUE S T IONS . I s = en.=cisco cologE sk CARROLL e ,,,,,eo,,,
'asse s4s us C ow*"
CERTIFIED SHORTMAND REPORTERS "'""'
, **:MY..s oEnosmo~ woTanits
i 176 1 THINK WE CAN ADJOURN THIS MEETING, BUT BEFORE WE DO, I WANT T' k 2 THANK CYGNA FOR -- FOR BEING SO RESPONSIVE TO ALL OUR 3 QUESTIONS, ACKNCWLEDGE THE FACT THAT YOU MAVE NOT QUITE 4 F INISHED YET, AND THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO 8 5 DONE. AND I HOPE THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE ASKING YOU GIVE 6 YOU SOME KIND OF INSIGHTS OF WHAT WE FEEL THAT WE NEED SO WE 7 CAN AT LEAST UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
8 MS. WILLIAMS: ABSOLUTELY. IT'S VERY HELPFUL TO ME 9 AS A MATTER OF FACT.
10 MR. CALVO: AND, AGAIN, SO YOU KNOW -- THE OTHER 11 TH ING -- AGA IN, ALSO GIVE US AN INSIGHT OF HOW THIS OVERALL 12 PHASE 4 IS GOING TO FIT IN IN THIS OVERALL MATRIX THAT WE HAD 13 TO COME UP TO THE ORIGINAL ASSURANCE. IT 'S NOT ONLY WHAT YOU 14 ARE DOING, WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DONE, LINKED TOGETHER SO WE 15 CAN COME UP WITH A CONCLUSION WHETHER THIS IS ACCEPTABLE OR 16 NOT ACCEPTABLE.
17 WITH THAT, FINISH THIS MEETING AND WE SEE YOU ALL 18 T OM ORR OW . WHAT TIME WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO TOMORROW. OFF THE 19 RECORD.
20 (MEETING ADdOURNED TO WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1985.)
21 22 l
23 .
24 l 25 26 1 t
( 27 28
. ... c. co
- ' 8 8 8 "
DoiDGE a CARROLL cos...cos..
CERTIFIED SMORTwaND REPORTERS CO****
,$ Y 33,e DEPOSITION NOTA *'t S '" '
I
ORIGINAL 177 ,
l 1
% 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 TEXAS UTILITIES CPRT MEETING 10 CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES 11 12 13 14 15 16 WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1985 - 9:30 A.M.
17 -
18 101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1000 19 SAN F RANC I SC O, CAL IF ORN I A 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
26 f 27 28 sa= sea =c'sco DOIDGE & CARROLL co....cos,.
" " ' ' ' ' " " Co<v' CERTIPIED SMORTMAND REPORTERS ui NsY spee DEPO 5aTION NOTAmiE5
, .-e 178
+
1 MS. WILLIAMS: ARE YOU READY, JOS E?
\ 2 MR. CALVO: TODAY I S MA Y T HE 2 2ND, 1985. IT IS THE 3 SECOND DAY OF THE MEETINGS BETWEEN CYGNA AND THE NRC STAFF AND 4 THE IR CONSULTANTS.
5 I GUESS THE OTHER PEOPLE PARTIC-IPATING IN THE 6 MEETING ARE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, 7 REPRESENTATIVES FROM GIBBS S HILL, AND TERRA CORPORATION AND 8 IS ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION BEING REPRESENTED AT THIS MEETING
~9 T HAT IS PRESENT HERE7 10 LET THE RECORD INDICATE THERE IS NO OTHER 11 ORGANIZATION BEING REPRESENTED AT THIS MEETING.
12 I GUESS THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING IS TO CONTINUE 13 WITH THE DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO CYGNA BY THE l . 14 NRC ON MAY 3RD, 1985 AND THE RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS WILL 15 BE DOCUMENTED AS PART OF THE RECORD OF THIS MEETING AND, 16 THER EF OR E, THERE WILL ABOUT NO FURTHER MEETING TO RESPOND IN 17 WRITING TO THE NRC TO THESE QUESTIONS.
18 AS WAS INDIC ATED THE FIRST DAY, AT THE END OF THE 19 MEETING WE WILL PROYIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALL THE PEOPLE 20 BESIDES CYGNA AND THE NRC TO ENTER ANY COMMENTS THEY WANT INTO 21 THE PUBLIC RECORD. ALSO, I MAKE THE SAME REQUEST THAT I MAKE 22 THE FIRST DAY, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A COPY OF THE 23 TRANSCRI PT OF THE MEETING TO BE FORWARDED TO MR. VI NC E NOO NA N, 24 DIRECTOR OF THE COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT.
25 AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY AT THE PRESENT MEETING.
26 I'M PASSING TO NANCY WILLI AMS, OF CYGNA, TO S EE W HA T YO U W ANT
{ 27 TO DO THIS MORNING.
28 MS. WILLIAMS: OKA Y, WE HAVE TWO NEW PE OPL E HE R E l Sy,'",',*e o DOIDGE & CARROLL g ,s...ce,,,
ou ,,o CERTIFIED SMomTMAND REPORTEms c u*'
satse ase asu DEPOSITION NOTAmiES **'88
l I
179 I 1 THAT I 'LL INTRODUCE F IRST. THERE IS AL MOERSFELDER B ACK HERE 2 AND BOB PORTER NEXT TO HIM FROM OUR CHIC AGO OFFICE.
3 WE HAVE PREPARED A LIST OF WHAT WE THINK WAS 4 INFORMATION WE OWED YOU FROM YESTERDAY AND I WOULD LIKE TO 5 START BY GOING THROUGH THAT AND PREPARING WHAT RESPONSES WE 6 HAVE AVAILABLE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
7 THE FIRST QUESTION I HAD DOWN WA S, DOES GIBB5 & HILL 8 HAVE ANY MECHANICAL SEPARATION CRITERIA. AND WITH THE 9 DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAD IN-HOUSE, WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND ANY 10 SUCH CRITERIA LISTED ANYWHERE LAST NIGHT. AS WE NOTED 11 YESTERDAY, WE DID CHECK THE ORIENTATION AND THE SEPARATION OF 12 THE MECHANICAL COMPONENTS FOR ANY PROBLEMS WITH MISSILES.
13 THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS IN TWO PARTS, DEALING i . 14 WITH THE SYSTEM TEM PE RATUR ES, AND ONE OF THEM REGARDED THE 15 HEAT-UP TEMPERATURES FOR THE SURGE TANK S IZING AND BOB HESS 16 HAS SOME DETAILS ON THAT FOR YOU R IGHT NOW.
17 MR. MESS: OKAY. WE WENT BACK AND RECHECKED THE 18 CALCULATION AND THE TEMPERATUARES USED FOR SIZING OF THE SURGE 19 TANK WAS A HEAT-UP FROM 40 DEGREES TO A MAXIMUM CCW OUTLET 20 TEMPE RA TUR E, HEAT EXCHANGER INLET TEMPERATURE, I 'M SORR Y, OF 21 170 DEGREES.
22 MS. WILLIAMS: ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
'23 THE SECOND PART DEALT WITH, I BELIEVE, THE 1 24 TRANSMITTAL OF THE SYSTEM TEMPERATURE INF ORMATION TO THE PI PE 25 STRESS ANALYSIS GROUP IN GIBBS & HILL. WHAT I DID WAS TO -
26 WELL, TALK WITH THE MECHANICAL PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE 27 REVI EWED AND, SECONDLY, TO TALK TO OUR PIPE STRESS PEOPLE TO 28 SEE WHAT DOCUMENTS THEY HAD REVIEWED.
sa= *a*=c sco DOIDGE a CARROLL coe.. cop.
."Z'.j,*o** ' cantmso swontaamo namenteas ,, , ,c o,g', , , ,
...... caposmom moranies
, - _ . . - , , ._. _~. ,.n,,a,. , . , , . . _ , __.. _ - -
. -s--.. .. .. . . . . . _ _ _ - . .
180 1 AND WHAT I FOUND WAS THAT CUR MECHANIC AL PEOPLE 2 REVIEWED THE CCW TEMPERATURE PROFILE CALCULATION WHICH 3 PRODUCES THE TEMPERATURES AND SPOT CHECKED A MEMORANDUM WHICH 4 IS PRODUCED BY THE GIBBS & HILL MECHANICAL GROUP, A CONTROLLED 5
MEMORANDUM WITH A NUMBER, WHICH IS SU8SEQUENTLY TRANSMITTED TO 6 THE GIB85 8 HILL PIPE STRESS ANALYSTS FOR USE IN THE PI,PE 7 STRESS ANALYSIS.
8 OUR PIPE STRESS REVIEWERS CHECKED THAT MEMO AND ITS 9
IMPLEMENTATION INTO THE PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS, 50 THAT WAS THE 10 MEANS OF TRANSMITTING THE TEMPERATURE DATA BETWEEN THE TWO 11 GISB5 & HILL GROUPS. AND THAT'S IT ON SYSTEM TEMPERATURES 12 THAT I HAD, UNLESS THERE IS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
13 THE THIRD ITEM I HAD DEALT WITH SOME QUESTIONS ON A 14 COMMENT WHICH WE MAD REGARDING PUMP RUNOUT FLOW ON MECHANIC AL 15 CHECKLIST MS-01, ITEM 5, SHEET 2. I BELIEVE 808 HAS SOME 16 CLARIFICATION ON THAT AT THIS TIME.
17 MR. HESS: OKAY. THE PUMP SPECS STATED THAT THE 18 PUMP FLOW REQUIREMENTS WERE 14,700 GPM AT 226 FEET A HEAD FOR DESIGN AND 16,400 GPM AT 210 FEET FOR RUNOUT. THE ACTUAL PUMP 19 20 RUNOUT PER THE VENDOR CURVE WAS APPROXIMATELY 18,000 GPM AT HEAD j 21 196 FEET A HEAD WHICH EXCEFDS THE SPECIFIED REQUIREMENT.
22 AT 16,400 GPM 15 APPROXIMATELY 212 GPM WHICH MEETS THE
~
23 SPECIFIED REQUIREMENT OF HAVING 210 AT SIXTEEN-FOUR.
24 MR. NEVSHEMAL: I THINK YOU STATED YESTERDAY YHAT 25 YOU HAD LOOKED AT THE CALCULATIONS TO DETERMINE THAT THE 26 SYSTEM WOULD BE A8LE TO SUPPORT THAT FLOW RATE.
i
. 27 ARE YOU SAYING NOW YOU HAD NOT LOOKED AT THE 28 CALCULATIONS IN ANSWER TO ITEM 57 YOU JUST LOOKED AT THE 8,**7*,'**g* DOIDGE D CARROLL g otow
,.. co.g,.
CERTi8itO SMORTMAND REPORTEns ='
.. . .o iaisi ssa n os I sense est-ases OE POSITION NOT ARIE S
~~
I 181 4
1 PURCHASE SPEC?
k 2 MR. HESS: NO, WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT. THE QUESTION 3
THAT YOU HAD YESTERDAY, AS I RECALL, WAS WHY THAT COMMENT WAS AND I W A S JUS T 4 IN THERE B ASED ON THE TD-029 AND BOP FR-1.
5 TRYING TO GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION OF WHY THOSE NUMBER 6 RECORDED IN THE COMMENTS COLUMN AND THE MEANINGS OF THEM.
7 8 MS. WILLIAMS: SHOULD WE RETURN TO THE CHECKLIST AND 9 GO THROUGH THAT OR DOES THAT NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION PERHAPS?
10 MR. OVERBECK: NO, WE FEEL THAT TO VERIFY THAT --
11 CHECK THAT COMMENT, NEEDED TO LOOK AT THE CALCULATIONS AND THE 12 PROCUREMENT SPEC WAS NOT THE PRIMARY DOCUMENT YOU WOULD LOOK AT TO CHECK THE CALCULATIONS. AND THEN GO TO THE PROCUREMENT
. 13 14 SPEC AND MATE SURE YOU BOUGHT THAT KIND OF PUMP. THA T ' S WHA T g
15 WE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED. WE WOULDN'T EXPECT THAT THAT 16 C OMMENT -- WE WERE CONCERNED THAT CONMENT WAS THE B ASIS FOR 17 PUTTING A YES IN THE CHECKLIST, AND YOU INDICATED YESTERDAY 18 THAT THAT WAS NOT THE B ASIS.
f T HAT ' S C ORR EC T.
- 19 MR. FOLEY
20 MR. HESS: THAT 'S CDRRECT, THAT W AS NOT THE B ASIS.
i
22 NR. FOLF.Y: AND THA T PR OC EDUR E YOU I DE NT IF IE D OF f
23 REVIEWING THE CALCS FIRST AND THEN THE SPEC WAS, IN F AC T, THE 24 ORDER OF SEOUENCE THAT THE JOB WAS DONE.
25 MS. WILLI AMS: OKAY. 50 WE'RE SAYING THAT WE DID 26 WHAT I THINK YOU ARE SAYING WOULD BE EXPECTED TO DO TO CHECK '
t 27 THAT ATTRIBUTE ON THE CHECKLIST.
28 MR. NEVSHEMAL: I GUESS THE ONE THING THAT I AM s.. es.=c sco DOIDGE & CARROLL c o%,.. c a.. .
"' " ' " " CERTiplED SMORTMAND REPORTERS C ow *
" "3'
. U.Na#see OE POSITION NOT ARiE $
182 i
1 INTERESTED IN, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE THAT CAN SHOW
- 2 ME THAT YOU INDEED LOOKED AT THE CALCULATION TO ANSWER THAT 3 ITEM NUMBER 57 BECAUSE IF I WAS TO TRY TO ANSWER THAT NUMBER 4 5, WHAT I WOULD WRITE IN THE COMMENTS WAS THAT I LOOKED AT 5 CALCULATION SO AND SO, REVISION THIS DATE, TO THIS DATE, AND I 6 FOUND THIS, AND THEN I WENT TO THE SPEC. .
7 I CAN THINK OF A SCENARIO WHERE I WOULD JUST WANT TO 8 LOOK AT THE PURCHASE SPEC TO FIND OUT IF THE FLOW RATES WERE 9 LARGER THAN WHAT WAS ASKED FOR IN THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS, THE 10 WESTINGHOUSE DOCUMENT AND THE GIBBS S HILL DOCUMENT, AND STILL 11 PUT A YES IN THERE.
12 50 WHAT I AN ASKING FOR AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO 13 HAVE A FEEL IS THAT YOU INDEED DID FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE THAT 14 WE DISCUSSED IN SOME WAY THAT I CAN PUT MY HANDS ON IT.
\
15 MS. WILLI AMS: OKAY. UNFORTUNATELY, THE C OMP.E NTS IN 16 THE COMMENTS COLUMN CHECKLIST AREN'T THAT DETAILED AND ALL 17 REVIEWERS DON'T WRITE DOWN EVERY CALC AND EVERYTHING THEY 18 LOOKED AT. WHAT THEY USE IS THE DOCUMENT REVIEW LIST TO 19 DOCUMENT WHAT IT IS THEY LOOKED AT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, 20 AND THE TWO AREN'T MATCHED NECESSARILY VI A THE COMMENTS COLUMN.
21 I DON 'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS MAYBE HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT.
22 MR. HESS: WELL, I THINK THE BASIC ANSWER TO YOUR 23 QUESTION IS YES, WE CAN SHOW YOU THAT. F IRST OF ALL, THE 24 CHECKLIST ITEM, IF YOU READ IT, IT SAYS IS SPECIFIED CCW FUMP 25 FLOW SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE FLOW RATE SPECIFIED IN THE BOP 26 F R-1 AND THE TD-0 2 9. AND THE ANSWER TO THAT COMMENT IS YES.
I 27 THE FOLLOW-0N TO THAT AS FAR AS WHERE WE LOOKED AT 28 THE DETAIL CALCS STARTS RIGHT IN ITEM 6 WHERE WE'RE GOING saa, eea=cisco
- s e s seeo DOIDGE a CARROLL cosve.cose.
CantipitD SwomTHAND REP 0mTEms C o w '
,$ Y ssee OEPOSITION Notamit S # "# ' ' "
.. _ ~. ..
183 1 THROUGH THE CALCULATION OF FLOW THROUGH THE RHR HEAT EXCHANGER
\ 2 AND CONTINUES THROUGH THE REST OF THE CHECKLIST WITH THE FLOW !
AND I THINK THEY 3 THROUGH EACH OF THE LOOPS THAT WE ANALYZED.
4 ARE FAIRLY DETAILED ON THE FACT THAT THEY GIYE YOU THE THING 5 THAT WE CHECKED AS FAR AS MERCHANT FACTOR, FLOW COEFFIENTS, 6 PIPE GEOMETRY, PUMP CURVE OPERATING POINT, PIPE SIZE, ET 7 CETERA.
l 8 MR. NEVSHEMAL: SO WHAT ! HEAR YOU SAY NOW IS THAT 9 IN TRYING TO ANSWER ITEM NUMBER 5 YOU LOOKED AT THE PURCHASE 10 SPEC AND FOUND OUT THAT THE FLOW RATES ASKED FOR ON HEAD 11 CURVES -- I MEAN THE FLOW RATES ON HEAD CURVES WERE LARGER 12 THAN WHAT WAS ASKED FOR IN THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS, AND THAT TO 13 ANSWER NUMBER 5, YOU REALLY DID NOT LOOK AT THE CALCULATION, I
- BUT TO ANSWER OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE LIST, YOU DID LOOK,AT THE 14
'\
15 CALCULATION, 15 THAT CORRECT 7 16 MR.~ FOLEY: YES.
9 17 ?? MR. NEVSCHEMAL: ANSWER, OKAY.
18 MS. WILLIAMS: NO MORE COMMENTS ON THAT ONE7 19 THE FOURTH ITEM I HAD WAS THE REQUEST FOR THE NUMBER 20 OF MIS $1NG CALCULATIONS FOUND DURING THE MECHANIC AL REVIEW.
THE 21 WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS BROKEN THAT INTO TWO CATEGORIES.
l 22 FIRST IS THOSE WHICH WE HAVE REQUESTED FROM GIBBS $ HILL, BUT 23 NOT YET RECEIVED. I'M REFERRING TO THE ONE WE DISCUSSED 24 YESTERDAY WHERE IT WAS NOTED WITH NO CALCULATION NUMBER, WE'RE 25 RE-REQUESTING IT TO SEE IF IT IS SOMEWHERE IN THEIR FILES, BUT 26 TO DATE WE HAVE NOT RECE!VED CALCULATIONS.
1 ,
I 27 AND THE SECOND CATEGORY IS THOSE WHERE VIA A f ,
28 QUESTION THAT WE HAVE ASKED GIBBS S HILL HAS RESPONDED BY sa= emancisco DOIDGE & CARROLL co ...cos+a
- ''** *** CEnfipiED SMORTMAND REPORTERS c o- *
sa , Yasee s DEPOSITION NOTAmit S
i
.. s ,
r 184 1 ,
1 PERFORMING ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS THAT WERE APPARENTLY 2 NECESSARY IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO OUR QUESTIONS AND UPDATING !
3 CALCULATIONS ACCORDINGLY.
4 IN THE FIRST CATEGORY FOR THOSE REQUESTED, BUT NOT 5
RECEIVED, WE INCLUDE THE $IIING CALCULATIONS FOR THE VENT IN ADDITION TO THAT, 6 VALVE, RELIEF VALVE, AND VACUUM BREAKERS.
7 WE DID ASK FOR A WATER HAMMER CALCULATION, ALTHOUGH THIS WAS 8 NOT PERHAPS TECHNICALLY REQUIRED IN THE PARTICULAR INSTANCE O 9
THIS SYSTEM AT THAT TIME, THEY HAD SOME JUSTIFICATION WHICH 10 THEY PROVIDED FOR US VERB ALLY AS TO WHY THEY DID NOT RUN A WATER HAMMER ANALYSIS. H OWE VE R, THAT JUSTIFICATION WAS NOT 11 12 DOCUMENTED ANYWHERE.
13 AND THEY HAVE A POLICY FOR WHEN THEY RUN WATER 14 HAMMER CALCULATIONS WHICH EXCLUDED APPARENTLY RUNNING THE CCW 15 SYSTEM AND THEY DID EVENTUALLY PROVIDE TECHNIC AL JUSTIF IC ATION I 16 F OR IT IN THE PARTICULAR INSTANCE THAT WE ASKED ABOUT.
17 NOW I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THAT A 18 TECHNICAL MISSING CALCULATION.
19 MR. FOLEY: WE DO HAVE DOCUMENTATION ON THE 20 RECORD -- THAT DOCUMENTS THE CONVERSATION AND THE 21 JUS TIF IC AT ION.
MS. WILLIAMS: ORIGINAL EXISTING DOCUMENTATION, "THEY 22 23 HAD NONE IN THE FILES. ,
24 MR. FOLEY: RIGHT.
MS. WILLI AMS: ALL OF OUR CONVERSATIONS ARE ON 25 i
26 TELECONS. OKAY, TWO INSTANCES WHERE WE REQUESTED SOME 27' INFORMATION WHICH RESULTED IN ADDITIONAL GIBBS & HILL i
28 C ALCULATIONS WERE FOUND DURING THE MECHANIC AL REVIEW, WHICH IS j
' s. ... em o Doicot a cAmmoLL co ,.. c os,.
- '
- CERTIFIED SMORTM AND REPORTERS C o * ',',
esisi es. ssee DEPOSITION NOTAm E5
. ..L :. ,. .:: ;'~.~.~n..
185 1 THE SECOND CATEGORY.
\-
MR. OVERBECK: WHICH ONES WERE THOSE, NANC Y ?
2 3 MR. HESS: THE TWO INSTANCES WHERE WE REQUESTED 4 INFORMATION THAT RESULTED IN ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS WAS, ONE, IN THE SYSTEM IN 5 IN THE CONSIDERATION OF A 10-INCH LINE 8REAK AND 6 THE SOUNDARY BETWEEN SEISMIC AND NONSEISMIC EQUIPMENT.
NOT CLOSING 7 THE OTHER CASE WAS ON THE RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF S THE SURGE TANK VENT VALVE ON A HIGH RADI ATION SURGE.
9 MR. OVER8ECK: HOW DOES THAT VENT VALVE ARRANGEMENT 10 REMOVED ON A CALCULATION. 15 IT AN ECN OR SOME KIND OF DESIGN 11 CHANGE? HOW DO YOU ACCCMPLISH THAT7 12 MR. HESS: THERE WAS DESIGN CHANGE PAPER WORK THAT 13 JUSTIFIED THE REMOVAL 8ASE ON THE SPURIOUS ACTUATION O UNDER lie VALVE DUE TO SPURIOUS SIGNAL FROM THE RADI ATION MONITOR 15 CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
16 MR. OVERB ECK: WAS THAT DESIGN CHANGE REVIEWED BY 17 THE ARCHITECT / ENGINEER, GIBBS S HILL 7 18 MR. HESS: YES, IT WAS.
-- ANY 19 MR. OVERSECK: IS THAT BEING IDENTIFIED AS A 20 KIND OF A PROBLEM 7 MR. HESS: IT WAS IDENTIFIED IN OUR REVIEW, YES, AND 21 22 MAS BEEN CLOSED OUT BASED ON THE...
i IT'S TECHNIC ALLY CLOSED OUT. !
MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, 23 I WANTED 24 THINK HE'S ASKING FROM A DESIGN CONTROL STANDPOINT.
25 TO ASK YOU WHETHER THE CVC, THE CHANGE VERIF ICATION CHECKLIST 26 WAS STAMPED NO CALCULATION REQUIRED OR WHETHER THAT i
', 27 SOMETHING WE NEED TO CHECK.
28 MR. HESS: WE 'D HAVE TO CHECK THAT.
- ='a==csco poicot a cAnmoLL e ...co...
CERTIFIED SMORTHAND REPORTERS ,, C D,v,*',',
sa[sas , , ,
OEPOSITION NOTARIES em e s, as e- ssee
186 f
1 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY. THEY HAVE A PROCESS WHERE THEY 2 DETERMINE AT GISBS S HILL WHETHER CALCULATIONS ARE REQUIRED OR 3 NOT AND WE MAY NOT AGREE WITH THE JUDGMENT THAT SAYS NO 4 CALCULATION REQUIRED BUT THEY THEY MAY HAVE CHECKED THAT THE 5 DIDN'T BELIEVE AT THE TIME THERE WAS A CALCULATION REQUIRED.
6 MR. OVERBECK: ALL l'M DRIVING AT, IF THERE IS A 7 CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM DESIGN, CHANGE OF SYSTEM FUNCTION THAT 8 HAS TO BE REVIEWED BY GIBBS & HILL WHICH APPARENTLY THEY DID, 9 AND THEY MISSED THE POINT WHY IT WAS THERE. 50 THAT SHOULD BE 10 IDENTIFIED IN THE REPORT AS SOME KIND OF PROBLEM.
11 MS. WILLIAMS: RIGHT.
MR. OVERBECK: THIS CCW SURGE TANK VENT VALVE, 12 13 RELIEF VALVE, AND VACUUM BREAKER SIZING CALCULATION, WAS THAT 14 SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF OR DID YOU ASK FOR THAT IN 15 RESPONSE TO OUR QUESTION?
16 MS. WILLIAMS: NO, WE ASKED FOR THAT OR IGINALLY, AS 17 I UNDERSTOOD IT.
18 MR. HESS: YES, WE HAD ASKED FOR THAT IN GIBBS S 19 HILL'S OFF ICES, AND IT WAS RETRANSHITTED AS A REQUEST WHICH 20 WAS MAY 3RD ON THAT LIST AS DOCUMENTS THAT WE WERE STILL 21 MISSING.
22 MS. WILLIAMS: THIS LIST WAS NOT PREPARED IN 23 RES PONSE TO YOUR QUEST IONS. THIS LIST WAS SIMPLY AN ECHO OF 24 OUR DOCUMENTS REVIEWED AND ONES THAT WE t%DN'T RECEIVED YET FROM OUR REVIEW, 50 THAT WE HAVE THEM HERE FOR YOU. IT WASN'T 25 l
l 26 DIRECTLY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTIONS.
27 MR. OVERBECK: THANK YOU.
28 MS WILLIAMS: OKAY, THE FIFTH THING I HAVE DEALS l
..- * = c< s co ooioGE a cAmmoLL c. ...e....
cemTipito s=ontaa%o atPontems , , ,c og , , , , ,
l ".'"*.*."' orposition motAmits
. . .. .. . n u l
1 I
187 9
1 WITH THE SURGE TANK OVERPRESSURIZATION IN THE EVEN AND WE HAVE 2 VALVE LOSES POWER AND AS A RESULT FAILS SHUT.
3 SOME ADDITIONAL I> FORMATION FOR YOU ON THAT.
MR. HESS: FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE 4
5 WHAT WE STATED YESTERDAY IS IN THE -- IN OUR ANALYS IS, OUR 6 ASSESSMENT, WE CONSIDERED THE RELIEF VALVE AND THE VACUUM 7 BREAKER AS PASSIVE COMPONENTS AND DID NOT TAKE FAILURES 8 THOSE ITEMS. WE CONSIDERED THE SINGLE F AILURE BEING THE VENT 9 VALVE ITSELF.
10 IN REGARD TO THAT AS F AR AS OVERPRESSURIZ ATION, WE 11 HAVE REVIEWED THE TANK SIZING CALC AND THE TEMPERA 12 CALCS AND HAD GONE B ACK AND LOOKED AT THE INCREASE IN VOLUME 13 FROM NORMAL OPERATING TEMPERATURE UNDER A LOCAL CONDITION e
AND T HE PR ES S UR E
, 14 TO WHAT THE INCREASE IN VOLUME WOULD BE.
\ ACHIEVED IN THE TANK IS LESS THAN THE DESIGN PRESSURE OF THE 15 16 TANK UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS WITH ALL VALVES CLOSED.
17 MR. OVERBECK: AND THAT 'S STARTING AT 40 DEGREES AND 18 HEATING UP TO 170 7 19 MR. HESS: NO. THAT'S STARTING AT A NORMAL 20 OPERATING TEMPERA.TURE OF A HUNDRED DEGREES.
21 MR. OVERBECK: I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE OESIGN 22 CONDITIONS TO ESTABLISH WHAT RELIEF VALVE SIZE YOU NEED,
'3 2 WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO WORK OR NOT.
24 MR. HESS: T HAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DID NOT 25 SPECIFICALLY ASSESS AS FAR AS GOING FROM A 40 DEGREE 26 TEMPERATURE WHICH IS -- F IRST OF ALL, IF YOU ARE AT A LOCAL 27 CONDITION YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE AT 40 DEGREES IN THE CCW
(
28 SYSTEM. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME HEAT -- YOU HAVE BEEN l
ooicot a cAmmoLL .....c.,.
c o. '.
- y,'.;.;.;c;;l,'
csatisico saontaaso asaoatsas ""*'"'
' .....n.. ogaosmo% uotaairs ,
188 OPERATING, YOU HAVE A HEAT LOAD IN THE SYSTEM. 40 DE GR EES IS 1
2 BASICALLY A COLD START-UP.
3 MR. OVERBECK: 1 THINK THAT WHAT NUMBER YOU STA AT AT I SUGGEST YOU MIGHT GO 4 HAS TO BE DEFENDED BY GIBBS S HILL.
1 5 BACK TO GIBBS S HILL AND :l.i.T THEM DEFEND THEIR DESIGN, BUT I t
I THINK YOU BEiTER RELOOK AT I
6 APPREC I ATE YOUR RESPON',E.
THL' 7 WHETHER YOU CONSIDER THAT A PASS IVE COMPONENT OR NOT.
VALVE HAS TO TAKE SOME MOVEMENT. SOMETHING MAS TO MOVE IN 8 /
9 ORDER FOR IT TO WORK, 50 IT ' S JUS T LI KE A CHEC K VA LV8i .
10 MS. WILLI AMS: THEN THE LAST THING I OWE YOU IS A 11 LIST OF DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHICH IS STILL UNDERWA '.
12 I WAS JUST GOING TO DO THE MECHANICAL TO START WITH, 50 T MAT ' S 13 IT FOR MECHANIC AL.
4 14 MR. NEVSHEMAL: MAY II.Cr .NST ONE THING WITH k THIS i S ADD -ON T O T HE VE NT VALVE i 15 RESPECT TO THE MECHANICAL.
16 SIDE. WHAT ABOUT THE VACUUM BREAKER SIZ ING, COULD YOU GO OVER 17 WHAT YOU INDICATED YESTERDAY AS TO HOW YOU VERIFIED THE SIZE 18 OF THAT VACUUM BREAKER, OKAY.
MR. HESS: BASICALLY, WE RAN OUR OWN INDE PENDE NT 19 20 CALC AND LOOKED AT THE MAXIMUM OUTFLOW RATE FACM THE TANK AND 21 TOOK THE 583 GPM MODERATE ENERGY LINE BREAK AS BEING THE i
22 '
OUTFLOW FROM THE TANK AND RAN A PRESSURE DROP CALC AIR FLOW 23 CALC THROUGH THAT VALVE, THE VALVE 'S OPEN1% PRESSURE IS DELTA i
24 P OF .2 PSI, THE MAX DELTA P TO FORCE THE I.IR THROUGH THAT WOULD BE LESS THAN 2 PS T IN THAT CASE. AND WE ASSESS THAT THE 25 26 TWO-!NCH PIPING WAS ADEQUATE WITH THAT VALVE IN.tT. i v 27 MR. NEVSHEMAL: DID YOU VERIFY THAT' THf TANK INDEED
(
28 COULD HANDLE A VACUUM 2 PS!?
..-e.. cao poioot a cAmmoLL m, .. c o .. .
";,,'7' cantaito saontmano armoattas osmositios novanits
- ,,co,v, , ,,,
. ...., n g.
t;
\
' . . .T.' .J.f. ; .*_ ., * ' ' " , , 7 ., ..
I I89 l 1 MR. FOLEY: WE LOOKED THROUGH THESE -- WE RELOOKED
\ THROUGH THE SPECIFICATION OF THE TANK AND AS OF THIS 2
3 HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO REVERIFY THAT.
AND THAT IS A QUESTION WE ASKED, WHAT 4 MR. OVERBECK:
5 WAS THE DESIGN CONDITION FOR THAT TANK IN VACUUM.
MR. NEVSHEMAL:
50 AS I UNDERSTAND, WHAT YOUR.
6 7 CALCULATION INDICATES IS THAT THERE WILL BE A 2 PSI S DIFF ERENCE --
MR. NEVSHEMAL: -- THAT CAN GO ALL THE WAY TO ZERO.
10 11 MR. HESS: THE EXACT NUMBER IS SOM EW HER E -- T HA T I 12 CALCULATED IS SOMEWHERE AROUND 1.4. i 13 MR. OVERB ECK: AND THE REASON YOU HAD TO DO THESE
. 14 CALCULATIONS BECAUSE GIBBS & HILL HADN'T CONSIDERED THAT 15 10-INCH LINE BREAK?
MR. FOLEY: NO. WELL, A S -- IN THE DOC UM E NT S 16 17 REQUESTED, THE SIZING OF THE VACUUM BREAKER AND THE RELIEF 18 VALVE ARE, IN FACT, MISSING DOCUMENTATION AND, PR ES UH AB LY, IF 19 WE GET THAT DOCUMENTATION, A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS COULD GO 20 AWAY, BUT THEY ARE RELATED TO THAT LACK OF INF ORM AT IO N.
21 MR. NEVSHEMAL: WHY DID YOU LOOK AT ONLY THE LEAK .
22 RATE AS THE GOVERNING ISSUE FOR DRAWING A VACUUM ON THE TANK?
f l '
-23 WHAT ABOUT START-UP OF A PUMP OR SCHETHING LIKE THIS, SECOND 24 PUMP MAY BE STARTING UP, THE FIRST ONE OPERATING DRAWING ON 25 THAT, GOING UP TO, NOT 60 0 G PM, B UT IN THE THOUSANDS, I THINK 26 THAT'S NORMAL RATE OF SIZE OF VACUUM ON THE TANK.
27 MR. HESS: COULD YOU -- I'M NOT CLEAR ON YOUR 28 THIS IS A QUESTION AS F AR AS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
DOIDGE & CARROLL co ,.. cos,.
- = *e.=c.sc o **'
""j'jj;" camTipiso swomTwaNo atromTras ,,,, coy,,,,,,
. . . . . . . . . DtDOsiTION NOTAnfEs
l I
190 1 FILLED SYSTEM AND YOU ARE NOT DRAWING DOWN ON THE TANK WHEN l
( 2 YOU START THE PLMP. THE TAHK IS A HIT TANK ON THE SYSTEM SO 3 I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT THE EFFECT OF STARTING THE PUMP WOULD BE.
4 MR. NEVSHEMAL: WELL, WITH THE WHOLE SYSTEM AT REST, 3 I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE DRAWING DOWN IF 6 THE LEVEL IN THERE FAIRLY RAPIDLY ON THE PUMP START-UP EVE 7 YOU 00 HAVE A FILLED SYSTEM.
8 MR. HESS: I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING IN THAT 9 SCENARIO WITH ONE PUMP RUNNING AND STARTING THE SECOND PUMP.
10 NOW, THE NORMAL LEAK RATE FROM THE TANK THAT WAS -- NORMAL 11 DESIGN WAS 50 GPM, WE WENT TO THE MORE CONSERVATIVE NUMBER, WE CONSIDERED THAT TO 12 583 MODERATE ENERGY LINE BREAK NUMBER.
13 BE A CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS.
14 -
MS. WILLIAMS: THAT ' S ALL I HAVE.
\
15 MR. CALVO: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
16 Mk. OVERBECK: WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION WE WOULD 17 LIKE TO GATHER.
18 MR. CALVO: GO AHEAD.
MR. OVERBECK: WE CA . .i YESTERDAY ATTAC m ENT I 19 20 TO THE RECORD. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME COPIES OF 21 CALCULATIONS TO LOOK AT. l MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY.
22 23 MR. OVERBECK: AND WE ALSO NEED SOME DRAWINGS AND 24 STUFF WHEN YOU HAVE THAT LIST. I 'LL JUST GIVE YOU THE NUMBERS 25 OFF OF THE ATTAC M ENT 1. WHEN YOU GET THEM FROM .GIBBS & HILL, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16 26 WILL YOU PASS THEM ON TO US THROUGH THE NRC.
i 27 21, 23, 24, 30, 41. THANK YOU.
i 28 MR. FOLEY: THOSE ARE OUR IDENT IFYING NUMBERS.
co%, . cosea sa= ee*=cesco DOIDGE e CARROLL
"(*$,**
CERTaFIED SMORTMAND REPomTERS DEPOSITION NOTAmiES
, c,0,p,',* , , ,
u nas asi.ssee
. ~ . _
191 MS. WILLI AMS: YE S , I HAVE THAT.
1
(.\ MR. CALV0: ANYTHING ELSE?
2 THIS IS THE ONLY THING WE KNOW. IF 3 MR. OVERB ECK:
4 YOU HAVE GOT SOME OF THOSE CALCULATIONS THAT MIGHT BE 5 AVAILABLE. WE CAN START LOOKING AT THEM TODAY.
MS. WILLI AMS: O KA Y.
6 7 MR. OVERB ECK: IT WOULD B E HE L PF UL .
MR. CALV0: T OM ORR OW, AFTER WE FINISH WITH THE 8,
9 MECHANIC AL AND ELECTRIC AL INSTRUMENTATION, WE WILL PROVIDE 1 10 WITH A
SUMMARY
OF OUR PERCEPTIONS ON HOW YOU -- AN INDEPE YOL 11 DESIGN VERIF IC ATION FROM OUR STANDPOINT SHOULD INCLUDE.
12 GOT TO RECOGNIZE THE F ACT THAT YOU HAD NOT FINISHED W 13 DESIGN VERIFICATION AND SOME THINGS THAT OUR PERCEPTIONS MA' YOU HAD NOT INCLUDED, YOU MAY CONSIDER TO BE OUT OF THE SCO'
( 14 15 B UT , IN ANY E VE NT , WE'RE GOING TO BE TELLING YOU THOSE THIN' 16 WITH THE NRC AND OUR CONSULTANTS PERCEIVE WHAT 17 INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIF IC ATION, KEEP IT IN MIND BOTH DEPTH AND BREADTH. THE REASON YOU TAKE A FLUID SYSTEH, WHAT THIN 18 19 IN FLUID SYSTEM SOMETIME ARE' DONE IN DEPTH HELP YOU TO WE WILL GIVE YOU 20 CORRELATE FLUID SYSTEMS SIMILAR TO THIS.
21 WHAT KIND OF THINGS WE FEEL MAY BE UNCOMFORTABLE AT THIS TI-22 AND WE WILL PRESENT IT TO YOU WITH CONSIDERATION.
23 WE FEEL WITHIN THE SCOPE, YOU HAVE COVERED, HOPING 24 HAVE SOME DIALOGUE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT WE -- OUR IF YOU FEEL 25 PERCEPTIONS ARE CDRRECT ON WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
I WOULC 26 THAT WE MISUNDERSTOOD YOU OR YOU HAD NOT CLARIFIED,
(' THE TABL 27 LIKE THOSE THINGS TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE FRONT OF 28 TOMORROW.
sa= ena=cesco DOIDGE & CARROLL co%,.. co...
- " Cow *"
CERTIFIED SMORTHAND REPORTERS **''''
- .
- a asee DEPOSITION NOTARIE S
192 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY, VERY GOOD.
1 2 MR. CALVO: AT LEAST WHEN WE LEAVE HERE WITH A 3
UNDERSTANDING HOW EVERYBODY STANDS AND, AGA IN, YOU HAD NOT INFORMAT ION WILL 4 FINISHED THIS THING UP AND CERTAINLY OTHER IN THE 5 COME INTO THE FUTURE THAT WILL b5LP AT LEAST PROGRESS 6 RIGHT DIRECTION IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT 'YOU ARE DOING 7 50 WE KNOW HOW THIS WILL FACTOR INTO THE OVERALL 8 REASONABLE ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN QUALITY FOR T THAT'S ALL 1 HAVE TO SAY NOW. ! THINK IF YOU ARE 9 PROJECT.
10 READY, WE CAN GO B ACK -- NOW IT'S TIME TO GO WITH THE 11 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM AND I THINK I HAVE A SUGGESTION.
12 WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAS TRYING TO LOOK 3RD, 1985 13 QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD FORWARDED TO YOU ON MAY THE INSOFAR AS RELA 14 AND WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY THOSE QUESTIONS
\
15 TO WHAT KIND OF THINGS WE WANTED.
16, IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU NEED MORE TIHE TO ANSWER THO 17 QUESTIONS, FOR FURTHER CLARIF IC ATION, ASK AS MANY QUESTION!
18 THAT YOU HAD AND TRYING TO EXPLAIN THROUGH THE 19 SINGLE-LINE DI AGRAM THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS.
AND I GUESS IF YOU ARE PREPARED TO SAY, YES, WE I 20 21 IT AND WE DID IT THIS WAY OR OUTSIDE THE SCOPE, LET'S SO IF YOU FEEL YOU REQUIRE MORE TIME, LET'S HAVE M 22 INDICATE.
23 TIME TO DO IT.
24 THE IMPORTANT PART IS YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS 8EH 25 OUR QUESTION AND WE CAN CLARIFY AS MUCH AS 26 WE LEAVE HERE YOU GOT AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE'RE l
( 27 FROM.
MS. WILLIAMS: WE'LL GO THROUGH THE RECORD AND W 28 co ,..co,
- *= ' * * *8 8 0 DOIDGE & CA# TROLL
"',"j",*,'," CEmTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTEm5 ,,,,80,**',',
wes< ase asee DEPOSITION NOTAmtES
193 r
1 FILL IN WHERE WE MAVE TO.
I MR. CALV0: IF YOU CAN'T GIVE ME THE ANSWER RIGHT b 2 3
NOW, WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THAT, AS LONG AS YOU UNDERSTAND T 4 AGAIN, IT 'S OUR PERCEPTION WHAT WE FEEL THE QUESTION.
5 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM FOR THE FLUID SYSTEM, WHAT KIND OF 6 CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO GET THE DEPT'M AND 7 0F THE SYSTEM. GEORGE?
8 MR. MORRIS: OKAY.
MR. CALV0: JOHN?
9 MR. KN0X: OKAY. THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
10 Il MR. CALV0: 50 I GUESS IT WILL HELP IF EVERYBODY f 12 HAVE THE SINGLE-LINE DI AGRAM OR ALL THE SUPPORT IN DI AG 13 AND WHEN WE TALK TO THE QUESTION, WE CAN POINT TO YOU THOSE
! 184 AREA'S IN THERE TO INDIC ATE THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN, THIS IS WH.
(
\
15 THE QUESTION INDICATES.
16 MS. WILLIAMS: JOSE, COULD WE TAKE A SHORT TIME O 17 HERE7 18 MR. CALVO: SURE.
MS. WILLI AMS: WE'LL SE RIGHT BACK.
19 20 (RECESS.)
MS. WILLI AMS: WE 'RE READY.
21 22 MR. MARINOS: 50 l'M GOING TO START FROM THE l
l
'23 BEGINNING OF THE ELECTRICAL QUEST!QNS, NA NC Y, AND I ' M GO l
l 24 STATE THAT THE ELECTRICAL QUESTIONS ARE NUMBERED TO RE 25 EXACTLY THE NUMBERING SYSTEM YOU HAVE IN YOUR SU8MITTAL OF, 26 WHAT IS IT, APRIL 29TH, AND WE START WITH THE CHECKLIST NUP WE #
k 27 EE-01, QUESTION 1, AND UNDER VOLTAGE AND SUB NUHBER A,
(
^
28 WAS THE VOLTAGE AT MOTOR REVIEW OR AT THE BUS.
cow.. cos,,
p * ****C'*Co DOIDGE e CARROLL
I,',"
CERTIFIED SMORTNAND REPORTERS DEPOSITION PeOTARIES
,,C og*,'l, seine asi spe
194 MR. MARTIN: OKAY. AND MY REPLY WAS WORST CASE SU' 1
2 VOLT REVIEW CALCULATIONS 2323-III-7 AND 2323-III-8.
MR. MARINOS: DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
3 MR. MORRIS: YOUR REVIEW OF THAT WAS TO LOOK AT TH 4
5 RESULTS OF THOSE CALCULATIONS, NOT THE METHOD?
MR. MARTIN: THE REVIEW OF THAT CALC WAS TO .
6 7 ESTABLISH -- BASICALLY WHAT THE FIRST CALC DID WA 8 ESTABLISH THE 69KV VOLTAGE LEVEL AT THE 69KV S 50 IT 9 WAS USED FOR PROCUREMENT PURPOSES OF THE SWITC 10 WAS KIND OF 8 ASIS FOR PROCUREMENT OF THE SWITCH 11 CONSIDERED THE WORST CASE VOLTAGE.
MR. KNOX: THAT WAS CALCULATION 2323-III-B OR 7, 12 13 WAS THE WORSE CALC.
a t . THERE WAS TWO CALCS THERE, AND I THI' 14 MR. MARTIN:
( IN 7. THE 15 IT 'S -- 8 PROB ABLY JUST REITERATES WHAT WAS DONE 16 WAS AN NRC QUESTION IN WHICH THEY REFINED OR RE 17 VOLUME OF III-7 AND TRANSMIT SOME INFORMAT 18 QUESTION.
MR. KNOX: WHAT WAS THE CONFIGURATION -. THE WORf 19 20 CASE CONFIGURATION FOR THAT CALC 7 MR. MARTIN: WORST CASE CONFIGURATION FOR THE CAL 21 I ON 131 22 WAS WITH UNIT 1 FULLY -- THE FULL AUX LOAD OF UNIT 23 TRANSFORMER SUS XA1.
MR. CALV0: THIS 138 KV, THIS IS ONE OF TWO 24
- 25 0FF-SITE -
MR. FOLEY: RIGHT, TW O OF F -5 ITE POW ER SOURC ES .
26 BUS XAI ACTUALLY THE ALTERNATE OFF-S!TE POWER SYSTEM, 27 28 CONNECTED To XST-1, XST-2 UNAVAILABLE, UNIT 2 MAX potDGE 3 CARROLL cog,.. geg.
sa= esa=cisco ,, c,o,pl, , ,
"'*j'jg" cuatinito s oat.,aso asaoatsas neaosmou sotamias i .,s.... n u j
l - - - .-. _ - _ _ .
"~ ~,w -- , _,
195 1 START-UPS ESF LOAD ON EXT-1 EXCLUDING COMMON LOADS AND UNIT 1 (g..
~
2 MAX AUTOSEQUENCE BLACKOUT LOAD WITH COMMON ON XST-1.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE ON THE ALTERNATE OFF-S!TE 3
UNIT 2 LOADS ARE ON THE SAME LOADS AS UNIT 1, 4 POWER SOURCE.
5 AND THEY ARE ALSO IN CONSIDERING AN AUTOSEQUENCE BLACKOUT 6 START ON THAT TRANSFORMER FOR UNIT 1.
7 MR. KNOX: AUTOSEQUENCE THAT MEANS YOU'RE SEOUENCIb
. 8 DN -
9 MR. FOLEY: THE SAFEGUARDS LOAD TIME THE SAME WAY 10 YOU WOULD ON THE DIESEL.
11 MR. KNOX: SEQUENCING VERSUS BLOCK LOAD.
12 MR. MARTIN: RIGHT.
13 MR. CALVO: CAN I SUMMARIZE THAT BY SAYING THAT --
i 14 ASSUMING IF ONE OF THE OFF-SITE POWERS, ALTERNATE 138 KV AND s
15 YOU ARE ASSUMING YOU HAVE AN ACCIDENT ON ONE UNIT AND YOU SH 16 DOWN -- REQUIRED FOR A SHUTDOWN ON THE OTHER UNIT, WASN'T Tb 17 IMPLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
18 MR. KNOX: HE SAID TAKE THE MAXIMUM UNIT 2 LOADS A 19 TAKE THOSE AND PUT THEM ON THE TRANSFORMER T-1.
20 MR. MARTIN: RIGHT.
MR. CALVO: FOR NORMAL CONDITIONS.
21 WELL, NO. MAXI M UM . IN OTHER WORDS, Tt 22 MR. KNOX:
23 WORST CASE LOAD THAT YOU HAVE ON UNIT 2 IS GOING TO l 24 TRANSFORMER T-1 AND THEN YOU HAVE A DESIGN B ASIS ACCIDENT Of UNIT 1 AND YOU SEQUENCE THE LOADS ON UNIT 1.
25 OKAY, ALL RIGHT. B UT -- A LL R I GHT , GI 26 MR. CALVO:
- 7 t
t 27 AHEAD.
28 MR. KNOX: IN THE FSAR THEY SAID THEY HAD THE I
, ..= e a a-c.s co coloGE a CAmmoLL c........
l
"','j,',"'
CEnflFiED SMORTMAND aspORTtas OEPOSiTION NOf anits
,c o ,* ' ,' , , ,
l
l 196 t BUT THEY DIDN'T CHECK 1
CAPA81LITY OF HANDLING BLOCK LOADING, 2 THAT LIST CALC.
HR. CALVO: FOR 8 LOCK LOADING?
3 MR. KNOX: THEY SAID THEY HAD THE CAPABILITY OF 4
5 BLOCK LOADING ALL THE DESIGN B AS!$ ACCIDENT LOADS ON 6 GUESS ON THE BUS 1 EA 2 AND A-1 SIMULTANEO 7 TRANSFORMER SHOULD BE A8LE TO HANDLE THAT TYPE LOA THE WHY THE FSAR WORRIES ABOUT THAT, 8 MR. CALV0:
9 CAPABILITY OF DESIGN WAS TO SEQUENCE.
THAT ' S F INE, B UT THEY SAI D T HE Y HAD THE 10 MR. KNOX:
11 CAPABILITY, BUT THE DESIGN CALLS FOR THE SEQUENCING.
IN THf MR. CALVO: SO THAT PART WAS NOT CONSIDERED 12 13 CALCULATION.
MR. KNOX: THAT'S RIGHT.
14 HR. CALVO: DID THEY CONSIDER IN THE CALCULATION, 15 16 THE NORMAL -- THE WORST CASE CONDITION AS DEFI 17 THE LOADS CONNECTED TO ONE UNIT, THE ONE WITHOUT THE A 18 AND THE OTHER HAD THE ACCIDENT WAS SEQUENTIALL 19 OKAY.
MR. KNOX: WE NOW HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS SUS 20 1 AND 2 THAT HAS THE 7C 21 !$ THAT THE COMHON BUS BETWEEN UNIT _
I REALLY DON'T KNOW. CUR SCOPE DIDP
'23 MR. MARTIN:
24 GO THAT FAR.
MR. KNOX: YOU HAD THE -- I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAI 25 WHAT THE BUS XA1 WAS.
I DON'T H4VE IT ON MY DRAWING.
26 g
MR. CALVO: IS NOT THAT THE BUS COMING UP WITH T 27 6.9 KV? IT 'S NOT THAT ONE 28 SECOND VALVE ON THE TRANSFORMER cos,.. c oe.
e.. ....c.eco cosoor a cAmmoLL co
" ' ' ' * ' " cantisiao saoat**No asacattas '
we 33e4 DEPOSITION NOTARLsS
197 1 WHAT IS THE VOLTAGE OF THE SECOND VALUE OF THE TRANSFORMER L 2 COMING FROM THE 13 8 KV7 3 MR. KNOX: YE S . I THINK THIS XA1 !$ A NONSAFETY E 4 I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHICH SUS IT WAS.
.'5 MR. CALVO: DO YOU HAVE --
6 MR. KNOX: DO YOU HAVE THE ONE -- DO YOU HAVE THE 7 IT 'S NOT ON MY DI AGR AM. DO YOU HAVE THE FSAR FIGURE 8317 8 MR. MARTIN: I CAN GET IT.
9 MS. WILLIAMS: IS THIS THE SAME?
MR. MARTIN: NO, THIS SHOULD SAY 10 11 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY.
12 M R .. .M*' ART I N:
DO YOU WANT ME TO GET IT NOW OR DO Y'
.:i e ,
13 WANT TO --
14 MS. WILLIAMS: WILL IT TAKE VERY LONG7
(
\
16 MR. MARTIN: I CAN GET IT. I KNOW WHERE IT'S AT.
17 (OFF THE RECORD.)
18 MS. WILLIAMS: BACK ON THE RECORD. MAKE SURE YOU 19 IDENTIFY THE FIGURE, TOM.
20 MR. MARTIN: OKA Y. WE'RE LOOKING AT DRAWING 2323 21 El-0001, REV 8.
22 MR. CALVO: GO BACK TO THE 138 KV INCOMING LINE A NOW $
13 SHOW HOW THE THING GOES B ACK TO THE EMERGENCY BUSES.
THAT'S 24 HOW YOU COMING ONTO THERE AND WHICH BUSES THEY HIT.
25 WHAT WE NEED, OKAY.
26 MR. MARTIN: OKAY.
i WELL, WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHEf MR. CALVO:
27 l
28 THE X-1 COMES IN. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE X-1 COMES IN7 GO I
s.= en =cesco DOIDGE & C ARROL.L co=+..cose.
saisi ses seeo Cd***'
CERTipiED SMORTHAND REDOMTERS ' " '
saIaN"ases DE#0Si?#0N NOTAmit S
~
' ~~
198 GC 1 AHEAD. YOU GO AHEAD. WE'RE ALL COMPETING FOR ATTENTION.
- 2 AHEAD.
3 MR. MARTIN: DKAY. WE'RE COMING IN ON XST-1 WHICH 4 IS A 138KV TO 69KV TRANSFORMER.
MR. CALV0: COMING TO XA1 THERE. I THOUGHT IT WAS 5
6 6.9 KV.
7 MR. MARTIN: YE S, COMING THROUGH -- COMING THROUGH 8 THE 69KV WINDING THROUGH A SERIES OF BREAKERS AND --
9 MS. WILLIAMS: SPEAK UP A LITTLE, TOM.
10 MR. MARTIN: -- FEEDING BUS XA1.
Il MR. CALV0: WHAT IS THE VOLTAGE IN THE BUS?
12 MR. MARTIN: PARDON 7 13 MR. CALV0: WHAT'S THE VOLTAGE ON TMAT BUS t i +
14 MR. KNOX: 69
(
t 15 MR. CALV0: 69. 6.9 KV. .
16 MR. KNOX: T HAT ' S RI GHT.
17 MR. MARTIN: THESE ARE ALL 69KV BUSES.
18 MR. CALVO: 6. 9, 50 THE X-1 IS ON THE NONSAFETY 19 RELATED BUSES. AND FROM THERE YOU MUST GO TO A 20 TRANSFORMER -- GOES TO A TRANSFORHER -- THIS I S A 41 S YS TE 21 MR. KNOX: 69 THOSE ARE 69 22 MR. CALV0: ALL RIGHT. 50 B EF ORE YOU C OME INTO TH 23 69, YOU ARE COMING THROUGH ANOTHER BUS RIGHT HERE.
20 MR. KNOX: NO, T HAT ' S A NONS AF ET Y B US W IT H A N UMB E 25 OF LOADS SHARED BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS.
26 MR. CALVO: O KA Y. AND THAT 'S THE ONE THAT YOU l
27 NORMALLY HAVE THE REACTOR COOLING PUMPS CONNECTED TO, RIGHT7 f
\
NO, IT 'S A DIFF ERENT ONE. ONE A-1 HA S 28 MR. KN0X:
- ,'",**'j,*,',8 DOiDGE & CARROLL cow.. c os,.
CEmTipiED SMomTwaND mapomfgar cow ='
ca .e=o "''''
uiss.o sees Deposition Notam't5
199 f
1 THE REACTOR COOLANT PUMPS.
2 MY QUESTION IS THAT BUS XA1 IS TRIPPED OFF O NUMBER OF SIGNALS AND THE CALC, WAS THAT BUS INCLUDED IN THE 3
4 CALCULATION, OTHER VOLTAGE CALCULATIONS.
MR. MARTIN: WAS BUS XA1 CONNECTED TO THE --
5 6 MR. KNOX: WAS IT INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION.7 YES.
MR. MARTIN: FOR THIS LOW VOLTAGE CASE.
7 8 MR. KNOX: ALL THE LOADS IN THAT BUS WERE IN THE 9 CALC, OKAY. THAT'S ALL I W ANTED TO KNOW.
ANYTHING ELSE, GE OR GE7 GO ON TO TH!
10 MR. MARINOS:
1(8). WE ARE ASKING HERE, 11 SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION NOW.
INCLUDE UTILITY DATA FOR 12 DID THE GIBBS S HILL CALCULATION 13 SYSTEM SWINGS, AND WE HAVE IN PARENTHESES, MIN AND MAX VOLTi i .
OFF-SIT
( 14 THROUGH BOTH THE PREFERRED AND ALTERNATE SOURCES OF 15 POWER.
MR. MARTIN: YES. 134 KV AND 142 KV WERE IDENTIF 16 17 FOR THE 138 KV SYSTEM, AND 336 KV AND 354 KV WERE IDENTIF 18 FOR THE 345 KV SYSTEM.
MR. MORRIS: WHERE DO THOSE NUMBERS COME FROM7 19 20 MR. MARTIN: THOSE WERE INPUT TO THIS CALCULATIO MR. MORRIS : FROM WHAT7 21 MR. MARTIN: THEY WERE REFERENCES FROM THE UTILIT 22
'23 I 'M NOT SUR E OF THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY, BUT IT WAS THE SY 24 GRID VOLTAGE.
MR. MARINOS: AND THIS MINIMUM RESULTS DOWN TO Ti 25 1
IF !
26 87.5 PERCENT THAT YCU ASSUMED AT THE 6.9 KV BUS, I
27 UNDERSTAND CORRECT.
MR. MARTIN: YE S . TMZ 87.5 PERCENT WHICH I 28 coloGE a cAnnoLL c o.... c o..
i ... .... .s c o cow *-
' **'"*' canvia.no s oat amo aspo= Tens "'"'"'
- "" n .n..,,ny otantes
~
~
- ~
4 200 a
1 IDENTIFIED IN THE COMMENT ON THE CHECKLIST WA
~
2 WORST CASE VOLTAGE OF THE 6.9 KV SWITCHGEAR.
MR. MAR INOS: RESULTING FROM THOSE MINIMUMS AND 3
4 MAXIMUMS YOU JUST STATED TO ME OF THE UTILITY DATA.
MR. MARTIN: CORRECT.
5 MR. KNOX: WAS THERE ANY EFFORT TO DETERMINE WHETF 6
7 THAT ' CONFIGURATION YOU CAN FIND AS TO WHAT W 8 CONF I GURAT ION, THE WORST VOLTAGE DROP?
9 MR. CALVO: I THINK THEY ASSUMED THAT WAS -- YOU 10 ACCEPTED THAT.
11 MR. KNOX: YOU ACCEPT THAT AS THE WORST CASE.
12 MR. CALVO: YES.
MR. MARTIN: YES.
j ,
13 MR. MARINOS: BETWEEN THE 6.9 KV BUS AND THE GRID 14 15 SWINGS OF MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM VOLTAGES, YOU DID NOT LOOK AT 16 THE CONFIGURATION OF THE SWITCHYARD OF THE PLAN 17 TWO POINTS, THE 6.9 KV AND THE GRID.
18 MR. MARINOS: YOUR ONLY DATA 87. 5 PERCENT MININLM 19 20 VOLTAGE OF THE 6.9 KV AND YOU CONSIDERED THAT WITHOUT I 21 CONSIDERING ARRANGEMENTS OF THE SWITCHGE AR.
l MR. MARTIN: RIGHT.
' 22 23 MR. MARINOS: THAT 'S GOOD.
24 MR. MORRIS: THAT UTILITY DATA WAS INPUT TO WHICF 25 CALCULATION?
26 MR. MARTIN: THE 6.9 KV SYSTEM VOLTAGE LEVELS.
(
( 27 MR. MORR IS: THAT ' S CALCULAT ION NUMBER --
28 MR. MARTIN: 232'-! ! !-7 AND !! !-8.
s.. ...=c.sco DolOGE e CARROLL co='..cos+.
l
- '****** Cgefi8610 SMomTMAND mgpomTEms C o e"
488"
O N ao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 i
1 201 i l 1 MR. MAR INOS: WE 'RE READY FOR THE FOLLOW-UP ON THE T 2 SAME 1(B). WE'RE ASKING YOU, DID THE CALCULATIONS INCLUDE f; 3 VOLTAGE DIPS CAUSED BY LOADING THE DIESEL WHEN ONLY THE 4 STANDBY SOURCE IS AVAILABLE.
WHAT WE 'RE LOOKING FOR, 5 AND LET ME CLARIFY THAT.
6 AGAIN, A MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM VOLTAGE AT THE 6.9 KV BUS THAT 7 YOU ASSUMED WHEN THE OFF-SITE POWER IS NOT AVAILABLE DIESEL GENERATOR IS AVAILABLE. DO YOU FOLLOW ME?
OKAY. I CAN RESPOND TO THAT. I 10 MR. MAGGIO:
11 BELIEVE WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT WE DID NOT INCLUDE IN OUR 12 REVIEW THE DIESEL GENERATOR SYSTEM AS BEING THE SUPPLY SOUR (
13 THE REASON WE O!DN'T INCLUDE IT WAS WE FELT THAT THE D
(* .14 GENERATOR WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO HAVE CONTROLLED LOADING -
m 15 SORRY. LET ME RESTATE THAT.
16 IT WAS CONSIDERED TO HAVE A CONTROLLED LOADING PUMP 17 SEQUENCE WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER 18 HAVE ADEQUATE VOLTAGE TO START AND TESTING OF THE SYSTEM WO S0 WE FELT IT CO 19 SHOW IF THERE WAS ANY SEQUENCING PROBLEM.
20 BE ALLOWED TO START THE MOTOR.
21 MR. MARINOS: THIS IS YOUR ASSESSMENT 7 22 MR. MAGGIO: THAT WAS OUR ASSESSMENT.
23 MR. MARINOS: YOU LIMITED YOUR SCOPE ON THE BASIS 24 THAT iJuSTIF IC ATION7 MR. MAGG10: BASED ON THAT, YEAH. WE FELT THAT T 25 26 ANALYSIS WE DID WITH THAT WOULD BE MORE FRUITFUL.
4 l
(- 27 MR. MARINOS: OKAY. WE WILL GIVE OUR COMMENTS 28 REGARDING, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE AGREE WITH YOUR TECHNICAL I
sa= es.=cesco DOIDGE 4 CARROLL co ,..cos,.
'*'" CERTipitD SMoRTHAND mtpomtras cos= l
$$~ sue Deposition NOTAmits ;
l I
202 i
1 ASSESSMENT OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR CAPABILITY.
(. 2 MR. MORRIS: DID GIBBS G HILL HAVE THAT SAME 3 JUSTIF ICATION FOR NOT INCLUDING THAT IN THE YOUR CALCULATION 4 OR DO YOU --
MR. MAGGIO: WELL, THERE IS A DIESEL GENERATOR 5
6 SIZING CALCULATION, BUT WE DIDN'T REVIEW IT IN THIS REGARD.
7 50 WE'RE NOT SAYING IT DIDN'T INCLUDE IT OR WE DIDN'T CONSIDE INCLUDE !
8 IT. WE'RE SAYING IN OUR ASSESSMENT WE CHOSE NOT TO 9 MR. MARINOS: YOU LIMITED YOUR SC OPE --
MR. MAGGIO: 8ASELINE, YOU KNOW, BASELINE --
10 1
11 MR. MARINOS: -- 50 YOU HAVE NO CALCULATION OR NO f
12 ASS ES SMENT5?
13 MR. MAGGIO: OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR C APAB ILITY.
) ,
I 14 MR. MARINOS: OKAY.
\
IS MS. WILLIAMS: BUT THEY MIGHT EXIST.
16 MR. MAGGIO: WE'RE SURE TMAT THE CALC DOES EXIST.
17 MR. MORRIS: THE CALCULATION THAT YOU DID LOOK AT 1
j
~' ONLY ADDRESSED THE OFF-SITE POWER SOURCE, IT DID NOT ADDRESS
! 19 THE ON-SITE.
20 MR. MAGGIO: CORRECT.
21 MR. MARINOS: BUT YOURS WAS THE KIND OF DECISION -
15 22 YOU MADE A TECHNICAL JUDGMENT THAT THE DIESEL GENERATOR
'23 $1 ZED CORRECTLY AND THE TESTS WILL. PROVE THAT.
24 IS THIS --
25 MR. MAGGIO: WE WERE CHECKING VOLTAGE AT THE 69KV i . 26 BUS AND WE FELT THAT TH15 ANALYS15 WOULD SATISFY A R
( i 27 THAT THE MOTOR WOULD START 8ASED ON THE CASE THAT WE TOOK.
I 28 DIDN'T MAKE --
... ... c. c o poioor a cAmmoLL co.........
' 'j'j f.,"..' cantisito SaontaaNo aspontans ,,,'o,p,,,,,
........ . oEPOSitt0% NOT AnitS
203 i
MR. MARINOS: WHAT ANALYS IS, YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT ANY 1
2 ANALYSIS.
3 MR. MAGGIO: ON THE ANALYS IS OF THE SYSTEM 4 CONNECTION THAT WE DID LOOK AT.
5 MR. MARINOS: YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DIESEL.
NOT THE DIESEL, NO. THE DIESEL WAS NC 6 MR. MAGGIO:
7 WE DIDN'T CONSIDER THAT.
8 MR. MARINOS: GE ORGE, YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS (
9 THAT?
MR. MORRIS: IN YOUR REPORT, DID YOU IDENTIFY THAT 10 6.9 KV7 11 THAT WAS A MISSING INPUT TO THE VOLTAGE STUDY AT THE 12 MR. HAGGIO: NO, WE DIDN'T CONSIDER IT AS PART OF 13 OUR CHECKLIST ITEM. IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN OUR LISTING.
MS. WILLIAMS: IT WOULD NOT BE MENTIONED BY VIRTUE 14
('
\. WE DIDN'T LOOK AT IS OF THE F ACT THAT IT WAS NOT IN THE SCOPE.
16 THE CALCULATION.
MR. MAGGIO: WE ELIMINATED IT, 50 WE DIDN'T FEEL I 17 18 WAS A DEF IC IENCY.
19 Ms. WILLIA'MS: YOU ALSO WILL NOT SEE THAT CALC IN 20 OUR DOCUMENTS REVIEWED LIST, I BELIEVE, !$ THAT CORRECT 7 21 MR. MARTIN: YES.
MR. CALV0: TO SUMMARIZE, REGARDLESS WHERE THE I 22 23 VOLTAGE DIPS COME FROM, IF I HAVE JN THE COMPONENT COOLING 24 WATER PUMP MOTORS AND VALVES CONNECTED TO TVE DIST I GOT SC 25 SYSTEM MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT f
26 DIPS IN THERE, THEY CAN COME FROM THE OFF-SITE POWER SYSTEM, f' YOU DON'T CONSIDER THAT ASPE I 27 THEY CAN COME FROM THE DIESEL.
I 28 REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY COME FROM, YOU DON'T CONSIDER THAT s.= *es.c.sco DOIDGE & CARROLL co ...cose.
- CERTi8 SED SMORTM AND REpomTEms ,, c of*,',' , , ,
- 'U', *.,,"'.
saisi asi sae OEPOSITION NOTARIES
.. . .:3 ,, _;.-, ,
204 4
1 POSSIBILITY, YOU DID NOT CONSIDER IT.
\. WAIT A MINUTE. WE DID REVIEW -- DOES 2 MR. MARTIN:
3 CONSIDER THE DIPS THAT ARE EXPERIENCED ON A SEQUENCE LO YOU CONSIDER, BUT ALL MR. CALVO: OKAY, ALL RIGHT.
4 5 RIGHT, YOU ACCEPT IT.
6 MR. CALV0: YOU NEVER VERIF IED WHAT KIND OF DIPS 7
,8 THAT WERE THIS BIG.
MR. MARTIN: THE INTENTION OF OUR REVIEW WAS TO 9
10 IDENTIFY WHAT WE FELT CONFIDENT AS A 6.9 KV VOLT 11 REVIEW THE SYSTEM DESIGN COMPONENT, COOLING W ATER C04PONENTS OKAY, LET ME CLARIFY THAT. I THINK I 12 MR. MORRIS:
YOUR A NA LYS 13 JUST HEARD SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T HEAR BEFORE.
1 ,
IN FACT, LOOK FOR TF 14 OR YOUR REVIEW OF THAT CALCULATION DID,
( BOTH OFF-S ITE AND 15 VOLT AGE EXTREHES THAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM 16 ON-SITE.
MR. MARTIN: NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.
17 MR. CALV0: WHEREVER THEY COHE FROM.
18 19 MR. MORRIS: SEQUENCE.
MR. KN0X: SEQUENCE START-UP, JUST ON THE OFF-S ITI 20 MR. MORRIS: JUST ON OFF-SITE, NOT ON --
21 MR. CALV0: THE QUESTION IS, IF YOU HAVE THE 5AME 22
' '2 3 THING ON THE ON-SITE YOU WOULD ARGUE IT WOULD KIL 24 WITH ONE STONE, BUT YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT.
A POINT OF CLARIF ICATION. I THINK W 25 MR. STUART:
l .
26 l'M MEARING IS THAT YOU GUYS ASSUMED THAT T
( 27 INPUT RELATIVE TO VOLTAGE DIPS AS INPUTS AND DID NOT VE 28 THOSE INPUTS TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY ENCOMP e w ....y.
- == *=a ceo ootoot a cAmmott CERTIFIED SMomTMANO REPonTgns ,,, c ow}'
" M',* ,*,"' DEPOSITION NOTanigs amiss asi asee
205 1
AND OFF-S ITE POWER, IS TMAT CORRECT?
2 l MS. WILLIAMS: TMAT 'S CORREC T.
TMAT ' S CORRECT, !$N'T IT7 4
MR. MARTIN: COULD YOU SAY TMAT ONCE AGAIN.
5 l'M NOT AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, ,50 1 6 MR. STUART:
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT 7 DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
8 YOU ASSUMED AT THE BUS TMAT WHATEVER WAS 9 WERE INPUTS INTO OUR REVIEW PR OC ES S AND YO U DI DN 'T VE 10 THOSE INPUTS.
MR. MARTIN: CORRECT.
Il MR. PORTER: T MAT ' S R I GHT.
12 MR. STUART: SO I MEAN THAT MIGHT BE A SIMPLE WAY 13 I 14 STATING, 1 THINK, WHAT 'S GO ING ON.
t MR. MARINOS: THERE'S TWO INPUTS ONLY, A MINIMUM A 15 BUT tiY OWN 16 A MAXIMUM. CORRECT ME 1F I ' M WRONG.
17 UNDERSTANDING, YOU HAD A MINIMUM VOLTAGE, YOU'RE TALKING ABC 18 87. 5, AND WHATEVER THE MAXIMUM IS WHICH YOU NEVER TOLD US.
YOU TOLD US SOME NUMBERS, BUT YOU 19 WHAT WAS THAT MAXtMdM?
20 DIDN'T GIVE US PERCENTAGES AND I CAN ' T RE TA I N T MR. STUART: TMAT'S CORRECT.
21 l
MR. MARTIN: THE MAXIMUM I S S OME -- ! DON ' T KNOW 22 f
IT 'S AROUND 7,04 0.
~23 EXACT NUMBER. .
MR. MARINOS: WHAT PERCENT DOES THAT COME OUT7 24 MR. POR TER: CLICK, CLICK, CLICK, CLICK, 14.3 25 i THINK MR. CALVO: ARE WE TOGETHER ON TH15 ONE7 I 26 I THINK YO
( 27 ARE ALL CONFUSED. ARE WE TOGETHER ON THIS ONE7 I MAVE A SUS IN HERE, AND A 6.9 KV 28 CONFUSED ME AGAIN.
coloos a cannou. c ou.. c o...
. .. .. . c.. c o c o ^*'
- 'm** czatinito saontaaNo asaoatcas ""'
- "** n..nw.o= e.orania s
i .
206 i I FROM THAT BUS, 1 GO TO A COMPONENT i 1 SUPPLIED BY THE DIESELS.
(
k 2 C OOL ING WATER PLMP. WHAT IS THE VOLTAGE FOR THAT MOTOR 7 i
3 MR. MARTIN: 6.9 KV.
MR. CALV0: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO DISCONNECT THE 4
i 5 DIESEL AND l'M GOING TO THROW AWAY THE -- DISCONNECT THE r
6 ON-SITE POWER SYSTEM, AND LOOK AT THE BUS, THAT SUS WITH TH PUMP, FOR THE COMPONENT WATER COOLER PUM P, OKAY?
1 7
8 MR. MARINOS: IT 'S NOT GOING TO WORK.
ALL 4
9 MR. CALV0: I'M GOING TO 5HOW YOU BLACK MAGIC.
i 10 0F A SUDDEN, l'M GOING TO HAVE SOME SPIKES ON THAT SUS, OKAY, 11 SOME UPS AND DOWNS, OKAY, AND l'M ASKING -- 50 l'M LOOKING A*
12 THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMP MOTOR.
13 CAN THAT MOTOR BE ABLE TO PERFORM THE INTENDED I 14 FUNCTION OF START UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS, YOU HAPPEN TO GO L l
t 15 MAPPEN TO GO HIGH. AND YOU DON'T CARE WHERE IT COMES FROM.
16 YOU GOT ALL THIS OTHER YOU FIND THERE.
17 MR. MARINOS: DID YOU PUT A VOLTAGE ON THAT ONE7 MR. CALV0: WHATEVER ARE THE SP!KES GOING TO BE, 18
> 19 WHATE VER.
20 MR. MARINOS: WHERE DID THAT COME FROM7 MR. CALV0: SP!KES, WHATEVER.
! 21 l 22 MS. WILLIAM 5: WE DI DN 'T LOOK F OR THE -- .
I 23 MR. CALV0: FORGET A800T THE OFF-SITE POWER THAT'S CONFUSING EVERYSODY AND DIESEL CONFUSING EVERYBODY, ALL OF /
! 24 l
$UDDEN YOU GOT A SPIKE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE COMIP 25 26 FROM BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW WHERE THEY'RE CO
(
(g FROM, OKAY? ! WANT TO KNOW LOOKING AT THE MOTOR, CAN THAT 27 28 MOTOR BE ABLE TO PERFORM THE INTENDED FUNCTION WHEN YOU GOT sa= ena=cisco DOfDGE e CARROLL c o.... co . .
''' '*** CER7sptED SMORTMAND REPOntERS coe" ee n asee 0EP051710N NOTA #itS
- T. ..L . . .'. .. ...!--.
207 I DON'T CARE. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
1 THESE UPS AND DOWNS.
\L 2 MR. MARTIN: YES, YE S .
3 MR. CALV0: CAN YOU CONSIDER THOSE THINGS.
MR. MARINOS: WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER, YE S 7 4
MR. MARTIN: YES.
5 MS. w!LLIAMS: YE S . WE CHECKED THE PUMP AND,, YES, 6
7 IT 'S OKAY.
8 MR. CALV0: AND DID YOU ALSO -- YOU SAY THAT YOU 9
MAVE NOT VERIFIED THE FACT WHETHER THE SP!KES, FIRST OF ALL, WHATEVER THEY WERE, THE MAXIMUM, DO YOU ACCEPT IT. YOU NEVER 10 11 VERIFY WHETHER THEY WERE ONE MILLIMETER LONGER OR ONE MILLIMETER SHORTER, OKAY7 ALL RIGHT7 THAT ' S W HA T HE IS 12 THAT PART IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE. NOW I UNDERSTAND IT.
13 SAYING.
( .
MR. MARINOS: YE S , BUT I DO N ' T .
14
\
15 MR. CALV0: YOU GOT A PROBLEM.
16 MR. MORRIS: THE VOLTAGE INPUTS THAT YOU ACCEPTED Af ,
INPUTS.
-17 INPUTS TO THE CALCULATION WERE ONLY OFF-SITE POWER 18 YOU DID NOT QUESTION --
19 MR. MARTIN: RIGHT, FOR THE REASONS WE STATED.
20 MR. MORRIS: AND THAT WAS --
21 MR. MARTIN: THAT WE FELT THE CASE WE LOOKED AT 22 WHERE THE PUMP WAS A DIESEL GENERATOR CASE.
23 MR. MORRIS: BUT YOU DID NOT LOOK FOR INPUTS TO THE 24 CALCULATION FROM THE ON-SITE VOLTAGE SWING 7 25 MR. MARTIN: RIGHT.
26 MR. KNOX: DID YOU VERIFY ANY COVERAGE FROM THE j
27 DIESEL GENERATOR TANKS 7 DID YOU VERIFY THE SWINGS YOU SAW 28 FROM THE OFF-SITE WOULD COVER THE DIESEL GENERATOR SWING 1
sa= *a =c'sco coioot a cAmmoLL ......s,.
t ow=* *
" 'U' '.*,**
u
- CtattfiED SMom? MAND REPORTans '88
wise esi.as.e Ot#0$1 TION NOTAmit S l
1
208 1 MR. MARTIN: WE DIDN'T REVIEW THE DIESEL GENERATOR.
ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION. WERE YOU 2 2 MR. NORKIN:
3 TALKING, JOHN 7 JOSE MAD A SCENARIO WHERE JUST LOOKING AT THE 4 INPUT TO THE MOTOR, THE PUMP MOTOR AS A GIVEN, DO I IM PL Y T HA 5 YOU DID EVALUATE THE CALCULATION OF THAT INPUT B ASED ON THE 6 OFF-SITE POWER SWINGS 7 7 MR. MARTIN: WE REVIEWED THE CALCULATION TO WE 8 DETERMINE AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL TO START OUR REVIEW WITH.
9 REVIEWED THE INPUTS TO THE CALCULATION AND USED THE OUTPUT OF 10 IT TO START CUR REVIEW.
11 MR. NORKIN: OKAY.
12 MR. KNOX: 50 THE CALCULATION YOU USED WAS FOR THE 13 WORST CASE THAT YOU DESCRISED, OKAY, 50 YOU DIDN'T GO THROUGF l .
14 THE NORMAL CONFIGURATION WITH THE SWINGS YOU GET IF YOU D 15 LOSE YOUR OFF-SITE CIRCUlT7 16 MR. CALVO: I DON'T THINK SO. 1 THINK HE SAY, JOHP HE ACCEPTED THE WORST CASE FROM G1885 & HILL. HE ACCEPTED.
17 18 HE DIDN'T CHALLENGE IT TO KNOW IT WAS SOMETHING WORSE THAN 19 THAT OR LESS THAN THAT. HE JUST ACCEPTED THAT ONE AS WELL A!
20 THE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM AND JUST AS INPUT TO THE CALCULATION!
21 NOW WHETHER IT'S A WDRST CASE IN THERE OR NOT, IT 22 WAS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.
23 MR. STUART: AND -- ,
24 MR. NORKIN: DID Gl885 & HILL, IN FACT, SAY THE 25 WORST CASE WAS THESE OFF-SITE SWINGS?
26 MR. CALvo: YES, THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.
! I 27 MR. MARTIN: WE CAN'T MAKE THE STATEHENT THAT GIBB 28 8 HILL SAID THAT.
- s. ** c.ec o coloot a cAmmoLL co.... .....
" ' 'j ' ',',"' etatipito s=ontaano nepoatsas
,,, cog,,,,,,
...... ..... orpositiom novan'es L .. _
209 MR. NORKIN: 50 YOU CAN'T REALLY 5AY THAT IT WAS A 1
2 G1885 8 HILL GIVEN THAT THE WORST CASE WA 3 THE DIESEL GENERATOR SWINGST MS. WILLIAMS: WE DON 'T KNOW.
4 MR. MAGGIO: WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE DIESEL GENERATOR 5
6 50 WE DON'T KNOW THAT.
MR. NORKIN: ! CAN UNDERSTAND IF G1885 5 HILL HAD 7
8 MADE THAT STATEMENT, THEN YOU COULD HAVE STARTED, 9 SE YOUR START POINT AND JUST EVALUATED HOW 10 YES.
MR. MARINOS: LET ME GO NOW WITH THE NEXT PART OF Il WE ASKED YOU, DID THE CALCULATION INCLUD 12 THE SAME QUESTION.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING 13 DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT AS-8UILT DATA.
THAT QUESTION 14 15 - I ' M G0 LNG TO GO 8 AC K TO T HE C OMME NT OF
(
15 NUMBER 1 IN THE ITEM 1(A) WHERE YOU SAY YOU ALSO REVIEWED THE WORST CASE 16 G1885 & HILL CALCULATION 2323-!!!-7, PERIOD.
17 VOLTAGE C ALCULATED AS 603 6 VOLTS, PARENTHESES, 87.5 PERCE YOU HA\
NOW THE UNDERSTANDING 1 HAVE A5 WE TALKED, 18 TAKEN THIS 87.5 A5 A GIVEN. YOU DID NOT VER]FY THAT ONE 19 IM PE DA NCE 20 THROUGH COMING FROM THE GRID THROUGH YOUR YOU DID NOT GO 21 TRANSPORMATIONS AND DOWN TO THE 6.9 KY.
YOU TAKE IT /
22 THROUGH TO CONF IRM THAT YOU WILL HAVE A 87.5
'23 A GIVEN. ,
MR. MARTIN: CORRECT.
24 MR. MARINOS: 50 THIS REVIEW REALLY 00E5 NOT REF 25
{
26 YOUR INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF THE TW O PO INT l
27 8U5.
MR. MARTIN: COR R EC T.
28 oosoon a cAnnoLL co.... so...
.. . . . . . . . c o ,,,,80',',',,,
,f
- ,',"', Cimitpit0 SMORTM AND REPOmital
. ...... D$ POSITION NOT Amit s
210 1 (PAUSE.)
ONE MR. MARTIN: THERE MAY BE ONE CLARIF ICAT ION.
3 4 OTHER REASON THAT WE USED TH15 CALCULATION A FOR LOW VOLTAGE WAS THAT IT WAS A CALCULATION THAT WAS USED 5
6 PROCURE THE SWITCHGEAR.
MR. MARINOS: BY GIBBS 8 HILL.
7 SY GIBBS 8 HILL. OR AT LE AST IT WAS A 8 MR. MARTIN:
INPUT FOR THE PROCUREMENT 9 CALCULATION THAT PROVIDED THE 10 SPECIFICATION.
AND B ASED ON THAT, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE Il MR. MAGGIO:
WE PRESUME THAT IT WAS AN OFF-S ITE DIP, I 12 THE DIP C AME FROM.
i 13 THAT RIGHT7 MR. MARINOS: YES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OFF-SITE 14 t
15 POWER.
WI MR. MAGGIO: OKAY. 50 THAT WAS OUR ASSUMPT ION.
16 .
17 DON ' T KNOW F OR S UR E.
MR. MORRIS: HOW DID GIBBS S HILL USE THIS 18 19 CALCULATION IN PREPARATION OF THE SPECIFICATION 7 WHAT WERE MS. WILLI AM5: WHAT WAS THIS INPUT T07 20 21 THE RESULTS USED FOR7 MR. MARINOS: THE RESULTS -- SORRY.
22 7.
MR. MARTIN: THE RESULT 5 WERE VERIF IED TMAT TH
+ 23 24 KV SWITCHGEAR WAS AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL SWITCHGEAR.
MR. MORRIS: 50 !T WAS JUST NOMINAL VOLTAGE OR 25 26 MAX 1 MUM VOLTAGE OR, REALLY, WAS IT AN INPUT, JUST CALCU j
I FOR MINIMUM VOLTAGE OR WAS IT AN INPUT TO THE SPECIF ICAT ION
- 27 l
28 FOR MINIMUM YOLTAGE.
cosoot a cAnmoi.L c o.. . . e ... .
J
... ... c 'sc o c o
"4'***"" centmeo saontwano steoattas "'* "8'
deposit #oN Notamits tai s sses t
I 211 1 MR. MARTIN: l'D HAVE TO GET B ACK TO YOU ON THAT.
2 MR. MARINOS: YOU SAY THE 87.5 PERCENT WAS USED TO 3
PRDCURE SWITCHGEAR AS A MINIMUM VOLTAGE EXPECTED AT THAT BUS, 4 50 THEY TOOK THAT NUMBER AND THEY WENT AND PURCHASED A 5 SWITCHGEAR THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO PERFORM WITH THIS MINIMUM 6 VOLTAGE. IS T HAT --
7 MR. MARTIN: COR R EC T. THAT MINIMUM VOLTAGE PLUS TF 8 MAXIMUM VOLTAGE.
PLUS THE MAXIMUM YOLTAGE. OKAY. Noh 9 MR. MARINOS:
10 YOU DID NOT GO THROUGH THE CALCULATIONS FROM THE GRID THROUG 11 THE SWITCHYARD THROUGH THE TRANSFDRMERS TO 6.9 KV TO CONF IRM 12 THAT THE CALCULATION WAS TO YOUR LIKING.
' 13 .
MR. MARTIN: CORRECT.
14 MR. MARINOS: YOU DID NOT DO THAT.
16 MR. CALV0: OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.
MR. MORRIS: MAYBE I SHOULD REPHR ASE IT. HOW DOES 17
- 18 THE MINIMUM CALCULATED VOLTAGE AFF ECT THE SPEC IF ICAT IONS.
19 MR. MARTIN: 1 DON'T HAVE THOSE DETAILS RIGHT OFF 20 THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
21 MR. CALV0: MAKE A NOTE ABOUT THAT.
I 22 MS. WILLIAMS: DO YOU HAVE THE SPEC?
I 24 MAYBE I CAN CLARIFY IT ANOTHER WAY WITHOUT GETTING 25 INTO THAT SPECIF IC DETAIL. THE REVISION OF THl5 CALCULATION I 26 IS -- HAS GOT A COUPLE OF REVISIONS INPUTTING DATA TO 27 AS-8UILT INFORMATION THEY'VE GOT, AND IT IS DATED AFTER THE PRDCUREMENT SPEC, SO IT WOULD BE A CHECK. MAYBE I SHOULD 28
... ....c ..c o ooioot a cAmmoLL co....e....
='.' us na cent...so swontaano atoontans ,c o,c" ,,
1 I
212 s
1 REPHRASE IT, THAT IS A CHECK TO VERIF Y THAT THE 7. 2 KV h IS ADEQUATE FOR THE SYSTEM VOLTAGE.
2 SW ITCHGEAR 3 MR. MARINOS: WHAT DOES THE PROCUREMENT SPEC SAY 4 WITH REGARD TO THE SWITCHGEAR FUNCTIONABILITY AT MINIMUM 5 MAXIMUM VOLTAGE 7 WHAT MINIMUM VOLTAGE CAN THE SWITCHGEAR 6 PERFORM, OKAY?
7 MR. MARTIN: I'LL MAVE TO GET B ACK TO YOU.
8 MR. MARINOS: PRESUMABLY 87.5 WAS WELL WITHIN THE 9 MINIMUM OF THAT SWITCHGEAR, 15 THAT WHAT YOU ESSENTIALLY 10 DE TERMINED 7 11 MR. STANLEY: HE DO ES N ' T KNOW .
12 (OFF THE RECORD.)
13 MR. MARINOS: CAN WE GET B ACK ON THE RECORO? O KA Y.
4 14 T OM, WHILE YOU'RE CHECKING THE PROCUREMENT FOR THE SWITCHGEAl
\
15 FOR VOLTAGES, OF COURSE, THE IMPORTANT THING IS THE H AX1 MUM 50 YOU LOOF 16 VOLTAGE AT WHICH THAT SWITCHGEAR HAS TO PERFORM.
17 AT YOUR MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM VOLTAGES AND YOU HAVE TO GET B ACI 18 TO US, WHAT WAS THE MAXIMUM VOLTAGE THAT THE SWITCHGEAR WAS 19 PROCURED FOR AND WHAT WAS THE MAXIMUM VOLTAGEC THAT YOU HAVE 20 EXPECTED AT THE BUS.
21 MR. MARTIN: WAS THAT A QUESTION?
MS. WILLI AMS: THEY WANT SOME FURTHER I NF ORMAT ION.
22 23 I WAS ASKING TOM, THOUGH, WHETHER ,IT'S SAFE TO MAKE THE 24 STATEMENT THAT, YEAH, WE WOULD CHECK A VERIFYING CALCULATION 25 AGAINST A PURCHASE SPEC, BUT WHAT HE DOESN'T HAVE IS THE r
26 SPECIFICS AND I GUESS YOU TOLD ME THAT'S CORRECT.
l 27 MR. MARINOS: 50 FAR WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT g
28 MINIMUM VOLTAGES, OKAY, AND THOSE ARE IMPORTANT FOR STARTING l
s ** *= ==c c o coioGE a cAnnoLL e ..,, . . e . . , .
""''" cannoitO smontmaNO mapOmtsas cow ~
es,Yafsaeo DEPOSITION Not AmitS
213 i
i.
1 EQUIPMENT DOWN THE LINE.
f
( 2 MR. MARTIN: MAYBE I SHOULD MAKE A CLARIF IC ATION.
3 THE MINIMtM VOLTAGES WERE MORE SPECIFICALLY REV 4 STARTING VOLTAGES. WE MAVE REVIEWED SHORT CIRCUIT CALCS TO 5 VER IFY --
MR. MARINOS: THE ADEQUACY OF TME --
- I 6 l MR. MARTIN: -- THE ADEQUACY OF THE SWITCHGEAR THA 7
THE SWITCHGEAR 8 WAS PROB ABLY MORE OF AN IMPORTANT F ACTOR FOR 9 THAN ACTUAL VOLTAGE LEVELS.
WHAT VOLTAGE LEVELS DID 10 MR. MARINOS: WELL, OKAY.
11 YOU CONSIDER FOR THE SHORT CIRCUIT CALCULATIONS 12 THE ADEQUACY OF THE SWITCHGEAR.
MR. MARTIN: CHECKLIST ITEM 3(8) IDENTIFIES WHERE h
! . 13
! 14 REVIEWED CALCULATION 2323-IV-3 FOR AN AVAILABLE SHORT CIR
\
15 LEVEL AT THE 6.9 KY.
16 MR. HAGGIO: THE ACTUAL VOLTAGE THAT THEY USED IN 17 THE CALCULATION, WE WILL MAVE TO GET B ACK TO YOU ON.
MR. MARINOS: GO ON.
18 MR. CALV0: JOHN 7 19 MR. KNOX: NOTHING MORE.
20 l THE NEXT PART OF TH15 QUESTION I S, W, 21 MR. MARINOS:
22 THE DEGRADED GRID VOLTAGE PROTECTION REVIEWED BY CYGNA.
l 23 DO YOU WANT ME TO ELABORATE MORE ON TH MR. MARTIN: YES, PLEASE.
24 MR. MARINOS: WHEN YOU HAVE SUSTAINED DEGRADED 25 I 26 VOLTAGE OF THE GRID WHICH REFLECTS INTO THE LOWE
(; 27 VOLTAGES OF THE MOTORS, THEY HAVE A LIMIT TO WHICH THEY M 28 THEY CAN OPERATE EFFECTIVELY, LIKE 90 PERCENT VOLTAGE IN SOP co%,.. c os. .
sa= ****cesco DOIDGE & CAMROLL C 0*** '
- ''****** CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTERS '
cas m o Pts tettiTIO** NOT AR'E S
^
~ ~ T : . ___ . - -
214 THERE GENERALLY !?
1 MOTORS, LOWER IN OTHERS, HIGHER IN OTHERS.
k 2 A PROTECTION AGAINST SUSTAINED VOLTAGE BELOW THAT OPERATED 3 LEVEL OF THE MOTOR.
4 DID YOU REVIEW THE PROTECTION TO ISOLATE THE MOTOR 5 FROM THAT SOURCE?
6 MR. MARTIN: OUR EXTENT OF THE UNDERVOLTAGE 7 PROTECTION REV1EW CONSISTED OF VERIFYING THAT THE PRO 8 DEVICES EXISTED ON THE 6.9 KV SWITCHGEAR BY LOOKING AT THE 9 SINGLE-LINE DIAGRAM AND REVIEWING THE REQUIREMENTS O 10 PROTECTION AND RELAY PROCEDURES.
11 MR. MAGGIO: AND ALSO COMPARING REQUIREMENTS OR 12 RECOMMENDED PRACTICES OF I TRIPLE E STANDARD -- RECOMMENDED ,
13 PRACTICES OF AN I TRIPLE E, I-E-E-E, STANDARD, STANDARD 242.
j ,
ITEM I' ,
14 AND WE CAN ELABORATE MORE ON EXACTLY WHAT WE DID ON THE 15 RELAYING IF YOU WISH OR I CAN DO IT NOW.
I 16 MR. CALV0: GO AHEAD.
i 17 18 THE ITEM THAT WAS ASKED WAS WHAT THE B ASIS FOR GIS IN OUR l
19
& HILL'S RELAYING ORGANIZATION WAS, AND WE FOUND THAT 20 REVIEW TUGC0 PROTECTIVE RELAYING PHILOSOPHY PRACTICES FOR WE REVIEWED TH15 DOCUMENT, AND THE 21 COMANCHE PEAK UNIT 1.
22 REQUIREMENTS FOR 6900 VOLT SAFEGUARD LOAD WERE FOUND 23 SECTION 6. UNDER MOTOR FEEDER PR OTECT 10N IT WAS STATED E 24 MOTOR WAS PROVIDED WITH PHASE-F ALL PROTECTION CONSIST 25 PRE-LONG TIME INSTANTANEOUS OVERPOWERING RELAY 26 PROTECTIVE DEVICE NUMBER 50-M DASH 51 AND PREINSTANTANEOU
{ ,
l ( 50 M-1 27 RELAYS, TIMER WHICH WOULD BE PROTECTIVE DEVICE NUMBER ALSO, EACH 28 WE IDENTIFIED THIS IN T HE PR OC EDUR E.
DOfDGE & CARROLL co=,.. co ,+.
sa= ena=cisco co**"
"'** **** Ctatipito swoefwaNo 487087845 "'*"'
.. .D'. . OspositioN Notamits
21 5 i
1 MOTOR WAS TO BE PROVIDED WITH ONE GROUND FALL PROTECT
(
E 2 CONSISTING OF A GROUND FALL DEVICE NUMBER 50-N.
3 MR. MARTIN: THAT 'S THE PUMP PROTECT ION.
4 MR. MAGGIO: WELL, THEY'RE ASKING WHAT REVIEW OF 5 PROTECTION RELAY DID WE DO AND THIS IS THE DEGREE OF REVIEW W 6 DID AND IT IS THIS ITEM THAT I AM JUMP!NG B ACK TO. .
7 MR. MARTIN: SHOULD WE HAVE SAID OFF THE RECORD?
8 MR. MAGGIO: TO FURTHER CONCLUDE WHAT WE DID, WE WE COMPARED TP 9 IDENT IF IED THIS REQUIREMENT IN THE PROCEDURE.
10 SINGLE-LINE DI AGRAM AND FOUND THAT THESE RELAYS WERE INCLUDEC 11 ON SINGLE-LINE DIAGRAM 2323-E-1004. IT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH 12 THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMP ON BUS 1EA1.
13 BASED AS A SANITY CHECK IN TERMS OF THESE i 14 REQUIREMENTS, WE REVIEWED 1 TRIPLE E STANDARD 28+2 AND WE FOUt I \
15 NO CONFLICT ON THESE RELAYS IN THE STANDARD WE IDENT IF IED 16 REQUIREMENTS F0P. RELAY 50-N ON PAGE 191 AND RELAYS 50-N DASH 51 ON PAGE 188, AND RELAY 50 M1 PAGE 188. THIS IS 1 TRIPLE f 17 18 STANDARD 242-9275. THAT WAS THE LIMIT OF OUR RELAY PROTECT!(
19 REVIEW.
20 MR. CALV0: IS NOT ALL THE VOLTAGE PROTECTION MOST 0F ARCHITECT / ENGINEERS USES A 27 RELAY. DID THE SAME THING .
21 HA' 22 YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHETHER THE G1885 6 HILL USES THE 277 23 YOU REVIEWED THAT RELAY? ,
24 MR. MAGGIO: OKAY. WE HAD IDENTIF IED THAT ON THE 25 5!NGLE-LINE DIAGRAM THAT I INDICATED, BUT IT IS A BUS RELAY 26 AND NOT A FEEDER RELAY.
I r MR. CALV0: RIGHT, BUS RELAY. YOU GOT ABOUT THREE 27 0F THEM PER BUS? ABOUT THREE PER 805. LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE 28
. .. .. ..c . e c e ooicos a cAmmoLL e ... .. c o s, .
- ' eae eees Ctefi#stD SMOmfMAND mtponttms 40 %
.ai N 'ases DEPOSIT:04 NOT Amit S
3 216 f
1 THREE OF THEM.
( 2 MR. MAGGIO: YES, IT INDIC ATES THAT.
YOU GOT TMREE 0F THEH. IN A MR. CALV0: OKAY.
3 4 TYPICAL DESIGN, THOSE AP.E THE THREE RELAYS THAT YOU USE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WA$ THE DEGRADED GRID VOLTAGE PROTECT!
5 6 REVIEW. THAT'S THE ONE YOU HORMALLY MAVE A TWO OUT OF THREE 7 COMBINATION. YOU SEPARATE THE 6.9 KV FROM THE INC OMING THAT 'S THE 8 BREAKER THAT IS CONNECTED TO THE OFF-SITE POWER.
9 THREE RELAY. DID YOU REVIEW THOSE THREE RELAY --
10 MR. MAGGIO: YES, WE IDENTIFIED THAT THE 27 RELAYS 11' WERE ON A SINGLE-LINE DIAGRAM.
12 MR. MORRIS: I .THINK THE OUESTION WAS, DID YOU LOO j , 13 AT THE SETT INGS OF --
i 18+ MR. MAGGIO: NO. NO, WE DIO NOT IDENT IF Y THE RELA g
15 SETTINGS.
16 MR. MORRIS: 50 CAN YOU TELL WHETHER THE RELAYS WE 17 USED FOR DEGRADED GRID PROTECT 10N OR LOSS OF VOLTAGE 18 PR OTCC TION?
19 MR. MARTIN: WELL, WE CAN -- WE VERIFIED THEIR 20 EXISTENCE AND IN TERMS OF PLACEMENT, THERE WAS PROTECTION FC 21 GRID UNDERVOLTAGE BY THE PROTECTIVE AND RELAYING PROCEDURE.
22 MR. MORR IS: WAS THAT -- BY NOT LOOKING AT THE
'23 SENTENCE, YOU COULD NOT TELL WHETHER THAT WAS PROTECTION FOR 24 DEGRADED GRID OR FOR LOSS OF VOLTAGE 7 M5. WILLIAMS: THAT'S CORRECT. WE JUST LOOKED AT 25 26 THERE WAS SOME PROTECTION THAT EXIST!D AND STOPPED l
MR. CALV0: TO SUPPLENENT WHAT HE 15 5AYING, IF I 27 28 TO LOOK AT THE 6.9 KV CIRCUlf SREAKER OF THESE COMPON i
... . . .. . . c o ocioot a cannou. co ,.. co...
a m
- a centisiso suo.tnano maeontans sow "
neonw,o ~oeamas "'""'
-e--- -- - - - - . , y .- - -
217 1
1 COOLING WATER PUMPS, THE ONE THAT YOU LOOK AT, 15 ANYTHING 2 THERE IN THE TRIP CIRCUIT WHO HAS A 27 RELAY THERE7 3 MR. MARTIN: LET ME REFRESH MY MEMORY.
4 MR. CALVO: THAT 'S OKAY.
5 MR. MARTIN: REFERRING TO DRAWING 2323 31 DASH 0031 6 SHEET NUMBER 25, REVISION 12, RELAY CONTACTS 27 2X8 FOR BUS 7
ONE EA1 ARE INCLUDED IN THE TRIP CLOSE CIRCUIT, THE BREAKER 8
CLOSE CIRCUIT, OR THE TRIP CO!L CIRCUIT -- I'M SORRY.
9 MR. CALVO: 15 THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN FIND OUT EITHE 10 CONTACTS FROM THOSE RELAYS COMING FROM THE OTHER RELA 11 CONNECTED TO THE BUS?
12 MR. MARTIN: OUR EXTENT OF REVIEW WENT TO VERIFYINC 13 THAT THIS FUNCTION EXISTED.
i 14 MR. CALVO: THAT'S ALL7
\
15 MR. MARTIN: THAT ' S ALL.
16 MR. CALVO: AGAIN, THAT FUNCTION EXISTED, YOU ONLY WHERE ARE .THOSE 17 MENTIONED CONTACT IN THE TWO TRIP CIRCUITS.
18 CONTACTS COMING FROM7 19 MR. MARTIN: FROM THE UNDERVOLTAGE RELAYS IN THE --
20 MR. CALVO: AT THE SUS.
21 MR. MARTIN: AT THE SUS.
22 MR. KNOX: YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THEY
,s
' '2 3 ARE FOR A DEGRADED GRID OR LOSS OF, YOLTAGE, IS THAT RIGHT?
24 MR. MARTIN: I DON'T THINK WE CAN ANSWER THAT.
25 MR. CALVO: ALL YOU DID IS TO -- THE FUNCTION IS IT SAYS YOU GO 26 THERE THAT YOU HAVE A LOW VOLTAGE CONDITION.
k ( THE EQUI PMENT TO DO IT. YOU HAVE NOT VERIF IED THE SETTINGS g 27 28 ANYTHING. OKAY, WE UNDERSTAND.
.. ... c'sc o ooioot a cannoLL c ,..cos,.
cantiniso SaOntaamo aspontsas ,, , c oy,, , , , ,
"w i's.*2lsls'e'e as OEPOSITION NOT ARIES
~
218 t
3 MR. KNOX: SUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE A VOLTAGE 4 DEGRADED GRID PROTECTION OR -- VERSUS THE LOSS OF PR OT ECT ION.
YOU HAVE ONE OR 5.sii OT HER, BUT YOU 00 NOT KNOW If 5
6 YOU HAVE BOTH?
7 MR. CALV0: THAT'S CORRECT.
YOU 8 MR. KNOX: WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU VERIF IED THAT 9 HAD THE PROTECTION, YOU GOT A LOSS OF VOLTAGE PROTECTION, YOU DO YOU HAVE BOTH OF 10 HAVE DEGRADED GRID VOLTAGE PROTECTION?
11 THOSE TYPES OF PR OTECT ION?
MR. CALV0: 1 DON'T THINK S0. YOU COULD NOT BEC AUS 12 THEREFORE, YOU DON'T 13 YOU COULD NOT ASSESS THE SETTINGS S0, g ,
14 KNOW WHICH ONE IT 15.
k MR. HARTIN: 1 CAN'T MAKE THAT STATEMENT.
15 16 MS. WILLI AMS: CUT OF SCOPE.
17 MR. CALV0: ALL YOU KNOW, THAT YOU HAVE A 27 RELAY 50 18 THERE, THAT IT DOES SOMETHING WHEN THE VOLTAGE GOES UP.
j 19 WHATEVER MADE THAT VOLTAGE GOES DOWN, THE THING WILL OPEN UP.
MR. MARINOS: NA NC Y, YOU JUST STATED IT WAS OUT OF 20 21 SC OPE.
22 MS. WILLIAMS: WELL, GOING SEYOND, GOING INTO THE ASSESSING, THE QUESTION THAT HE WAS JUST ASKED, ALL WE DID w/
~
23
{
24 SEE WHETHER THE RELAY EXISTED AND WE STOPPED.
25 MR. MARINOS: THAT WAS BEYOND SCOPE, .THEN IT WAS A 26 CONSCIOUS OMISSION, 15 THIS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING7 I YES, I BELIEVE THAT 'S TRUE. YOU HA!
27 MS. WILLI AMS:
28 NO INTENTION OF TAKING IT FURTHER BACK UPSTREAM FROM THERE,
... a c'sco coiooE a cAmmoLL e ... c o.. .
"*',',,*"" cantisiso swontaANo mecontens ,, , 8 0, , 'l, , ,
. . , . . > > osnosmos NotAnics
. -.~. .
219 t
1 DID YOU?
MR. MARTIN: NO.
( 2 3 MR. MORRIS: EVEN THOUGH THAT'S PART OF THE CONTROL YOU CONSIDER 4 CIRCUIT ON THE CONTROLLING WATER COOLANT PLMP, 5 THAT OUT OF SCOPE 7 6 MR. MARTIN: WE REVIEWED THE FACT THAT UNDERVOLTAGE 7 OROP OUT OF THE PUMP CIRCUIT EXISTED.
8 MR. MORRIS: YES, BUT YOU DID NOT LOOK TO SEE WHAT 9
THAT WAS PROTECTING, WHETHER IT WAS LOSS OF VOLTAGE OR LOW 10 VOLTAGE.
Il MR. OSZ EW SKI : WE DIDN'T CHECK THE SETTING.
MR. MARTIN: WE DIDN'T CHECK THE SETTING, BUT AS I 12 13 SAY, WE REVIEWED THE PROCEDURES FOR THAT TYPE OF PROTECTION 14 AND VERIFIED THAT THEY WERE ON.
I MR. CALVO: LET HE GO ONE FURTHER. IN THAT TRIP 15 16 CIRCUIT, YOU HAVE THE 27 RELAY AND YOU GOT SOME -- ALL THE 17 RELAYS ARE IN PARALLEL WITH THAT RELAY, WITH THAT CONTACT, TF 50, THE OVERLOADS, WHATEVER IN THE GROUNDS. DID YOU VERIFY 18 19 THE SETTINGS OF THOSE RELAYS? 00 YOU KNOW WHAT I AM GETTING 20 AT7 21 MR. MARTIN: YES. WE REVIEWED A SET POINT 22 CALCULATION FOR THE SETTINGS ON THE OTHER PROTECTED RELAY MR. MARINOS: 50 THE OVERCURRENT, YO U M E A N,
'23 24 OVERCURRENT PROTECTION, YOU DID LOOK AT THE COORDINATION OF 25 RELAYING 7 26 MR. CALV0: THE ONLY ONE THAT YOU DID NOT LOOK IN I
27 THAT CIRCUIT IS THE 2 7 RELAY, RIGHT?
(
28 MR. MARTIN: PARDON?
s.= a.=c.sco coloGE a cAmmoLL co=,..e....
co e'-
"'"'"* cantmto saontaANo nerontras """'
. ' Z "S u oaposmon woTaniss l
220 1 MR. CALVO: THE ONLY RELAY THAT YOU DID NOT
- 2 DETERMINED WHETHER IT FUNCTIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH YH 3 REQUIREMENTS IS THAT 27 RELAY, THE ONLY ONE IN THAT CIRCUIT 7 4 MR. MARTIN: CORR EC T.
MR. CALVO: ALL THE OTHERS, THE PROTECTIVE RELAYS, 5
6 CIRCUITS AND GROUNDS, THOSE YOU DID VERIFIY. .
7 (OFF THE RECORD.)
$ MR. CALVO: THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS NOT 9 READILY AVAILABLE. WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A NOTE OF IT BECAUSE 10 ALL l'M ASKING IS --
Il MR. MARTIN: YE S .
12 MS. WILLI AMS: WHAT'S THE QUESTION NOW7 13 MR. MARTIN: LET ME GET 5 ACK TO YOU ON THAT ONE.
MR. CALVO: PERFECTLY ALL'RIGHT.
f* 14 I
15 MR. MARTIN: THE CHECKLIST --
16 MS. WILLIAMS: W HAT IS THE QUESTION?
17 MR. MARTIN: THE QUES TION W AS --
18 MR. CALVO: THE QUESTION WAS, WERE THE OTHER 19 PROTECTIVE RELAYS IN THE TRIP CIRCUlT FOR THE COMPONENT 20 COOLING WATER PLMP, WHETHER YOU VERIFIED THE SETTINGS OF THi 21 RELAYS.
22 MR. MARTIN: WE DID REVIEW THE CALC.
MR. MARINOS: NANCY, WOULD YOU INTRODUCE THE 23 24 GENTLEMAN TO YOUR LEFT FOR US?
25 MS. WILLI AMS: YES, TH15 15 AL MOERSFELDER AND HE 26 WAS INVOLVED IN SOME OF THE INSTRUMENT CONTROL REVIEWS.
f 27 THAT'S WHY I WAS RUNNING AROUND GETTING H15 INPUT HERE.
(
28 MR. MARINOS: WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT QUES TION, sa= emaa.cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL coe..ces .
asesieas e C C"
- CERTIPIED SMORTMAND REPORTERS "*"#"
u,Nsasee OEPOSitiON NOTARiE s
221 1 QUESTION 2(A), AND WE'RE ASKING, WAS THE TRANSFER CIRCUITRY
)
(- 2 F OR THE PR EF ERR ED, ALTER NATE, AND STANCBY POWER SUPPLIES 3 REVI EWE D.
4 MR. MARTIN: NO, THIS WAS NOT IN CYGNA'S SCOPE OF 5 W OR K.
6 MR. MARINOS: GE OR GE, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION 7 MR. MORRIS: NO, THAT WAS JUST A CLAR IF ICAT ION 7
8 BECAUSE ITEM 2 IN THE CHECKLIST STATED THAT THEY LOOKED AT T 9 CONNECTIONS TO THE BUS IN COMPLIANCE TO A NUMBER OF DESIGN 10 CRITERIA IN THE REG GUIDES.
11 MR. MARTIN: WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THIS CHECKLIST 12 ITEM WAS TO REVIEW THAT THE OFF-SITE AND ON-SITE POWER SOURC THE 13 WERE CONNECTED TO THE 6.9 BUS TO VERIFY THE PREFERRED, i
! 14 ALTERNATE OFF-SITE AND STANDBY POWER SOURCE WERE CONNECTED '
15 THIS BUS.
16 MR. MORR IS : ALL RIGHT.
17 MR. MARINOS: WE HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION UNDER 18 SAME NUMBER. WHAT SOURCE DID CYGNA MEAN SY THE, QUO T E ,
19 B ACKUP POWER SOURCE," UNQUOTE.
MR. MARTIN: THE DIESEL GENERATOR. WELL, MAYBE -
20 21 THE CHECKLIST ITEM SHOULD INDICATE STANDBY POWER SOUR 22 INSTEAD OF BACKUP POWER SOURCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FS 33 DESCRIPTION.
MR. CALVO: EXCUSE ME. WHAT IS THE SIGNIF IC ANCE 24 25 THAT QUESTION, GE ORGE7 26 MR. MORRIS: THE $1GNIFIC ANCE IS THAT THE FSAR HA j
27 AN IMPLICATION THAT THE GENERATOR STARTUP TRANSFORMER 28 USED AS A BACKUP SUPPLY. AND THE INDUSTRY STANDARD IS NOT
- = = = =c 4 c o conoot a c4mmoLL c ... c o. .
'*****"" cantmao swontwaso aspontems c o '-
. .*. " M '.i.. ornosmos =ofAmirs j
l l
- s. ,...s..___..
1 222 1 USE THE TERM BACKUP POWER SOURCE AS A STANDBY SOURCE.
(^ 2 MR. CALVO: OKAY, ALL RIGHT.
MR. MARINOS: JOHN, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE OUESTIONS 3
4 ON THIS?
MR. KNOX: NO.
5 MR. MARINOS: WE WILL GO TO ITEM 3, WE CALL I.T 6
7 RELAYING. 50 WE MAY HAVE COVERED THINGS THAT WE ALREADY DISCUSSED, BUT WE'LL GO OVER QUICKLY SOME OF THEM.
ITEM (A) 8 9 IS WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE GIBBS & HILL RELAYING 10 R EC OMMENDA T IONS.
11 MR. MAGGIO: I BELIEVE I ADDRESSED THAT EARLIER ON i
THE RESPONSE THAT I HAD GI VE N. IT'S BASED ON THE TUGCO 12 l
13 PROTECTIVE RELAYING PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICES WHICH WE REVI 1 .
14 AND IDENTIFIED THAT RELAYS WERE ON THE SINGLE-LINE DIAGRAM
{
15 T HAT I INDICATED AND ALSO HAD REVIEWED THE I TRIPLE E STANDAF 16 MR. MARINOS: A5 WE HAVE -- AS CLARIF ICAT ION TO TH/
17 QUESTION, WAS THE APPLICABLE MOTOR DATA REVIEWED, AND WE HAVE 18 IN PARENTHESES, FOR EXAMPLE, THERMAL DAMAGE CURVES, 19 ACCELERATION DATA AT MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM VOLTAGE.
20 DID YOU LOOK AT THAT TYPE OF I NF ORMAT ION ?
MR. MARTIN: YES, FULL LOAD CURRENT, LEFT LOAD 21 22 C URRE NT, SERVICE FACTOR, AND ACCELERATION DATA MINIMUM AND 23 MAXIMUM VOLTAGE WERE INCLUDED IN CALCULATION 2323-VIII-6.
24 MR. MORRIS: HOW ABOUT MOTOR THERMAL DAMAGE 7 25 MR. MARTIN: MOTOR --
THOSI 26 MR. MORRIS: CAN YOU TELL THAT THE SETTING OF
/
27 OVERCURRENT RELAYS ARE SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT THE MOTOR 28 COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMP FROM THE THERMAL GUIDE 7
... ... c .c o ooioGE a cAmmoLL c a.. .. : ... .
"***** cs=Twiso smo=TwaNo esponTsms coe-mi$ Yap e OspOSITION NOTAnis5
1 223 1 MR. MARTIN: I WOULD LIKE TO CHECK MY NOTES AND GET B ACK TO YOU ON THAT ONE. COULD YOU RESTATE THE QUESTION.
2 3 MR. MORRIS: THE REVIEW OF THE RELAY SETTINGS FOR THE MOTOf 4 THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMP INCLUDE A REVIEW OF 5
THERMAL DAMAGE CURVE, AND AS A FOLLOW-UP, WHETHER THE GIBBS &
IMPORTANT MOTOR 6 HILL SPECIFICATION ON LARGE MOTORS REQUIRES 7 CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS THERMAL DAMAGE CURVES AND ACCELERATIN4 W HA T 8 TIME CURVES TO BE INCLUDED IN VENDOR DATA SUBMITTALS.
9 WAS THE TUGCO DRAWING REFERENCE THAT YOU MADE FOR RELAYING 10 PRACTICES? YOU MADE REFERENCE TO --
11 MR. MAGGIO: IN TERMS OF THE SINGLE LINE THAT WAS 12 REVIEWED OR THE DOCUMEhn -- THE NAME -- IT 'S PROTECTIVE 13 RELAYING PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICES PROCEDURES.
~
, 14
- MR. MORRIS: IS THAT DOCUMENT AVAILABLE HERE7
( 15 MS. WILLIAMS: WE'LL HAVE TO CHECK.
MR. MARINOS: TOM, AS A FURTHER AMPLIF ICAT ION TO 16 17 ThlS QUESTION, DID YOU LOOK AT THE OVERLOAD PROTECTION, 18 OVERCURRENT PROTECTION OF THOSE MOTORS WITH REGARD TO SET 19 OF THE INSTANTANEOUS AND ONE-TIME PROTECTION OF THE RELAYIN 20 MR. MARTIN: THIS ISN'T ON HERE.
MR. MAGGIO: OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET B ACK 2"
22 TO YOU.
I23 MR. MARTIN: NO, I THINK.WE CAN --
24, MR. MARINOS: FOR THE SPECIF IC MOTOR I'M ASKING.
MR. MARTIN: THE SPECIFIC MOTOR, WE REVIEWED THE 25 26 RELAY SETTING CALC WHICH HAD THE CALCULATIONS FO 27 OF PR OTEC T IO N.
[' YES.
28 MR. MAGGIO:
s== ==a eco coioca a cAmmoLL c a ... c e.. .
c cs=Tmso swontaaso asponisms ,, coy,=;',,,
l " '..'2.'.*.
. /.l.*.*. osmosmos Noraniss 1
224 1 MR. MARINOS: OKAY, QUESTION 3(B), WAS SHORT CIRCUI' l
[ '
\ 2 CALCULATION REVIEWED FOR CORRECT RESULTS AND WAS THE INPUT I 3 DATA REVIEWED BY CYGNA.
4 MR. MAGGIn: YE S, THEY WERE REVIEWED FOR RESULTS AN ALSO 5 WERE VERIFIED TO BE LESS THAN THE SWITCHGEAR RATINGS.
6 REVIEWED WERE INPUT DATA SUCH AS MOTORS -- SUCH AS AT THE 7 MOT OR S, TRANSF ORMERS, AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THEY WERE 8 R EA SONABLE .
9 MR. MORRIS: THEN AS A CARRYOVER FROM THE PREVIOUS 10 COMMENT, YOU WILL BE CHECKING TO SEE WHAT VOLTAGE YOU USED Ih 11 THE SHORT CIRCUIT CALCULATIONS?
13 MR. MARINOS: YOU DID A CALCULATION OR YOU CHECKED 14 THEIRS?
8 15 MR. MARTIN: WE REVIEWED THEIRS.
16 MR. MARINOS: DID YOU USE -- DID YOU CHECK A DC 17 OFFSET MULTIPLYING FACTOR THAT THEY USED FOR THE S IZ E OF THE 18 SWITCHGEAR?
19 MR. MAGG!b: WE'LL MAVE TO GET B ACK TO YOU ON THAT, 1
20 IF IT 'S INCLUDED.
21 MR. MARINOS: O!D YOU LOOK AT ANY DI AGRAM TO 22 DETERMINE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER OPERATING LOADS AND SOURCE j
.23 TO DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM FULL CURRENT THROUGH A BREAKER?
i 24 MR. MAGGIO: OKAY, THAT WAS REVIEWED ON THE 40 VOL' 25 SHORT CIRCUIT CALCULATION, IN WHICH CASE I SPOT. CHECKED 26 IMPEDANCE DIAGRAMS THAT WERE USED AND IDENTIFIED THAT g
[ 27 REPRESENTED THAT CABLE AND SYSTEM IMPEDANCES.
28 MR. MORRIS: EXCUSE ME.
.. ...= c .. c o ooioot a cAmmoLL co ... ca. .
" ' ' ' ' " " " canimeo swo=TaAwo aspo=Tras c ow=' *
. .M* caposmon woraniss f
225 t I THINK WE 1 MS. WILLIAMS: CAN WE HOLD ON A MINUTE.
2 LOST A QUESTION HERE.
3 MR. MARTIN: WE LOST THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
4 -MS. WILLIAMS: THE ONE ON SOMETHING BEING INCLUDED i YOU HAD THAT ONE, DIDN'T YOU? IT WAS 5 IN THE CALCULATION.
6 RIGHT BEFORE I SAID --
7 MR. MARINOS: THE MULTIPLYING FACTOR FOR A DC 0FFSE MR. MAGGIO: YOU WERE ASKING US --
8 9 MS. WILLIAMS: OKAY, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
10 MR. MORRIS: WHAT WAS YOUR LAST QUESTION?
11 MR. MARINOS: DID YOU GET MY LAST QUESTION? YOU 12 WANT ME TO REPEAT THAT7 I ASKED IF YOU LOOKED AT AN IMPEDANC 13 DI AGRAM AND CONSIDERED CONTRIBUTIONS TO A FULL CONDITION IN DETERMINING THE PROPER S IZING OF THE BREAKER, IT'S 5 .
14
(
15 CONTRIBUTION FROM OTHER SOURCES.
MR. MAGGIO: YES, WE DID. WE IDENTIF IED THE SHORT 16 17 CIRCUIT VALUES AND DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE -- WITH --
18 UNDER THE RATINGS OR THE CIRCUIT BREAKERS WITHIN THE B 19 THE BUS RATINGS.
20 MR. MARINOS: YOU LOOKED AT IMPEDANCES DI AGRAM OR 1
21 YOU PREPARED YO,UR OWN?
22 MR. MAGGIO: I REVIEWED THE IMPEDANCE DI AGRAM 23 INCLUDED IN 'THE CALCULATION AND DID SPOT CHECK 24 ARRIVED AT THOSE IMPEDANCE DI AGRAMS IN TERMS OF THE CALCULAT 25 FALL CURRENT THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED.
26 MR. MORRIS: WHAT WAS THE B ASIS OF THOSE IMPEDANC E ,
l I*
( 27 DIAGRAMS? WAS IT CALCULATED NUMBERS FOR CABLE IMPEDANCE AN 28 TRANSF ORMER IMPEDANCE OR WAS IT ACTUAL FIELD DATA?
... c.eco coloca a cAmmoLL co ,.. cos,.
"'O," centimito s*OmTwaNo af pOmTEa5 ,,,co,y,,,,,
DipOSITION NOTAmits utssese.saes
..........- - m .=-.= ~.: - . ..
226 l-1 MR. MAGGIO: I TOOK TMAT INFORMATION AS AN INPUT TO 2 THE CALCULATION AND JUST REVIEWED IT FOR SANITY IN TERMS OF WAS IT REASONABLE ON THE BASIS OF MY EXPERIENCE.
BUT l'M NOT 3
4 SURE IF IT WAS -- WHERE IT CAME FROM.
MR. MARINOS: BY NAMEPLATE DATA, YOU M EAN F R OM 5
6 TRANSFORMERS -- .
7 MR. MAGGIO: I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS NAMEPLATE DATA 8 FROM ACTUAL EQUIPMENT THAT WAS OUT IN THE FILED.
9 MR. MORRIS: SUT IT WAS BALL PARK NUMBERS, AT LEAST 10 MR. MAGGIO: AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS 11 REALISTIC.
12 MR. MORRIS: HOW MUCH EXTRA CAPACITY WAS THERE IN 13 THE BREAKERS?
I .
14 MR. MAGGIO: I'LL HAVE TO GET 8 ACK TO YOU ON THAT 15 SPEC IF IC QUESTION.
16 MR. MARINOS: CAN YOU MAKE AVAILABLE THE IM PE DA NC E 17 DIAGRAM?
18 MR. MAGGIO: I'LL HAVE TO CHECK AND SEE IF WE HAVE 19 IT.
20 MS. WILLI AMS: 00 YOU KNOW WHAT CALC THEY WERE IN?
21 MR. CALVO: DO YOU HAVE A RECORD CAPABILITY IF 22 SOMEBODY ASKS TO REPEAT THE QUESTION 7 23 MS. WILLI AMS: 1 THINK YQU WANT THIS OFF THE RECORC 24 (OFF THE RECORD.)
25 MR. MARINOS: SHALL WE CONTINUE 7 26 MS. WILLIAMS: YE S .
27 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION NUMBER 3(C), WAS THE
(
28 COORDINATION OF THE COMPOPS.NT COOLING WATER PUMP MOTOR BREAKE s.= e **c..c0 conocE a cannoLL cos,..ce...
"''****' CERTipiED SHORTHAND REPORTERS C os**
- uiYafazee OEPOSITION NOTamiE S
~
227 \
t 1 CHECKED WITH THE THREE INCOMING BREAKERS.
MR. MARTIN: NO, CYGNA REVIEWED THE BREAKERS k 2 BUT 3
PROTECTIVE FUNCTION FOR THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUM 4 DID NOT EXTEND ITS SCOPE IN THE COORDINATION O' UPSTRE i I
5 BREAKERS. 1 MR. MORRIS: 50 YOU CANNOT SAY WHETHER A FAULT AT 6
THE 7 THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PLMP WILL CAUSE THE 8 ENTIRE BUS.
MR. MARTIN: BASICALLY, OUR REVIEW STOPPED AT THE 9
ITS PROTECTIVE FUNCTIONS 10 6.9 KV SWITCHGEAR IN THE REVIEW OF AND WE DIDN'T EXTEND I 11 FOR THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMP.
12 INTO REVIEWING THE COORDINATION OF THE UPSTREA MR. MARINOS:
ITEM 3CF), WAS THE B ASIS FOR THE 13 f .
14 ENVIROWENTAL AND SEISMIC DATA IN THE SWITCHGEAR SP j
'15 CONFIRMED BY CYGNA AND REVIEWED IN A QUALIFIC ATION MR. MARTIN: NO. CYGNA'S REVIEW ONLY VERIF IED THE 16 17 INCLUSION OF SEISMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCUREMENT SPECIF ICATIONS.
ENVIRO
- ENTAL AND SEISMIC REVIE' 18 19 WAS NOT PART OF THE ELECTRIC AL REVIEW SCOPE.
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, GEORGE 7 20 MR. MARINOS:
YOU ARE SAYING, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU 21 MR. MORRIS:
22 RIGHT, THAT YOUR CHECK THEN WAS JUST TO SEE THAT 23 SECTION IN THE CALCULATIONS FOR ENVIRO M ENTAL AN THE SPECIF ICATION, YES.
24 MR. MARTIN:
MR. MORRIS: THE SPECIF IC ATION, BUT NOT WHERE THOS 25 26 INPUTS C AME FROM.
I CORRECT.
27 MR. MARTIN:
(
MR. MORRIS: AND NOT THE INTERDISCIPLINE INTERFACI 28 co ,..co...
4
. .a =c sco ootoor a cAmmoLL c ow%9 '
"'* #** CERTipito SuomTMAND m(PC Afges "'"
sa. Y ssee DEPOSITION NOTAmit S
228 1 THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE PREPARATION OF THAT
( 2 S PEC IF ICAT ION.
MS. WILLI AMS: THAT'S CORRECT. WE DID NOTHING ON 3
4 ENVIROPe4 ENTAL ANO SEISMIC, ONLY THAT THERE WAS A NOTATION THA 5 MENTIONED THAT THE EQUIPMENT NEEDED TO BE DESIGNED TO CONSIDE 6 THAT. BEYOND THAT, WE DID NOTHING WITH THE NUMBERS.
7 MR. MORRIS: NOR DID YOU INCLUDE INTERDISCIPLINE 8 REVIEW OR INTERACTION.
MS. WILLI AMS: THAT'S RIGHT. WE WOULD DO NOTHING 9
10 ASSOCIATED WITH CARRYING OUT THE 323, ANY OF THAT 1(B) SEISMI 11- QUA LIF IC AT ION, ALL THAT W AS OUT OF THE SCOPE.
12 MR. MORRIS: THAT 'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING.
13 MS. WILLIAMS: YES, BUT I MEAN, WE WOULDN 'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU SAY 14 LOOKED AT ANY INTERFACES OR ANYTHING.
15 TO US THAT DEALS WITH HANDLING THAT INFORMATION OR RECORDING 16 IT OR TRANSF ERR ING IT OR DESIGNING FOR I T, WE DIDN'T LOOK AT.
17 MR. MORRIS: OKAY.
MR. MARINOS: WE GO TO QUESTION 4 UNDER CABLE, SO 18 19 QUESTION 4(D), DID MOTOR SPEC INCLUDE ELECTR IC AL DATA SUCH A!
20 MINIMUM STARTING VOLTAGE AND MINIMUM ACCELERATING TIM 21 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM VOLTAGE.
MR. MARTIN: YES, MECHANICALS ARE -- S PEC IF ICAT ION 22 23 2323 ES 15 INDICATED THAT MOTOR SHALL START AT 80 PERCENT OF 24 MOTOR RATED VOLTAGE TO FULL SPEED IN 5 SECONDS.
25 MS. WILLIAMS: THE ANSWER IS NO.
26 MR. MARINOS: DID IT HAVE MAXIMLN VOLTAGE?
I MR. MARTIN: I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT, 50 CAN 27
(
28 GET THE SPECIFICS ON THAT BACK TO YOU?
I s== ====c sc o conocs a cAmmoLL c o ,.. c os,.
" "'
- f,"' ceaTmao Swontaa~o mepontaas ,,, cog,l,,,
utse esi.saee DE*OSITION NotARif 5 I
229 i S UR E.
1 MR. MARINOS:
GE OR GE, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THAT7
\_ 2 3 MR. MORRIS: (SHAKES HEAD.)
4 MR. MARINOS: DID YOU CHECK UNDER THE SAME QUESTION 5 TO CONFIRM THE ACCELERATION TIMES?
6 MR. MARTIN: MAYBE -- COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT A 7 LITTLE BIT?
MR. MARINOS: YE S . THE SPECIF ICATION SPEC IF IED 8
9 MINIMUM STARTING VOLTAGE AT 80 PERCENT AND MINIMUM 10 ACCELERATION TIME 5 SECONDS. DID YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU WOULD 11 BE ABLE TO ACCELERATE THE MOTOR IN 5 SECONDS WITH MIN 12 VOLTAGE'OF 80 PERCENT, AND HOW DID YOU DO IT?
MR. CALVO: IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER, DON'T 13 14 WOR RY ' AB OUT IT.
15 MR. MARTIN: THERE IS SOMETHING FLOATING AROUND UP l THERI 16 HERE, BUT I CAN'T PUT IT IN THE RIGHT WORDS RIGHT NOW.
17 ARE REQUIREMENTS PLACED ON THE PUMP MANUFACTURER TO SUPDLY 18 MOTOR REQUIREMENTS AND SOME OF THE SPECS, ALSO.
19 MR. MARINOS: BUT YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER YOU WEN:
20 THROUGH THE MECHANICS OF CONFIRMING THE CALCULATION.
21 MR. MARTIN: NO, WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH AN 22 ACCELERATION CALCULATION.
23 MR. MARINOS: YOU DID NOT GO THROUGH AN ACCELERATI' 24 CALCULATION.
MR. MARTIN: NO. I BELIEVE -- I SAY I BELIEVE, l' 25 26 VERIFY THAT WE REVIEWED THE FACT THAT THE PUMP VEND I
( 27 REQUIRED TO SUPPLY MOTOR DATA FOR PURCHASING THE MOTOR.
28 MR. MARINOS: DID YOU LOOK AT THE PUMP AND MOTOR
' D0 LOGE & CARROa e o,... e o ,.
8,,',' ",*,g*
, Cow *"
ga y .o CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPomTEms emis saa s e ts saisi ase asse DEPOSITION NOTAmits
' ~ ~ ~ ~ '
. . . . . . . . . ._1_ _ ..
l 230 t
1 TORQUE CURVES?
k- 2 MR. MARTIN: THEY WERE INCLUDED IN THE MOTOR 3 PROCUREMENT SPEC IF ICAT 10N.
MS. WILLIAMS: ANSWER HIS QUESTION YES OR NO, DI D 4
5 YOU LOOK AT IT.
6 MR. MARTIN: YES. ,
MR. CALV0: ALL RIGHT.
MR. MORRIS: YES. T OM, DO YOU KNOW, WAS THE MOTOR 9
10 PURCHASED SEPARATELY OR INCLUDED WITH THE DRIVEN EQUIPMENT 11 S PEC IF ICAT ION?
12 MR. MARTIN: THE MOTOR WAS PURCHASED ON A SEPARATE j ,
13 MOTOR SPECIFICATION.
MR. MORRIS: DID YOU LOOK INTO THE INTERF ACE, THEN, i 1 14 s
15 THAT WAS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE PUMP VENDOR AND MOTOR VE 16 MR. MAGGIO: ARE YOU REFERRING TO MECHANIC AL SPECS
- MR. KILLOUGH: CRAIG KILLOUGH. DIDN'T THE 17 18 SPECIFIC ATION STATE THAT THE PUMP MANUF ACTURER WILL ESTABLISI PROPER 19 MOTOR HORSEPOWER TORQUE AND SPEED REQUIREMENTS FOR 20 APPLICATION OF THE MOTOR 7 21 MR. MARTIN: YES, THEY DID.
22 MR. KILLOUGH: AND THAT WAS WHAT WE IMPLIED AS THE 23 I NT ERF AC E. THE SPECIFICATION STATED THAT THE PUHP 24 MANUF ACTURER WILL PROVIDE THE PROPER SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 25 APPLICATION OF THE MOTOR.
26 MR. MORRIS: WAS THAT THE PUMP SPECIF IC ATION OR l (
27 MOTOR SPECIFICATION?
2g MR. KILLOUGH: NO, THE MOTOR SPEC, 2323 ES 18, WHI sa= eaa=cisco DOIDGE e CAmmOLL ca ,.. cas,.
- ''**** CEmTipIED SwonTMAND REPomTEns 8 0**"
. .?'".T'." . DEPostTION NoTAnlES
~
~
231
' 1 IS THE MOTOR SPECIFICATION, RIGHT, WHICH WE REFERENCE THERE.
k 2 MR. MARTIN: YES, YE S .
MR. KILLOUGH: THE MOTOR SPEC IFICATION IDENT IF IES 3
4 THAT THE PUMP MANUF ACTURER WILL ESTABLISH THE PROPER TORQUE, AND APPLICATION OF THE MOTOR THROUGH HIS HORSEPOWER, 5
6 SPEED REQUIREMENTS.
MR. MORRIS: WAS IT VERIFIED THAT THAT DID, IN FAC*
7 8 TAKE PLACE?
MR. MARTIN: YE S, IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PURCHASE 9
10 S P EC IF IC AT ION.
MS. WILLIAMS: NO, THAT THE COORDINATION TOOK PLAC 11 12 THAT CRAIG JUST SPOKE OF.
13 MR. KILLOUGH: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY COORDINATION?
1 .
14 MR. MORRIS: HOW DID THE MOTOR VENDOR GET THE LOAC 15 THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO? HOW DID HE GET THAT LOAD DATA?
MR. KILLOUGH: WASN'T THE PUMP MANUF ACTURER 16 17 DIDN'T HE ESTABLISH THAT IN THE PROCUREMENT SPECIF IC ATI i
I
' 18 WE CHECKED? WASN 'T THAT PROVIDED BY HIM7 19 MR. MARTIN: THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS FLOATING IN MY HEAD ON WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT A YEAR 20 AROUND 21 I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO IRON THEM OUT.
22 MR. CALVO: PUT THEM DOWN THE PURPOSE FOR BEING H
'23 IS TRYING TO CLARIFY THESE QUESTIONS, 50...
i COULD TOU PLEASE RESTATE THE QUESTIOf 24 MR. MARTIN:
f 25 50 I'M SURE TO ANSWER WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW.
l 26 MR. MORRIS: YOU STATED THAT THE MOTOR SPECIFICAT l g
(
HAD A STATEMENT IN THERE THAT THE PUMP LOADS WOULD BE PROVI l
27 AND THE QUESTION WAS, HOW WAS THAT 28 BY THE PUMP VENDOR.
conoGE a cammoLL c ov.. c os,.
s.- a.=cisco CEntlFIED SnomTHAND mEpCmTEms ,C og*,',', , ,
"'M'j[,*** DEPOSITION NOTAmtES saise ese asee
(
232
\
1 INFORMATION ACTUALLY SUPPLIED TO THE MOTOR VENDOR.
MR. MARTIN: LET ME CLARIFY THAT THE PUMP, THE 2
3 MOTOR -- THE DRIVEN EQUIPMENT VENDOR SUPPLIED THE MOTOR DATA, 4 THE MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUMP WHICH WERE INCLUDED 5 MOT OR DA TA.
6 DO YOU $TILL MAVE A QUESTION? .
HR. MORRIS: IF I UNDERSTAND, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING I:
7 8 THE PUMP WAS SPECIFIED AND PURCHASED FIRST AND THEN WHEN THAT 9
WAS FINALIZED AND THE PUMP DATA WAS AVAILABLE, THEN THE MOTOR 10 SPECIFIC ATION WAS LEFT.
MR. MARTIN: CORREC T, AND --
Il 12 MR. CALVO: YOU SAY THAT'S CORRECT 7 13 MR. MARTIN: RIGHT.
14 MR. MARINOS: NOW, LE T ME FURTHER -- THER E 'S ONE i
15 MORE POINT, AND WE 'LL GO OFF TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
16 DID YOU LOOK AT THE INTEGRATED CURVE, THE TOROUE 17 C UR VE, THE MOTOR TORQUE CURVE WITH THE PUMP REQUIREMENT TO 18 DETERMINE OR TO VERIFY THE ACCELERATION TIME AVAILABLE TO YOU 19 ON THE ACCELERATION TORQUE 7 20 MR. MORRIS: OR DID YOU LOOK TO SEE IF GISBS & HILL 21 DID THAT VERIF ICATION.
22 MR. MARTIN: I KNOW WE REVIEWED -- WE LOOKED AT
$3 THOSE CURVES, AND LET ME VERIFY THE EXTENT.
24 MR. MARINOS: WOULD YOU, PLEASE.
WE'LL GO TO QUESTION 4(E), WAS THE ROUTING OF THE 25 26 POWER AND CONTROL CABLES REVIEWED FOR VOLTAGE LEVEL SEPARATIC I' MR. MARTIN: YES, CYGNA REVIEWED VOLTAGE RACEWAY
( 27 28 DESIGNATIONS ON THE CABLE RACEWAY SCHEDULES TO VERIFY YOLTA s.= en.=c ec o DOIDGE 4 CARROLL cove.cos..
- **8**** coe'*
CERTi8'E D SMORTM AND RE DORTE R$ " * ' ' "
ia , [saee DEPOSITION NOT ARIES
i 233 i
I LEVE LS, VOLTAGE LEVEL SEPARATION.
2 MR. MORRIS: WAS THERE A DEDICATED 6.9 KV RACEWAY
\,
3 SYSTEM 7 4 MR. MARTIN: YES, YE S .
MR. MARINOS: GO TO QUESTION 4(G), 6.9 KV POWER IS 5
HOW WAS THIS 6 NOT LIMITED BY PERCENT FILL BUT BY SPACING.
7 REVIEWED?
8 MR. MARTIN: THE CABLE AND RACEWAY SCHEDULES 9 IDENTIFY THAT REQb!REMENT THAT 6.9 KV POWER FEEDERS ARE 10 REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN PHYSICAL SPACING IN THEIR FUNCTION 11 REMARKS COLUMN.
12 MR. MORRIS: AND THE REASON FOR THAT QUESTION WAS Of YOU SAID THAT THE RACEWAY 13 SHEET 8 OF YOUR CHECKLIST EE-01.
14 ROUTING POINTS WERE REVIEWED AND WERE LESS THAN THE 30 TO 40 15 PERCENT MAXIHUM FILL REQUIREMENTS.
16 MR. NORKIN: YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE NOT LIMITED BY 17 THE FILL, RIGHT. WHERE DOES IT SAY THEY'RE LIMITED BY SPACIN(
18 IN THIS STATEMENT 7 19 MR. KNOX: " INDUSTRY PRACTICE RECOMMENDED SEPARATION 20 MR. MARTIN: WE HAVE REVIEWED CALCULATIONS ALSO THA 21 ARE CABLE SIZING CALCS, 6.9 KV CABLE SIZING CALCS IDENTIFIES 22 THE REQUIREMENT, 50 WE WERE AWARE OF IT, AND I NEED TO VERIFY 23 THE DETAILS OF IT. ,
24 MS. WILLIAMS: I GUESS WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IT'S NO 25 TO BE CONSTRUED BECAUSE THIS ATTRIBUTE IS CALCED IN TERM 26 PERCENT FILL THAT WE WERE UNAWARE OF THE SEPARATION CR f
t THIS WAS TAKEN FROM ES 10 27 BECAUSE WE DID FIND THAT EVIDENCE.
(
28 WHICH I WAS CHECKING THROUGH THIS MORNING, BUT DIDN'T FINISH s.. ....c.sco DOIDGE e CARROLL c os. .. e c,. .
Co***
- '"'"" CERTiplED SMORTMAND mEPORTERS "'"#'"'
w e[asee DEPOSITION NOTARIES
- . ~- _ .
234 1
1 BEFDRE COMING INTO THIS MEETING, WHERE GISBS S HILL DID
' SPECIFY PERCENT FILL. NOW WHETHER THERE WAS A CALCULATION OR 2
3 SOMETHING IN GIBBS S HILL'S HOUSE WHICH JUST!FIE 4 IN THAT WAY BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CORRELATION BETWEEN THE 5 THAT WE NEED TO CHECK.
l MR. MORRIS: TOM, DID YOU SAY THAT THE SIZING 6
7 CALCULATION FOR 6.9 KV CABLE REFERRED TO PERCENT FILL 7 MR. MARTIN: NO, IT REFERRED TO CABLE SPACING.
8 MS. WILLI AMS: AND THE CABLE RACEWAY SCHEDULE ALSO 9
10 HAD A WARNING FLAG ON IT INDICATING THAT TUGCO, SLASH, GIBBS BUT I THINK THAT 11 HILL WERE ALSO AWARE OF THAT REQUIREMENT.
12 THE THING THAT'S NOT CLOSED IS WHY WOULD THEY WRITE THE SPEC 13 IN TERMS OF PERCENT FILL OR DID THEY HAVE SOME JUSTIF ICAT I
- 14 FOR WORDING IT THAT WAY AS OPPOSED TO SPACING REQUIREME g
MR. MORR I S: THIS SPECIF ICATION THAT YOU REFERRED 15 16 ES 100 IS THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION.
ELECTRICAL ERECT ION SPECIF ICATION, 17 MS. WILLI AMS:
18 YES. AS I SAY, WE WERE JUST CHECKING THAT, BUT I DIDN'T GET 19 THE ANSWER BEFORE I CAME IN HERE.
20 MR. MARINOS: WE'LL GO TO THE NE'XT QUES T ION.
21 4(d) -- EXCUSE ME, GE OR GE, YOU HAD --
LE T ' S GO B AC K. TOM WAS TALKING ABOUT 22 MR. MORRIS:
'23 THE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR THE f ABLE SIZING CAL IS 24 F OR 6. 9 KV. IS THAT 6.9 KV CABLE SIZE ON A CAPACITY OR 25 THAT SHORT CIRCUIT 7 MR. MAGGIO: IT IS SIZED BOTH WAYS, ON BOTH CAPAC) 26 l ( 27 AND MINIMUM SIZE BASED ON THE AVAILABLE SHORT 28 THAT'S CLEARLY IN THE CALCULATIONS.
DOIDGE & CARROLL co.... c o s..
- s. es.=cisco
'***8**** CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS ,, , ,C 0. f',' ,' ,
m 7 N ,,. DEPOSITION NOTAR!ES l ~~ ~ - _ _ __ ,_
- 2 . . . :.. - .. z :. . . . .
235 4
1 MR. MORRIS: WHICH CALCULATION WAS THAT7 2 MR. MAGGIO: SOTH THE 6.9 KV CABLE CALCULATION AND IT WAS 3 SIZING CALCULATION FOR LOADS ON FOUR EQUAL BUSES.
4 INCLUDED IN BOTH CASES.
MR. MORRIS: THANK YOU.
5 MR. MARINOS: WE'LL GO TO QUESTION 4(J), WAS THE 6
7 BASIS FOR THE ENVIROM ENTAL AND SEISMIC INPUT TO THE MOTOR 8 SPEC CONFIRMED BY CYGNA AND REVIEWED IN A QUAL MR. MARTIN: NO. CYGNA VERIF IED THE EXISTENCE OF 9
10 SEISMIC AND ENVIROWENTAL REQUIREMENTS ONLY.
11 MS. WILLI AMS: OUT OF SCOPE.
RIGHT. WE 'LL GO TO QUEST ION SC A),
12 MR. MARINOS:
1 13 WERE THE ISOLATION RELAYS CONFINED TO COIL TO CONTACT t
14 ISOLATION OR WERE THEY QUALIFIED ALSO FOR CONTACT I S OLA T ION. MR. MARTIN: I'M GOING TO TRY TO 15 16 ANSWER THE TWO QUESTIONS AT THE SAME TIME.
17 MS. WILLIAMS: I THINK WE WANTED A CLARIFICATION 01 18 THIS QUESTION. MAYBE YOU COULD GIVE US A LITTLE MORE DETAIL MR. MORRIS: ALL RIGHT. THE STATEMENT IN THE 19
> 20 CHECKLIST SAYS THE CLASS 1 ISOLATION WAS ACTUALLY USED FOR 21 ISOLATION, AND THE QUESTION IS TO FIND OUT HOW THOSE ISOLATI 22 RELAYS WERE USED. WERE THE ISOLATION RELAYS QUALIF IED FOR A
23 COIL TO CONTACT ISOLATION OR CONTACT TO CONTACT ISOLATION, L
24 HOW WERE THEY USED IN THE CIRCUIT.
25 MR. STANLEY: THIS IS ON SHEET 13.
i I 26 MR. MARTIN: I'LL TRY INITIALLY TO ANSWER THAT.
27 NOT SURE IF I AM ADDRESSING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR
(
I 28 BUT I REVIEWED A QUALIFICATION FOR THESE RELAYS
... . =~e . c o oosoot a cannoLL co.,o c....
C0w%"
'**"" CERTIFIED SMORTHAND REPORTERS ""'
. Es$e. OEPOSitiON NOTARIES
236 i
r l
1 TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WERE INCLUDED IN THE SWITCHGEAR AND 2 THAT THE SWITCHGEAR WAS A PROCURED SAFETY RELAY.
LET'S TRY IT A DIFFERENT WAY. YOU AF 3 MR. STANLEY:
4 TALKING HERE IN YOUR REVIEW STATEMENT THAT YOU LOOKED AT 5 CONTROL SCHEMATIC FOR THE PUMP, FOR ELECTRICAL ISOLATION OF THEN YOI 6 ALL NONSAFETY RELATED BETWEEN THE CONTROL CIRCUITS.
7 MAKE THE STATEHENT CLASS 1 UTILIZED FOR IS OLA T ION, BUT THAT S
RAISES A QUESTION AS TO WHAT FORM DID THAT ISOLATION TAKE, HI 9 WAS THAT CIRCUIT DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THAT ISOLATION.
10 MR. 05Z EWSKI: EXCUSE ME. THIS IS JIM OSZ EWSKI .
11 ISN'T THIS THE SAME QUESTION THAT COMES UP IN THE 12 ISC7 13 MR. KILLOUGH: WHY DON'T YOU READ YOUR ANSWER THA T
, 14 WE HAVE FOR THAT.
MR. HARTIN: LET ME TRY THIS ONE ANSWER, AND I 15 16 WROTE -- THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER YOUR QUEST ION BEFORE 17 GOT THIS CLARIF IC ATION. SEE IF IT ANSWERS WHAT YOU ARE 18 LOOKING FOR.
19 RELAY $2-8 AS A COIL TO CONTec i -sD CONTACT TO i
20 CONTACT ISOLATION FOR INPUTS TO THE SOLID STATE ISOL 21 CABINET SSIC FOR COMPUTER INPUTS.
22 MR. S TANLEY: 50 IT USES BOTH COIL TO CONTACT AND l
33 CONTACT TO CONTACT. .
24 MR. MARTIN: IT USES COIL TO CONTACT ISOLATION TO 25 THE EFFECT THAT THE INPUTS TO THIS -- TO THE COMPUTER ARE 26 ISOLATED FROM THE PUMP CIRCUIT SY COIL TO CONTACT ISOLATION.
l I 27 MR. STANLEY: 50 COMPUTER TO PUMP IS COIL TO CONT 4 28 ISOLATION BETWEEN THE PUMP CIRCUIT AND THE COMPUTER.
s = ***~c'sc o poiose a cAmmoLL c.,,..co...
' ce=viniso saomraamo aspontens ,,, c ogg', , ,,
"'L.'.'.'.".."
.. . osmosmos novaniss
237 i
MR. MARTIN: CORRECT, CORRECT. BETWEEN THE 1
2 INTERLOCK FUNCTIONS THE COILS ON THAT RELAY FOR THE CONTROL 3 CIRCUIT OF THE PUMP AND THE COMPUTER PHASE CONTACT TO CO 4 ISOLATION.
5 MR. 5TANLE Y: OKAY, THANKS.
6 MR. CALV0: I GUESS IT'S GETTING CLOSE TO 11:45.
7 THAT'S WHERE WE TAKE A BREAK YESTERDAY.
8 MS. WILLIAMS: YES.
9 MR. CALV0: WHY DON'T WE TAKE A BREAK RIGHT NOW, RECONVENE ABOUT WHAT TIME, 1: 0 0 0' CLOCK? EVERYBODY IN FAVOR.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1
19 20 21 22
'23 -
24 25 26
?
~
( 27 28 l
seo DotDGE & CAMROLL co%,..cas,.
- .aisessae
- * * * **c'ss o CERTIFIED SMORTM AND REPORTEms cov=
"'38'
uns ane OEPOSITtON Psotamits
_ ~
--.=...:...
238 f
1 AFTERNOON SESSION - 1: 25 P.M.
MR. MARINOS: READY? WE 'RE GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON
( 2 3 THAT PREVIOUS QUESTION THAT WE HAD ON 5(A), RIGHT7 i
4 MR. MORRIS: YES.
5 YOUR STATEMENT IN THE REPORT WAS MADE THAT CLASS AND BEFORE WE BROKE FOR LUNC !
6 RELAYS WERE USED FOR ISOLAT ION.
7 YOU STATED THAT THE RELAYS IN QUESTION ARE USED BOTH IN A COI 8 AND CONTACT MODE AND IN A CONTACT TO CONTACT MODE FOR I SOLA T ION.
THE QUESTION I HAV8 IS, DID YOU LOOK
- 9 10 TO SEE IF THOSE RELAYS WERE DESIGNED FOR THE PURPOSE THAT THE 11 ARE BEING USED, THAT IS CONTACT TO CONTACT ISOLATION.
MR. MARTIN: SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT -- NO, NOT 12 13 SPECIFIC ALLY FOR THAT APPLICATION. THE CABLES THAT THESE ARE T .
(
14 ISOLATING GO INTO THE SOLID STATE ISOLATION C AB INET AND 15 ENUNCIATOR LOGIC CABINET WHICH BOTH HAVE QUALIF IED OPT IC AL
~
16 ISOLATORS.
17 MR. MORRIS: DID GIBBS S HILL GET THAT JUS TIF IC ATIC 18 MR MARTIN: YES, IN THE FSAR.
19 MR. MORRIS: WHAT'S IN THE FSAR7 20 MR. MARTIN: THE FACT THEY HAVE QUALIFIED OPTICAL 21 ISOLATION AT THE SOLID STATE ISOLATION CABINET AND ENUtdCI AT!t 22 LOG IC C AB I NE T.
23 MR. MORRIS: THERE WAS NOTHING SPECIFICALLY STATED 24 ABOUT THESE ISOLAT ION RELAYS IN THE CONTROL CIRCUIT.
25 MR. MARTIN: WELL, THE FSAR ALSO ADDRESSES THESE 26 CLASS 1-E RELAYS. OKAY, BASICALLY WHAT THE FSAR STATES FOR l 27 CLASS 1-E RELAYS IS THAT CLASS 1-E CONTACT PERFORMS A --
(
28 EXCUSE ME, LET ME START OVER.
- *aa c'sco cosoot a cannoLL co.........
'v centmso swomisaNo aspoatsas ,, , ,c oy,, , , , ,
"'y,'.*.*.*...*
. . . . . caposmos Notanics
l 239
' ON A CLASS 1-E CONTACT PERFORMS A NONCLASS 1-E 1
k- 2 MONITORING FUNCTION, AN ISO LAT ION IS NORMALLY PROVIDED BY A 3
PHOTOTRANSISTOR COUPLED PAIR, PAREN, LIGHT EMITTING DIODE AND 4 A TRANSISTOR, END PAREN.
5 MR. STANLEY: IT USES THE WORD NORMAL THERE7 USES THE WORD NORMALLY. AND ANOTHER 6 MR. MARTIN:
7 SECTION THAT IDENTIFIES THAT THE SOLID STATE ISOLATION CABINE 8 AND ENUNC I AT OR LOGIC C AB INE T F OR !$0LATION.
DO 9 MR. MORRIS : WHAT SECTION OF THE FSAR IS THIS.
10 YOU HAVE A PAGE7 11 MR. MARTIN: THIS IS PAGE 8.3-408 DATED NOVEMBER 12 30TH, 1979 13 MR. STANLEY: TO BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC ON THAT 14 QUESTION, YOU DIDN'T SEE OR REVIEW IN ANY KIND OF A TEST 15 REPORT TO QUALIFY THOSE RELAYS?
16 MR. MARTIN: NO.
17 MR. STANLEY: THA T ' S ALL I HAVE .
18 MR. MORRIS: YOU DIDN'T QUESTION THE DIFFERENCE 19 BETWEEN THE STATEMENT IN THE FSAR TALKING ABOUT ELEC TR IC AL 20 OPTICAL ISOLATORS OPPOSED TO RELAY ISOLATION?
21 MR. MARTIN: MY COMMENT IS PROS ABLY MISLEADING.
22 MR. STANLEY: I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS ALL IS 23 I DE NT IF YING. .
24 MR. KNOX: I GUESS I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THE TYPES OF ISOLATION DEVICES THAT YOU USED. YOU ARE SAYING YOU ONLY l 25 26 REVIEWED THE OPTICAL ISOLATORS OR WAS IT ALSO ISOLATION DEVII
( ISOLATION?
I 27 BY CONTACT TO CONTACT AS WELL AS COIL TO CONTACT 28 MR. MARTIN: BOTH TYPES OF ISOLATION EXIS T, AND I
... . .. c . c o ociose a cAmmoLL co....co...
c o e
a ' m ** ce=Tmeo sao=Tmaso atoomTras "' **
. 33,. DEPO &tTION NOTARits
240 t'
1 WAS JUST IDENTIFYING TMAT.
2 MR. KNOX: YOU HAVEN'T LOOKED AT ANY QUALIF IC ATION 3 REPORTS TO QUALIFY ANY TYPE OF ISOLATION DEVICE. IT JUST 4 EXISTS.
5 MR. MARTIN: AS FAR AS QUALIFICATION, OUR SCOPE OF 6 QUALIFICATION REVIEW WENT.
7 MR. CALVO: I GUESS I'M HAVING A PROBLEM TRYING TO 8 UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE PROBLEM.
9 MR. STANLEY: WELL, THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS CLASS 10 1A RELAY USED FOR ISOLATION IS EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT THAT 11 STATEMENT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ANSWER THE QUE$ TION. THAT'S 12 WHAT 'S TRIGGERED ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS.
13 MR. CALVO: I'M TRYING TO VISUALIZE IN THE COMPONEh i
- 14 COOLING WATER PUMP CIRCUIT ONE TRAIN, WHAT IS IN THERE COMING 15 FROM A 52-8 CONTACT GOING TO THE ENUNCIATOR ALSO PROB ABLY 16 COMPROMISE THE INDEPENDENCE IN THE OTHER TRAIN 8. THAT'S MY 17 PROBLEM 18 MR. MARTIN: THERE WERE NO CASES OF THA T .
19 MR. CALVO: THERE WAS NO CASES, T HE N WE DON ' T HA VE 20 TO BE WORRYING ABOUT IT.
21 MR. STANLEY: WE GOT A SENSOR COMING INTO THAT EXAC 22 SAME CIRCUIT, LOW PRESSURE SENSOR THAT WE TALKED ABOUT "23 YESTERDAY.
i 24 MR. CALVO: OKAY. LOW PR ES S UR E.
l 25 - M R. S TANLE Y: COMING INTO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE i 26 8UILDING.
! 27 MR. CALVO: F ROM THE PR OC ESS PI PE .
(
28 MR. STANLEY: YES, YES, YES. 50 WE HAVEN ' T F INISHE saw rea=cisco DOIDGE e CARROLL c o=,.. c a...
- ********* cova" CERTIFIED SMORTHAND REPORTERS es t eNanos DEPOSITION NOT ARIE $
)
l l
241 1 ANSWERING THAT QUESTION.
2 MR. CALVO: OKAY. 50 THE PROBLEM IS NOW IF YOU GO 3 TO THE PROCESS PIPING, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE TWO INTERLOCKS, 4 ONE GOING TO TRAIN "A" PUMP CIRCUIT AND ONE GOING TO TRAIN 8 5 PLMP C IRCUI T.
6 MR. STANLEY: NO.
'7 MR. CALVO: I ONLY GOT ONE GOING TO BOTH SIDES?
8 MR. STANLEY: ONLY THE B PRESSURE TRAIN GOES TO 9 TRA I N 4 10 MR. CALVO: OKAY, 50 T HE B -- OKA Y . 50 THE B 11 PRESSURE SENSOR --
12 MR. OVERBECK: PRESSURE SENSOR GOES TO TRAIN " A" .
13 MR. CALVO: OKAY. IF THAT 'S THE CASE -- IF THAT 'S 9
, 14 THE CISE, THE ONLY REACTION WOULD BE ONE OF ROUT ING THA T 15 SIGNAL FROM THAT SECTION B ACK TO THERE.
16 MR. STANLEY: YES.
17 MR. CALVO: 50 IF YOU ROUTE IT PROPERLY, THEN WHO 18 CARES ABOUT ISOLATION. IF YOU ROUTE IT IMPROPERLY - YOU SEE 19 I DON ' T C AR E WHAT ISOLATION YOU PUT.THERE BECAUSE l'M GOING 20 FIND OUT WHERE YOU PUT IT, AND l'M GOING TO FIND OUT IT'S IN 21 THE WRONG PLACE AND THEM I'M GOING TO POSTULATE SOMEWHERE A 22 COMPROMISE THE INDE PE NDE NC E, TOO. WHAT I AM GETTING, MAYBE 23 ARE ASKING A -- SOMETHING --
24 MR. MARTIN: I THINK MAYBE TO CLARIFY THAT ISSUE A 25 LITTLE BIT FURTHER, THE SENSOR IN THE B TRAIN 1 HAT INITIATES l , 26 THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUHP IS A CLASS -- TRAIN " A" 27 CABLING, TRAIN " A" CONTACT INSIDE THE TRAIN, A CONTROL SYSTE 28 MR. CALVO: IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER IT GCTS MIXED WIT
.. ... c..c o cosoot a cAmmoLL c o ,.. c a. .
"'jj",'l" centwiso smontsamo mepontras ,,,, cog
........n.. otrosmou notaniss
242 i
1 THE B.
MR. CALVO: IF THAT 'S THE CASE, THEN WHAT WE 3
4 WORRYING ABOUT IS OLA T IO N, IF THA T HA S B EEN VER IF IE D.
5 MR. MORRIS: WE'RE QUESTIONING --
6 MR. CALVO: I AGR EE. I AGREE. MAYB E I 'M TA KI N G --
7 I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT MAYBE THE CHECKLIST IS NOT 8 R E PR ES ENTA T I VE OF --
9 MR. KNOX: DID YOU LOOK AT THE CIRCUITS FROM THE DID 10 ISOLATION DEVICE ONCE THE CIRCUITS BECAME NONCLASS I-A7 11 YOU LOOK AT THOSE CIRCUITS IN YOUR REVIEW 7 12 MR. MARTIN: YES. WE VERIFIED THE CABLE ROUTING TO 13 THE SOLID STATE ISOLATION CABINET AND ENUNC I ATION C ABINET.
, 14 MR. KNOX: AS IN MEETING WHAT CRITERI A?
\
15 MR. HARTIN: THEY WERE ASSOCI ATED C ABLES.
16 MR. KNOX: WHAT WAS THE CRITERIA YOU REVIEWED THOSE 17 CABLES AGAINST?
18 MR. MARTIN: THA T ' S PA R T OF THE CRITERIA OF THE 19 SEPARAT ION OF THE F SAR.
l 20 MR. CALVO: IF I MAY SUGGEST, MAYBE WE SHOULD REMOVi 21 THIS ITEM FROM YOUR CHECKLIST ON THE -- IF THAT 'S THE CASE, t
22 THEN WE CAN RESOLVE THE QUESTION.
[
23 MR. MORRIS: I DON ' T A GR E E .
24 MR. CALYD: REPHRASE IT. GO AHEAD, GE OR GE .
25 MR. MORRIS: THERE IS A STATEMENT IN THE CHECKLIST 26 THAT SAYS THAT ELECTRIC AL ISOLATION BETWEEN SAFETY RELATED ANI i
27 NONSAFETY RELATED CIRCUITS WAS CHECKED. THERE IS A STATEMENT 28 FROM TOM THAT SAYS THERE IS OR THERE ARE IN EACH CIRCUIT OR A
- * ***c 's c o DotDGE & CARROLL cow..cos,.
- '$"* 7 CERTIFIED swoRTMaNo RE *ORTE RS ,,,,co =,,,,
est os es, sses DE pDSITsON NOTAR E S
243
?
1 LEAST IN THE CIRCUIT THAT HE LOOKED AT, A RELAY THAT'S USED 2 WITH COIL CONTACT AND CONTACT TO CONTACT IS OLA T IO N, THE
(
3 NONSAFETY CIRCUIT ON THAT RELAY IS GOING TO AN ENUNCIATOR )
4 CIRCUIT. WE HAVE -- I DON'T BELIEVE -- LET ME ASK HIM. DID 5 YOU LOOK AT THE TRAIN 8 CIRCUIT TO SEE IF THAT WAS ALSO GOING 6 TO THE SAME ENUNCIATOR CIRCUIT 7 I'M SORRY, 7 MR. CALVO: THIS IS THE SECOND QUESTION.
8 GEORGE. THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
9 MR. MORRIS: WE KNOW WE HAVE A NONSAFETY CIRCUIT 10 COMING OFF OF THAT RELAY GOING SOMEWHERE. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE 11 THE REDUNDANT CIRCUIT IS GOING.
12 MR. CALVO: THAT 'S CORREC T, ! GUESS, OF -- GO A HE A D .
13 MR. MARTIN: WE VER IF IED SEPARAT ION OF THE CABLING 14 TO THE ENUNCIATOR OR THE ENUNCI ATOR LOGIC CABINET OR SOLI D 15 STATE ISOLATION CABINET SEPARAT!ON FROM TRAIN B ONCE AND f
16 THAT'S AS FAR AS OUR REVIEW WENT.
17 MR. MORRIS: IS THERE A SEPARATE ENUNCI ATOR C AB INET 18 F OR EACH TRAIN 7 19 MR. MARTIN: I'M NOT SURE RIGHT AT THIS POINT.
j 20 MR. PORTER: THE QUESTION I S, 15 THERE A WINDOW IN 21 THE ENUNCIATOR FOR TRAIN " A" AND ANOTHER WINDOW FOR TRAIN B INPUT!
22 AND ARE THEY IN TWO SEPARATE CABINETS WHERE YOU PUT THE 23 INTO THEM SEPARATED PROPERLY. THAT'S THE QUESTION.
24 MR. KNOX: IN OTHER WORDS, THEY GOT TO BE SEPARATED 25 BY SIX INCHES.
26 MR. PORTER: WHATEVER THE SEPARATION CRITERIA IS, If I
I 27 THAT SEPARATION CRITERI A TRUE FOR THE TRAIN " A" INPUT TO THE 28 E NUNC I A TOR AND T HE TR A IN 8 TO THE ENUNC I A TOR 7
... ....c..c o poioot a cAmmoLL c o.... c a.. .
a ' *' m ** cantipico saOntaamo namontras c o ~"
,. ,N',*m DE*0SitlON NOTAmiES
244 e 1 MR. CALVO: I N ALL PR OS A81 L IT Y, THE ENUNC IATORS ARE 2 CONSIDERED AS A COMMON POINT, 50 THAT WAY YOU KNOW IT'S 5 IMPORTANT AND YOU WON'T GO B ACK TO THE SOURCE AND FIND OUT 4 WHAT THE COIL TO CONTACT !$OLATION WAS COhFIRMED TO BE 5 ADEQUATE TO SOME KIND OF TEST.
6 IF YOU HAVE THAT IN TRAIN "A" AND IN TRAIN 8, YO U 7 DON'T CARE WHETHER THEY GO TO THE COMMON ENUNCIATOR BECAUSE 8 YOU ALREADY ISOLATED THEH COMING OUT OF THE SAFETY BUSES. SO 9 I, GUESS YOU MUST GO BACK AGAIN TO THE SOURCE AND F IND OUT WHAT 10 GEORGE WAS ASKING YOU, IF THE COIL TO CONTACT ISOLATION WAS -
11 VERIFIED TO BE ADEQUATE BY SOME TEST -- SOME TEST REPORT THAT 12 GIS85 S HILL HAS DONE OR SOMEBODY HAS DONE.
13 I GUESS THE QUESTION I S, HAD YOU VER IF IE D THA T F AC T,
- 14 RIGHT, GE OR GE 7 MR. PORTER
- HE 'S ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION. FE 15 16 SAID NO, HE DI DN ' T CHEC K I T, BUT HE DID GET A OUALIF ICATION ON 17 CLA SS 1-E LEVE L. THAT'S WHAT THE ANSWER WAS.
18 MR. CALVO: BUT THEN THE PART -- THE PAR T T HA T 19 DOESN'T -- THAT YOU GO TO AN ENUNCIATOR, THAT PR ES UH ABLY ONLY 20 YOU HAVE VERIFIED THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE SEPARATE AND 21 INDEPENDENT ENUNC IATORS, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IF THA T ' S 22 THE CASE THAT YOU HAVE THAT, ALSO THE FACT -- ALSO, HDW 00 YOU
.23 ROUTE THAT CABLE TO THE ENUNCIATOR ANY WAY GET HIXED FROM THE 24 C ABLE TO THE OTHER TRAIN. YOU GOT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION 25 WHEN YOU CANNOT ANSWER THE --
26 MR. POR TER: I THINK THE ANSWER TO THE OUESTION IS 27 T HA T THE Y --
l 28 MR. MARTIN: THE CABLE -- WE REVIEWED THE C ABLE l
sa= es..cisco DOIDGE e CAmmOLL c o=,.. c os,.
cantwiso saontaaNo atmonteas cov "
. W'.". orposition notamis s " ' ' ' " ' " "
l
245 1 ROUTINGS, THE ASSOC I ATED -- IT WAS AN ASSOCIATED " A" C ABLE k 2 THAT WAS ROUTED WITH TRAIN " A" CABLES.
3 MR. CALVO: OKAY.
4 MR. MARTIN: WE HAVE DONE A REVIEW THAT VER IF IES THE 5 SEPARATION OF THOSE TRAINS.
6 MR. CALVO: OKAY.
7 MR. MARTIN: ! DI D NOT -- I 'M PR E TTY S UR E THA T THA T 8 HAS BEEN -- THE SEPARATION OF A AND B TO THOSE PANELS WAS 9 C OM PLE TE D. I NEED TO CHECK OUR REVIEWER THAT'S NOT HERE.
10 Mk. CALVO: ALL RIGHT. 40 TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
11 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION SCB), WAS THE PUMP CONTROL 12 INOPERABLE CIRCUIT REVIEWED BY CYGNA FOR COMPLETENESS FOR SUCF 13 THINGS AS CONTROL SWITCH POSITION, CONTROL VOLTAGE I
- 14 A VA I L AB I L I T Y, BREAKER IN CORRECT POS IT ION, SERVICE WATER 15 SYSTEM AVAILABLE, ET CETERA.
16 MR. MARTIN: YES. THE FOLLOWING INPUTS HAVE 17 PROVIDED FOR THE COMPONENT COOLING WATEA SYSTEM INO PE R AB LE 18 CIRCUIT, LOSS OF SERVICE WATER, LOSS OF 125 VOLT DC, LOSS OF 19 118 VOLT AC, CCW PUMP CONTROL SWITCH, LOCKOUT POSITION, BUS 20 TIE BREAKER BT 1E AI, OPEN, UNDERVOLTAGE 6.9 KY, UN DER VO L TA GE 21 FOR 80 VOLTS, FOR 80 VOLT SWITCHGEAR UNAVAILABLE AND COMPONENT 22 COOLING WATER SWITCH, PUMP ROOM COOLER SWITCH AND LOCKOFF
'23 P.1SITION FOR OPERATOR MANUAL ACTION ON THE SS!! PANEL.
24 MR. MARINOS: ANY MORE QUESTIONS, GEORGE?
25 MR. MORRIS: YOU MENTIONED BUS TIE BREAKER, BUT I 26 DIDN'T NOTICE ANYTHING THERE ABOUT THE POSITION OF THE i 27 COMPONENT COOLING WATER BREAKER.
l 28 MR. MARTIN: THAT 'S OB TAINED THROUGH THE COMPONENT l
8,**, '",*ytyg8 DOIDGE a CARROLL ,,,,,,go ,.
.. . CERTt8stD SHORTMAND Rt*04TERS cow ="
saise esi ases DEP05tTioN Pe0 TAR tS '*'88'"'
246
' 1 COOLING WATER SYSTEM PUMP CONTROL SWITCH LOCK 0UT POSITION.
MR. MAR INOS: ARE WE FINISHED 1 WE'LL GO TO SCC),
s 2 3 WHERE IS THE SINGLE FAILURE OF THE LOOP A/ LOOP ISOLATION l 4 VALVES DISCUSSED.
5 MR. MARTIN: REVIEW OF THE LOOP A/ LOOP ISOLATION 6 VALVES IS DOCUMENTED ON CHECKLIST EE-02, I T EM 5, PO I N T C .
7 MR. MARINOS: DO YOU WANT TO REVIEW THAT NOW, GE ORGE 8 OR GO ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION? GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION. ALL 9 RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
10 MS. WILLI AMS: HOLD JUST A SECOND.
11 WE'RE CHECKING ONE THING BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXAMPLE 12 OF SOMETHING THAT WAS REVIEWED IN DIFFERENT ANGLES BY 13 MECHANICAL AND THEN THE ELECTRICAL PEOPLE. TOM HAS GIVEN THE 14 REFERENCE FROM HIS CHECKLIST AND I'D ASK BOB TO GIVE THE 15 REFERENCE FOR THE MECHANIC AL CHECKLIST $1NCE THERE'S TWO 16 ASPECTS TO THE QUESTION. IF WE CAN'T GET THAT TO YOU NOW, WE 17 CAN GET BACK AND SUFFICE TO SAY, IT'S ON MECHANICAL OR DID YOL 18 FIND IT, BOB?
19 MR. HESS: IT'S ALSO ADDRESSED IN CHECKLIST MS-02, 1
)
20 SHEET 5 OF 7 AND THE F ACT THAT NONESSENTIAL ' LOADS MUST BE 21 ISOLATED BY ESSENTIAL LOADS BY REDUNDANT VALVES FOLLOWING AN l 22 ACC I DE NT.
' i3 MR. MARINOS: CAN WE GO 70 THE NEXT QUESTION, 24 QUESTION NUMBER 6(A) . WAS THE A TERNATE SHUTDOWN CIRCUIT 25 PROVIDED WITH AN ALTERNATE POWER SUPPLY.
26 MR. MARTIN: NO. THE ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN CAPABILITY
( 27 FOR THE CCWS PUMP CONSISTS OF TRANSFERRING CONTROL FROM THE 28 CONTROL ROOM TO THE NOT SHUTDOWN PANEL. THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED e.=en.=c4co DOIDGE & CARROLL c o.,.. c os,.
"',*h**,*,*,*** CERTIFIED SMomTHAND mEpomTEms to*',,,,
wise es ossee DEPOSITION NOTARiE S .
l l
247 1 AT THE SHUTDOWN TRANSFER PANEL SINCE IT ISOLATES THE CABLE AND
( 2 CONTROL SWITCH IN THE CONTROL ROOM FROM THE CCWS PUMP CONTROL 3 CIRCUIT AND CONTROL SWITCH AND THE CABLING AT THE HOT SHUTDOWN 6.9 KV POWER AND 1.5 4 PANEL AND CCWS PUMP CONTROL CIRCUITRY.
5 VOLT PC CONTROL POWER CIRCUITS ARE THE SAME FOR -- ARE FROM 6 THE SAME SWITCHGEAR CUSICLE REGARDLESS OF WHERE .THE CONTROL 7 FUNCTION IS INITIATED FROM.
MR. KNOX: THE CONTROL PANEL FOR THAT, DOES IT COME 8
9 FROM THE SAME -- COME THROUGH THE SAME CIRCUIT BREAKER OR FUSE, 10 THE CONTROL PANEL 7 DOES IT COME FROM THE SAME FUSE 7 11 MR. MARTIN: ALL IT DOES IS TRANSFER CONTROL FROM 12 THE CONTROL ROOM DOWN TO THE HOT SHUTDOWN PANEL.
MR. KNOX: NOW, DOES THE POWER FROM THE CONTROL ROOH 13
! . 14 GO THROUGH A CERTAIN FUSE TO SUPPLY POWER TO THE CONTROL ROOM
\ USE THE SAME FUSES TO SUPPLY POWER FOR THE CONTROL OF THE SH 15 16 PANEL, TRANSFER SWITCH, SWITCH FROM -- TO A DIFFERENT FUSE 7 17 MR. MARTIN: I CAN CHECK THE FUSE.
18 MR. CALV0: LET ME TELL YOU THE PURPOSE OF THE 19 QUEST ION, CORRECT ME, J OH N. YOU WANT TO TELL THE PURPOSE OF 20 THE QUESTION, WHAT YOU ARE WORRYING ABOUT THE FUSES.
21 POSTULA T E.
22 MR. KNOX: THE EVENT IS A FIRE IN THE CONTROL ROOM "23 SHORTS OUT THE CIRCUITS, BLOWS THE FUSE THAT GO TO THE REMOTE 24 SHUTDOWN PANEL THROUGH YOUR TRANSFER SWITCH FUSE IS BLOWN, 50 THE 25 YOU DON'T YOU HAVE ANY POWER AT THE TRANSFER SWITCH, 26 REMOTE SHUTDOWN PANEL. IN ORDER TO SHUT DOWN THE PLANT AND I WANT TO k g
- 27. YOU HAVE TO GO SY PROCEDURE AND REPLACE THE FUSE.
l 28 KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE FUSE -- YOUR TRANSFER SWITCH WILL )
l s = e..=cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL co ...ces.. t
- ******* C D *' '
CERTIFIED SMomTHAND mEPomTEms ''#
,$'IYsee DEPOSITION NOTAmiES (
l
248 I
1 TRANSFER YOU TO ANOTHER FUSE TO ELIMINATE THAT PROBLEM.
2 MR. CALVD: IF YOU LOOK INTO THE CONTROL CIRCU!T,
(
3 MOST PROB ABLY IT WILL BE SHOWN IN THERE, IF IT !$ THERE. !F 4 YOU DON'T MAVE THE ANSWER, MAYBE YOU CAN NOTE IT AND WE CAN l
5 COME BACK TO IT.
6 MR. MARTIN: I DON'T MAVE THA T.
7 MR. MARINOS: ARE WE GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT 8 QUESTION, THEN7 9 MR. MARTIN: YES.
10 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION 7(B).
11 MR. KNOX: WAIT A MINUTE. I HAVE ANOTHER OUESTION 12 ON THIS SHUTDOWN. YOU TALK ABOUT THE " A" TRAIN CABLES GE TTING 13 VERIFIED IN YOUR ANALYSIS THAT YOUR "A" TRAIN C ABLES WERE
{ . 14 SEPARATED BY 20 FEET FROM YOUR S TRAIN CABLES.
A 15 DID YOU ALSO VER IF Y THAT THE " A" TRA IN C ABLES WERE 16 SEPARATED FROM OTHER ASSOCIATED "A" TRAIN CABLES BY 20 FEET OR 17 NONSAFETY CABLES THAT WOULD BE IN THE SAME FIRE ZONE COMING 18 B ACK AND CONNECTING THE BUS OR WAS THAT OUTSIDE OF YO UR SCOPE 7 19 MR. MARTIN: YES, THE EXTENT OF OUR SCOPE ORIGINALLY 20 DID NOT INCLUDE ANY FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW. 'AS WE REVIEWED SOME OF THESE CIRCUITS AND SAW THEY WERE INCLUDED IN I T, WE 21 22 EXTENDED IT AT LEAST GET A CERTAIN COWIDENCE LEVEL THAT IT 23 HAD BEEN ADDRESSED. ,
24 MR. KNOX: SO YOU REVIEWF9 THE SEPARATION BETWEEN 25 THE "A" AND B TRAIN FOR AT LEAST FOR THE 20 FOOT, BUT AS FAR 26 AS ANY ASSOCIATED CIRCUITS WHICH MAY CAUSE LOSS OF A CERTAIN f 27 BUS, YOU DIDN'T VERIFY THAT THOSE WERE ALSO PROTECTED FOR FIRE.
28 MR. MARTIN: WE -- LET ME REFRESH MY MEMORY. TRAIN l
s.=ee =cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL co ,..cas,.
- "'"" CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTERS Cow *"
'88I sai D Nasee OEPOSITION NOTARIES
249 r 1 "A" ASSOCIATED CABLE AT GISBS S HILL ARE ROUTED IN THE TRAIN
. 2 "A" TRAY. I GUESS THAT'S WHERE MY CONFUSION IS GOING, UNLES S 3 YOU ARE TALKING ASSOCIATED --
4 MR. KNOX: I'M TALKING ABOUT ASSOCIATED CIRCUITS ANC 5 IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIRE PROTECTION.
6 MR. MARTIN: WE DIDN'T GET INTO THAT. .
7 MR. CALVO: WAIT A MINUTE. YOU ANSWERED THE 8 QUESTION. YOU SAY THAT THE CLASS 1 CABLES AND THE ASSOCIATED 9 CABLES HAVE BEEN ROUTED IN THE SAME CABLE TRAYS, AND YOU HAVE 10 COMPARED THE CABLE TRAYS FOR CLASS 1-E WITH RESPECT TO THE 11 C ABLE TRAYS FOR CLASS 1-E IN THE OTHER TRAY F OR 2 0 F EE T. DID 12 YOU CHECK IT OUT?
13 MR. MARTIN: YES.
, ,- 14 MR. CALVO: IF YOU HAD DONE THAT AND YOU ALREADY 15 CHECKED THE FACT THAT THE ASSOCIATED CABLES ARE THE SAME, YOU i 16 ESSENTIALLY HAVE CHECKED THAT ONE OUT. RIGHT, JOH N ?
17 MR. KNOX: THAT ' S CORR EC T, IF IT'S IN THE S AME TRAY, 18 T HER E IS NO PR OB LEM, THE " A" TRA IN C AB LE S B E PR OTEC TE D.
19 H OWE VER, IF THEY ARE IN A DIFFERENT TRAY NOT SEPARATED BY 20
- 20 FEET, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM. THE ASSOCIATED CABLES 21 ARE NOT PROTECTED.
22 MR. CALVO: THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ASSOCIATED 23 CABLES IN THE COMPONENT COOLING WA,TER SYSTEH, WERE ALL THOSE i 24 ASSOCIATED CABLES ROUTED IN THE SAME CABLE TRAY TO CLASS I-E I
25 CABLES. CAN YOU VERIFY THAT?
26 MR. MARTIN: YE S . l I
i 27 MR. KNOX: BUT IT WAS BEYOND YOUR SCOPE TO LOOK AT 28 THE ASSOCIATED CABLES, OTHER THAN THE SAFE SHUTDOWN, OTHER l
! sa= na=cisco DOIDGE 4 CARROLL co ,.. c a... l l 'g* *l,"' c =rmso s=omvaamo aspo=Taas '
, , ,c,og;', , , , l
. .. . . . . nu osmosmow NotAmiss l l
l 1
250 i
1 CA8LES THAT ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH SAFE SHUTDOWN FOR FIRE j 1
\. .- 2 PROTECTION FOR OTHER SYS TEMS, YOU DI DN 'T LOOK TO SEE --
3 MR MARTIN: NO.
4 MR. KNOX: -- SEE WHE THER THOSE WERE PROTECTED. IN 5 OTHER WORDS, IT WAS OUTSIDE YOUR SCOPE.
6 MR. MAGGIO: WE DI DN'T DO AN INVES TIGATION.
7 MR. KNOX: I UNDERSTAND THAT. WHEN YOU SAY 20 FEET 8 S E PA RA T ION, YOU'RE GETTING INTO APPENDIX R SEPARATION CRITERI, 9 I'M JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE HOW FAR YOU WENT INTO THIS.
10 MR. POR TER : TO GI VE YOURSELF A LEVEL OF CONF IDENCE 11 THAT THEY FOLLOWED IT.
12 MR. KNOX: WE WENT INTO A CERTAIN LEVEL AND AT THE 13 POINT WE WENT INTO I T, I ASSUME IT WAS SATISF ACTORY, WITHOUT I ,
14 ANY PROB LEM S.
\.
15 MR. MARINOS: WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT QUES TION, 7(B),
16 CCW/ SWP PUMP INTERF AC E. L':LL CA) THE CCW PUMP START WITH SSW 17 PUMP OR --
WHAT DID I SAY? -- LET ME REPHRASE THAT STATEMENT.
18 WILL (A) THE CCW PUMP START THE SSW PUMP OR (B) THE 19 SSW PUMP START THE CCW PUM P.
20 MR. MARTIN: THE ANSWER TO (A) IS YES. THE 21 COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMP WILL START THE STATION SERVICE 22 WATER PUMP, AND THE STATION SERVICE WATER PUMP ALSO HAS AN
'23 INTERLOCK TO START THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMP.
24 MR. MAR INOS: 50 (A) IS TRUE.
25 MR. MARTIN: ( A) I S TR UE .
26 MR. STANLEY: (8) IS TRUE.
l I
27 MR. MARINOS: (B) I S TR UE . SO HAS THIS BEEN ;
28 REVIEWED WITH A DIESEL GENERATOR LOADING 7 l
na= re.=c.sco DOIDGE & CARROLL co=teacos,.
" 'C',*[* CERTIFIED SMORTMAND mEPontEms ,C, 0,*]',' ,
uisi as s.ssee DEPOSITION NOTAmits
251
' 1 MR. MARTIN: NO, IT HASN'T. DIESEL GENERATOR
( 2 LOADING IS NOT WITHIN OUR SCOPE.
3 MR. MORRIS: THE CONCERN HERE IS THAT THE DIESEL 4 GENERATOR LOADING SEQUENCE SHOWN IN THE FSAR MAS DIFFERENT 5 LOADING TIMES FOR THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER AND THE SERVICE 6 WATER PUMP. AND THE CONCERN IS IF THEY ARE INTERLOCKED. LI KE 7 THIS, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE SEQUENCE LOADING NOW, BOTH PUMPS 8 ARE GOING TO BE STARTING AT THE FIRST STEP.
9 MR. POR TER: AS RELATED TO THE DIESEL GENERATOR?
10 MR. MORR IS: DIESEL GENERATOR, OR THERE WAS A 11 STATEMENT EARLIER THIS MORNING THAT FOR THOSE ON SEQUENCE 12 AREN'T EVEN ON NORMAL POWER AND DIDN'T CONSIDER --
13 MR. POR TER: DID NOT CONSIDER THE DIESEL GENERATOR.
14 S AME ANSWER.
\
15 MR. MARINOS: BUT YOU HAVE CONF IDENC E THA T THE 16 UNLIMITED SUPPLY OF THE OFF-SITE POWER WILL NOT BE AFFECTED IF 17 YOU BLOCK LOAD THOSE TWO PUMPS OUT OF SEQUENCE.
18 MR. PORTER: THE ANSWER WAS THAT WE DID NOT LOOK AT 19 THE BLOCK LOADING.
20 MR. MARINOS: BUT IF ONE PUMP STARTS THE OTHER, YOU 21 DON'T HAVE A SEQUENCE, YOU JUST PUT THEM BOTH ON 50 YOU ARE 22 NOT SEQUENCING LOADS.
23 MR. PORTER: WE DID NOT LOOK AT IT.
24 MR. CALVO: I GUESS THE CONCERN -- I KNOW YOU DON'T 25 LOOK AT IT -- BUT THE CONCERN IS THAT BECAUSE YOU START THE 26 COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMP AND, AS A RESULT, THEY START THE I
27 SERVICE WATER PUMP OUTSIDE OF SE QUE NC E, YOU MAY END UP 28 OVERLOADING THE DIESEL GENERATOR. THA T ' S A F EA TUR E OF THE sa=ena=c.sco DOIDGE 4 CARROLL co....co,,.
"'" CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTERS Co**"
OgpostTeQN NOTARIES ***'"'
saiN'aNases
252
' \
1 DESIGN. THERE WILL BE A FAILURE PLUS ANOTHER FALURE OF THE
( 2 OTHER DIESEL, YOU END UP WITH NOTHING. SO TO TELL YOU THE
}
IN THE OVERALL 3 EFFECTS OTHER COMPONENT WILL MAVE ON THE SYSTEM
~
5 MR. MARTIN: NO, ! UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
6 MR. CALVO: GOOD, GOOD. .
NR. MARINOS: BUT THAT WAS NOT MY QUES TION, JO S E .
7 8 MY QUESTION WAS, IF THEY CONSIDER SEQUENCE LOADING EVEN WITH 9 THE OFF-S ITE POWER, RIGHT, IF THE OFF-S ITE POWER YOU DIDN'T IN 10 CONSIDER ANY OF THE COMPONENTS BLOCK LOADING TOGETHER.
11 THIS ARRANGEMENT YOU COULD HAVE CONCEIVABLY TWO PUMPS 12 SIMULTANEOUSLY STARTING, 50 YOU DID NOT CONSIDER THAT 13 DIVERSION FROM THE SEQUENCE EVEN WITH THE OFF-SITE POWER
! 14 AVAILABLE. CHANCES ARE THERE IS NO PROBLEM BECAUSE IT 'S AN
, \ UNLIMITED SUPPLY, BUT --
t 15 16 MR. KNOX: THEY DIDN'T LOOK AT THE SEQUENCING LOGIC.
YOU STILL FOLLOW YOUR SEQUENCE, IT PROB ABLY WOULDN 'T HAPPEN.
17 18 MR. POR TER: THE TWO PUMPS WON'T START TOGE THER.
19 MR. KNOX: IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE SEQUENCING.
20 MR. MARINOS: 50 YOU SAY THAT PERMISSION MAY BE 21 GI VE N, BUT THE SEQUENCER WOULD TAKE OVER AND NOT PERMIT THE 22 $!MULTANEOUS LOADING OF THOSE PUMPS TOGE THER.
MR. POR TER: THAT 'S WHAT, IT SHOULD DO.
23 24 MR. MARINOS: DID YOU CONF IRM THAT7 25 MR. KNOX: T HEY DI ON ' T CONF I RM T HA T.
26 MR. HESS: IF ! MAY POP IN, THE ONLY THING THAT WE i 27 WERE CONCERNED WITH IN THAT SECTION OF THE REVIEW WAS ENS 28 THAT WHEN YOU HAD A CCW PUMP OPERATIONAL, THAT THE ASSOC I ATED
..~ . a.=c. c o coioot a cAmmoLL co...co..
"''*** CEmT FiED SMomTHAND REPORTEns cow *"
ui D Nasce DEPCstTION NOTAmitS
l 253 1 SERVICE WATER PUMP WAS SUPPLYING COOLING WATER TO THE HEAT s_ 2 EXCHANGER . THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF OUR REVIEW OF THA T 3 INTER LOC K. l 4 MR. MARINOS: WELL, FROM THE ELECTRIC AL ASPEC TS, 5 THOUGH, IT IS NOT. THIS !$ FROM THE HYDRAULICS THAT YOU ARE 6 REFERRING TO, NOT F R OM THE -- ,
7 MR. HESS: I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT MOST 8 OF THE ELECTRICAL REVIEW WAS DONE IN RELATION TO THE 9 MECHANICAL SCOPE.
10 MR. MARINOS: OF COUR S E, IF THE ELEC TR IC AL SYS TEM 11 CANNOT DELIVER WHAT YOU WANT MECHANICALLY, THEN YOU HAVE 12 FAILED IN YOU ASSESSMENT. 50 T HA T ' S WHA T --
13 MR. MAGGIO: BUT OUR DEPTH ELECTRICALLY WAS LIMITED
. . 14 TO THE M,ECHANICAL OPERATION AND IT WASN'T MAY8E EXPANDED 15 DESIGN OR ANALYSIS THAN IT MAY HAVE BEEN DESIRABLE, PER SE.
16 BUT BASED ON SUPPORTING THE MECHANICAL ASPECTS THAT DESCRIB ES 17 IN ONE.
18 MR. MARINOS: GE OR GE, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUES TIONS 19 ON THAT7 20 QUESTION 7(C), IF ONE CCW LOOP IS NORMALLY SHUT DOWN, 21 ARE THE UPS A/C UNIT AND THE NUCLEAR CHILLED WATER SYS1EM 10 22 PERCENT REDUNDANT AND SHARE A COMMON DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TO 23 PROVIDE COOLING FOR CLASS 1 SWITCHGEAR AND CLASS 1 MOTORS.
MR. MESS: OKAY. I'LL FIELD THAT QUESTION. LOOKING 24 i 25 AT THE NUCLEAR CHILLED WATER SYSTEM AND UPS AIR CONDITIONING 26 SYS TEMS WERE OUT OF OUR SCOPE. WE DI D VER IF Y THA T THER E ARE I 27 REDUNDANT NUCLEAR CHILLED WATER SYSTEM CHILLERS SUPPLIED BY l 28 THE CCW SYSTEM. WE DID NOT VERIFY THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS ON I
sy ma=c,.s,c,o DOIOGE & CARROLL co..e4 cos .
CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTEns cow oana o "''"'
emise es o ssee DEPOSITION NOTAmiES l
f . .. . . __
254 l 1 THOSE ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS.
2 MR. MARINOS: OFF THE RECORD A MINUTE.
I 3 (OFF THE RECORD.)
4 MR. MARINOS: LET'S G0 B ACK ON THE RECORD.
NOW, WE ARE ON CHECKLIST NUMBER EE-02. WE HAVE A 5
6 GENERAL STATEMENT OF OBSERVATIONS THAT THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION 7 00E5 NOT ADDRESS THE CONTAIMENT ISOLATION VALVES OR THE 8 REACTOR COOLANT PUMP THERMAL SARRIER COOLER IS OLA T IO N VA LVE S .
9 TELL US WHETHER THIS WAS OUT OF SCOPE.
10 MR. MORRIS: IT APPEARED FROM THE FLOW DI AGRAM THAT 11 WE WERE LOOKING AT YESTERDAY THAT PART OF THIS WAS AT LEAST IN 12 THE MECHANICAL SCOPE.
i 13 MR. MARTIN: THE VALVES WERE NOT INCLUDED IN OUR I -
14 ELECTRICAL SCOPE AND THE MECHANICAL -- THE VALVES WERE NOT 15 INCLUDED IN THE ELECTRICAL SCOPE THE ELECTRIC AL SCOPE REVIEW t 16 CONS IS TE D OF A TRA IN " A" SAFEGUARDS PORTION OF THE COMPONENT 17 COOLING WATER SYSTEM WHICH STOPPED AT THE TRAIN SEPARATION l
18 PUMP.
19 MR. HESS: YOU ARE CORRECT. WE LOOKED AT IT FROM A 20 F LOW PATH STANDPOINT INTO THE REACTOR COOLANT PUMP SUPPLIED TO i
21 THE REACTOR COOLING PUMP FOR THE COOLERS. THOSE VALVES WERE 22 f'OT INCLUDED IN THE ELECTRICAL SCOPE. 1HERE WERE QUESTIONS "23 FROM MECHANICAL TO ELECTRICAL WHICH THEY ANSWERED AS TO THE 24 CONTROL FUNCTION OF THOSE VALVES, WHEN THEY SHUT WHAT SIGNALS 25 ISOLATED THEM AND THEY GOT INVOLVED IN THAT SECTION OF THE 26 REVIEW, BUT IT WAS NOT PART OF THEIR REVIEW SCOPE.
I. 27 MR. MORRIS: I RA!5ED THIS QUESTION BECAUSE THESE 28 ARE THE ONLY CONTAlmENT !$0LATION VALVES ON THIS SYSTEH WITH e.= es.=cisco DOIDGE & CAmROLL co=,.. c e.s,.
I "'[***'***
wie..si.ases CERT 6FIED SMomTMAND mtpomTEms ospositsow NotAmits
, , ,c o =, , , , ,
255 1 THE CORRESPONDING QUESTIONS ABOUT ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS
- 2 ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE ISOLAT ION VALVES.
3 MR. HESS: AND THOSE ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS WERE 4 NOT INCLUDED IN THE ELECTRICAL SCOPE.
5 MR. NORKIN: YOU REFER TO THE ELECTRIC AL SCOPE, 15 6 THERE SOMETHING IN WRITING WHICH DEFINES ELECTRICAL SCOPE 7 7 MR. HESS: AS WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, THE DESIGN 8 CRITERIA LAYS OUT THE ELECTRICAL SCOPE.
9 MR. MARINOS: LET ME UNDERSTAND. YOU DID NOT LOOK 10 AT PENETRATIONS, ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS AT ALL.
11 MR. MAGGIO: WHAT WOULD WE LOOK AT ELECTRIC ALLY IN 12 TERMS OF PE NE TRAT ION?
13 MR. MARINOS: YOU TELL ME.
- 14 MR. MAGGIO: WE DI DN 'T LOOK AT IT SO WHAT WOULD YOU 15 EXPEC T US TO LOOK AT.
16 MR. MARINOS: LOTS OF THINGS I WOULD LOOK AT.
17 MR. MAGGIO: 1 MIGHT ADD WE DID IDENTIFY CABL: SIZE 18 CALCULATIONS AS FAR AS PROPER DERATION FOR CABLE TRAYS -- I 19 MIGHT JL57 '* "' ? FAT WE DID IDENTIFY PENETRATIONS IN CABLE l
20 SIZING CALCULATIONS AND AN APPROPRIATE DERATION F ACTOR WAS 21 I NC L UDE D. AND THAT'S AS FAR AS WE TOOK IT. IN TERMS OF US 22 LOOKING AT WHERE THEY WERE OR THE MATERIALS THAT WERE INVOLVED 13 WE DI DN ' T DO T HA T.
24 MR. MARINOS: YOU DID NOT LOOK, THEN, AT THE l 25 CAPABI LITY OF PENETRATION TO WITHSTAND FAULT INSIDE l
l 26 CONTAINMENT WITH FAULT CURRENTS THROUGH THEM AND ITS INTEGRITY i 27 MR. MAGGIO: THAT 'S CORRECT WE DID NOT LOOK AT THAT.
l I
i 28 MR. KNOX: ALONG THE SAME LINE, YOy DID NOT LOOK AT sa= ena=cisco DOlOGE e CARROLL go.,.. coe,.
88 ' '* 3 "' '
ggmtipigo suomTHAND REPomTERS c o* *"
"'3#'
.ai Y ssee DEP05 760N NOTARIES
256 l 1 BACK UP PROTECTION TO PROTECT THE ELECTRICAL PENETRATION.
j 2 MR. MAGGIO: THAT'S CORRECT.
3 MR. MARINOS: YOU SAY YOU LOOK AT THE RATING OF THE 4 CABLE.
5 MR. KNOX: WE IDENTIF IED THAT.
6 MR. MAGGIO: WE IDENTIFIED THAT PENETRATIONS WERE 7 COVERED IN THAT AREA SO IT WAS RECOGNIZED BY GIBBS S HILL. I WE JUST IDENTIFIED 8 DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE DRIVING AT.
9 THAT ITEM.
MR. MARINOS: ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THAT7 WELL, 10 11 QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PENETRATIONS ELECTRICAL AND 12 ENVIRONMENTAL AND WHAT I GE T F ROM YOU, YOU DID NOT BOTHER --
13 IT WAS NOT IN YOUR SCOPE. YOU DECIDED THAT WOULD NOT BE IN 14 YOUR SC OPE .
15 MR. MAGGIO: THAT IS CORREC T TO IDENT IF Y 16 QUALIF ICAT ION PERF ORMANCE F OR A S PECIF IC PIECE OF E OUI PME NT 17 INCLUDING PENE TRATION.
18 MR. MARINOS: SAYING QUALIF IC ATION YOU HAVE STATED
( 19 BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIF ICATION YOU EXCLUDED ELEC TR ICAL l
20 S PEC IF IC ATIONS, ELECTRICAL QUALIF IC ATION REQUIREMENTS ON 21 PENETRATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, FAULT CAPABILITY.
22 MR. HESS: I DON'T THINK, BUT NONE OF -- CORR EC T ME 53 IF l ' M WRONG. NONE OF THE C ABLES JHAT ARE IN THE TRA IN " A" 24 SAFEGUARDS LOOP GO THROUGH A CONTAINMENT.
l YES.
i 25 MR. MAGGIO:
26 MR. HESS: YOUR REVIEW WHERE YOU PICKED UP THIS IN I 27 DERATING DUE TO PENETRATIONS WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU NOTED 28 CALCULATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SCOPE IN THE SAME CALC, BUT saw ena=c+sco DOIDGE & CARROLL c o.,.. c os,.
" ).' ."*j,,o**
- CERTIFIEO SMORTHANO REPORTERS ,, , ,C O = , ' ,,,,*
saisi asi asee OE POSITION NOTARIE S ,
' ~ ~ ~ ~ -- - - _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _
257 1 1 NOT ON THE CA8LES THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY REVIEWI'NG.
4 MR. MORRIS: SAFEGUARDS LOOP.
5 MR. HESS: SAFEGUARDS LOOP IS ENTIRELY OUTSIDE OF 6 CONTAINMENT. .
7 MR. MORR IS : THEY ARE SAFETY RELATED VALVES IN TRAIN 8 An AND COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM LOCATED INSIDE.
9 MR. PORTER: WHAT'S IM POR TANT, IT 'S NOT THA T WE DI D 10 NOT 80THER TO DO I T, IT WAS OUTSIDE OUR SCOPE AND WE PLANNED 11 NOT TO DO IT VERY SPECIFICALLY.
12 MR. CALVO: I THINK WE 'RE COMING TO A BREAKING POINT.
13 I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK AMONG OURSELVES, IF YOU WILL 14 ALLOW US FOR A MINUTE.
15 (RECESS.)
16 MR. S TUA RT: I WOULD -- DURING THE BREAK WE C AUCUSED, 17 AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION TO THE NRC. IT 'S CLEAR 18 TO US AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS FOR A DAY AND A HALF, 19 THAT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL OF THE QUESTIONS AND OUR PRE PA RA T ION 20 FOR THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL OF QUESTIONS REALLY HAVE NOT 21 CO I NC I DE D. AND WE HAVE BEEN AT A RELATIVELY SLOW SPACE 22 THROUGH THOSE QUES TIONS.
"23 AND I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT 7;1E CYGNA PE OPLE GO 24 OFF AND REALLY ATTEMPT TO PREPARE IN MUCH GREATER DEPTH NOW
- 25 THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT'S REQUIRED ON OUR 26 REVIEW AND THAT WE RECONVENE THIS MEETING IN SEVERAL WEEKS AT j 27 A TIME THAT'S CONVENIENT TO THE KEY PLAYERS REPRESENTED HERE 28 IN THIS MEET!i1G.
- *** c'sc o poicot a cAmmoLL
''8 **** c ..cos='
.. c o.. . .
Ctm71* LED SMORTHAND mtPORTens e4 s ssee DEPOSITION NOTAmlES ''''''
258
, 1 IN ADDITION, I THINK IT WOULD SE USEFUL IN 2 PREPARATION FOR THAT FOR US TO REALLY GET A FEEL FOR THE 3 R EM AINDER OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE NOT DISCUSSED HERE TODAY, 4 WHAT REALLY IS THE BASIS OR PURPOSE BEHIND THOSE QUESTIONS 5 WHICH HAVE LED TO SOME OF THE GREATER DETAIL THAT I THINK OUR 6 PEOPLE WERE UNPREPARED AND UNAWARE OF.
7 IF THAT WERE TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU, IN THA T NEXT 8 MEETING, I THINK OUR REVIEWERS WOULD BE PREPARED TO HAVE ALL
. 9 OF THE CALCULATIONS THAT THEY REVIEWED IN THE MEETING WITH 10 THEM SO THAT SPECIFIC NUMBERS WERE CALLED FOR, THEY COULD GO 11 TO THOSE CALCULATIONS AND PICK OUT THOSE SPECIFIC NUMBERS IN 12 THE MEETING, AND THAT WE WOULD BE PREPARFD, REALLY, I THINK TO 13 LOOK AT THE BOUNDS OF OUR REVIEW WHICH I KNOW THER E HAVE B EEN 14 MANY, MANY QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO OUR BASIS FOR THE SOUNDS ON 3 ,
15 DEFENDING THAT BOUNDARY AND SCOPE, AS WELL AS TO ! THINK 16 ATTEMPT TO, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, RESOLVE RIGHT IN 17 THAT MEETING ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS WITHOUT HAVING REALLY TO GO 18 TO FURTHER ROUNDS OF QUESTIONING OR FURTHER MEETINGS.
19 NOW, THAT S MY SUGGES T ION, JO S E .
20 MR. CALV0: I THINK THERE WILL BE SOME KIND OF WAY.
21 WE ARE HAVING TROUBLE AT THIS TIME TRYING TO ASCERTAIN THE 22 SCOPE OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. GOING THROUGH THE QUESTIONS AND 33 TRYING TO CLARIFY THOSE QUESTIONS,, ESTABLISHING THE PURPOSE, 24 THAT WILL HELP YOU TO -- SOME KIND OF WAY TO SETTER UNDERS TAND 25 WHERE WE ARE COMING FROM, THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT.
26 I PROPOSE WHAT TO DO IS TO GO THROUGH THE REMAINING QUESTIONS.
27 AND WE CAN READ THE QUESTIONS, WE CLARIFY THE g
28 QUESTION THE BEST WE CAN, WE ASK YOU WHETHER FURTHER i
! sa es.=c.sco DOIOGE & CARROLL co....cos,.
"','j',',',"' camTisiED sMomTMaNo mtpomitas Deposition NOTAmits
, ,t o,w'*
wise esossee
259 f I CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED. IF YOU SAY THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THE 2 QUESTION AND THE PURPOSE, THEN WE SAY, WELL, LET'S GO TO THE 3 NEXT QUESTION. IF YOU HAVE FURTHER CLARIF IC ATION, WE TRY TO 4 GIVE FURTHER CLARIFICATION.
5 MR. MARINOS: CAN I SAY SOMETHING. WE MIGHT, JUS T 6 TO EXPEDITE THIS, WE MIGHT WAIT AND TELL US WHICH QUES T.!ONS 7 YOU WANTED US TO REITERATE. /ND MAYSE SOME OF THEM YOU MAY NOT WANT US TO RECITE AGAIN. T HE Y '.' .R E IN WRITING, IF THEY ARE 8
9 CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU, WE CAN SKIP OVER THEM AND NOT RECITE 10 THEM INTO THE RECORD. WE CAN PUT IN THE RECORD THE QUESTIONS 11 T HA T YO U HA VE OR NE E D C LA R I F I C A T I O N F OR . W OUL D T HA T B E 12 ACCE PTAB LE.
13 MR. STUART: LET ME TRY TO GIVE MY RESPONSE. WE
} . 14 THOUGHT, WE WERE PREPARED FOR ALL 14 PAGES OF QUESTIONS PRIOR 15 TO THE MEETING. AND, OB VI O US LY, GIVEN THE WAY THE MEE TING, 16 THE COURSE OF THE MEETING, I THINK WE WEREN'T AND IN T HE LE VE L 17 OF DEPTH. I THINK WHAT'S IM POR TANT FOR US IS TO, NUM B ER ONE, 18 UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE QUESTION, BUT ALSO 19 ESPECIALLY YOUR CONSULTANTS COULD TELL US WHAT REALLY THEY ARE 20 AFTER IN TERMS OF WHAT ARE THEY GOING AF TER IN TERMS OF THE 21 LEVEL OF DE PTH. I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO MAKE 22 SURE --
'23 MR. MARINOS: YOU SUGGEST TO GO THROUGH EACH 24 QUESTION.
25 MR. S TUA R T: I SUGGEST TO GO THROUGH EACH QUES TION 26 FR OM YOUR POINT OF VIEW TO TELL US THE PURPOSE AND WHAT'S t 27 REALLY HIDDEN BEHIND THE QUESTION IN TERHS OF WHAT YOU ARE 28 AF TER. I'M PROPOSING THAT WE WOULD JUST TAKE NOTES ON THAT
- ,'me,;g ooioce e cannou. .........,.
4 0w='*
o.nuno CERTisetD SMORTMAND REPQRTERS **"8'"'
seine ass sase DEPO 5itsON NOTARit S
260
! 1 PR OC ES S . IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ON OUR SIDE, YOU CAN MOVE l
2 TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
3 IT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT THE 4 LEVEL OF DEPTH OF PREPARATION FOR THAT IS GOING TO AGREE WITH 5 WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
6 NOW, ! MIGHT ADD, I HAVE JUST TALKED TO OUR PEOPLE 7 THAT FROM OUR POINT OF PREPARING FOR THIS IS NOT TO GO BAC 8 AND REDO THE INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION. THAT'S NOT OUR 9 INTENT AT ALL, BUT RATHER TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PEOPLE ARC 10 PREPARED WITH ALL THE DATA AND DETAIL RELATIVE TO THE SECAUSE, 11 CALCULATIONS THAT ON THE REVIEW THAT WE DID DO.
12 OBVIOUSLY, WHEN QUES TIONS ARE ASKED RELATIVE TO A SPECIFIC 13 PRESSURE OR A SPECIFIC PIECE OF DATA IN A 20 OR 30 PAGE i
j ,
14 C ALC UL A T IO N, WHAT YOU REALLY ARE LOOKING FOR IS EITHER FOR US l
15 TO HAVE THAT SITTING HERE IN THE MEETING AND TO BE ABLE TO 16 SPECIFY THAT TO YOU OR TO HAVE IT MEMORIZED OR ONE OR THE 17 OTHER. AND I THINK OUR REVIEWERS WERE JUST NOT PREPARED FOR 18 THA T LE VE L OF DE PT H.
19 MR. CALVO: WHY DON ' T WE S TAR T.
20 MR. STUART: WE CAN GO WITH THE REMAINING QUES TIONS 21 AS WE GO ON.
22 MR. MARINOS: WE COVERED THE GENERAL STATEHENT 23 SUFFICIENTLY, GEORGE, ON THE EE-027 24 MR. MORRIS: YE S .
25 MR. MARINOS: 50 WE WILL GO TO QUESTION 1(A) AND 26 WE'RE ASKING WAS THE MOV VOLTAGE CONFIRMED AT THE MOTOR FOR l
l ( 27 STARTING AND RUNNING CONDITION DO YOU NEED CLARIFICATION FOR l
28 THIS QUESTION 7 sa= reame'oco DOIDGE & CARROLL co=,n cosia saisi ses sees CERfl#tED SHORTMAND REPORTERS 88v*"
sai N 'ss,e 08 POSITION NOTAmit S
261 1 MR. CALVO: WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THEM THE l
2 C LAR IF ICAT ION. WE'RE GOING TO TELL THEM THE PURPOSE BEHIND 3 THE QUESTION, WHAT WE EXPECT THEM TO SEE.
4 MR. MORRIS: THE S TATEMENT IN THE CHECKLIST 5 INDICATED THAT YOU LOOKED AT A CALCULATION FOR A STARTING AND RUNNING VOLTAGES FOR THE 480 VOLT BUS. THE OUEST ION IS 6
7 LOOKING TO SEE IF YOU WENT FURTHER THAN THE BUS AND AC TUALLY 8 WENT DOWN TO THE EQUIPMENT TO SEE WHAT THE VOLTAGE WOULD BE AT 9 THE EQUI PMENT.
10 WE HAVE NOTICED IN OTHER OCCASIONS PROBLEMS IN THE 11 DESIGN WHERE VOLTAGE DROP CALCULATIONS, ESPECIALLY THE 480 12 VOLT LEVEL, WERE INADEQUATE AT OTHER PLANTS THAT WE HAVE 13 LOOKED AT. AND IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE VALVES INSIDE
. 14 CONTAINMENT ARE OUT OF THE SCOPE OF YO UR REVIEW BECAUSE THIS 15 WAS AN AREA OF PART ICULAR CONCERN.
16 MR. CALVO: FINISHED CLARIF YING. JO H N, YOU GOT 17 SOMETHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD TO CLARIFY THAT QUEST!O?
18 MR. KNOX: NO, NOTH ING.
19
- ~
C AL VO: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
20 MR. MARTIN: NO THAT 'S PRETTY S TR A IGHTFORW ARD.
21 MR. KILLOUGH: ALONG THE S AME LINE, IS IT ALSO IN 22 YOUR CONCERN THAT WE LOOKED AT THESE VOLTAGES UNDER DIFFERENT 23 CONDITIONS OR JUST THE WORST CASE VOLTAGE CONDITION ON THE SUS 24 AT THE TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE OPERATING VOLTAGES ARE 25 SATISF ACTORY FOR THOSE MOTOR OPERATED VALVES.
26 MR. MORRIS: THE C ONC ERN !$ TO INSURE THAT THE i 27 VOLTAGES AVAILABLE ARE SUFFICIENT SO THAT THE VALVE WILL 28 PERF ORM ITS SAFETY F UNC TION, WHETHER YOU WILL HAVE SUFF ICIENT i ... . .. e sc o ooions a cAmmoLL cos,..e.... l ee'ss las eseo C0=***
CERYlPitD SHORTMAND REPORTERS seis'saa e eis es. N [ssee Of POSITION NOT Amit S
262
' 1 FOR ANY CONDITION.
1 MR. KNOX: FOR ALL MODES OF PLANNED OPERATION.
is 2 3 MR. MARINOS: MINIMUM VOLTAGE CONDITION AT THE VALVE 4 O PER A TOR, OF COURSE, WILL GIVE YOU LOWER TOROUE AVAILABLE FOR 5 THE VALVE TO OPEN OR CLOSE, 50 YOU WANT TO -- WE WANT TO 6 DETERMINE THAT -- THAT THIS IS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.
7 MR. CALVO: ANY MORE FURTHER CLARIFICATION FROH 8 CYGNA?
9 MS. WILLIAMS: NO.
10 MR. CALVO: NE XT QUESTION.
I 11 MR. MARINOS: 1(B), DID CYGNA CONFIRM THAT ALL DC 12 LOADS WOULD OPEN AT 90 VOLTS.
13 MR. MORRIS : THE REASON FOR THAT QUES TION W AS THERE 1
I - 14 IS A STATEMENT IN THE COMMENT SECTION ON THE CHECKLIST THAT DC 15 LOADS REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 90 VOLTS. I DON'T KNOW WHA T THE 2
16 B AS IS OF THAT STATEMENT IS, WHETHER THAT S TATEMENT WAS 17 SPECIFIC TO A CERTAIN COMPONENT.
MS. WILLI AMS: WE 'RE NOT ANSWERING THE OUEST ION, 18 i 19 JUST MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND IT. c 20 MR. CALVO: OKAY, CLARIFICATION OF WHAT YOU HAD ON 21 YOUR CHECKLIST.
22 MR. NORKIN: ARE WE INTERESTED IN WHETHER 90 VOLTS 23 ARE AVAILABLE7 ,
24 MR. MORRIS: WE'LL GE T TO THAT.
25 MR. KNOX: ! GUESS I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT ADEQUACY 26 OF THE 90 VOLTS VERSUS ! EXPECT THE NORMAL DC VOLTAGE TO BE
! 27 105 VOLTS AS THE MINIMLM VERSUS 90. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHY 28 90 VERSUS 105.
e.= es.=cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL co=,.. c os..
"'" '****** CentspiED SMomTMANo mspomf tml cov=
aes. ess ins ui $ Ysee DE*05tTION NotAnitt
263 I 1 MR. POR TER: 87 AND A HALF PERC ENT IS 105 VOLTS, NOT 2 90.
3 MR. KNOX: WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DC.
5 MR. KNOX: NORMAL 60 CELL 8 ATTERY SYS TEM, THE 6 MINIMUM VOLTAGE TOTAL DISCHARGE IS 105 VOLTS VER$US 90. I'M 7 NOT SURE WHERE THE 90 COMES FROM.
8 MR. MAR INOS: DOES THIS MEAN, GE OR G E, T HAT 90 S TATED 9 BY GIBBS & HILL, THAT THEIR EQUI PMENT WILL BE CAPABLE OF 10 OPERATING AT THAT LOW A VOLTAGE AS A CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTION, 11 IS THAT --
12 MR. MORR IS : THE STATEMENT APPEARS TO BE ADDRESSING 13 ONE PARTICULAR COMPONENT, IT DOESN'T -- PROB ABLY DOES NOT
' . 14 ADDRESS A GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE DC SYS TEM.
15 MR. MARINOS: WHICH COMPONENT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT7 16 MR. MORRIS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT COMPONENT W AS S TA TED 17 IN HERE, IT JUST SAYS, DC LOADS REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 90 VOLTS.
18 MR. MARTIN: WE UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
19 MR. MARINOS: OKAY. NOW, AS SUBSET TO THIS OUESTION 20 WE HAVE NOW WHY WAS THE NON 1-E PANEL XD 2-3 INCLUDED IN THE 21 REVIEW. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE QUESTION THERE7 22 MR. CALYO: THAT'S THE QUESTION.
24 MR. MAGGIO: IS THERE ANYTHING IN GREATER DE TAIL 25 OTHER THAN EXPLANATION WHY TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT DEVICE 7 l 26 MR. MORR IS : THER E IS NO PARTICULAR CONCERN ABOUT i 27 THAT PANEL OTHER THAN I DID NOT SEE OFFHAND THAT THERE WAS A l 28 NONSAFETY RELATED DC LOAD IN THE LOOP "A" .
l
.......... ooioar . ca==ou. ..~,....s,.
saise ses oeeo
, ,g CtatlFit0 SMontMANo stoomitmS ,,,,C.,***',,,
sais, as .ssee Ot*0SITION NOTAmf S l
264 i 1 MR. MART IN* I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
2 MR. MARINOS: THE OTHER QUESTION UNDER THE SAHE 3 QUESTION 1(B) WAS THE VOLTAGE DROP IN THE DC SYSTEM REVIEWED 4 TO OTHER EQUIPMENT SUCH AS INVERTERS AND SWITCHGEAR.
5 MR. MARTIN: OKAY, MAYBE IT WOULD HELP IF YOU 6 EXPANDED ON THAT ONE A LITTLE.
7 MR. MORRIS: THAT -- THAT 'S AN EXTENS ION OF THE 8 ORIGINAL QUESTION ON WHETHER ALL EQUIPMENT WAS SPECIFIED AT 90 9 VOLTS AND WHETHER THE CABLE SIZE AND CALCULATION THAT YOU 10 REVIEWED INCLUDED OTHER LOADS ON THE DC SYSTEM THAT WOULD 11 INFLUENCE THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SUCH AS THE FEEDS TO THE 12 6.9 KV SWITCHGEAR OR THE FEEDS TO THE INVERTER SUPPLYING THE 13 INSTR UMENT POWER.
16 MR. MORRIS: YE S .
17 MR. NOR KIN: AS FAR AS THE SWITCHGEAR, WOULD A 18 VOLTAGE DROP C AUSE A DYNAMIC EFFECT BY THE 90 VOLTS AVAILABLE, 19 RIGHT?
20 MR. MORR IS : TYPICALLY, INVERTERS ARE NOT RATED AT i 21 90 YOLTS. AND WE HAVE SEEN IN OTHER PLANTS PROBLEMS IN I
22 VOLTAGE DROPS IN DC CONTROL CIRCUITS TO SWITCHGEAR. .
I3 MR. KNOX: ! ALSO HAVE A, CONCERN ABOUT THE B AS IS --
I 24 DESIGN BASIS FOR $1 ZING THE DC SYSTEM. READING THE FSAR, !
25 WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE BAS!$ WAS FROM READING 26 S EC T ION 8. 32 H OW THE -- W HA T THE DE S I GN DOC UM ENT S US ED T O S I Z E t 27 THE BATTERY IN THE DC SYSTEM SUPPLY LOADS.
28 MR. MARTIN: YO UR CONC ER N IS A DE S I GN B ASIS F OR DOIDGE a CARROLL co ,..co.,,.
- y,'.",.*,,,',',C,0 ctatipito swomTMAND manomTams cow saisi ess asee OtmoSITION NOTAmit S I
l
265 1 SIZING THE DC SYSTEM.
2 MR. KNOX: THE BATTERIES, THE CMARGER, THE 3 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SO WE WOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY AND 4 CAPABILITY OVER THE LIFE OF THE PLANT.
5 MR. CALVO: ASK THE QUESTION WHETHER YOU CONSIDER IT 6 TO B E IN YO UR SCOPE OR NOT. YOU KNOW, ALSO ON THIS ONE, E VE R Y 7 TIME YOU GO BACK TO WHY WAS THE NON E PANEL. NORMALLY, WE 8 DON'T LIKE NON-CLASS 1-E TO BE MIXED WITH CLASS 1-E. BE 9 PREPARED TO GO ALL THE WAY QUESTIONS ABOUT SEPARATION, ABOUT 10 I NDE PE NDE NC E, ABOUT CLASSIFICATION OF THE CLASS 1-E BREAKERS 11 HAS BEEN TESTED WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAILURE. BE 12 PREPARED TO ANSWER ALL THOSE QUESTIONS TO JUS TIF Y THAT A 13 FAILURE OF NON-CLASS 1-E CANNOT RESULT TO COMFROMISE THE l
1 .
14 INDEPENDENCE OF THE OTHER TRAIN.
15 MR MARINOS: NEED ANY FURTHER CLARIF ICAT ION ON THIS 16 MR. MAGGIO: 1 THINK WE UNDERSTAND.
17 MR. MARINOS: OKAY, QUESTION 2(A). THIS ITEM 18 ADDRESSED AND THIS REFERS TO YOUR ITEM 2(A) --
19 MR. MORRIS: REFERS TO ITEM 2(B) ACTUALLY IN THE 20 C HEC KL I S T.
21 MR. MARINOS: ITEM 2(A) IN OUR QUESTION IS ACTUALLY 22 2(B) IN YOUR CHECKLIST.
23 MR. MORRIS: CHECKLI S T EE-0 2.
24 MR. MARINOS: THIS ITEM ADDRESSED THE CONNECTION OF 25 THE BATTERY AND B ATTERY CHARGER TO THE DC BUS, BUT DID NOT 26 ADDRESS THE CAPABILITY OF THIS EQUIPMENT TO SUPPLY THE DESIGN 4
27 LOAD OR SURVEILLANCE REQUIRED TO PROVE THE AB ILI TY TO PERFORM 28 ITS SAFETY FUNCTION.
sa= es**c>sco DoiDGE & CARROLL
- 's. saa eeso c o.... g o . .
CERT $stD swoRTMAND reporters c c *
.$fssee
. OtrostTioN NOTARftS *#
266 1 MR. MORRIS: WE'RE QUESTIONING WHETHER YOU LOOKED s 2 INTO THE CAPABILITY OF THE DC SYSTEM TO SUPPORT THE COMPONENT 3 COOLING WATER SYSTEM.
4 MR. MAGGIO: IN TERMS OF SUR VE ! LLA NC E DO YO U M EA N, 5 FOR EXAMPLE, AN EQUIPMENT SURVEILLANCE OF, SAY, THE BATTERY 6 AND PROCEDURES FOR THAT7 7 MR. MORRIS: NO.
8 MR. MAGGIO: WHAT DO YOU MEA N S Y S UR'.'E I LLA NC E7 9 MR. MORR IS: S URVE I LLANCE IN THE CONTROL ROOM SO THE 10 O PE R A T OR KNOW S HE HA S A DC S YS TEM AVA I LA B LE , 50 THAT HE CAN 11 TELL DURING DISCHARGE HOW MUCH CAPACITY HE STILL HAS LEFT IN 12 THE B ATTERY. ITEMS SUCH AS THAT, REQUIREMENTS OF I TR IPLE E 13 MA TER I A L.
MR. CALVO:
14 YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO CHECK WHAT THE TECH 15 SPECS -- TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FOR COMANCHE PEAK ALSO SAY 16 SURVE ILLANCE REQUIREMENTS, THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO BE MET TO 17 ASSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DC SYSTEN.
18 MR. FOLEY: IS THAT IN ADDITION TO THE SURVEILLANCE 19 YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? YOU SAID SURVEILLANCE IN THE SENSE OF 20 MONITORING IN THE CONTROL ROOM. NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 21 S UR VE I LLANC E, TEC H S PEC S UR VE I LLA NC E.
22 MR. MORR IS: MY CONCERN IS SUR VE ILLA NC E IN THE
- 23 CONTROL ROOM VOLTAGE AND CURRENT OF THE DC SYSTEM.
24 MR. CALVO: I -THINK YOU MUS T HAVE SIMILAR l 25 $URVEILLANCE AND ALSO BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION I BELIEVE, l 26 POWER SYSTEMS BRANCH, iJOHN KNOX WHO TALKS ABOUT COUNTER 27 $URVEILLANCE YOU WANT IN THE POWER SYSTEMS EACH PLANT IN THE 28 NEXT 5 OR 6 YE A R S YOU H AVE ALL T HE S UR VE I LLA NC E . ALL WE'RE s== 'a==c'sc o DoiDGE a cAmmoLL co....ca.,.
- ',"N'j,*,*** CERTIFIED SMORTHAND RE PORTERS c oe*
- iais oss + +is iaise asi saes DEPOSITION NOTAmiES
\
267 i 1 ASKING, I GUESS, YOU VERIFY THE FACT THAT THOSE THINGS ARE g, 2 THER E, 50... .
3 MR. MORRIS: TYPIC ALLY, THOSE TECH SPECS 4 $URVEILLANCE ARE MORE AIMED AT MAINTENANCE, 80T THERE ARE SOME 5 LIMITS IN THERE THAT MAY AFFECT THE DESIGN OF THE EQUIPMENT 6 $UCH AS MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE BATTERY TEMPERATURE, FOR I NS TA NC E, 7 THAT WOULD AFFECT THE CAPABILITY OF THE BATTERY TO SUPPLY THE 8 LOAD.
9 MR. KILLOUGH: YOU EXPECT THE INDICATIONS IN THE 10 CONTROL ROOM TO BE REVIEWED TO ASSESS THEIR ADEQUACY, BATTERY 11 VOLTAGE, DI SCHARGE RATE, THINGS LIKE THA T, AVAILABLE VOLTAGE 12 FROM THE NORMAL DC POWER SUPPLY 7 IS THAT WHAT YOU 'RE TR YING 13 TO GET AT, WHAT THE OPERATOR HAS AVAILABLE TO HIM TO FIND OUT i . 14 IF THE SYSTEM MINIMUM VOLTAGES ARE THERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15 PROCEDURE THAT HE HAS?
16 MR. MORRIS: YES, TO SHOW THE OPERATOR T HA T HE DOE S ,
17 IN FACT, HAVE A DC SYSTEM AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT IT.
18 MR. CALVO: RIGHT. KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU ARE WHA T WE 'R E 19 REVIEWING THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM.
20 TRYING TO KNOW IS THE CAPA8ILITY OF ALL THE SUPPLIES TO THAT 21 SYSTEM OPERATED BY DC SYSTEM THAT WILL PRECLUDE THAT SYS TEM VOLTAGES ARE TOO LOW !
22 FOR PERFORMING THE INTENDED FUNCTION.
l J23 AND THE EQUI PMENT IS NOT DESIGNED ,TO TAKE THE VOLTAGE, THERE 24 IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE SOURCE EITHER FIX THE EQUIPMENT OR
- 25 FIX THE SOURCE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THAT EQUIPMENT.
26 MR. KILLOUGH: IN OUR INTERPRETATION OF SOME OF I 27 THESE QUESTIONS, IT WAS CLEAR TO US SY READING THE QUESTION 28 THAT WHAT WE THOUGHT YOU WERE GETTING AT WAS OUT OF OUR SCOPE sa= ema=cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL ca. ..go...
saisi ses.eeso CEmTl* LED SwontMAND aspomTERS tow *n sa Yases DEPOSITION NOTAn't S L -- - - __ . _ _. _ .. . _ _ _
268 1 0F REVIEW. BUT IN SOME OF THE CLARIFICATIONS THAT WE HAVE 2 C OME -- HAVE C OME TO LI GHT IN HERE, THE INTENT OF ASKING THE 3 QUESTION SOMETIMES RESULTED IN BEING INSIDE THE SCOPE OF 4 R EVI EW . THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING -- EVEN THE THINGS WE MIGHT 5 BELIEVE RIGHT NOW ARE OUT OF SCOPE, WE MIGHT WANT TO DELVE A 6 LITTLE DEEPER TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS YOUR INTENT IN ASKING THE 7 QUESTION SO THAT IF SOME OF THE THINGS WE THOUGHT WERE P 8 TO US OUT WERE OF SCOPE, THE INTENTIONS Of YOU ASKING THE INSIDE 9 QUESTIONS RESULTED SOMETHING WE DID LOOK AT THAT WAS 10 S C O PE . THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS IN THE FOREFRONT.
Il MR. CALVO: IF YOU SELECTED THE COMPONENT COOLING 12 WATER SYSTEM, I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THAT THE SYS TEM IS GOING 13 TO PERFORM THE INTENDED FUNCTION. THAT S YS T EM HA S A LOT OF 14 OTHER SUPPORTING SYSTEMS, HELPING THE SYSTEM PA R T OF THE DC 15 P OW E R, ONCE DC POWER DUPLICATION SYSTEMS. 50 THAT 'S ONE THING.
16 NOW THE OTHER THING ALSO WE'R E LOOKING A T, WHA TE VE R 17 YOU DO IN THAT SYSTEM THAT IS GOING TO HELP TO HAKE IT A 18 LATERAL DETERMINATION AND CORRELATE IT WITH ALL THE FLUID 19 SYSTEMS 50 YOU CAN SAY, IF IT WAS DONE GOOD IN THIS SYSTEM IN 20 THIS WAY IN THIS MANNER, ALSO WOULD BE DONE GOOD IN THIS 21 SYSTEM. IF IT WAS DONE 8AD ON THIS SYSTEM, YOU CAN C OME TO 22 THE CONCLUSION ONLY IT WAS SPECIFIC TO THE SYSTEM, BUT IT CAN 23 ALSO BE. IT ALSO WENT DOWN 8AD IN. ALL THE OTHER SYS TEM.
24 MOST OF OUR QUESTIONS WS GEARED TO GET THE KIND OF 25 INSIGHT FROM WHAT YOU DID. OKAY7 26 MR. STUA RT: KEEP DRILLING, JO S E, WE'LL GET IT
}
27 E VE NT UALL Y.
28 MR. MARINOS: WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT QUES TION.
l saas ena=cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL c o,, . . e o ,, .
" 'jj.,l
csatiriso swoatwaNo atroatsas co -
i
' ospositioN uotanies
"+***'"'
wi ,....:see
269 1 QUESTION 3(A) WAS THE SHORT CIRCUIT CHECKED BY CYGNA OR JUST
- 2 THE RESULTS OF THE CALCULATION PREPARED WITH THE MCC SPEC.
3 MR. NOR KIN: YOU MEAN THE SHORT CIRCUIT CALCULATION.
4 MR. MORRIS : THE 480 VOLT SHORT CIRCUIT CALCULATION.
5 MR. MAGGIO: ARE YOU ASKING WERE THE RESULTS OF THE 6 C ALCULATION COMPARED AGAINS T THE EQUI PMENT RATINGS 7 .
7 MR. MORR IS: WAS YOUR INTENT TO LOOK AT THAT SHORT 8 C IRCUIT CALCULATION, TO REVIEW THE SHOR T CIRCUIT C ALCULATION 9 OR JUST TO OBTAIN THE NUMBERS FROM THE RESULTS OF THAT 10 CALCULATION AND COMPARE THAT TO THE NUMBERS GOING INTO THE 11 SPECIF ICATION FOR THE 4 80 VOLT SWITCHGEAR 12 MR. OSZ EW SK! : YOU ARE ASKING IF WE REVIEWED THE 13 METHODOLOGY FOR THE SANITY CHECK ON THE RESULTS.
14 MR. MAGGIO: THEN YOU ARE ASK'ING DID WE ALSO UTILIZE l
15 THE INFORMATION TO COMPARE THE EQUIPMENT THAT WAS PURCHASES BY 16 LOOKING AT THE SPECIF IC ATION TO PURCHASE THE EQUI PMENT?
17 MR. MORRIS: YES.
18 MR. MAGGIO: WILL YOU BE INTERESTED IN OTHER AREAS 19 OF DETAIL OUT OF THE CALCULATION TO ASSURE YOURSELF THAT IT'S 20 ADEQUATE 7 21 MR. MORR IS : SIMILAR TO THE 6.9 KV SWITCHGEAR, WE 22 WOULD BE INTERESTED AS TO WHAT VOLTAGES WERE USED ON SHORT i
23 CIRCUIT.
24 MR. MARINOS: ADDITIONALLY, TO GIVE MORE 25 AMPLIF ICAT ION WHAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO LOOK AT IS THE 26 WITHSTAND CAPABILITY OF THE BREAKER, WHICH IS A TRANSIENT 27 LEVEL IN A HALF A CYCLE AND ALSO THE SHORT CIRCUIT
! 28 INTERRUPTING OF THE MCC'S AND BREAKERS, IF THIS IS THE AREA sa= *=a casco conoot a cammoLL c o.... c o s, .
[, CERTIFIED SHORTMAND REPontEms t o
,t' asion as ossee DEPOSIT lON NOTAmitS
l 270 1 THAT YOU ALSO CHECKED.
. 2 MR. NORKIN: AREN'T YOU REALLY SAYING IF THEY DI D 5 REVIEW THE CALCULATION, YOU WOULD WANT THEM TO BE PREPARED TO 4 DISCUSS THE DEPTH THEY GOT INTO IN THE CALCULATION 7 5 MR. MARINOS: THIS GOES BACK LIKE JOE SAYS WHETHER 6 YOU USE DC OFFSETS IN YOUR EVALUATION OF THE WITHSTAND 7 CAPABILITY OF THE EQUI PMENT.
8 MR. NORKIN: 1 JUS T DO N ' T W ANT US TO BE TOO SPECIF IC 9 AS TO WHAT WE 'RE LOOKING FOR. BECAUSE ANY CALCULATION YOU 10 HAVE REVIEWED WE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE ACTUALLY LOOKING OVER 11 YOUR SHOULDER TO SEE WHAT YOU DID ON IT RATHER THAN SAY DID 12 YOU DO THIS OR DO THAT. ONC E W E S E E THE C ALC ULA T ION, WE MIGHT 13 HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
. 14 MR. MAGGIO: S UR E. THE F EEL IS F OR THE DEPTH OF 15 YOUR QUEST ION, HOW FAR TO LOOK IN OUR REVIEW.
16 MS. WILLIAMS: I THINK WE UNDERSTAND, I THINK WE 17 UN DER S TAND.
18 MR. CALVO: W E C AN GI VE YO U, TOO, SOM E OF THE 19 BENEF ITS OF THE PREVIOUS PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE FOUND IN TR YING i 20 TO HELP YOU OUT TO MAY8E AT LEAST TAKE CARE OF THOSE l 'M SUR E
- 21 OTHERS WILL COME UP.
22 MR. MARINOS: WE'RE GIVING YOU THIS IN ORDER TO NELP f
23 YOU GIVE US THE DOCUMENTATION THAT PROB A5LY WILL GIVE US THESE 24 ANSWERS OF THE WOR K T HA T YO U H A VE DO NE .
25 MR. MORRIS: LET ME ADD ANOTHER CLAR IF IC AT ION TO 26 T HA T. TYPICALLY IN A SHORT CIRCUIT CALCULATION ON A 480 VOLT 1 27 LE VE L, THIS WOULD BE A MAND CALCULATION. AND THE IM PE DA NC E 28 DIAGRAM WOULD NORMALLY BE DONE USING ASSUMED VALUES IN THE
- 8",'*818,0 DOIDGE & CARROLL g ,,,,, ,,,,
,,, ,, CERT 18aED SMORTMAND REPORTERS to *
'8
eets. ass snee OtPOSITION NOTAmit S
.'. _ ' ._~__._ .._ _ . .
1 271 1 BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT AND COME B ACK TO VERIFY TOWARDS 2 END OF THE PROJECT WITH ACTUAL AS-BUILT DATA, ESPECIALLY
\. .
3 IMPEDANCES ON THE SUBSTATION UNIT, SUBS TATION TRANSFORMERS, I WOULD BE 4 THE ACTUAL CABLE LENGTHS THAT WERE USED GOING OUT.
5 LOOKING TO SEE WHAT TYPE OF INPUT DATA WAS INCLUD 6 CALCULATIONS AND THE B ASIS OF THAT INPUT DATA.
7 MR. MARINOS: OR VARIOUS SOURCES OF INPUT FOR 8 SOURCES MEANING THE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INDUC TION MOTORS THA T 9 ARE OPERATING SOMEWHERE AND BUS NAMES ARE SUPPLIED AND THI 10 0F THAT NATURE.
MR. OVER8 ECK: WE'RE CONTINUING TO TRY TO TRACE, TO Il 12 DEMONSTRATE THE TRACEABILITY TO THE DESIGN INPUT TO TH 13 OUTPUT.
1 -
QUES TION 3(8), DOES THE REFERENCED 14 MR. MARINOS:
PANEL BOARD.
15 SPEC COVER BOTH THE DC BUS AND THE DC POWER 16 MR. MORRIS: THE REF ERENCE SPEC IN THE CHECKLIS T W AS 17 2323-ES-11 AND 1 COULD NOT TELL FROM THE CHECKLIST ACTUALLY l
18 WHAT THAT -- WHAT DC EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED UNDER THA T 19 SPECIF ICATION AND, THEREFORE, WHAT THE SHORT circuli AT THE DC 20 SYSTEM -- WAS THAT THE SWITCHGEAR LEVEL OR POWER PANEL LEVEL.
21 MR. MARTIN: THIS IS A CLARIFICATION ON EQUIPMENT
'22 COVERED BY E S 11.
MR. MORRIS : COVERED BY TOUR REVIEW OF ES-11, YES.
33
! 24 MR. MAGGIO: I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD WANT US TO 25 INDIC ATE THE RATINGS OF THE SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT THAT WE LO 1
26 AT IN THE SPEC --
l YES.
27 MR. MORRIS:
- s 28 MR. MAGGIO
- -- IN COMPAR!$0N TO THE SHORT CIRCUl*
l DotDGE D CARROLL gas... e ...
! 'y'.,'.;.;g;'g;',*
CEntitiED SMontMAND mtpoetras t ow = = .
esis, asi snee OtPositioN NOT Amits
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ ~ . . _ _ _ _
i 272 i'
1 CALCULATIONS THAT WERE CORRESPONDING TO IT THAT WE REVIEWED.
YES. F OR INS TA NC E, THE COMMENT IN THE 2 MR. MORRIS:
4 3 CHECKLIST INDICATE PANEL BOARD HEADER RATING OF 10,000 AMPS AND DID NOT SPECIFY WHETHER THAT 10,000 AMP RATING WAS AN AC 4
' 6 MR. MARINOS: ANY MORE CLARIFICATION ON THIS?.
MS. WILLI AMS: NO.
7 8 MR. MARINOS: I HAVE A SUBSET OF THIS QUESTION 3(B).
THE PANEL
- 9 DID CYGNA REVIEW THE SHORT CIRCUIT CALCULATION FOR 10 BOARD AND CONFIRM THAT THE SHORT CIRCUIT RATING WAS A DC QUESTION 11 RATING DO YOU WANT FURTHER CLARIF ICATION ON THIS?
! 12 3(C) ARE THE OVERALL CONTACTS USED TO PROTECT THE MOTOR DURING
, 13 PERIODIC TESTING AS REQUIRED BY REGULATORY GUIDE 1.106.
i
l 15 MR. MORRIS: THE STATEMENT .IN THE CHECKLIST SAYS 16 THAT OVERLOAD CONTACTS ARE USED TO ANNUNCIATE THERMAL OVERLOAD 17 CONDITION. IT DOES NOT ADDRESS WHETHER THERMAL OVERLOAD 18 CONTACTS ARE USED TO PROTECT THE MOTOR 1
19 MR. KILLOUGH: 50 YOU WANT US TO FIND OUT IF WE i
20 CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OVERLOAD CONTACTS USED FOR l
I 21 ANNUNCIATION FCR PERIODIC TESTING PURPOSES AND ALSO lF THERE 22 WERE THERMAL OVERLOADS THAT WERE USED TO PROTECT THE MOTOR
~
23 ITSELF. ,
24 j MR. MORR IS: MY CONCERN IS THAT EITHER. THE OVERLOADS 25 ARE BYPASSED ALL THE TIME OR NOT IN THE PROTECTION CIR 26 ALL.
27 MR. MARINOS: GO TO THE NEXT QUES T!ON.
28 MR. MART!N: YES.
. .. . ..w ..c o poioot a cammoLL c o.... c o.. .
""**** caatmso saoatama.o as*ontras * * "
. '."CS caposmos Notmaiss
273 1 MR. MARINOS: 3(D), WAS THE SETTING CRITERIA AND 2 ACTUAL SELECTION OF OVERLOAD HEATERS, PARENTHESES, USED FOR 3 THE ALARM AND, SLA SH, OR PROTECTION, END OF PARENTHESES, 4 REVIEWED BY CYGNA FOR ACCURACY AND 8 ASIS, PERIOD. WERE THESE
- 5 IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MOV VENDORS RECOMMENDATION FOR THERMAL 6 PROTECTION? ,
7 MR. MAGGIO: MAYBE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
8 ARE YOU LOOKING FOR THE METHOD IN WHICH THE OVERLOADS WERE 9 SIZED AND, OF COUR S E, THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHAT WERE THESE 10 OVERLOADS BY IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
11 MR. MORRIS: MY CONCERN HERE !$ TO FIND OUT IF THE I
J 12 MOTOR OPERATED VALVES OR ANY OTHER MOTOR CONTROL CENTER LOAD 13 15 PROTECTED ADEQUATELY.
i . 14 MR. MAGGIO: OKAY.
15 MR. MORRIS: MY CONCERN IS EMPHASIZED, TOO, IN THE 16 WALKDOWN CHECKLIST WHERE YOU NOTE THAT THE MOTOR OPERATED 17 VALVES THAT YOU LOOKED' AT DURING THE WALKDOWN ARE A DIFFERENT 18 SIZE HORSEPOWER THAN WHAT WAS USED IN THE CALCULATION.
I 19 MR. MAGGIO: 50 THEN YOUR CONCERN IS WERE THE 20 OVERLOADS THEN SIZED FOR THE ACTUAL OVERLOAD.
21 MR. MARINOS: YOU ARE CLEAR WITH THAT?
22 MR. MAGGIO: YES.
24 MR. OVERBECK: THROW OUT A MECHANICAL QUESTION, T O O, i
25 BEC AUSE NOW THE MOTOR IS A DIFFERENT SIZE THAN WHAT WAS USED
(
26 IN THE HORSEPOWER CALCULATION. THERE IS CONCERN WHETHER l
} 27 TORQUE WAS SUFFICIENT TO OPEN THE VALVES, 50 THERE IS A 28 MECHANICAL ASPECT TO THIS CONCERN ALSO.
... ... c .sc o poioor a cAmmoLL ....c.s,.
se est ses sees C ow"'
CERteFIED SMORTMAND REPORTERS ** "#'
saiIaNasee Of POSITION PeOTARIE S
.--........;.. '" u . _ ..
274 1 MR. MARINOS: OKA Y. QUESTION 3(E), WAS THE B ASIS 2 FOR THE ENVIROff4 ENTAL AND SEISMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MCC ANI 3 DC EQUIPMENT SPECS REVIEWED BY CYGNA AND INCLUDED IN THE 4 QUALIF ICATION REPORT.
5 MR. MARTIN: WE MAVE COVERED THIS QUESTION A COUPLE 6 OF TIMES I THINK.
7 MR. MARINOS: YOU ARE RIGHT. THIS IS OUT OF YOUR 8 SCOPE.
9 MR. MORRIS: LET ME -- EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE SAID THi!
10 A NUMBER OF TIMES, MY CONCERN IS NOT JUST THE QUALIF ICATION Ot 11 THE EQUI PMENT, BUT THE INTERF ACE THAT'S REQUIR ED B E TWEEN 12 DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES IN THE DESIGN. THIS IS ELECTRICAL 13 E QUI PM ENT . INTERFACE IS REQUIRED WITH MECHANICAL SERVICES, 14 PEOPLE FOR VENTILATION, S TRUCTURAL PEOPLE FOR SE I SH IC. AND 15 DURING A DESIGN REVIEW, I WOULD EXPECT TO BE LOOKING TO SEE 16 THAT THAT INTERDISCIPLINE INTERFACE EXISTED.
17 MR. MARINOS: OKAY, NO MORE CLARIF IC ATION. WE GO T 18 QUESTION NUMBER 4(A). AND THIS IS MELT POWER AND CONTROL 19 CABLE. i. .-( = THE B ASIS FOR THE GIBBS & HILL ALLOWABLE CABLE 20 LENGTH CONFIRMED BY CYGNA.
21 MR. MARTIN: FIRST OF ALL, ! CAN USE A CLARIFIC ATIO 22 WHAT YOU MEAN BY BASIS.
'23 MR. MORR IS : VALVE POWER . THE QUES TION CONC ERNS TH!
24 ALLOWABLE FEEDER CABLE SIZES FOR MOTOR OPERATED VALVES AND TH:
25 CONCERN IS THE VOLTAGE DROP THAT YOU SEE IN THAT TYPE CABLE.
26 THERE !5 A S TATEMENT IN THE COMMENTS THAT SAID THAT YOU 27 VERIFIED THE CABLE LENGTHS ARE LESS THAN ONE-E1GHTH THE AND MY 28 ALLOWABLE LENGTH TO MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE YOLTAGE DROP.
s== *a* e sco poioot a cAmmott ...,...w.
" cow'-
"'n..'.'.,'.,,.** cantisito swontaaNo asPonT a. - ' ' - " ' '
.. . o.,o.svio~ ~or .. .
275 1 QUESTION IS WMAT IS THE BAS!$ FOR THAT ALLOWABLE LENGTH.
s 2 MR. MARTIN: LOOKING FOR REVIEW OF THE B AS IS OF THE 3 FEEDER C ABLE LENGTH.
4 MR. MORRIS: I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE IN THE GIBBS S 5 MILL CALCULATION VOLTAGE DROP CALCULATION SHOWING THE 6 DIFFERENT LOADS VERSUS ALLOWABLE LENGTHS, BUT DIFFERENT SIZE 7 LOA DS, CABLE LOADS.
8 MR. MAGGIO: OKA Y, WE UNDERSTAND.
9 MR. MARINOS: AS SUBSET TO THIS 4(A), DID GIBBS S 10 HILL INCLUDE MOV STARTING CURRENT IN THE VOLTAGE ANALYS !$.
11 MR. MARTIN: THE FIRST CLARIFICATION WOULD BE WHICH 12 VOLTAGE ANALYSIS ARE YOU REFERRING TO.
13 MR. MORRIS: THE 480 VOLTAGE DROP ANALYSIS :
1 . 14 ESTABLISHING THE VOLTAGE AT THE OPERATING EQUIPMENT.
15 TYPICALLY, CABLES ARE SIZED FOR NORMAL RUNNING CURRENT, BUT IN 16 SHOR T DUTY MOTOR S SUCH AS MOTOR OPERATED VALVES, THE S TARTING 17 CURRENT MAY AFFECT THE SIZE OF THAT C ABLE SUBSTANT I ALLY.
18 MR. MARINOS: THE LACK OR CAPABILITY FOR IT.
i 19 MR. NORKIN: ALL THIS FEEDS INTO THE ALLOWABLE 20 C ABLING CALCULATION, RIGHT.
21 MR. MORRIS: TMAT ' S C ORR EC T.
22 MR. MARINOS: AND/OR $12E OF THE CABLING, C OR R EC T.
l '3 2 MR. MARTIN: OKAY.
25 MR. MARINOS: ANOTHER QUESTION AS A SUBSET TO 4(A) 26 IS HOW DOES GIBBS S HILL CALCULATION, S LA SH, ANALYS IS HANDLE l 27 THE LOADS INSIDE CONTA!>#iENT WHERE MORE THAN ONE C ABLE IS 28 INVOLVED SUCH AS CCW VALVE HV 4696.
l Sy',' *,*,*C,',8,C,0 DOIDGE & CARROLL go .. g ,,,,
CERTipiED SwCRTMAND REPORTERS COW' ee,casu=0 * *'*88'
se ss i.aae* DEPOSITION NOTAmiE S
)
276 1
1 MR. MORRIS: WE HAVE SEEN OCCASION WHERE SOME PLANTS 2 HAVE -- YOU LOOKED AT LOADS, ESTABLISHED THE CALCULATION AND s
3 SET A LIMIT ON THE ALLOWABLE LENGTH OF CABLE THAT YOU COULD 4 RUN TO A PART ICULAR LOAD, NOT REALIZING THAT LOADS INSIDE 5 CONTAINMENT HAVE TWO CABLES ASSOCIATED WITH IT, CABLE INSIDE 6 CONTAlhMENT AND CABLE OUTSIDE CONTA thMENT.
7 MR. NORKIN: ARE YOU SAYING IT'S A SEPARATE 8 ALLOWABLE LENGTH FOR THE ONE INSIDE AND ONE OUTSIDE, BUT THEY 9 DON'T REALL7 LOOK AT THE LENGTH OF BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE 10 CONTA!hMENT7 11 MR. MAGGIO: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT 12 C OM PLE TEL Y.
MAYBE YOU COULD REPHRASE THAT AGAIN, PLEASE.
13 MR. MORRIS: IF THE GIBBS S HILL CALCULATION, F OR 14 INSTANCE, SAYS THAT ON A MOTOR OPERATED VALVE YOU ARE ALLOWED s
15 TO RUN A ONE HORSEPOWER MOTOR FOR 200 FEET, AND THE DI S TA NC E 16 OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT IS 187 FEET, THEY MAY ACCEPT THAT.
17 MR. MAGGIO: FROM THE SOURCE TO THE MOTOR OUTSIDE 18 CONTA I NME N T.
19 MR. MORRIS: BUT THE LOAD, IN FACT, MAY BE INSIDE 20 CONTAINMENT. AND YOU MAY HAVE 187 FEET OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT 21 AND ANOTHER 150 FEET INSIDE CONTAINMENT. THE TOTAL MAY EXCEED 22 THE ALLOW ABLE, BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO DIFF ERENT CABLES, THEY MAY i3 NOT CATCH THAT.
24 MR. MARTIN: BASED ON THE F ACT THEY ARE DIFFERENT 25 CABLE.
26 MR. MAGGIO: OKAY.
l 27 MR. MORRIS: THAT 'S REALLY A OUEST ION OF THE 28 METHODOLOGY THAT GIBBS S HILL USED IN A VOLTAGE DROP ANALYSIS.
l
- '",'","j,",* DOIDGE & CARROLL c o.,,,, e ,, ,
f , C ow="
' m.g.o CEntitlED SMORTMAND RE ponTE RS '*"88''
esise asi asse DEPOSITION NOTARIE 5
. . ~
277 1 MR. MARINOS: GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
( 2 3 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION 4(C), DOES GIBBS S HILL 4 CAPACITY CALCULATION INCLUDE THE RATING FOR HIGH AMBIENCE, 5 PARENTHESES, SUCH AS INSIDE CONTAihMENT, CLOSE PARENTHESES, 6 FLAME RETARDENTS AND FIRE BARRIERS, TRAY COVERS ON CABLE TRAY.
7 MR. MAGGIO: IN ADDITION TO AN ANSWER INDICATING IF 8 THERE ARE ANY OR NOT, WOULD YOU WANT SPECIFICS IN TERMS OF 9 THEIR CAPACITIES OF VALUES FOR CERTAIN VOLTAGE -- AMBIENT 10 LE VE LS .
11 MR. MOR R IS : I WOULD EXPECT THAT YOUR REVIEW OF THA T 12 WOULD LOO K A T T HE AMB I E NC E, F OR I NS TA NC E, THAT DIFFERENT 13 CABLES HAVE TO RUN THROUGH AND COMPARE THAT TO THE ALLOWABLES 14 THAT GIBBS S HILL C AME UP WITH IN THEIR CAPACITY CALCULATION.
I 15 MR. MAGGIO: OKA Y .
16 MR. MORR IS: THE STATEMENTS ON FLAME RE TARDANTS AND 17 FLAME COVERS COMES ABOUT BECAUSE SOME PLANTS DO NOT PROVIDE 18 ADEQUATE SEPARATION THROUGHOUT THE PLANT AND, THEREFORE, WINDS 19 UP PUTTING IN SOME TYPE OF FLAME RETARDANT OR COVERING THE 20 TRAYS IN SOME MANNER TO PROTECT ONE TRAIN FROM ANOTHER TRAIN 21 AND FAIL TO TAKE ANY ACCOUNT OF THE EFFECT THAT HAS ON THE 22 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY OF THE CABLE.
23 MR. MARINOS: IN SOME SITUATIONS YOU MAY HAVE BOTH, 24 YOU MAY HAVE THE FLAME RETARDANTS AND COVER IN SOME PLACES 25 WHERE YOU GO THROUGH A WALL AND YOU HAVE A TRAY COVER AND 26 RETARDANTS THAT WOULD COMPOUND THE THERMAL EFFECTS ON THE I
27 CABLE.
I \
28 MR. STUA RT: I THINK YOU ARE SAYING NOT ONLY
, ,****CgC,o D010GE & CARROLL g ,,,, .. e o , .
Ctafiast0 SuomTMAND mtponTEns Coe" o awin ** 4' " "
emisiese aseo etpositioN NOTAmitS I
278 1 VER IFYING, HOWEVER, THAT THOSE CALCULATIONS WERE DONE, BUT 2 VERIFYING -- TAKE THE FACT THAT ALMOST A FIRE ANALYSIS, IF YOU s
3 WILL, IN TERMS OF FLINE RETARDANTS, THAT TtEY WERE THE 4 APPROPRIATE ONES FOR THE ZONES THAT IT PASSES THROUGH. AM I 5 READING THAT, YES?
6 MR. MORRIS: NO, I WOULD EXPECT THE CAPACITY 7 CALCULATION WOULD HAVE A DIRECT FLAME RETARDANCE I F, IN F AC T, 8 FLAME RETARDANTS ARE USED IN THE PLANT. AND IF THEY ARE NOT 9 ADDRESSED IN THE CALCULATION, THEN A WALKDOWN MAY OR HAY NOT 10 SPOT THAT ACCORDING TO THE EXTENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION AT THE 11 $1TE.
12 MR. MARINOS: BECAUSE HEAT DISSIPATION FROM THE 13 CABLE INSULATION WOULD BE RESTRICTED WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THIS
. 14 TYPE OF ,ENVIROPe4ENT SO THE CABLE MAY HAVE TO INCREASE IN SIZE 15 COMPENSATE THE RESTRICTION AND REJECTION.
16 MR. KILLOUGH: CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I THINK IN 17 SOME CASES YOU REALLY DO NOT KNOW UNTIL THE CABLE'IS INS TALLE D 18 WHE THER YOU ARE GOING TO NEED -- WHETHER YOU C AN ACCOMMODATE 19 THAT SE PARAT ION CR I T'ER I A. 50 IN SOME CASES THERE MAY BE AN
- 1 20 ORIGINAL CALCULATION WHERE YOU DON'T TAKE ACCOUNT FOR 21 THERMACIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR THE TRADE BEING COVERED 22 AND THEN YOU WOULD EXPECT IF WE NOTICE THAT ON OUR WALKDOWN, h3 THAT THERE WOULD BE A CHECK OF INSTALLATION PROCEDURE OR 24 SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO GO AND VERIFY IF, IN FACT, THA T HA D 25 BEEN DONE AFTER THE CABLE WAS INSTALLED.
26 MR. MARINOS: I GUESS YOU WOULD LOOK FOR A HECHANISM l 27 BY WHICH THEY WOULD MAKE THAT ASSESSMENT OR NOTE IT.
l 28 MR. KILLOUGH: A LOT OF CASES THAT'S NOT ORIGINALLY l
- ",'",*18,0 DOIDGE & CARROLL co ,..cos,.
CERTIFitD SMORTMAND REPORTERS Cow
.g . sa i si s a"a'"i n s sa isi as i.s poe DEPOSITION NOTAR8E S
279 1 DONE IN AN INITIAL DESIGN CALC SECAUSE IN SOME CASES YOU
- s. 2 REALLY DON 'T KNOW IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET A SEPARATION DUE TO 3 CONS TRUCTION PR08LEMS, AS-8 UI LT .
4 MR. NEVSHEMAL: 1 BELIEVE 50, ALSO FEEDS ACK 8 ACK TO 5 THE REQUIREMENT TO DO A VERIFICATION 6 MR. OSZ EWS KI : ALSO, LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE OF 7 INTER DI SC I PL I NA RY C OOR DI NA TION, PEOPLE DOING HAZ ARD ANALYS IS 8 BE THE SAME PEOPLE RUNNING CABLE.
9 MR. OVERB ECK: TYPICALLY THE PROBLEMS ARISE WHERE 10 THE INTERFACES ARE, 15 WHERE IT BELONGS.
11 MR. MARINOS: THE NEXT QUESTION. ARE WE READY?
12 MR. MAGGIO: YES, PLEASE.
13 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION 4CD), WAS THE LIMITORQUE DATA I
- 14 REVIEWED FOR OTHER ELECTRICAL DATA SUCH AS THE LOCKED ROTOR 15 CURRENT AND STROKE TIME.
16 MR. MORRIS: BASED UPON THE STATEHENT IN THE 17 CHECKLIST EE-02, SHEET 10, THAT SAID REVIEW LIMITORQUE MOTOR 18 DATA LETTER CDN 027, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONTENTS OF THA T 19 LETTER IS.
20 MR. HESS: ARE THERE OTHER THINGS OTHER THAN LOCKED 21 ROTOR CURRENT AND STROKE TIME THAT YOU WOULD BE INTER ES TED IN 22 IN THAT REGARD 7 23 MR. MORRIS: FROM THE STATEMENT IN THE CHECKLIS T I 24 ASSUMED THAT THE CABLE $1 ZING CALCULATION AT LEAST LOOKED AT 25 THE RUNNING CURRENT.
26 MR. MARINOS: BY THE WAY, THERE WAS AN ERROR IN t'
THERE, A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE QUESTION. WE CALL IT A 27 28 REACTOR, OF COUR SE, IT 'S ROT OR . DO YOU NEED ANY FURTHER l
i sa= sea =cesco DolOGE & CARROLL cos,.a costa
- j'*,'[*' CERTipsED smomTMAND mtpomTEns ,,,COf,*',',,,
saise asi.ssee DEPOSITsON NOTAmit5
280 l l
1 CLARIFICATION ON THE LOCKED ROTOR CURRENT AND STROKE TIME?
l
(. 2 MR. MARTIN: NO.
3 MR. MARINOS: THE NEXT QUESTION, 4(E), WAS THE VALVE 4 SPECS ALSO REVIEWED FOR ELECTRICAL INPUTS, SUCH AS AC VOLTAGE 5 RANGE, MINIM UM STARTING VOLTAGE, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DC 6 VOLTA GE, TERMINATION REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING LIMIT SWITCH AND 7 OPERATOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDUCT SEALS AND CONTACT RATINGS.
8 MR. MORRIS: THAT 'S OPERATOR ENVIROhMENTAL CONDUI T.
9 MR. NORKIN: CONDUIT. IT SAYS CONDUC T. IT'S 10 CONDUIT.
11 MR. MARTIN: SO YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A CLARIFICATION 12 OF OUR CHECKLIST ITEMS.
13 MR. NORKIN: THE CHECKLIST ITEMS ARE ONLY FOR 14 MECHANICAL DESIGN
\
15 MR. KILLOUGH: ANYTHING MORE ON TMAT?
16 MR. MARTIN: NO.
18 MR. MARTIN: MAYBE ONE CLARIF ICATION, CABLE TRAY.
19 MR. CALVO: OKAY.
l 20 MR. MARTIN: MAYBE ONE CLARIFICATION MIGHT BE YOUR 21 QUESTION ON OPERATOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDUIT. SEALS, I BELIE VE 22 I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE
'23 THE R E A RE NO OT HER LE VE LS . ARE YOU REFERRING TO ENVIRONMENTAL 24 SEALS?
25 MR. MORRIS: ENVIRONMENTAL SEALS REQUIRED ON THE l
26 VALVE OPERATOR LIMIT SWITCHES ON THE SOLENOIDS OR OTHER 27 E QUI PMENT INSIDE CONTAINMENT OR IN HARSH ENVIRONMENTS, AS I 28 SAY, WITH THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM.
l 5,,*",' ",*'Cy',8,0 D01DGE & CARROLL e ...e3,..
oana=o CERTipiED SMORTMAND REPORTERS C ow=' *
- '88'
emiss ast.as** DEPOSITION NOTam!ES
281 1 MR. MARINOS: NEXT QUESTION IS 4(F), WAS TRAY 2 VOLTAGE LEVEL CONFIRMED FOR CABLE ROUTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH 3 FSAR 8.3.1.4.3.
4 MR. MORRIS: FROM THE CHECKLIST I COULD NOT 5 DETERMINE WHAT YOU REALLY DID IN YOUR REVIEW OF THE ROUTING OF 6 THE CABLE FOR THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER EQUIPMENT. I 7 COULDN'T TELL WHETHER YOU WERE JUST LOOKING TO SEE WHETHER THE 8 CABLES WERE ALL IN TRAIN "A" TRAYS OR WHETHER THEY WERE IN 9 TRAIN A 4(A) VOLT TRAYS.
10 MR. MARTIN: I UNDERSTAND.
11 MR. KNOX: DO WE KNOW WHAT THE GIBBS S HILL CRITERI A 12 FOR SEPARATION OF CLASS 1-E EQUIPMENT AND CIRCUITS FOR THIS 13 ITEM 157 WE DON ' T KNOW W HA T T HAT IS. I GUESS MY CONCERN IS I
16 MR. MARINOS: GO ON TO THE NEXT QUES TION. QUE S TION 17 4(H), WAS THE TRAY FILL BASIS CHECKED BY SAMPLING THE ACTUAL 18 CABLES IN A GIVEN TRAY SECTION AND THEN CALCULATING THE 19 PERCENT FILL.
20 WAS THIS DONE FOR POWER CONTROL AND INS TRUMENT TRAYS 21 WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT FILL RESTRICTIONS, WAS THE BASIS FOR 22 INSTRUMENT CABLE TRAY FILL LIMIT REVIEWED.
~i3 MR. MARTIN: THAT 'S PRETTY S TRAIGHTFORWARD.
24 MR. MORR IS : THE INTENT THERE IS THAT IT APPEARS 25 THAT GIBBS S HILL HAS A COMPUTERIZED TRAY SYSTEM, AND I COULD ,
26 NOT DE TERMINE FROM YOUR STATEMENT IN THERE WHE THER YOUR CHECK 27 OF FILL WAS -- CONSISTED OF. GOING DOWN THEIR COMPUTER LIST AND 28 LOOKING FOR AN OVERFILLED CABLE INDICATING A COMPUTER ERROR OR sa= eaa=cesco DOIDGE & CARROLL c o='s c os' a
',)*",*"
,,. CERTIFIED SMORTHAND REPORTERS c ow**
- in e si as i.asse DEPOSITION NOTARIES *'88'"'
282 1 WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY TOOK A CROSS-SECTION OF A S AMPLE OF TRAY
(_ 2 SECTIONS AND DETERMINED WHAT CA8LES WERE IN THERE, WHE THE R 3 THAT AGREED WITH THEIR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR NOT.
4 MR. OVERB ECK: WE HAVE FOUND INSTANCES WHERE CABLES 5 WERE JUSY DEAD ENDED, JUST LAYING IN THERE, NOT TERMINATED 6 ANYWHER E, TOO HARD TO TAKE OUT. FIRE PROTEC TION PEOPLE DI DN 'T 7 KNOW THEY WERE IN THERE, CONTINUED TO GO ON.
? MR. MAGGIO: FOR EXAMPLE, IF THESE CABLES WOULD GIVE 9 AN EXCESSIVE TRAY FILL.
10 MR. MORRIS: BOTH FROM A CAPACITY POINT OF VIEW IF 11 THE CIRCUITS ARE LIVE CIRCUITS AND ALSO FOR FIRE PROTECTION, 12 C OM BUS T IB LE .
13 MR. OVERB EC K: THE COMPUTER PROGRAM MIGHT EVEN 14 INDIC A TE IT IS NOT OVERLOADED, IN FACT, IT MIGHT BE.
15 MR. CALVO: AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU 00 HAVE 16 OVERFILL I N C OMA NC HE PEAK. H OWE VE R, ON THIS THING IN THOSE 17 CASES WHERE THE OVERFILL CRITERIA WAS EXCEEDED, S OM E 18 ADDITIOhML CALCULATIONS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE THERMAL LAG 19 AND SUPPORT WAS DONh. 50 YOU MAY FIND OUT THAT YOU HAVE THE 20 OVE RF I LL, YOU WANT TO KNOW IF IT 'S OKAY TO HAVE THE OVERF ILL.
21 IT IS A PROCEDURAL OR REQUIREMENT IN CASE YOU COME UP WITH AN 22 OVE RF I LL, YOU MUST DO CERTAIN THINGS TO ASSURE THAT THE
'23 STRESSES, THERMAL OR STRUCTURAL STRESSES ARE OKAY. 50 IT IS A 24 VERY REAL SITUATION. YOU HAVE IT IN COMANCHE PEAK.
25 MR. MARINOS: GO TO THE NEXT ONE, TOM.
l l
26 MR. MARTIN: YES, PLEASE.
27 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION 4CI), WAS A 600 VOLT POWER 28 CABLE SPECIFICATION REVIEWED. AND I AM GOING TO READ THE REST i
sa= *ea=cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL co ,.. cas,.
"'"'* CERTipiED SMORTMAND REPORTERS C o d'* l un sYsses DEPC$iTION NOTARIE S l
l 283
' 1 OF THE QUESTION. DID THE REVIEW INCLUDE A DETERMINATION OF -
)
2 THE REQUIRED INSULATION LEVEL BECAUSE OF -- BECAUSE THE 480 )
3 VOLT SYSTEM IS UNGROUNDED AND NOT TRIPPED ON GROUNDS. WAS THE i 4 C AB LE MAN UF AC T UR ER ' S C AB LE DA TA R E VI EWE D AN D C OM PAR E D T O 5 DESIGN DOCUMENTS, A, CABLE OUTSIDE DI AMETER VERSUS TRAY FILL 6 AND AMPAC ITY CALCULAT IONS,, B, MAXIMUM PULLING TENSION AND SIDE
' 1 7 WALL PRESSURE VERSUS INS TALLATION SPEC, C, CABLE REPAIR AND
, 8 SLICE CRITERIA.
9 MR. MORRIS: THE REASON FOR THIS QUESTION IS YOUR 10 CHECKLIST INDICATE THAT YOU LOOKED AT THE 6.9 KV CABLE AND IT 11 LOOKED -- YOU HAVE AN ENTRY ON CONTROL CABLE AND ANOTHER ENTRY 12 I BELIEVE ON INSTRUMENT CABLE LATER ON IN THE NEXT CHECKLIST.
- 13 BUT I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING ANYWHERE ON THE SIX HUNDRED VOLT
. 14 CABLE.
15 M P. . HAGGIO: I HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT IS DIREC TED AT 16 A DETERMINATION OF INSULATION LEVEL, AND I'M NOT SURE ABOUT 17 THE CRITERIA OF USING SAY UNDERGROUND SYSTEM AT 40 VOLTS FOR, l 18 SAY, 600 VOLT CABLE. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE 19 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS IN LIGHT OF THE F AC T THA T 20 THE INSULATION LEVEL CAN BE SPECIFIED AS A NOMINAL CUT 21 TEMPERATURE OF 90 DE GR EE C, 150 DEGREE C FOR OVERLOAD IN AN 22 EMERGENCY SHORT CIRCUIT 250 DEGREES C.
'23 MR. MORRIS: THERE IS TWO DIFFERENT PROBLEMS WITH I
24 CABLE. THE QUESTION THAT I AM RAISING HERE HAS TO DO WITH THE l 25 VOLTAGE BREAK DOWN AT THE CABLE BECAUSE THIS CABLE -- BEC AUSE-26 THE 480 VOLT SYSTEM IS AN UNGROUNDED SYSTEM, A POTENTI AL
}
27 GROUND COULD EXIST WITHOUT TRIPPING THE SYSTEM WHICH IS THE 28 INTENT OF AN UNGROUNDED SYSTEM, TO ALLOW THE PLANT TO CONTINUE I
sa= *ma=cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL e... .. c o , .
" " " ' " " C ow*"
CERTIFIED SMORTMANO REPORTERS
- '88'"'
saiYaNasee DEPOSITION NOTAmiES
284 1 OPERATION UNTIL THE GROUND CAN BE REPAIRED. BECAUSE THIS
'- 2 S YST EM IS UNGROUNDED AND COULD RUN WITH A GROUND FAULT ON l
3 T HE R E, THE F AULT DOE S NOT TR I P, THE ICEA STANDARDS FOR C ABLE 4 CALLS FOR A HIGHER VOLTAGE LEVEL I NS ULAT ION.
5 AND THE OTHER AREA THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, WAS 6 THE THERMAL CAPABILITY OF THE INSULATION SYSTEM AND THE 7 CURRENT CARRYING CAPABILITY.
9 MR. MAGGIO: THANK YOU.
10 MR. MARINOS: NE XT QUEST ION, 4 (K), IS THE POWER 11 OPERATED VALVE SPECIFICATION ALSO COVER THE VALVES INSIDE 12 CONTAINMENT WITH ITS HARSH ENVIRONMENT. DID THE VALVE SPEC 13 PROVIDE RADI ATION VALUES -- IS THAT RIGHT -- FOR DIFFERENT 14 PLANT AREAS.
15 MR. MARTIN: MY IMPRESSION OF THIS QUES TION IS T HA T 16 I T ' S N O, S OME OF THESE VALVES AREN 'T INCLUDED IN OUR CHECKLIST 17 AND THAT'S WHY YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT THE INC LUS ION.
18 MR. MORRIS: YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT YOU LOOKED AT 19 THE SPECIFICATION OF THE POWER OPERATED VALVES, BUT I DON'T 20 KNOW WHAT THE -- WHAT VALVES WERE INCLUDED I N T HA T 21 S PEC IF IC ATION.
22 MR. MARTIN: OKAY.
l 23 MR. MORRIS: ! DON'T KNOW IF ALL THE VALVES IN THE 24 PLANT WERE PURCHASED UNDER THAT ONE SPECIFICATION.
25 MR. MARTIN: OKAY.
26 MR. MORRIS: AND IF THEY ARE PURCHASED UNDER THIS 27 ONE SPECIF IC ATIOM, THEN I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE DIFFERENT 28 ENVIRONMENTS SPECIFIED FOR DIFFERENT PLANTS, DIFFERENT PARTS sa= eaa=c sco DOIDGE & CARROLL co. .. cas,.
CERTIFIED SMORTMAND RE PORTg ns Cow *"
wiI asee DEPOSITION NOTAmlE5 "***'
285 1 OF THE PLANT.
. 3 MR. NORKIN: DID THAT K, THAT INCLUDED EQUI PMENT 4 SPEC POWER OPERATED VALVES FOR IDENTIF ICAT ION I TRI PLE E?
5 MR. MORRIS: K ALSO ADDRESSES SPECIFICATION MS 600 6 AND ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS. ,
7 MR. NORKIN: OKAY.
8 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION 5(A), WAS A QUALIFICATION OF 9 THE, QUOTE, QUALIFIED ISOLATOR, UNOUOTE, REVIEWED BY CYGNA.
10 MR. MARTIN: I BELIEVE WE WENT OVER THIS QUESTION 11 EARLIER IN OUR OTHER CHECKLIST.
12 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION 5(B), DID CYGNA QUESTION WHY 13 VALVES HV 4512 AND HV 4514 WERE NOT MONITORED THE SAME AS IF 14 THEY PERFORMED THE SAME FUNCTION TO I SO LAT IO N, TO ISOLATE THE s
15 COMPONENT COOLING WATER A LOOP FROM THE B LOOP.
16 MR. MORRIS: AND THE REASON FOR THIS QUESTION IS 17 'OUR CHECKLIST INDICATES CHECK OFF IN THE YES COLUMN FOR ONE 18 OF THE VALVES AND CHECK OFF IN THE N/ A COLUMN FOR THE OTHER 19 VA LVE .
20 MR. MARTIN: OKA Y.
21 MR. MARINOS: NOW, SUBSET HERE TO THIS QUESTION IS 22 WHY ARE VALVES HV 4572 AND 4574 NOT ILCLUDED IN REGULATORY 23 GUIDE 147 MONITORING TO ALLOW LOSS, OF THE RHR AND CONTAINMENT 24 SPRAY AND COOLING CAPABILITY.
25 MR. MORRIS: YOUR CHECKLIST INDICATES THAT THOSE 26 VALVES 'ARE CHECKED OFF UNDER N/A AND WE WOULD THINK THAT THOSE
\ s 27 ARE IMPORTANT VALVES.
s 28 MR. MARTIN: OKAY. I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND.
'**,*,',$",, DOfDGE a CARROLL ,3 ,,,,,,,,
o.w,,o CERTIFIED SHORTM AND REPORTERS Coe
'33'
esis esi ssee DE POSITION NOTARIE S
286 MR. OSZ EWSKI: MAY ! ASK A CLARIF ICATION, WE'LL GET 1
s,. 2 TO IT LATER, SOME OF THE INSTRUMENT AND CONTROL QUESTIONS THA T 3 WE MAVEN'T GOT TO YET, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS TALKS ABOUT 4 WHETHER THAT SIGNALS MAKES AN OPERATIVE SYSTEM BYPASS 5 INDICATION SSII. ARE YOU ASKING SORT OF THE SAHE QUESTION FOR 6 THOSE TWO QUESTIONS? ! DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE ASKED BY THE 7 SAME PERSON.
8 MR. MORRIS: T41Y ARE ASKED BY TWO.
MR. OSZ EWSKI: DIFFERENT PEOPLE, BUT THE S AME 9
10 QUESTION.
11 MR. STANLEY: WORKING IN DIFFERENT OFFICES. THIS 12 ONE IS A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC, ASKING ABOUT A CERTAIN VALVE.
13 I WAS ASKING ALL OF THEM.
14 MR. MARINOS: ITEM SCC), VALVE RV-4508 DOES NOT HAVE 15 A TRAIN B COUNTERPART AS IMPLIED BY AN X IN THE YES COLUMN.
j 16 MR. MARTIN: NO FURTHER CLARIF IC ATION.
17 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION 6(A), WAS THE BASIS FOR THE 18 CCW ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN REPORT INPUT REVIEWED.
l 19 MR. KILLOUGH: FROM FIRE PROTECTION STANDPOINT.
l 20 MR. OSZ EW SKI : WE NEED SOME MORE ON THAT ONE.
21 MR. KILLOUGH: 6(A).
22 MR. MORRIS: YOUR CHECKLIST INDICATES THAT THE
- 23 ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN REPORT AND FIRE ANALYSIS REPORT I DE NT IF IED 24 WERE REVIEWED FOR IDENT IF IC ATION OF THE COMPONENT COOLING 25 WATER SYSTEM ELECTRICAL VALVES. THE QUESTION WAS WHAT WAS THE 26 INPUT, WHAT TYPE OF INPUT WENT INTO THE FORMATION OF THA T
'27 ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN REPORT THAT I NCLUDE D T HE -- THOS E C 28 COOLING WATER VALVES. WAS THERE AN INTERDISCIPLINE REVIEW saw esa=cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL coe .. gog..
"**"*** cEnTisiED sMORTHAND REPORTEm5 CO M w asee OEPOSITION NOTAR'ES
287 e
1 ESTABLISHED FOR THAT?
\, 2 MR. MICGIO: I 'M NOT S UR E W E ASKE D T HE QUE S T ION, 3 WE 'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT DESIGN.
4 MR. MOR RIS : I'M LOOKING FOR THE INTERDISCIPLINE 5 INTERACTION HERE ESTABLISHING THESE REQUIREMENTS -- THE 6 REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE VALVES IN BOTH CONDITIONS.
MR. MARINOS: DID YOU F INISH, GEOR GE? WE'LL GO TO 7
8 THE NEXT QUES TION. OKA Y, WE'LL GO TO QUESTION 7, FUNC T IO NA L 9 REQUIREMENTS. WE'RE ASKING WAS THERE AN FMEA PERFORMED ON THE 10 CONTROL CIRCUITS.
11 MR. FOLE Y: BY CYGNA OR GIBBS S HILL.
12 MR. MORRIS: BY GIBBS S HILL.
13 MR. MARINOS: QUES TION 7(B) .
14 MR. HESS: CAh ! ASK ONE OTHER? ARE YOU TALK!NG
\
15 SOMETHING IN ADDITION TO THE FMEA OR F AILURE MODES TABLE 16 INCLUDED IN THE FSAR OR LOOKING F OR THE B ACKUP TO THAT, THE 17 INPUT TO THAT TABLE 7 18 MR. MORRIS: I'M LOOKING FOR THE INPUT TO THE TABLE.
19 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION 7(B).
20 MR. MAGGIO: I MIGHT ASK QUICKLY, FOR MY OWN 21 CLAR IF ICAT ION, WE'RE TALKING FMEA IN TERMS OF AN ELEC TRICAL 22 SENSE, ELECTRIC AL EQUI PMENT F AILURE. IS THAT WHAT WE 'R E
'23 LOOKING FOR?
24 MR. MOR RIS : l'M PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE 25 ELECTRICAL PAILLRE AFFECTING THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER 26 SYSTEM.
"1
. MR. MAGGIO: THANK YOU.
j I
28 MR. ANGELO: QUESTION 7(B), DOES A SUFFICIENT e.- e.. c.sco ootDGE & C ARROLL ca.,..cos,.
- "'"'"'* CERTiplED SHORTMAND REPORTERS C ow="
. sai eNssee DE PO5tTION NOT A R'E S
288 1 DEAD 8 AND EXIST ON THE CCW PUMP RECIRC. VALVE FLOW CONTROL.
2 MR. MORRIS: CONC ERN IS WHETHER THE RECIRCULATION 3 VALVE IS GOING TO BE CYCLING ON AND OFF OR OPENING AND CLOSINI 4 MR. OSZ EWS KI: S DR T OF C OMB I NAT ION OF M EC HAN I C A L ANI 5 CONTROLS QUESTION.
6 MR. MORRIS: YES. .
7 MR. MARINOS: NE XT QUE S T ION, 7(C), WAS THE BASIS FOf 8 THE PARTIALLY OPEN SET POINT OF VALVE HV-4572 REVIEWED FOR 9 INTERDISCIPLINE INTERFACE 7 DOES THIS AGREE WITH THE ACTUAL 10 SETTING?
11 MR. MORR IS : CONCERN THERE IS THA T VALVE IS GOING T(
12 S OME INTERMEDIATE POS ITION, WHAT DE TE RM INED THAT INTERME DI A TE 13 POSITION, AND DOES THAT CONTROL AGREE WITH THE -- DOES THA T
. 14 INTERMEDIATE POSITION AGREE WITH THE CONTROL CIRCUIT.
15 MR. MARTIN: OKAY.
16 MR. MARINOS: WE'LL GO TO 7(E), DOES AN INTERLOCK 17 EXIST TO ISOLATE THE SAFEGUARDS LOOP ON SURGE TANK LO LO LEVEL l 18 WHICH COULD BE CAUSED BY A BREAK IN THE NON-SAFEGUARDS SECTIOP
~
19 OF CCW.
20 MR. POR TER: IS THERE ANYTHING BEHIND THAT QUESTION
- i 21 MR. MORRIS: THE CHECKOFF LIST INDICATED THAT THE 22 COMPONENT -- THAT THE NONSAFETY RELATED SYS TEM WAS ISOLATED Ok h3 A P S I GNA L, BUT I WOULD EXPECT THAT A NONSAFETY RELATED SYSTEP 24 WOULD BE ISOLATED ON LO LO SURGE TANK LEVEL IN ORDER TO 25 CONSERVE THE WATER FOR THE SAFETY SYSTEM.
27 MR. MARINOS: QUES TION 7(F) -- ARE WE DONE7 28 DOCUMENT WHOSE ANALYSIS FORMS THE B ASIS FOR REMOVING THE HIGH
- E,",',$ *,'.""o0 DOIDGE e CARROLL , , , , , , , , , ,
oaaw.o CERTIFIED SMomTMAND REPORTERS c ow%t.
se ese ass.ss** DE*OSITION NOTAmits 8*ise esa s us
i l
289 1 RADI AT ION INTERLOCK ON VALVE RY-4508.
3 MR. KILLOUGH: SAME QUESTION WAS ASKED THREE TIMES.
4 MR. MESS: SAME ONE WE ANSWERED EARLIER THIS MORNING 5 B EF OR E WE GE T OFF T HA T, LET ME ASK FOR MECMANICAL 6 BACKGROUND WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU NEEDED OTHES THAN 7 THE ANSWER THAT WAS PRESENTED THIS MORNING ON THE INTER LOCK ?
8 IS THERE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION7 9 MR. OVERBECK: I GUESS YOU ARE TRACKING IT -- YOU 10 GAVE US A LOT OF ANSWERS SAYING WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT WHEN 11 WE DO OUP DESIGN CONTROL PROCEDURE OR WHATEVER. I DON ' T WANT 12 TO STEAL YOUR WORDS, I 'M NOT S UR E HOW YO U PHR A S E D I T. WHEN WE 13 00 O UR RE VI EW S, THE FELLOWS WHO ARE DOING THE TECHNICAL 14 REVIEWS ARE ALSO DOING THE PROGRAMMATIC. WE DON'T REALLY DO A
\
15 PROGRAMMATIC PER SE. WE LOOK AT THE CALCULATION, FIND THE 16 P R OB LEM, AND LOOK AT THE PROCEDURES TO SEE WHAT WAS VIOLATED.
17 IT ALSO GETS TO BE WRITTEN UP AT ONCE. THERE SEEMS 18 TO BE A SEGREATION IN THE MECHANIC AL AREA. WE DID OUR OWN 19 CHECK AND FIND IT ALL RIGHT. CUR QUESTION I S, IS IT STILL A 20 DESIGN CONTROL PROCESS PRO 6LEM. 50 I STILL HAVE THA T OPE N 21 QUESTION. TO ME, IT 'S NOT RESOLVED. IT MAY BE ALL RIGHT 22 TECHNICALLY, B UT NOT F R OM A DE S I GN PR OC ES S S TA ND PO IN T .
23 MR. HESS: YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE DESIGN CONTROL, 24 DE S 7 GN PR OC ES S .
25 MS. WILLIAMS: I UNDERSTAND.
26 MR. OVERBECK: I'M WORR IED. THAT ' S WHA T WE 'R E
, 27 TRYING TO ASCERTAIN, WHE THER THERE WAS A CONTROL DESIGN 28 PR OC ESS IN VOLVED IN THE SYSTEM. IN ADDIT ION, IS THIS SYSTEM r S** ****C's c o DOIDGE & CARROLL c a.... c o s,.
" M'j,*,'** CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTERS , C of*,',', , ,
sei s, es s- sase DEPOSITION NOTARiE s
l 290 1 PROPERLY DES IGNED. I THINK THERE IS TWO QUESTIONS THA T HA S TC
'- 2 BE ANSWERED.
3 MR. CALVO: TOMORR OW I INDICATED WE WOULD GIVE YOU A 4
SUMMARY
, AT LEAST OUR PERCEPTION THAT TOOK PLACE IN THESE TWO 5 OR THREE DAYS OF HOW WE STAND FROM OUR STANDPOINT, HOW WE SEE 6 AS AREAS THAT ARE REQUIRED FURTHER CONSIDERATION FOR THE 7 ASSESSMENT TO SATISFY OUR *.ONCERNS.
8 S O T OM ORR OW W E W I LL DO -- W E W I LL TR Y T O S UMM AR I Z E 9 AND GIVE YOU THAT KIND OF OVERVIEW.
10 MS. WILLI AMS: O KA Y.
11 MR. CALVO: I GUESS WE CAN TAKE A 5-MINUTE BREAK.
12 (RECESS.)
13 MR. MARINOS: WE'RE GOING TO GO TO CHECKLIST EE-03, 1 - 14 ELECTR ICAL CCW I NS TR UME N TAT IO N. AND QUESTION NUMB ER 1, WAS 15 THE POS T-ACCIDENT MONITOR ING EQUI PMENT INCLUDED IN THE EO LIS1 16 MR. MORRIS: W HAT I AM REALLY LOOKING FOR HERE IS 17 WHA T W A S THE B AS IS OF ES TABLISHING THE POS T-ACCIDENT 18 MONITORING SYSTEM, WHAT INPUT WAS THERE FROM THE DIFFERENT 19 DISCIPLINES AND WHAT DEFINED WHETHER THAT EQUI PMENT W AS 20 REQUIRED TO BE SAFETY RELATED OR NOT.
21 MR. MARINOS: QUES TION 1(B), DOES SPECIFICATION 22 2323-MS-622 COVER ALL TEMPERATURE ELEMENTS INSIDE AND OUTS 1DE 23 C ONTA INM ENT. ARE THE TEMPERATURE ELEMENTS RTD'S OR 24 THE RM OCOU PLE S, IF T HE TE ' S INSIDE CONTAINMENT ARE 25 THERM OC OUPLE S, HOW ARE THEY BROUGHT OUT THROUGH THE ELEC TRIC AL 26 PE NE TRAT IONS.
27 MR. MORR IS : THIS QUESTION HERE ON THE CHECKLIST 28 WHETHER THAT SPEC IF ICATION IS 622 OR 620, TWO REFERENCES TO sa= eaa=c.sco DOtDGE & CARROLL
"'*8**** c o.... c o s'.
CERTapiED SHORTMAND REPORTERS C ow'"
l ueNsYssee DEPCstTION NOTARIES ' #'
291
- r 1 S PEC IF IC ATIO N.
(_ 2 MR. POR TER : 50 YOU ARE LOOKING THERE FOR 3 THERMOCOUPLE WIRE USED IN THE PENETRATION. THAT 'S THE TYPE OF I
4 QUESTION YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.
MR. CALVO: YOU ALSO GOT THERMOCOUPLE, JUNCTIONS, 5
6 ALL THAT STUFF.
7 MR. POR TER: YES, YES.
8 MR. CALVO: OKAY.
9 MR. MARINOS: GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION. QUESTION 10 N UM B ER 4, INSTRUMENT POWER SOURCES REVIEW WAS NOT COMPLE TED IN 11 THE CHECKLIST. WAS THE CORRECT TRAIN ASSOCIATED POWER USED.
12 WERE VOLTAGE AND CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE INS TR UM E NT 13 LOOP AND ELECTRONICS RACK REVIEWED. WAS CLASS 1-E SLASH NON 14 1-E IS OLA TION IN THE RACK ELECTRONICS REVIEWED. WAS THE RACK
\
15 SUPPLIED BY A UPS AND WAS THE CAPABILITY OF THE INVERTER 16 R EVI EW ED.
17 MR. MORRIS: THE REASONING BEHIND THIS QUES TION, 18 THERE IS AN ENTRY IN THE CHECKLIST EE-03 SHEET 8 OF 8 FOR 19 REVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENT POWER SOURCE. AND THERE IS NO 20 INDICATION WHETHER THAT REVIEW WAS PERF ORME D. THERE IS NO 21 CHECKOFFS IN THE BOX AND NO ENTRANCE IN THE COMMENT SECTION.
22 MR. NOR KIN: IS THAT ITEM 47
'"3 2 MR. MORR IS: THAT'S 4. .
24 MR. NORKIN: REQUIREMENT OF POWER SOURCE, AND 25 REQUIREMENTS,OF DDC 13, 26 MR. MARINOS: ARE WE FINISHED? AN ADDITIONAL SUBSET i
27 OF QUESTIONS UNDER 4 WHICH I DID NOT STATE I WILL S TA TE NOW.
28 CHECKLIST STATES THAT NUMBER 12 CONDUCTORS ARE USED FOR sa= *=a=cisc o DOIDGE & CARROLL co.... cos,a
'eesi ssa ese CERTIPiED SMORTMAND REPORTERS C ov*"
'3# '
l .a*I [ ases DEPOSITION NOTARIE$
(
l
-= --
292 1 INS TRUMENT CA8LE, BUT LIST EE-02 ITEM 41 LISTS SHIELDED
( 2 TW IS TED PA IR NUM8 ER 16 C AB LES. AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION, IF 3 NUMBER 12 IS, IN FACT, USED ARE THE CABLES IN A SHIELDED 4 TW I S TED PA IR F ORME D.
5 MR. MORRIS: THE QUESTION THERE IS IN THE CONTROL 6 SECTION YOU INDICATED THAT THE REVIEW OF THE CONTROL 7 SPECIFICATION FOR CONTROL CABLE INCLUDED CHILLER TWIS TED C ABLE l
8 HERE IN THE INSTRUMENTATION SECTION YOU ARE SAYING OR IMPLYING 9 THA T CONTROL CABLE IS USED TO INSTRUMENT.
10 MR. MARTIN: I THINK I KNOW WHAT THE 11 MISUNDERSTANDING IS THERE. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
12 MR. MARINOS: I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL LIST OF QUESTIONS 13 WHICH DO NOT APPEAR IN THE CHECKLIST. WE CALL THEM OTHER 14 AREAS NOT REVIEWED BUT SHOULD MAVE BEEN I NCL UDE D. AND I MVE
\
15 QUESTION NUMBER 1, ELECTRIC AL CONTAINMENT PENE TRATION REQUIRED 16 F OR T HE CCW S YS TEM MOV, SOLENOID POWER AND CONTROL AND CCW 17 INSTRUMENTATION CONTAINMENT. SUSSET, PE NE TR A TIO N 18 SPECIFICATION INPUTS FOR REQUIRED CAPACITY, SHORT CIRCUIT 19 C APAB I LI T Y, ENVI R OPN ENTAL, PA RENT HE S ES, INCLUDING RADI ATION, 20 CLOSE PARENTHESES, SEISMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NORMAL AND DBE 21 C ONDI T IONS, TERMINATION REQUIREMENTS, ET CETERA.
22 MR. MORRIS: THIS AREA WAS ADDED EVEN THOUGH IT WAS 23 NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR REVIEW. CONTAINMENT PENE TRA TIONS TEND TO i 24 BE A PROSLEM AREA BECAUSE OF THE LARGE INTERF ACE REQUIRED, NOT 25 ONLY BETWEEN DISCIPLINES, BUT ALSO INTERNAL IN THE ELECTRIC AL 26 DISCIPLINE. AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PENETRATIONS ARE OUTSIDE I 27 THE DEFINED SCOPE.
28 MR. MARTIN: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THESE ITEMS.
sa= sa =cisco DOIDGE a CARROLL co=*=.cos'.
CERTi*aED SMORTMAND REPORTERS Cow *"
sa:EsYssee DE*CSITION NOTARIES **'"'"
293 1 MR. MARINOS: GO TO QUESTION NUMBER 2, DIESEL q 2 GENERATOR CAPABILITY TO ACCEPT THE CCW PUMP. AND S UB SE T OF 3 QUESTIONS UNDERNEATH, WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR LOADING TABULAT!dN, 4 HAS THE INPUT DATA BEEN REVIEWED, MA S DI ES EL GE NER A TOR TESTS 5 PROVEN THE CAPABILITY OF THE UNIT TO ACCEPT THE DESIGN BASIS 6 LOAD, HAS THE ACTUAL MOTOR DA TA F OR LA RGE MOT OR, PA R ENTHE S ES, 7 480 VOLT LOAD AND 6.9 KV SWITCHGEAR LOADS, CLOSE PARENTHESES, 8 BEEN REVIEWED FOR STARTING KV'S --
9 MR. MORR IS: T HA T ' S K VA ' S .
10 MR. MARINOS: KVA'S AND ACCELERATING TIMES AND 11 COMPARED TO THE DIESEL GENERATOR LOADING CALCULAT ION. WERE 12 DIFFERENCES JUS TIF IED.
13 MR. MAGGIO: I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THESE VERY WELL.
14 AT THIS T!HE IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD 15 AS F AR AS THE QUESTION THAT MAYBE BROACHED INTO DIFFERENT 16 AREAS THAT WE MAY HAVE COVERED ANYWAY.
17 MR. MORRIS: NOT AT THIS TIME.
18 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION NUMBER 3 IS FIELD DESIGN 19 C HANGE S IN CCW, PA RENT HE S ES, AND OTHER SYS TEM S, CLOSE 20 PARE NTHES E S. DO DESIGN CHANGES INITIATED IN THE FIELD CONFORM 21 TO THE PROJEC T SPECIF IC ATION GUI DELINES, SPEC IF IC AT IONS, 22 GUIDELINES, AND CALCULATIONS.
23 MR. MORRIS: I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE CHECKLISTS, 24 I DI DN' T SEE ANYTHING IN THE CHECKLISTS WHERE YOU REVIEWED 25 FIELD CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER 26 SYSTEM.
I 27 MS. WILLIAMS: F OR THE R EC OR D, WE DID. WE'LL l
l 28 ADDRESS THAT. BOXES OF THEM.
l
- ,",; c;*c,o , coloGE a CARROLL co....ca...
ca. aws CERTIFIED SwomTMAND RE PORTE RS cow
- se e s. es o ssee DE POSITION NOTAMit S ** i s' e sa"n o s
294 1 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION NUMBER 4, 480 VOLT MOTOR
\ 2 PROTECTION AND COORDINATION, PARENTHESES, SWITCHGEAR AND MCC, 3 CLOSE PARENTHESES, WITH UPSTREAM BREAKERS, PA RENTHE S ES, NOT 4 COVERED SY CCW SYSTEM, CLOSE PARENTHESES, PERIOD.
5 MR. MORRIS: EXCUSE ME THE REASON WHY I ADDED THAT, 6 THE SCOPE OF THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM HAS LARGE 7 MOTORS ON THE 6.9 KV BUS AND RELATIVELY SMALL MOTOR OPERATED 8 VALVES, BUT IT DOES NOT COVER THE MOTORS IN THE -- ON THE 4 6 0 9 VOLT SWITCHGEAR OR LARGER 480 VOLT LOADS. 50 BY USING THE 10 COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM AS A GUIDE SYSTEM, YOU ARE 11 MISSING THAT SECTION OF THE ELEC TRIC AL REVIEW.
12 MR. MARTIN: O KA Y, I UN DERS TAN D.
13 MR. OVERB ECK: YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT FIELD DESIGN 14 CHANGE WE HAVE LOOKED AT A LOT OF THEM. FR OM A DESIGN l 15 S TA NDPO IN T, WE'RE INTERES TED IN LOOKING AT HOW FIELD DESIGN 16 CHANGE WAS INITIATED AND HDW THAT GOT BACK TO THE OR I G I NA L 17 DESIGNER TO VERIFY. AND NOT JUS T A QA CHECK, AN ACTUAL 18 TECHNICAL REVIEW AND HOW THAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED.
19 MR. MARINOS: WE'RE FINISHED WITH THE ELEC TR IC AL 20 QUESTIONS. WE CAN START ON THE INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL 21 QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE READY.
22 QUESTION NUMBER 1, FS'A R TABLE 7.1-2, SHE E TS 1 AND 2,
- 23 LIST 10 CFR 50, APPENDI X A, GDC NRC REGULATORY GUIDES, AND I 24 TRIPLE E STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO CCW. FDR EACH SAFETY RELATED 25 CCW' S C OM PONENT, HAVE THE FOLLOWING !TEMS BEEN ADDRESSED. A, 26 GDC 24 AND WHERE, S, GDC 44, WHERE, C, GDC 46 AND WHERE, D, i
27 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.22 AND WHERE, 1-E, R E GULA TOR Y GUIDE 1.62 28 AND WHERE, 1-F, REGULATORY GUIDE 1. 89 AND WHERE.
Sy,'",'jego DotDGE a CARROLL go.,...
.,, CERTIFIED SHORTM AND REPORTERS coa go.,,,
amise ess ases DEPOSITION NOTARIE S ''''''8
l
~
295 1 QUESTION 1(G), REGULATDRY GUIDE 1.100 AND WHERE, 2 1(H), REGULA TORY GUIDE 1.118 AND WHERE, AND QUESTION 1(!), !
3 TRIPLE E 279 AND WHERE, 1CJ) I TRIPLE E 338 AND WHERE.
4 MR. S TANLE Y: 8Y WAY OF 8ACKGROUND TO CLARIFY THAT, 5 THIS LIST C AME OUT OF THE READING OF YOUR DC-5 ELECTR ICAL 6 CRITERIA, AND DC-4 MECHANIC AL CRITERIA RELATIVE TO CHAPTER 7 7 OF THE SAR. THESE ONES I HA VE L IS TE D, EXCEPT FOR 279, WERE 8 NOT IN YOUR CRITERIA DOCUMENTS. AND IN REVIEWING THE CHECK
~
9 SHEETS THAT DEALT WITH INSTRUMENTATION OR CONTROL CIRCUITS, !
10 DIDN'T SEE ANY INDICATION THAT ANY OF THESE WERE ADDRESSED IN 11 ANY ENTRY. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE ISSUE OF SET POINTS IS 12 COMPLETELY AB SENT. AND DC-5, SEC TION 4. 5, IS WHERE YOU HAVE 13 IT LIS TED. AND I EXPECTED TO SEE SOME ADDRESSING OF T HA T .
14 THIS C AME OUT IN YOUR DESIGN CRITERIA.
i 15 MS. WILLI AMS: O KA Y .
l 16 MR. MARINOS: QUES TION NUMBER 2, IN SIGNAL ANALYSIS 17 EE -- W E S KI P N UMB ER 2.
18 MR. MARTIN: SKIP 2 AND 3.
I 19 MR. MAR INOS: SKIP 3 20 MS. WILLIAMS: . IF YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, LE T ' S GC 21 THROUGH THEM.
22 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION NUMBER 3, T HE N, I WILL STATE j 23 IT AND YOU CLARIFY IT. NUMBER 3, WHAT EXACT SIGNALS MAKE UP 4
24 THE, QUOTE, TRIP INOPERABLE, END QUOTE, SYSTEM BYPASS, S LA S H, 25 INO PERATI VE INDICATION FOR SSI! FOR CCW PUMP TRAIN "A" AS 26 MENTIONED IN EE-01, PA RENT HE S ES, 5C8), CLOSE PARENTHESES, IN l i 27 EE-02, PARENTHESES, SCB), CLOSE PARENTHESES.
28 MR. CALVO: QUES TION MARK. l l
l sa= ena=cisco DotDGE a CARROLL co....eo,..
uns. ses seee \
CERTIFIED SMORTHAND REPORTERS C o s*"
ui N Nases DEPOSITION NOTARIES
l 296 1 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION MARK.
(. 2 MR. STANLE Y: THAT'S A TOUGH AC T TO FOLLOW .
3 MR. PORTER: THAT WAS WELL DONE.
4 MR. STANLEY: MY INTEREST IN THERE IS GETTING 5 I NF O RMA T ION ON EACH VAR I AB LE F R OM TH I S S YS TEM THA T ' S P UT INTO 6 THE SSII AND, IN PARTICULAR, HAVING INFORMATION ON THOSE THAT 7 WERE LEFT OUT AS BEING USED LESS FREQUENTLY THAN ONCE PER YEAR 8 THE ONCE PER YEAR DECISION IN REG GUIDE I.47. I PARTICULARLY 9 WANTED TO SEE WHAT THE DESIGN CONTAINED AND WHAT YOUR REVIEW 10 OF WHAT THAT ADDRESSED, HOW YOU REVIEWED NOT ONLY WHAT WAS IN 11 THE LIST, BUT WHAT WAS LEFT OFF THE LIST.
12 MR. MARINOS: NUMBER 4.
14 -
MR. MARINOS: WHAT MEANS HAVE YOU PROVIDED IN A 15 DETAILED CCW'S PUMP CONTROL CIRCUIT TO ASSURE THAT T HE L OW 16 PRESSURE PUMP START INTERLOCK CROSS CONNECTIONS BETWEEN 17 REDUNDANT TRAINS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF I TRIPLE E 279, I 18 TRIPLE E 379, AND I TRIPLE E 384. IDENTIF Y SPEC IF IC SENS OR S, 19 POWER SOURCES, CHANNEL COMPONENTS, AND ISOLATION DEVICES IF 20 USED. REF ER ENC ES EE-01, PA RENT HE S ES, 5C CLOSE PARENTHES ES, 21 AND 7B AND EE-03, PARENTHESES, 2C, CLOSE PARENTHESES.
22 MR. S TANLE Y: MY CONCERN WITH THIS ONE WAS THAT YOU 23 WERE DOING A REVIEW OF TRA IN " A" AND TRA I N " A" ONL Y. AND THIS 24 IS A CASE WHERE TRAIN 8, THE PHYS IC AL PROCESS OF TRAIN B IS 25 CONNECTED INTO THE ELECTRICAL CONTROL CIRCUIT FOR THE PUMP FOR
(
26 TRAIN "A". IT RAISES THE SPECTRUM OF COMMON MODE OF FAILURE, i i
, 27 POTENTIAL FOR COMMON MODE OF FAILURE.
28 1 DIDN'T SEE FROM THE SCOPE THAT YOU HAD THERE WAS s.= en.=cisco
""***' DQlDGE e CARROLL co ... cos,.
centisico saontMaNo memoRiens cow "
. ST*> oeposmow woramies "'*""'
l l
l
~
297 1 ANY WAY THAT YOU COULD OR DID ADDRESS THE LARGER ISSUE OF COMMON MODE OF F AILURE. YOUR WRITEUP ON THAT WAS -- INDIC ATED
( 2 3 THAT THE INTERLOCK EXISTED, BUT YOU DIDN'T QUESTION WHETHER IT 4 WAS EVEN WISE TO HAVE IT OR IF IT COULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY. l 5 NOW, SPECIFICALLY WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO GET ON THAT 6 IS THE MTB F 0F THE PRESSURE SWITCH IN THE PURCHASE SPEC.
7 THAT'S GOING TO BE AN EXTREMELY HIGH RELI ABILITY PRESSURE 8 SWITCH. OTHERWISE, IT CAN BE A WEAK COMMON LINK IN THE SYSTEM.
9 I WANTED TO DIG INTO THAT PRESSURE SWITCH IN DETAIL, KNOW 10 EVERYTHING I CAN ABOUT IT.
11 MR. MARTIN: OKAY.
12 MR. MARINOS: NEXT ONE, 5, DESCRIBE HOW THE MODIF IED 13 NORMALLY OPEN SURGE TANK VENT VALVE CIRCUIT SATISFIES I TRIPLE I
- 14 E 279 AND I TRIPLE E 379 IF A SINGLE POWER SOURCE IS PROVI DED 15 FOR THIS VALVE DESCRISE THE VALVE POSITION INDICATION.
16 MR. STANLEY: WE COVERED THE VALVE INDIC ATION 17 YESTERDAY WE SAID IT WAS NONSAFETY RELATED, SUT THE VALVE 18 CONTROL SWITCH IS ON BUS "A". 50 IF YO U DO N ' T HAVE B US " A" POWER, HOW DO YOU GET THE VALVE OPEN IF IT CLOSES. YOU DI DN ' T 19 1
20 SEEM TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE AT ALL. AM I MAKING MYSELF CLEAR 21 ON THAT?
22 MR. MARTIN: LET ME BREEZE THROUGH HERE ONCE.
'23 MR. FOLEY: ON THE VENT VALVE.
24 MR. STANLEY: ON THE VENT VALVE, IF YOU HAVE " A" 25 POWER AND YOU LOS E " A" POWER, YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GET IT 26 BACK ON.
27 MR. MARTIN: I UNDERSTAND.
28 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION NUMBER 6, FOR PAM INS TRUME NTS
[*,'",'"Cygo DOIDGE & CARROLL co%,.. ca.s,.
CQw%'
o.. g.,o CERTIFIED SMORTHAND REPORTERS "'*#"
sessi ast asse DEPOSITION NOTARIES
298
' 1 COMPARE REQUIRED VERSUS ACTUAL RANGES AND PROVIDE POWER 2 SOURCES FROM THE TEMPERATURE AND FLOW MEASUREMENTS. R EF ERE NC E g
3 IS EE-03, PA RENT HES ES, 1A, CLOSE PARENTHESES.
4 MR. S TANLE Y: THERE IS ONLY TWO MEASUREMENTS IN THIS 5 SYSTEM AMONG THE REG GUIDE 1.97 FLOW TEMPERATURE. GOING 6 THROUGH YOUR MARKUPS, THOUGH, I DIDN'T SEE ANY INDICAT IDN THAT 7 THE RANGE WAS WITHIN THE 32 TO 200 DEGREE RANGE TEMPERATURE 8 NOR THE FLOW WAS WITHIN THE RANGE OF ZERO TO 100 AND 10 9 PERCENT DESIGN RATED FLOW. THE FSAR DID STATE THAT THERE WAS 10 A 2 0,000 GPM RANGE ON THE INSTRUMENT. 50 I SUSPECT THERE IS 11 NO TECHNICAL PROBLEM, BUT YOUR WRITEUP I COULDN'T TELL HOW 12 THOROUGHLY YOU HAD EXAMINED THAT.
13 MR. MARTIN: I C AN UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
15 MR. S TA NLE Y: BUT IT DI DN 'T COME OUT IN THE TEXT OR 16 IN THE COMMENTS.
17 MR. MARINOS: QUESTION NUMBER 7, ELABORA TE CN
< 18 WHETHER ALL LISTED INS TR UMENTS IN EE-03, PARENTHESES, 3A, j 19 C ;. . . - TENTHESES, ARE CLASS 1-E, THEIR SET POINT VALUES, AND
! 20 ADEQUACY OF THE SET POINTS FOR ITEMS IN EE-03, PARENTHESES, 3 B, 21 CLOSE PARENTHESES, ELABORATE ON SET POINT VALUES, ACTUAL 22 RANGES, AND REQUIRED RANGES.
'3 2 MR. POR TER: AS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROCESS? TIME 24 TO EMPTY THE TANK, THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES BASED ON THE LEVEL 25 SET POINT, RECIRCULATION FLOW SET POINT BASED ON BTU DRAW OFF.
26 MR. S TANLE Y: NO, I WASN'T BEING THAT SOPHISTICATED.
t 27 MR. POR TER: OKAY, WHAT LEVEL 7 a
28 MR. STANLEY: I WANTED TO HAVE YOU IDENTIFY WHAT THE sa= .na=cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL c o.... c a...
CERTipito SMORTMAND REPORTERS c ow='+
ui [ssee DEPOSITION NOTARIES ****#'
299
' 1 VALUES WERE, WHAT THE RANGES WERE, WHAT THE REQUIRED RANGES s 2 WERE. THAT WOULD COME OUT OF THE CALCULATION.
l 3 MR. PORTER: WE HAVE A LI$T, A TABLE LI$T. YOU ARE f
4 SAYING LIST THE TABLE. SHOULD WE DISCUSS THEM BEYOND THAT7
! 5 MR. STANLEY: LET'S START WITH THAT.
6 MR. OVERBECK: YES, I THINK THEY HAVE TO BE i
7 DISCUSSED THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MECHANICAL SYSTEMS HAS TO 1
8 PROVIDE INPUT TO ISC. I WOULD EXPECT THAT TO HAVE BEEN LOOKED 9 AT.
10 MR. PORTER: IT 'S BEEN LOOKED AT. WHAT I WANT TO DO 11 W HEN I GIVE YOU AN ANSWER, WHEN WE GIVE YOU AN ANSWER, I WANT 12 TO HAVE A WHOLE ANSWER FOR YOU. THA T ' S THE PO INT .
MR. STANLEY: LET'S HAVE THE VALUES. LET 'S LOOK AT
< 13 I - 14 THOSE AND SET POINT EVALUATION, 15 MR. PORTER: F INE, WE 'LL DO THAT UP FRONT.
i 16 MR. STANLEY: IN YOUR TABLE ON THIS ONE THERE WERE i 17 AT LEAST THREE TRANSMITTERS THAT APPEARED TO BE MISSING FROM 18 THE LIST. WE HAD THE DOWNSTREAM ELECTRONIC 81 STABLE OR OUTPUT I
SWITCH, BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE TRANSMITTER. YE T YOU HA D S OME 19 20 0F THEM IN THERE. SOME HAD TRANSMITTERS AND SOME DID NOT. 50 THE 21 IT LOOKED TO ME LIKE YOUR TABLE WAS PERHAPS I NC OM PLE TE.
22 ONES IN PARTICULAR WERE THE TRANSMITTER 4536 8 AKER, 4556 AND 23 4560. .
24 MR. POR TER: WHOLE FLOW SWITCHES.
MR. STANLEY: YES, POSSIBLY THEY WERE COVERED 25 26 E LS EWHER E.
I 27 MR. PORTER: OKAY.
28 MR. STANLEY: POSSIBLE, BUT I WAS LOOKING FOR THEM
.. a ci.c o poiost a cAmmoLL c os... c o...
""*"** cant:mo smontaaso masontens coea
. I'l7". oseosmom =otaa;as
300 1 IN HERE. NOW THE SET POINT CALCULATIONS ON ALL THE
3 MR. POR TER: WELL, LE T ' S DE LVE INTO THIS JUST A TINY 4 BIT IN THE RECIRCULATION FLOW AREA. M IN IM UM SA YS 6, 0 0 0. SET 5 POINT IS ELEVEN FIVE. WHEN I H I T ELE VE N F I VE, I CLOS E THE 6 RECIRC VALVE AND CONTINUE ON UP. WHEN I AM C OM ING DOW N, I HIT 7 E LE VE N F I VE, I OPEN IT. IMMEDIATELY JUMP TO SEVENTEEN FIVE 8 AND CON,T INUE ON DOWN. THOSE KIND OF DISCUSS IONS.
9 MR. STANLEY: HI S TOR I E S, THE RANGE.
10 MR. POR TER: FINE.
11 MR. STANLEY: AND WHERE THE SET POINT IS IN THE 12 RAN G E, RESPONSE TIME.
13 MR. PORTER: OKAY.
4 14 MR. OVERBECK: AND WHETHER THAT INPUT C AME FROM
\
15 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND TRACEABILITY AND INPUT TO IEC.
16 MR. STANLEY: EXACTLY.
17 MR. MARINOS: AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, NUMBER 8, IT 18 APPEARS THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE MISSING FROM THE CYGNA 19 PHASE 4 ANALYS IS. PLEASE DISCUSS THEIR INCLUS ION OR EXCLUSION, 20 CA) BSFAS CIRCUITRY FOR $! AND LOSS OF OFF-S I TE POWER USE D TO j 21 ACTUATE CCW C04PONENTS, B, SUPPORTING SYSTEMS NEEDED FOR CCW'S l
22 OPERATION IN ACCIDENT SITUATION, C, INSTRUMENT RACK AND 23 C AB INET PROCUREMENT SPECIF IC ATIONS. FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF l
l 24 DESI GN REQUIREMENTS, D, INSTRUMENT SENSING LINE PHYS ICAL l
25 SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS, E, CAPABILITIES FOR PER IODIC TEST IN 26 A DESIGN, AND, F, ADCQUACY OF PROTECTIVE ACTION INTERLOCK SET 27 POINTS.
28 MR. S TA NLE Y: A LITTLE B ACKGROUND ON THAT THE ESF AS sa= eaa=cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL co.... c a s,.
CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTERS con' saisUa 32ee DEPOSITION NOTARIES ****#'"'
301 1 C IRC UITR Y WE HAVE DONE 5 IDI'S AS A TEAM. ON TWO OF THOSE g 2 PLANTS WE FOUND TECHNICAL ERRORS IN THE DESIGN PERFORMED BY 3 THE ARCHITECT ENGINEER WHERE HE MEASURES UNDERVOLTAGE ON THE 4 BUSES AND CREATES A PLANTWIDE LOSS OF OF F-S I T E POW ER .
5 MR. POR TER: WHAT WAS THE CALCULATION ERROR, 6 CALCULATION ERROR?
! 7 MR. STANLE Y: NO, HA R DW AR E DE S I GN ERR OR .
9 MR. STANLE Y: IT APPEARS THAT WAS OUTSIDE YOUR SC OPE 10 ALSO APPEARS ON THIS PLANT IT 'S ALL WESTINGHOUSE SUPPLY.
11 THAT'S MY PERCEPTION, IT'S WESTINGHOUSE SUPPLY.
12 MR. POR TER: THAT 'S RI GHT.
13 MR. STANLE Y: NE VE R THE LE S S, BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER 14 T HA T W E FO UN D, I THINK IT ' S A CR UC IAL AR EA TO LOO K A 7. WE
\
15 WANTED TO EXAMINE THE DETAIL CIRCUITS SIMILAR TO WHAT GEORGE
- 16 WILL BE TA K ING IT INTO. ON THE THE INS TR UMENT RACK AND 17 PR OC UR EM ENT S PEC S, THAT IS SIMILAR WHAT GARY WAS ALLUDING TO, 18 FOLLOW DESI GN PROCESS, REQUIREMENTS FROM HVAC, REQUIREMENTS 19 FROM OTHER DISCIPLINES, ALL THE W AY T HROUGH TO PR OC UR ED 20 EQUIPMENT, AND LOOKING AT THE VENDOR DOCUMENTS COMING B ACK AS 21 TO WHAT WAS PROVIDED, INS TRUMENT SENS ING LINES.
22 WE SEEN A WIDE VARIATION IN CRITERIA FOR THE 23 SEPARATION DISTANCES OF REDUNDANT INS TRUMENT LINE S . THE 24 INDICATIONS THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN ARE THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH 25 CRITERIA, BUT THERE ARE WITHIN THE WESTINGHOUSE DOCUMENTATION, t
26 THERE ARE CRITERIA.
l 27 THE WHOLE IS SUE OF PER IODIC TES TS, REG GUIDE I.105, 28 REG GUI DE 1.108, I TRI PLE E 33 8. A WHOLE THING IS ABSENT FROM s.=en. c.sco DolOGE & CARROLL
- "'**8****
- cov.. cos,.
CERTIFigD SMORTMAND REPORTERS Cod **
iai7a[asee DEPOSITION NOTAR't S "#"
302 1 YOUR DOCUMENT AS IF TT WASN'T THOUGHT ABOUT. THAT WHOLE AREA
( 2 NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. IS EVERYTHING CAPA8LE OF PERIODIC 3 TESTS.
4 MR. PORTER: 0-5 --
5 MR. S TANLE Y: 0-0-S AND 8-I-S.
6 ARE THERE ANY OTHER CLARIFICATIONS?
7 MR. MARINOS: THE LAST ONE, F.
8 MR. PORTER: THAT'S FINE.
9 MR. MARINOS: ITEM F.
10 MR. STANLE Y: THAT'S DEALING WITH CROSS CONNECTION 11 FROM TRAIN 8 TO TRAIN A, THE PROTECTIVE ACTION AIR LINE.
12 MR. MARINOS: WHAT SET POINTS ARE YOU ASKING THERE?
13 MR. S TANLE Y: I HAVE NEVER FOUND THE VALUE OF 14 PR ES S UR E.
15 MR. POR TER: AT WHICH YOU SWITCH.
16 MR. S TANLE Y: I DON ' T KNOW WHA T T HE VAL UE IS.
17 MR. PORTER: IT EXISTS. I DON'T KNOW WHA T IT IS, 18 BUT IT EXISTS.
19 MR. OVERBECK: I'LL BE INTERESTED TO KNOW HOW IT WAS 20 SELECTED IF IT EXISTS.
, 21 MR. CALVD: F IN IS HE C. I GUESS WE WILL HAVE SOME 22 QUESTIONS, SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON THE MECHANICAL SYS TEMS.
'23 WE ARE GOING TO SAVE FOR TOMORROW,.0UR IMPRESSION AND SUHMARY 24 0F THESE MEETINGS. GARY AND JOHN CAN ASK THOSE QUESTIONS, 25 SPECIF IC QUES TIONS. WE CAN ASK THEM RIGHT NOW.
26 MS. WILLI AMS: WE WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE I
27 MECHANICAL QUESTIONS IF WE COULD AND SCAN DOWN THEM PERHAPS 28 AND MAYSE YOU COULD TELL US IF THERE IS ANY ADDITIONAL SECOND l sco DOIDGE & CARROLL sa= ema=c'se esis,ses e co.,.. cos,.
CERTIFIED SMORTHAND REPORTERS c o s*"
sei eN"saee DEPCstTION NOTARIES NII l
l
303 1 OR THIRD TIER TYPE QUESTIONS WHICH WE HAVE EITHER NOT
( 2 ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED AND WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE OR YOU WOULD 3 LIKE TO ADD AT THIS POINT IN T IM E GI VE N OUR ANSWER S . ;
4 MR. CALVO: I THINK WE CAN DO THAT TOMORROW, THE 5 OVER A LL.
6 MR. OVERB ECK: GO AHEAD.
7 MR. CALVO: WE ARE GOING TO SUMMARIZE, I THINK WE 8 HAVE TALKED ENOUGH ABOUT THE MECHANIC AL BETWEEN -- B ACK AND 9 F OR T H. I THINK THERE IS SOME PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS WE HAD. I 10 WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE GE T OVER WITH. THE ONLY THING LEF T 11 T OM ORR OW IS THE
SUMMARY
OF THE THREE MEETINGS WE HAVE, TWO AND 12 A HALF DA YS . OKAY? AND THEN TOMORROW WE C AN GIVE YOU OUR
- 13 S UMMAR Y, AND WE WANT TO BE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PERCEPTION 14 OF HOW THE MECHANICAL SYSTEM, THE ELECTRICAL, INS TR UM ENT A T ION
. \
! 15 GOES.
16 MR. NEVSHEMAL: AS F AR AS THE MECHANIC AL, I JUS T 17 HAVE ONE ADDITIOhEL OBSERVATION. ON MS-04, SHEET 7 OF 7, ITEM 18 13, MS-04, SHEE T 7 OF 7, ITEM 13. IF YOU READ THAT, I HAVE TO 19 BELIEVE THAT THAT REQUIREMENT . iRROR WHERE THE CHECKLIST 20 IS CONCERNED BECAUSE THAT REQUIREMENT SAYS THAT THE SYS TEM 21 DESIGN PRESSURE MUST Br. LESS THAN THE PUMP HEAD.
22 MR. NORKIN: GREATER THAN.
h3 MR. NE VS HEMAL: T HAT ' S W HA T I AM A SS UM IN G AN D I ' M 24 GIVING IT THE bet!EFIT OF A DOUBT.
j 25 MR. HESS: THAT ' S A MIS TAKE.
1 l 26 MR. NEVS HEM AL: ANOTHER ONE I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE l 4 CLARIF ICATION ON FOR THE MATTER OF UNDERS TANDING IS T HA T F OR --
27 l \
28 AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE MS ON MS-01, SHEET 3 OF 10, ITEM 6-1, s .*aa c>sco coloos a cAmmoLL co. . cos,.
I. 'j,*o*** CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTERS ,C o,w*',',
sa i o+ es e spee OEPOSITION NOTARIES
304 6
1 YOU MAKE A STATEMENT THERE THAT THE TOTAL HEAD LOSS TO THE
% 2 NEAT EXCHANGER IS MUCH LESS THAN THE TOTAL DISCHARGE HEAD OF 3 THE PUMP.
4 AM ! TO ASSUME THAT YOU ONLY LOOKED AT THE FRICTION 5 LOSS FROM THE OUTLET OF THE PUMP TO THE INLET OF THE HEAT 6 EXCHANGER AND NOT THE FIRE LOSS TO THE LOOP 7 AND THA T 'S A 7 COMMENT THAT YOU HAVE THERE THAT APPEARS IN MORE THAN ONE I
8 LOCATION.
9 MR. FOLE Y: OKAY, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN 10 MR. NEVS HEMA L: THEN ! HAVE JUS T A QUES TION. YOU 11 USE THE TERM SUCTION LOOPS. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE WHAT YOU 12 MEAN BY THAT. I DON 'T KNOW WHAT PAGE, SORRY.
13 MR. HESS: WHAT WAS THE TERM?
14 MR. OVERBECK: S UCT ION LOO P S . WE 'RE NOT F AMI LI AR I 15 WITH WITH THAT TERMINOLOGY. IT 'S ON CHECKLI S T MS-01, SHEET 8 ,
16 OF 10, NO SUCT ION LOOPS.
17 MR. HESS: SHEET 8 OF 10.
18 MR. OVERBECK: 8 OF 10, MS-01.
19 MR. HESS: WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE IS THE 20 ENTRAPMENT OF AIR HIGH POINTS ON THE SUCTION SIDE OF THE PUMP 21 VERIFYING THE PIPING GEOMETRY AS FAR AS NPSH AND CAVITATION.
22 THAT WAS JUST THE WAY WE NOTED IT IN THE CHECKLIST.
l '23 MR. NEVSHEM AL: ALSO IN ONE OF THE ITEMS, TOO, 24 THAT 'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ADDITIONAL.
25 MR. CALVO: JOH N, GARY.
26 MR. OVERBECK: YES, I HA VE S OM E. fbr5E ARE RELATED l !
, 27 TO THE WALKDOWN CHECKLIST AND ALSO RELATED TO QUESTION NUMBER 28 8 OR I G I NALLY -- NUMB ER 9 DESCRIBE HOW THE WtLKOOWN PLAYED A sa= ena=c.sco DOIDGE e CARROLL co=*macos's wise ses suo Cantiasto swomTwaNo atpomTams c ow=
ui$'N33u DEposiTaoN NOTAmits ""**'"'
l l
305 l
1 ROLE IN THE OVERALL SCHEME IN THE INS PEC T ION. AND WITH THAT 2 ONE QUESTION IN MIND, TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT YOU DID ON THE 3 WALKDOWN AND HOW YOU ARRIVED AT SOME OF YOUR CONCLUS IONS, I 4 THINK IF WE GO TO THE FIRST ONE. WD MS-01, SHEET 2 OF 3, 5 I THINK I BROUGHT UP BEFORE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT HOW 6 DID YOUR LINE BREAK AND ASK YOU HOW WERE YOUR LINES LOCATED Ib 7 THE AREA, THERE WERE NONE, THER EF OR E, MARKING YES YOU ARE 8 PROJECTING A FALSE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING 9 REVIEWED AND LOOKED AT. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT HIGH 10 EHERGY LINE BREAK WAS CONSIDERED IN THIS DESIGN REVIEW. ALONG 11 THOSE LINES --
12 MR. FOLEY: SPECIFICALLY YOU ARE CONCERNED -- WHEN 13 YOU SAY THE DESIGN REVIEW, YOU MEAN THE WALKDOWN REVIEW --
14 MR. OVERB EC K: ANY PART OF YOUR SYS TEM REVIEW.
\
15 THERE ARE NO HIGH ENERGY LINES FROM CCW, AND SO FAR I HA VEN ' T 16 SEEN IDENTIFIED ANY LINES THAT IMPACT CCW.
17 MR. FOLEY: RIGHT.
[
18 MR. NORKIN: DOESN'T THAT IMPLY HIGH ENERGY LINES IN 19 THAT AREA THAT COULD BE IN ANOTHER SYSTEM 7 20 MR. OVERBECK: YE S .
21 MR. NOR KIN: IN THE VICINITY.
22 MR. OVERB EC K: SAME THING FOR FIRE. AND T HA T ' S I 23 GUESS REALLY -- THIS FIRST QUESTION. THE CHECKLIST THAT I 24 JUS T CALLED OUT WD MS-01, SHEET 2 OF 3, INDICATES THAT THE 25 SIZE IN THE VACUUM BREAKER WAS VERIFIED DURING SYS TEM WALKDOWN 26 I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. IT 'S A MISSTATEMENT ON THE CHECKLIS T.
27 YOU DIDN'T VERIFY THE SIZING OF THE BACKING, YOU VERIFIED THE 28 S IZ E OF THE VACUUM BREAKER 7 i s.= en.=cisco DOIDGE e CARROLL co=,..cas,.
CERTIFIED SMORTMAND REPORTEms C0**"
u, D Issoa Da *0817eow NOTamiES ''''''''
l
306 5
1 MR. FOLEY: WE YERIFIED NAMEPLATE DATA AGREED WITH 2 THE SPECIFICATION.
3 MR. OVERBECK: VACUUM BREAKER CORRECTLY SIZED.
4 MR. HESS: IT 'S POOR WORDING.
5 MR. FOLEY: ACCORDING TO THE SPECIF IC ATION, THE 6 CALCULATION THAT MIGHT HAVE SIZED THAT REMAINS MISSING.
7 MR. OVERB ECK: THE SAME CHECKLIST YOU STATE THAT THE 8 CCW SURGE TANK UNDER THE CATEGORY OF FIRE, ARE REDUNDANT 9 TRAINS PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE BY A SINGLE FIRE, THE ANSWER IS 10 NO. H OW E V ER, IN THE COMMENT SECTION YOU STATE THE COMMON TANK 11 FOR BOTH CCW TRAINS THAT'S ACCEPTABLE DUE TO LACK OF 12 C OMB US T IB LES, PASSIVE NATURE OF THE TANK, AND DETECTION AND 13 SUPPRESSION EQUIPMENT. TRY TO PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THA T 14 S TA T EMENT . WHAT BASIS DID YOU USE TO ARRIVE AT THAT 15 C ONC LUS ION. THAT'S THE QUESTION.
I 16 AND THE THRUST I S, IF IT WAS BASED ON A WALKDOWN AND 17 SCANNING THE AREA YOU WERE LOOKING AT, DID YOU KNOW ALL THE l
l l
18 CABLES WERE IN THE CABLE TRAYS? DO YOU KNOW THAT THE 19 COMBUSTIBLE LOAD IS SATISF ACTORY SO THAT THAT AREA CAN TAKE IT DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SAFE SHUTDOWN ANALYSIS SAYS, IF YOU 20 21 HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THOSE THINGS AND TOLD ME BEFORE YOU HAVEN'T, 22 THEN I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN ARRIVE AT THIS CONCLUSION.
23 MR. FOLEY: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
MR. OVERBECr.: ONE AREA THAT IS COVERED, I SEE 24 25 C ALCULATIONS FOR, IS FLOOD. AGAIN, IN A NUMBER OF AREAS YOU 26 INDICATE A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AND THE LOWEST PIECE OF P
27 EQUI PMENT IN THIS AREA IS SO AND SO AND IT MEETS THE FLOOD 28 LE VE L. AND ONE QUESTION MIGHT BE EASY TO BE ADDRESSED IS H
- '=* c'sco ooicot a cAmmou. ,,,,......
"'"'" CERTiptED SHORTMAND REPORTERS co. "
uiDN[ses DEPOSITION NOTAmitS
307 6
1 YOU IDENTIFY WHAT THAT FLOOD LEVEL WAS, AND HOW YOU IDENTIFY
\. 2 THAT WAS THE LOWEST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT DID YOU DO IT DUR ING 3 YOUR WALKDOWN OR DO IT BY REVIEWING ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS OF 4 THE SYSTEM AND FLOOD CALCULATIONS. I SEE FLOOD CALCULATIONS 5 IN YOUR REVIEW LIST. I NEED THAT CLAR!FIED.
6 MR. FOLEY: OKAY.
7 MR. CALVO: DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUES TIONS IN THE 8 WALKDOWN7 9 MR. STANLE Y: I WOULD JUS T LI KE TO COMMENT IN THE 10 ELECTRICAL WALKDOWN THAT WAS PERFORMED I FOUND NO 11 INSTRUMENTATION COMPONENTS WHATSOEVER. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME 12 THAT THAT PRESSURE SWITCH FOR ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN 08 JEC T, 13 IT'S MISSING.
I
- 14 MR. CALVO: GE OR GE, HOW ABOUT THE ELECTRIC AL 15 WAL K DOW N, ARE YOU PREPARED TO DISCUSS THEM NOW OR WANT TO WA I T.
16 MR. MORRIS: WE RAISED TWO QUESTIONS DURING THE 17 DISCUSS ION THAT AFFECTED WALKDOWN. ONE WAS THE HORSEPOWER OF 18 THE MOTOR OPERATED VALVES, AND THE OTHER ONE WAS ON THE CABLE 19 TRAY FILL C ABLE TRAY FILL WAS -- I DID NOT SEE IN THE WALKDOWN 20 CHECKLIST.
21 MR. CALVO: THA T 'S ALL. I GOT SOME QUESTIONS 22 REGARDING THE ELECTRICAL DESIGN. I GUESS AS WE WENT THROUGH 23 THE REVIEW OF THE CHECKLIS T, WE IDENTIFIED SIX PERSONS WERE 24 IDENTIFIED IN THE CHECKLIST FOR THE ELECTRICAL INSTRUHENTATION 25 REVIEW. I GUESS THE QUESTIONS THAT WE WANTED TO KNOW THE 26 QUESTION THAT WE ASK, WHETHER YOU WANT TO GIVE THE ANSWER NOW I
27 OR WAIT UNTIL LATER, DID EACH PERSON HAVE A SPECIFIC TASK TO i l
28 REVIEW AND WHAT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CREW 7
"'7,$ ',*,',*,",0 DOIDGE & CARROLL go ,.. g.,,,
oa su=o CERTapiED SMORTMAND mtpORTEms t ow=v.
usse asi ssee . OrpOSITION NOTAmiES *a'se esa i ns )
l 308 1 MR. KILLOUGH: JO S E, TALKING ABOUT THE ELEC TR IC AL
( 2 DESIGN REVIEW OR WALKDOWN?
3 MR. CALVO: SOTH. I GUE S S -- LE T M E A S K T H.' MRC 4 STAFF AND CONSULTANTS, DO WE MAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OF THE 5 NATURE AT THIS TIME OR JUST ABOUT HAVE ENOUGH FOR TODA Y, GO 6 BACK AND ASK CYGNA DO YOU MAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF 7 CLARIFICATION THAT YOU MAY NEED TO ASK US. QUESTION, I'M 8 SORRY.
9 MR. MORRIS: I WOULD JUS T LIKE TO KNOW THE S TA TUS OF 10 THE DOCUMENT LIST THAT YOU WERE PREPAR ING YES TERDAY.
11 MR. NESS: IT'S IN WORK. I HAVE NOT GOTTEN IT ALL 12 COMPLETED WITH BEING IN HERE ALL DAY.
13 MR. CALVO: GA R Y, YOU ALSO REQUESTED CALCULA TIONS.
14 .
MR. OVERBECK: ONE OF THE GOALS THAT WE HAVE IS TO 15 GET THE OTHER DOCUMENT LIST AND CALCULATIONS SO I C AN TELL YOU 16 WHAT DRAWINGS I'M GOING TO NEED COPIED. IN ORDER TO REVIEW 17 THE CALCULA TIONS, WE'RE GOING TO NEED ID'S AND CALCULATIONS SO 18 TO GIVE YOU LEAD TIME TO GET STARTED.
19 MS. WILLIAMS: NO COMMENTS OR OUES TIONS.
20 MR. CALVO: NO MORE QUESTIONS AND THE MEETING IS 21 ADJO UR NE D. SEE YOU ALL TOMORROW. 9: 00 O' CLOCK?
22 MS. WILLI AMS: THAT ' S F INE.
23 (MEETING ADJOURNED TO THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1985.)
24 i
25 26 E
27 i .
28 sa=*=a-caco poioct a cAmmoLL co....e.s,.
" ' ' . ,' ' ' ' , * , " ' cERTireED s=ORTHAND REPORMRS ,, , ,C oy,y,*, , ,
sa se ess-asee DEPOSITION PeOTARIES p -
ORIGINAL 30 1
2 3 I
~4 i 5 i 6
7 TEXAS UTILITIES CPRT MEETING 8
CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES 9
10 11 - - -
12 13 ThoftdB Ay 23 g/$
, 14 7 ;;F 3 W, MAY M, 198 5 - 9 : 15 A . M.
( 15 16 101 C ALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1000 17 SAN F RA NC I SC O, CALIFORNIA 18
, 19 20 - - -
21 22
'3 2
24 25 26
> 1' l
, 27 t
28
... . ...c .. c o coloGE a cAmmoLL c ,,..co...
CERTIFIED SMORTMAND menORTens ,, , ,c, o, s, *,*,
maise asi ases DEmoslTsON NOTAmiES
311 i 1 MR. CALV0: TODAY IS THE THIRD DAY, MAY THE 23RD, 2 THESE MEETINGS BETWEEN THE NRC AND CYGNA. MY NAME IS JOSE N
3 CALVO, I'M THE ELECTRIC AL OPERATIONS GROUP MANAGER OF THE 4 COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT. ALSO HAVE MEMBERS OF THE NRC STAFF /
5 ALSO OUR CONSULTANTS, ALSO SEE MEMBERS REPRESENTATIVES FROM 6 GIBBS S HILL, TERRA CORPORATION. AND I GUESS ANY OTHER i
7 ORGANIZATIONS BEING REPRESENTED IN THIS MEETING? AND JACK 8 REDDING FROM THE TEXAS UTILITY COMPANY. I WOULD LIKE TO 9
INDIC ATE THERE IS NO OTHER ORGANIZ ATION BEING REPRESENTED AT 10 THIS MEETING.
11 WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, MAY8E WE SHOULD GE T INTO 12 THE
SUMMARY
OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST TWO DAYS. AND WHAT 13 WOULD LI KE TO DO, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING FORM
,- 14 LET ME GIVE AN INTRODUCTION WHY WE'RE HERE, WHAT WE DID, W HA s 15 WAS OUR PURPOSE AND THEN ! WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE THREE 16 DISCIPLINES THAT WE CONSULTED MECHANICAL, ELEC TR IC AL, 17 INS TRUMENTATION AND GIVE YOU OUR PERC EPT ION OF WHA T WE HA VE 18 LEARNED LOOKING AT YOUR PRELIMINARY INFORMATION AND DISCUSS 19 WHAT WE HAD WITH YOU.
20 AT THE END, AF TER I FINISHED, IF WE HAVE QUES TIONS, i
21 WE CAN OPEN THE MEETING SO EVERYBODY CAN ASK QUESTIONS OR 22 CLARIF ICATIONS OR WHATEVER NE E DS TO B E DO NE . IS THAT
'3 2 AGREEMENT WITH YOU?
24 MS. WILLI AMS: THA T 'S GOOD.
25 MR. CALV0: WELL, AS YOU KNOW WE HAVE BEEN MEETING 26 F OR THE LA S T TW O DA YS . WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE QUES TIONS THA T 27 WE MAD CONCERNING THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF PHASE 4 0F YOUR f
\
28 INDE*ENDENT DESIGN VERIF IC ATION FDR THE MECHANIC AL SYS TEMS e4= ena=cisco
- ''*8'**** DOIDGE e CARROLL co=ve costa CERTipsED SMORTMAND REPomTEms 8 0*"
seeEaNaan DEPCsiTION NOTARIES *"#'"'
31: l 4
1 l ELEC TR ICAL INS TRUMENTATION.
2
\ WE REC OGNIZ E THA T THE INFORMATION FROM WHERE WE 3
DERIVE OUR QUESTIONS WERE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND YOU HAI 4
NOT REACHED YOUR FINAL CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE INDEPE 5 DESIGN VERIFICATION FOR PHASE 4. HOWEVER, THE DISCUSSIONS 6
THAT WE HAD IN THESE TWO DAYS HAVE GIVEN US A BETTER 7
APPRECIATION WHICH WILL HELP US TO DETERMINE HOW THE RESULTS 8
0F PHASE 4 WILL CONTRIBUTE INTO THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF T 9
DESIGN QUALITY FOR THE COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT.
10 AS INDICATED IN THE MEETING, WE HAVE HANY QUES TION 11 AND WE GOT SOME ANSWERS. WE ALSO HAVE CLARIFIED QUESTIONS T 12 PROVIDE YOU WITH A BETTER INSIGHT WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE O 13 QUESTIONS.
THE RESPONSES TO THE REMAINING QUESTIONS WILL
. , 14 PROVIDE US WITH A BETTER APPRECIATION OFTHE DEPTH AND BREAD' 15 0F YOUR PHASE 4 REVIEW.
16 WE CONSIDERED OUR PHASE 4 INCOMPLE TE FOR MECHANICAL 17 ELECTR ICAL, AND INS TRUMENTATION.
HOWEVER, WE WOULD LI KE TO 18 HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE TECHNIC AL AREAS THAT WE FEEL THAT Y 19 SHOULD CONSIDER SO AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF THE DEPTH ANC 20 BREADTH OF YOUR PHASE 4 0F YOUR REVIEW CAN BE ASCER W 21 RECOGNIZE THAT CUR PERCEPTIONS OF YOUR EVALUATION COULD CHANG 22 AS MORE INFORHATION BECOMES AVAILABLE TO US.
23 THE TECHNICAL AREAS THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT, 24 ELECTRICAL, MEC HANIC AL, AND INSTRUMENTATION CONCERNING THE 25 COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM AND HOW IT WAS USED TO SOME 26 KIND OF WAY WHEN CONCLUSIONS ARE FIRM HOW THE 8READTH TO WHAT 5
27 OTHER SYSTEMS THE THING CAN BE CARRIED TO. AN D 5 0, A L S O, !
28 MUS T INDICATE, THAT IS, OTHER DISC IPLINES IN YOUR PHA SE 4 THA1
... ... e sco posoot a cAmmoLL
""'"* " cos,.. c o...
. .I'l7,'*,..' canrmeo swo=twaso asson rcas con" l oteoamos wora mes ""
'~~~
312 1 WE NAVE NOT TOUCHED AT THIS TI lE, THOSE ARE 'THE MECHANICAL k 2 s COMPONENTS AND CIVIL AND STRUCTURE. I THINK THOSE WILL 3 REQUIRE FUTURE MEETINGS BETWEEN THE NRC AND CYGNA SO WE CAN 4
UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING SO IT CAN ALSO 81 5
USED AS AN OVERALL ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE DESIGN QUALITY FOF 6 THOSE TWO OTHER SYSTEMS.
~
7
! I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THE MECHANICAL SYS TEMS 8
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS YOUR ATTENTION TO OUR PERCE PT ION!
9 AT THIS TIME BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY INFORMATION THAT YOU 10 GIVE US IN OUR DISCUSSIONS THAT WE MAD. THE MECHANICAL 11 5 YS TEM S, ONE OF THE FIRST PERCEPTIONS IS THAT THE SYS TEM 12 CHECKLIST DID NOT QUITE INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS 13 REVIEWED AND HOW THE REVIEW WAS U3ED TO ARRIVE AT A YES, NO 14 CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO SATISFYING THE CHECKLIS T ATTRIBUTE
, 15 AS A RESULT OF THIS, IT BECOMES KIND OF DIFF IC ULT
! 16 FOR AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR SUCH AS THE NRC TO ASCERTAIN 17 WHETHER THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS WERE REVIEWED TO CONFIRM THA T THi 13 CHECKLIST ATTRIBUTES AND THE DEPTH OF THAT REVIEW. I THINK 19 I
YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THA T IN YOUR -- WHEN YOU R EVI EW IN 20 PROGRESS AND DETERMINE IF THAT CAN BE CLARIFIED.
21 THE NEXT ONE WE TEND TO -- WE DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR 22 BASIS TO CONSIDER RELIEF VALVE AND VACUUM BREAKER TO BE 23 PASSIVE DEVICES TO DEFENDING YOUR DESIGN AGAINST THE SINGLE
- 24 FAIL UR E CR I TER I A. WE FEEL THAT THESE VALVES MUST OPERA 7E TO 25 PERFORM THE SAFETY FUNCTION, THEY SHOULD SE CONSIDERED ACTIVE 26 COMPONENTS AND SUSCEPT!BLE TO SINGLE FAILURES.
/
27 THE THIRD ONE, WITH REGARD TO THE MECHANICAL DESIGN 28 REVIEW CRITERIA USED TO ES TABLISH THE CHECKLIS T, IT APPEARS s.= *=*=cisc o
','j,',**
- oosoGE a cAmmoLL c o .. c . .
CERTipfEO SHORTHAND REPORTERS se ise as e-asse DEPOSitlON NOTARIE S ,,C0*,',,,
,f,
313 1 T HA T YO U D I DN ' T US E THE GI B B S S HI LL DE S I GN DOC UM ENT S . AND 2 YOU MOSTLY RELIED UPON THE WESTINGHOUSE INTERF ACE DOCUMENT TO
(-
3 IDENTIFY CHECKLIST DESIGN ATTRIBUTES. I'M GOING TOO F AST7 4 ALL RIGHT.
5 SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA, IT 'S OUR FEELING IS NO MORE 6 REFLECTED IN THE SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS ON PIPING AND 7 INS TRUMENTATION DI AGRAMS. THE CHECKLIST MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT 8 C OM PLE TE, THAT THE DESIGN ATTRIBUTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN TA KE N 9 FROM THE OWNER 'S FSAR COMMITMENTS AND GIBBS S HILL DESIGN 10 DOC UME NT S .
11 THE FOUR TH ONE, THE NRC HAS A PERCEPTION THAT THE 12 WALKDOWN WAS NOT INTE GRA TED INTO THE VER IF ICAT ION DESIGN 13 ADEQUATE FOR THE CCW SYS TEM. IT WAS NOT CLEAR THAT THE 14 WALKDOWN WAS USED TO CONF IRM DESIGN INPUTS OR OUTPUTS OF l 15 DES IGN ANALYS IS, FOR E XAM PL E, APPEARS THE HIGH ENERGY LINE 16 BREAK ANALYSIS WAS NOT A DESIGN VERIFICATION APPLICABLE 17 ' KNOWLEDGEABLE TO THE CCW SYS TEM. WE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU INDIC ATED 18 T HA T IT WAS OUTSIDE YOUR SCOPE. H OWE VE R, THE WALKDOWN 19 CHECKLIST IMPLY THAT PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR THE COMPONE NT i
20 COOLING WATER COMPONENT FOR UNRESTRAINED HIGH ENERGY LINES.
21 WITH REGARD TO THE EFFECTS OF SEISMIC TW O OVE R ONE, 22 WE APPEAR THAT IT WAS NOT AS$1GNMENT IN THE COMPONENT COOLING 13 WATER COMPONENT WALKDOWN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO 24 NONSE ISM IC SUPPOR TED EQUI PMENT. AS REFLECTED IN THE WALKDOWN 25 C HEC KL I S T, THE SYS TEMS WALKDOWN DID NOT ADDRESS THAT THE CCW 26 EQUIPMENT SUCH AS THE HEAT EXCHANGERS OR THE SURGE TANK WAS
! 27 SEISMICALLY SUPPORTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN ANALYSIS
\
28 PERFORMED BY GIBBS S HILL OR THE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER.
- s. n e sco conect a cAmmoLL
" ' * ' " ' "
- c ...cos..
camTmeo saOatwaNo at*OaTens coa
+4'r n a*i's es e s aan DEPOSIT 60N NOTAm ES
' ~
. . . . _ . . - - - . ~
314 1
ANOTHER ASPECT THAT WE FEEL OUR PERCEPTION YOU 2
SHOULD CONSIDER IS THE FACT THAT THE SYSTEM WALKDOWN DID NOT 3
ADDRESS THE ELEVATION HEAD AVAILABLE BETWEEN THE COMPONENT 4 COOLING WATER SURGE TANK IN THE SUCTION TO THE PUMPS ON THC 5 SYSTEM.
i 6
THE FIF TH ONE, WE HAVE OUR PERCEPTION OF THE 7 ENGINEERING INTERFACES. WE FEEL THEY HAD NOT BEEN 8
SUFFICIENTLY EXPLORED SO AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT CAN BE 9 PERFORMED 50 WE CAN DETERMINE TO WHAT EXTENT, HOW DEPTH YOU 10 HAD SEEN GOING WITH THOSE INTERFACES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE GISB!
11 & HILL 'S HECHANICAL DISCIPLINES INTERFACE WITH INS TR UMENTAT IC i
12 AND CONTROL DISCIPLINES, IT APPEARS THAT MAY8E SOME -- YOU HA 13 NOT ADDRESSED TO WHAT EXTENT THAT THING WAS REVIEWED WITH
.f 14 R ES PEC.T TO THE S ET PO INTS . THER E W AS NO EVI DE NC E TO THE F AC T
( 15 THAT YOU HAD INCLUDED THAT IN THE SCOPE.
- 16 THE NEXT ONE IS THE HECHANICAL SYS TEMS CHECKLIS T.
17 IT APPEARS THAT IT DID NOT QUITE REFLECY THE EXTENT TO WHICH 18 THE REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE DESIGN CRITERIA WERE 19 INCORPORATED INTO THE REVIEW. I GUESS EXAMPLES OF THAT IS TH.
20 FSAR SECTION 3.11 ENVIROPMENTAL QUALIFICATION HECHANIC AL A 21 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT WAS LISTED. HOWEVER, WE COULDN ' T FIND 22 EVIDENCE THAT THE CRITERIA WAS BEING 44RIFIED. WE'R E NOT j 23 QUITE SURE THAT WAS PART OF YOUR SCOPE OR WAS NOT PART OF YOUG
, 24 SC OPE . ALSO, THERE IS A COUPLE OF REGULATORY 6,UI DES THA T YOU j 25 HAD NOT ADDRESSED, REGULATORY GUIDE 1.29, REGULATORY GUIDE 26 1.41.
i 27 I'M GOING TO TAKE A PAUSE IN HERE. AGAIN, I JUST 28 WANT TO REITERATE THE FACT THIS WHOLE PERCEPTION, TRYING TO l
ma= na=cisco I
- '"" DOIDGE a CARROLL co=ve. cos'.
! Cam 718sto snomTHANo napomfans cow'"
a 1
ue7afaae. Depost7 son Nota 9st5 "'
31 1
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DEPTH AND BREADTH ARE OF YO UR REVIEW.
2 SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS, IN OUR OPINION, I THINK THEY ARE
\
3 IMPOR TANT ENOUGH TO KNOW, TO ASCERTAIN TM TWO ELEMENTS IN I 4
REVIEW YOU MAY CONSIDER THOSE THINGS BEING OUTSIDE YOURSCO:
5 WE'RE NOT GOING ON THAT BASIS WE'RE GOING ON THE B ASIS WE'RI I
6 r
TRYING TO ASCERTAIN THAT KIND OF THING. WE 'RE GOING TO USE 3
7 WHATEVER COMES OUT OF OUR EVALUATION OF THIS PHASE 4 WI 8 USED TO ASSESS THE OVERALL CONTRIBUTION, THE OVERALL 9
ASSESSMENT OF THE SAME QUALITY.
10 LET ME CONTINUE. THERE ARE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 11 S UC H A S NE T POS IT IVE S UC TION HEAD, VOR TE XI NG, WATER HAMM 12 PI PE SCHEDULE SELECTION, ET CETERA, WHICH ARE ENCOUNTERED 8Y 13 1
THE ARCHITECT / ENGINEER DUR ING THE MECHANICAL DESIGN OF A g 14 5YSTEM.
WE FEEL THAT DEPENDING UPON THE 5YSTEM FUNCTIONAL g 15 REQUIREMENTS AND S YS TEM PHYS IC AL RES TR IC TIONS, TH S DESIGN 16 CONSIDERATION WILL VARY IN IMPOR TANCE AND THE NRC FEELS THAT 17 THE SYSTEH SELECTED MAY NOT PROVIDC SUFFICIENT BASIS
- 18 I CONCLUDING THAT ARCHITECT / ENGINEER HAS SUCCESSFULLY PROD UCE l 19 OESIGN WHERE THESE ATTRIBUTES ARE CRITICAL.
- 20 DEXT ONE, B ECAUSE THE FSAR RE POR T, IS OUR OPINION 21 THE FSAR REPOR TS SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A SOURCE OF INPUT T
, 22 DESIGN ANALYSIS, WE NOTE THAT FURTHER WORK IS NEEDED TO 23 IDENTIFY TRACEABILITY OF DESIGN INPUT DESIGN OUTPUT WIT 24 DESI GN DOCUMENTS.
- THE CHECKLIST REFLECTED EVIDENCE THAT THE 25 FSAR WAS USED AS A SOURCE TO VERIFY ACCEPTANCE OF AN ATT i 26 AND THAT WE DO NOT DEGREE.
( 27 n
THE HEA T REMOVAL C APAB I LI T Y OF THE SYS TEM FROM HEAT 28 SOURCE TO ULTIMATE HEAT $1NK WAS NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED. THE saa es. cisco DOIDGE & CARROLL "D'*[* ,
saisi est saee CERTi8stD SMORTMAND mapomftms cos... c a s,.
t o.*"
OEpostisON NotAmit S **'88'"'
3:
1 SUPPORTING SYS TEM REQUIRED TO ASSURE THA T THE COMPO 2
( COOLING WATER COMPONENTS IN THE SYS TEMS PERFORMED THE 3
FUNCTION WERE NOT ALSO CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW, SUC H A S TF 4 HEATING AND VENTILATION SYSTEM. THAT FINISPED THE MECHANIC 5 S YS TEM S.
LET ME GO TO THE ELEC TRICAL SYS TEMS.
6 TO THE ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENTATION QUESTIONS !.ALS 7
HAVE SOMETHING FOR THE INS TR UMENTA TION.ELEC TRIC AL QUES TIO 8
ON THE PHASE 4 REVIEW THAT WE HAVE 8ROUGHT TO YOUR ATTEN 9
WOULD REVIEW AND CLARIFY AS YOU REQUESTED TO PROVIDE
- 10 YOU CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE QUEST 11 WERE.
12 i
WE FELT THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH OF THE INTERCHAN 13 COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE TWO OF US AT THIS TIME TO PASS
?
. , 14 i
JUDGMENT ON HOW THE ELECTRICAL -- THE SCOPE OF THE Y
\ 15 ELEC TR ICAL DESIGN. C UR INITIAL IMPRESS ION, WE FEEL THAT THE 16 ELECTRICAL DESIGN HAS -- MAY BE SEVERELY LIMITED BY THE 17 MECHANICAL SYSTEM COMPLAINTS. WE ARE CONCERNED THA T THE CYG 18 REVIdst MAY HAVE NOT ADDRESSED SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS IN THE 19 ELEOTRICAL 5YSTEM SUPPORTING THE COMPONENT COOLING WA TER 20 S YS TEM.
21 SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING 22 YOUR ATTENTION AT THIS TIME FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND OUR 23 PERCEPTION WHAT WE FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SHOUL O i 24 BE OUTSIDE YOUR SCOPE BASED ON WHAT WE DISCUSS I T. THE 8 ASIS 25 F OR THE INPUT TO CALCULATIONS SPECIFICATIONS WERE NOT 26 QUESTIONED AND VERIFIED BY CYGNA 8ECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THEY i 27 WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF YOUR REVIEW. THE INTERDISCIPLINE
\
28 AND INTERCOMPANY INTERFACERS APPEAR THAT THEY WERE NOT sa= ena=c eco DQlDGE e CARROLL
- 'M*',***i am'ssees.aaos CERTIFIED sMontMAND pgpontems cocascosta DEpoBitlON NOTamrES c,o,*',*
~
317 1 1 C ONS IDERED IN YO UR SC O PE .
(, 2 THE -- YOU ALSO WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THE S YS TEM S 3 THAT WE FELT THAT IN OUR OPINION ESTABLISHED THE DEPTH AND 4 BREADTH IN ARRIVING AT THE SAME QUALITY ARE IMPORTANT TO BE 5 CONSIDERED ARE THE DIESEL GENERATOR AND DC SYSTEMS, IN 6 PA R T IC ULA R, VOLTAGE RESPONSES AND LOADING SEQUENCE FOR THE 7 DIESELS AND CAPABILITY OF THE DC SYSTEM. ALSO, WE FELT IT WA 8 IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THINGS LIKE LOSS OF OUTS IDE POWER, 9 TRANSFER C IRCUITRY.
10 INSOFAR AS DEPTH OF THE REVIEW, WE FEEL THAT 11 ADDITIOhML INFORMATION WILL BE -- I THINK WILL BE NEEDED FOR 12 AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF YOUR DEPTH OF YOUR REVIEW IN THE 13 AREAS OF THE 6.9 KV MOTOR PROTECTION, ISOLATION RELAY 14 APPLICATION, ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN CONTROL CIRCUIT FUSE, MOTOR I
15 O P ERA T OR VALVE, THERMAL OVERLOAD PROTECT ION, AND CAPABILITY O 16 EQUIPMENT TO OPERATE AT REDUNDANT VOLTAGE.
17 THE OTHER AREAS THAT HAD WE BEEN OBSERVED BY US, TH 18 NRC, TO BE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS IN OTHER PL A NT S, AT LEAST WE 19 THROW THEM, PUT THEM ON THE TABLE FOR YOUR I NF ORMAT IO N, 20 CONTAINMENT ELEC TR IC AL PROTECTION, IN PARTICULAR THOSE 21 CONCENTRATED WITH THE LARGEST CONCENTRATION THAN YOU NORMALLY 22 HAD, THE PRESSURE WATER REACTOR, NAM EL Y, THE REACTOR COOLING 23 P UM P .
24 AND THE OTHER ONE IS BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 25 LOT OF VALVES, AND NORMALLY THOSE ARE POWERFUL, 480 MOTORS.
26 CONTROL CENTERS, PENETRATION ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE MOTORS I
, 27 THINK, 50 IT'S ALSO IMPDRTANT TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DEPTH Of 28 ANY FLUID SYSTEM SELECTED FOR REVIEW.
- s. e .~c sco cotoot a cAmmoLL e ........
"'O...'*.,.,*n,*". cantmso swontaano namentans ,, , ,c og', , , ,
.. . . osmosmom Novaniss
=--- --
318
l 3 AND AN OVERALL IMPRESSION IN THE INSTRUMENTATION, W 4 FEEL THAT THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM PMS NOT TOO MUCH 5 $!GNIFICANT INS TRUMENTATION. 50 A LOGIC AL EXTRAPOLATION CAN 6 BE MADE OR CONCLUSION CAN SE DRAWN A80UT THE OVERALL ADEQUACY 7
OF THE DES IGN QUA LIT Y F OR INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL FOR 8 C OMA NC HE PEAK .
9 WE FEEL THAT THE SCOPE OF THE ISC REVIEW SELEC TED 10 FOR THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM DOESN'T -- DOES NOT 11 CONSIDER OR CONSIDERS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE THOSE ASPECTS 12 CONCERNING THE LOSS OF THE OUTSIDE POWER, SAFETY INJECTION, 13 AND CONTAINMENT ISOLATION SENSOR CHANNELS, THEIR POWER SOURC E!
a
, 14 AND OTHER INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL IN SUPPORTING S YS TEMS.
I 15
, IT APPEARS THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA AS 16 EXPRESSED IN CYGNA DC 4 AND DC 5 DOCUMENTS FOR MECHAAICAL AND 17 ELECTRIC AL SYS TEMS DO NOT QUITE REFLECT ALL THE FSAR
! 18 COMMITMENTS AND OTHER AREA IN COMM I TMENTS.
~
19 OTHER AREA 5 THAT WE FEEL THAT WE NEED FURTHER 20 EMPHASIS ARE THE PERIODIC TEST CAPABILITY OF THE DESIGN OF I
21 SOTH COMPONENT AND SYSTEM LEVELS, THE REVIEW OF FORMAL DES IGN 22 CALCULATIONS FOR INSTRUMENTS SET POINT VALUES AND AN
~
23 ASSESSMENT OF THE ADEQUACY. AND ASSESSMENT OF THE 24 DESIRA8ILITY FOR LOW PRESSURE CROSS-CONNECTION SETWEEN THE
{ 25 REDUNDANT TRAINS AND THE IMPAC T OF SENSOR UNRELI ABILITY ON l 26 SYSTEM AVAI LA81 LITY.
1
- 27 I THINK S EC AUS E THAT'S AN IMPOR TANT ONE SEC AUS E A l
28 POTENTIAL FOR A COMMON CAUSE HERE DISABLING TWO SUPPOSEDLY i
8, '****y$8
, DOIDGE e CARROLL cow .. g ,...
oanu=o CteTipiED SMontmaNo assomitas co e*
utse**'48** Of POSITION NOTAm ES "88'"'
I l
1 l
319 1
REDUNDANT TRA INS, QUES TIONING OF DESIGN INPUTS TO ASSESS THE i
2 VALIDITY AND COMPLE TENESS OF DESIGN BASIS.
k.
3 WE FEEL THAT NEW EMPHASIS WILL BE PUT IN THOSE ARE>
4 AND ASSESSMENT OF INSTRUMENT SENSING LINE OPERATION AS WELL /
5 OTHER DETAILS IN MECHANICAL SEPARATION AND ELECTRIC AL 6 ISO LA T ION.
7 AS A MANNER OF COMMENT, THE WORDING OF S OM E OF THE 8
COMMENTS AS STATED IN INSTRUMENTATION DESIGN REVIEW 0F THE CC 9
SYS TEh NEED TO BE AUGMENTED TO REFLECT WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DID, 10 B ECA USE IT DOES NOT COME QUITE CLEAR.
11 THAT COMPLETES THE
SUMMARY
AND, AGAIN, LIKE I SAID 12 B EF OR E, I HOPE THAT THIS CAN PUT US IN A BETTER POSITION THAT 13 YOU CAN UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND THE PURPOSE. AN 14 I HOPE AS A RESULT OF THOSE, MAYBE THE END PRODUCT WILL BE A l 15 BETTER PRODUC T.
16 I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO ADD OTHER THAN THANK YOU FOR 17 ALL THE HELP THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN US AND I THINK WE TR UL Y 18 APPRECIATE THE COMMUNICATION THAT WE MAD.
19 50 I LEAVE IT UP TO YOU, ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU WANT, 20 ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY.
21 MS. WILLIAMS:
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY QUES TIONS 22 AND NO COMMENTS.
23 MR. S TUAR T: ! HAVE AN OVERVIEW COMMENT. DO YO U
! 24 WANT TO GO FIRST7 l 25 MS. WILLIAMS:
I WAS GOING TO SAY, GO AHE AD.
26 MR. S T UAR T: JUST AN OVERVIEW COMMENT. WE
{ 27 APPRECIATE THE SPECIFIC COMMENTS THA T YOU HA VE GI VE N US B 28 YES TERDAY AF TERNOON AND TODA Y. I THINK THESE SHOULD BE
- = *aa c'sco
";",',',*** ooioot a cAmmoLL c ...co.,.
cantiairo saoavaa~o atacartas coo -
.. ao.,1,o~ ~ov.a,c . - ' " > " "
320 1
HELPFUL FOR US TO PREPARE FOR OUR NEXT MEETING ON THIS 2 PAR T IC ULA R AR EA. I THINK FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, I THINK WE 3
WOULD LIKE TO HELP TO FACILITATE THOSE NEXT MEETINGS.
4 I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR US TO ATTEMPT WITH 5
ONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THE MECHANICAL SECTION TO ATTEMPT TO 6
HA VE THA T POR TION OF PROCESS OVERVIEW COMPLETED BY THE TIME t 7
OUR NEXT MEETING SO WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS IN THIS 8 MEETING.
9 AND I THINK THAT THERE WERE MANY OUESTIONS THAT 10 RELATED TO THAT WHICH I THINK WOULD BE USEFUL TO AT LEAST BE 11 AT THAT POINT RELATIVE TO CCW COMPLETE IN OUR OVERALL REVIEW 12 SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS MOST OF THOSE OUESTIONS IN THE MEETING 15 IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THINK JUS T ON A PROCESS ISSUE, I THINK
, 14 WE 'RE INTENDING TO HAVE ALL OF THE CALCULATIONS THAT WE
( 15 REVIEWED IN THE MEETING ROOM NEXT TIME SO THAT I THINK DE TAIL i QUESTIONS WHERE SOMEONE IS LOOKING FOR A PAR TICULAR NUMB ER 47 F ROM A C A LC UL A TION, AND THAT'S HELD US UP, I THIN %, IN THIS 18 MEETING.
19 WE' Rid INTE'NDING TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF INF ORH A T IO N 20 AVAI LAB LE IN THE MEETING ROOM NEXT TIME. AND ! THINK THAT 21 THAT SHOULD MAKE THIS MORE OF A WORKING SESSION AND LESS OF 'A 22 QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION.
'23 MR. CALVO: OKA Y.
24 MR. STUA R T:
THE PARTICULAR COMMENTS THAT OCCUR THA T i
25 I OBSERVE DID GET INTO A GREAT DEAL OF DETAIL, PROBABLY MORE 26 THAN WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST FOR AN INDEPENDENT VERIFIER OR 27 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEWER, B UT WE NOW UN DER S TAND T HA T T HAT ' S t
28 THE LEVEL OF DE TA I L THA T WE 'L L B E PR EPA R ED F OR NE XT T IM E .
8,***
, ",*jege,o DOIDGE & CARROLL
..w,,, e.....ge.,.
sets est. nee CERTIFIED $wo#TMAND REPomTEms C oe
DEPO 5ittON NOTARif S ' "#'
l
l 321 ;
1 MR. NORKIN: I HAVE ONE QUESTION TO ASK.
(, 2 YOU MENTION THAT THE CALCULATIONS WILL BE IN THE 3 ROOM NEXT TIME 7 4 MR. STUART: M-HM.
5 MR. NORKIN: REALIZING THIS PER IOD OF TIME BE TWEEN 6 NOW AND THE TIME WE WILL BE MEETING AGAIN, AND GIVEN THE SAME 7 FORMAT WHERE IF WE DO WANT TO LOOK AT A CALCULATION, YOU KNOW 8 IF YOU REALLY LOOK AT THE CALCULATION THE RIGHT WAY, YO U C AN 9 SPEND HALF THE MORNING DOING IT.
10 IT WOULD B E US EF UL IF IN ADVANCE OF THAT MEETING, 11 T HE TE AM M EMB ER S, AND YOU KNOW WH O T HE PR I NC I PA L S AR E, HAD TH 12 OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THOSE CALCULATIONS IN THE IR HOM E 13 OFFICES 50 THEY CAN FORMULATE SOME IMPRESSIONS AND QUEST IONS.
' 14 I THINK IT WOULD MAKE THINGS GO A LOT FASTER AT THE
\
15 MEETING IF WE MAD THE SAME CALCULATIONS INDEPENDENTLY BEFORE 16 THE MEETING. YOU KNOW, IT WOULD GO A LOT FASTER. I THINK IT
. 17 WO UL DN ' T TA K E M ORE T HA N A HA LF -HO UR TO D I SC U S S A G I VE N 18 CALCULATION IF WE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AHEAD OF T IM E.
19 MR. CALVO: A REQUEST WAS MADE FOR SOME S IMPLE 20 C ALC ULA T IONS . IF YOU STILL FEEL YOU WANT TO PROVIDE THOSE 21 CALCULATIONS TO US, WE WILL APPRECIATE IT. BECAUSE IT'S 22 CONSISTENT WITH TRYING TO DETERMINE AN OVERLL ASSESSMENT.
23 KEEP IN MINQ, ALL WE 'RE ,TRYING TO DETERMINE, NOT 24 TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO, TRYING TO DETERMINE SO WE CAN 25 UNDERSTAND YOUR DEPTH SO WE CAN SETTER UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU 26 COME TO YOUR CONCLUSIONS.
I 27 AND THE END RESULT !$ TRYING TO DE TERMINE HOW THIS
\
28 WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY REVIEW FOR saw ena=cisco wise ses seee DOIDGE & CARROLL cos,ma c os's CERTip40 SHORTHAND REPORTEms t
c o.* * *
.t':;i?s. oposmo~ ~or*=is. " ' " " ' " '
322 1 C OM ANC HE PE A K . YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY INPUT TO THAT DESIGN
- k. 2 QUALITY, THEY GOT MANY INPUTS.
3 WE LIKE TO PUT IT IN PER SPEC TIVE, TO KNOW HOW WE CJ 4 DO SOMETHING ELSE, WHAT'S NEEDED TO BE DONE IN THE FUTURE.
5 THIS IS THE WHOLE PUR POS E OF THIS. OKA Y.
6 WHAT WE REQUESTED -- WE MAD REQUESTED SOME 7 C ALC ULA TIONS . AND YOU FEEL -- YOU PREPARED TO GIVE US THE 8 CALCULATIONS, WE WILL TAKE THEM AND REVIEW THE CONTEXT TRYIN(
9 TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING WE WILL NOT REPEAT YOUR REVII 10 MS. WILLI AMS: WE'RE GETTING THOSE CALCULATIONS 11 TOGETHER. WE 'RE GO ING THROUC- AND MAKING SURE THEY ARE THE 12 ONES WE REVIEWED AND HAVING TO PIECE THEM TOGETHER BECAUSE 13 THEY HAVE BEEN ARRIVING AS RECENTLY AS YESTERDAY.
~
14 MR. CALVO: W HEN YOU ARE READY, LET US KNOW.
I 15 IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, I WOULD LI KE TO A!
16 OTHER MEMB ERS INVOLVED IN THIS MEETING, STARTING WITH TE XAS 17 UTILITIES, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY?
18 MR. REDDING: NO. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT 19 MEITING WHERE YOU WILL HAVE A BETTER FEEL FOR WHAT CYGNA HAS 20 DONE IN THEIR REVIEW. I ALSO KNOW PROB ABLY BE TWEEN THEN YOU 21 WILL ALSO HAVE A CHANCE TO GET A BETTER FEEL FOR WHAT WE AT 22 TUGCO AND THE CPRT ARE DOING IN THEIR REVIEW OF THE COMANCHE
'23 PEAK PLANT.
24 AND I ACTUALLY FEEL THAT THROUGH THOSE REVIEWS AND 25 THE WORK THAT WE 'RE DO!NG THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE 26 CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE WITH REGARD TO THE DESIGN OF THE PLANT 27 MR. CALVO: ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE I ADJOURN 7 HOW g
28 ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE IN THE NRC STAFF, CONS ULTANT 7 NOBODY HAVE
... .= c..c o ooicot a cAmmoLL
"'*****"** c......
cratisiso sHoataANo atoontens cow "
..I".T.*... orposmow NotAnits " " ' ' " ' " '
323 1 ANYTHING TO ADD 7 a
2 MR. MORRIS: I WOULD JUS T LIKE TO S TA TE THA T THE 3 SPECIFICS THAT WE ADDRESSED IN TODAY'S MEETING ARE NOT OR MAY 1
4 NOT BE OUR TOTAL CONCERNS, JUS T EXAMPLES OF THE DE PT H THA T 5 WE 'RE LOOKING FOR AND THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE 'RE LOOKING 6 F OR .
7 MR. CALVO: NO OTHER QUE5 TIONS, THE MEETING IS 8 AD dO UR NE D, THANKS.
9 (MEETING ADJOURNED.)
10 11 i
12 13
. . 14
- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 26 i
27 I 28 s.= en =cisco
- 4****** DoiOGE & CARROLL co=...ee...
CEmtersto SMontwaNo arpositas c o v =
,$".sTase, OtpositsoN NotAmit S **"#'
. 1,' " . . . ATTACR/7)FL) r-l l
b
/, Calev1stion 2323-17-4 Revision 5: Short Circuit Level at 480 Volt Switchgear and MCC's
, ). Calculation 2323-XI!!-1 Aevision U: Static Uninterruptable Power Supply (5UP3) System YMI I . 1 Calculation 2323-VII-1, Revision 3: Cable Size - 6.9 KV Loads ,
- 4. Calculation 2323-IV-3, Revision 2: 6.9ky Bus Short Circuit Caleviation I Calculation.2323-!V-4, Revision 5: Short Circuit Level at 480v 5=gr and MCC's
'/ Calculation 229-9, dated 1/75: Component Cooling Water Pump TDH &
NPSH Calculation
! 7. Calculation 229-13, dated 1/25/79: Component Cooling Water
. Recirculation Orifice AP Calculation t 9, Calculation 229-15, dated 3/29/84: Component Cooling Water Pressure Drop
- p. Calculation 233-16, Addition 1, dated 4/14/84: 551 (Safe Shutdown Independent) Heat Loads
//. Calculation 544, dated 11/15/83: Flooding Analysis - Flood Levels
/2, Calculation 229-12, dated 5/29/84: Component Cooling Water Storage Tank
/J, Calculation 542, dated 3/14/84: Flooding Analysis (Sub-Cooled j Piping) *,
/f. Calculation 233-16, dated 1/30/80:. 551 Heat Loads l
l /5 Calev1stion 229-8, dated 4/12/84: Component Cooling Water -
i Pressure Drop M Calculation 229-8, dated 1/12/82: Component Cooling Water System-Pressure Drop
\
.....x .......,
f*/, Calculation 2323-I!!!-4, Revision 1: 125 VOC Switchboard and
(, Distribution Panel Electrical Requirements and Coordination
/f. Calculation 2323-I!!!-6, Revision 0: Electrical Requirements for
. Class 1E AC Panel Boards-TMI y, Calculation 229-4, dated 7/12/74: Component Cooling Water Drain W
Jg, Caleviation 229-3, dated 7/11/74: ' Component Cooling Sater Drain Tank 4
J/. Calculation 229-10, dated 1/12/82: Component Cooling Water -
Pressure Drop
/J. Calculation 229-15 Application 3, dated 4/1/84: Component Cooling
, ater W Pressure Drop Computer Outputs Jf, Calculation 233-16, dated 4/14/84: SSI Heat Loads i jt/, Temperature ProfileCalculation 229-14, dated 3/6/84 Canponent Cooling Water
.l g AI Calculation 229-1: Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger i
(Superseded)
(
.fd. Calculation 543, dated 6/21/83: Flooding Analysis (Moderate Energy),
27, Calculation No 543, Sheet No. 3-5a, and 67A, 70,100,101,105, 105, 107 Revision 2: Flooding Analysis (Moderate Energy) 100, Jf. Calculation 101, 105, 106, No. 543, 107,Sheets No.2,3dated Revision through 5a andFlooding 6/21/83: 67A, 70, Analysis (Moderate Energy) ,
i
/9, Westinghouse,DocumentNYDA84174-L7: Motor Data Sheet for
! CPI-CCAPCC-01M
\ .
! A Vendor Document IC-CT-6, dated 11/9/79: Analysis of Heat i
Rejection Rates to Component Cooling Watar System t.
Ellllillililllillifilillllit I
. u.m . .... . _ - ~ . .._ _ _ __.__
i
- 31. CP-EI-4.0-24. Revision 0, dated 7/1/81: Tugco Cable Pulling Tension Evaluations and Calculations JJt. ETN-40107, dated 9/21/79: Instantaneous Breaker Trip Setting Positions
, dated 4/81: Alternate Shutdown Study j
J3 -
Calculation 2323-111-7, Revision 2 dated 4/19/82: Start up and Unit Aux 111ary 5,TransformerLoadStudy Jf. Calculation-2323-III-8 Revision 0, dated 11/30/83: 6.9KV and 480V Safety Hazard Bus Voltages J/,. - - , 2323-ES-8A, Revision 2, dated 11/15/76: Batteries & Accessories J7 Calculation 2323-VII-8, Revision 4 Cable Sizing Calculation - DC System N. Calculation 2323-IX. Revision 1, dated 9/6/79: DC Switchboards and Distribution Panels
?
t ff Calculation 2323-IX-4, Revision 2. dated 4/2/80: 125V & 250 VDC Coordination Study h Calculation 2323-VIh5, Revision }3, dated 10/14/83: Cable Sizing 480V.MCC Branch
- Feeder Loads ] .gjj, g 7/]
.y/, Calculation - - : CCW Surge Tank Vent Valve Relief Valve and Vacuum f Breaker Sizing Calculations l
b d l
' h' g^uumLdaba y tw ( ,
b M. TDE-CA-643 9V wr-CA -(d '
%,12)f-CM -l%[
% we-a-74 l
JUN 2 81985 MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION ila NRC Participants NSIC J. A. Calvo E. C. Marinos PRC System J. Knox LB#1 Reading File E. Tomlinson Project Manager S. B. Burwell D. Morkin M. Rushbrook T. Ankrum Attorney, OELD L. Stanley R. Hartfield* G. Overbeck OPA* G. Morris i VNoonan, Project Director ,feushea y, n i.
I OTHERS l .
- bec
- Applicant & Service List (By Board Notification)
%I" bb 1
- Caseload Forecast Panel Visits 4
l l
l 1
L.
I?-
h*
. .~
/ 'o
~,, UNITED STATES l 8 c. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
$ $ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\+..../
E 31985 CYGNA Energy Services 101 California Street Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94111-5894 ATTN: Nancy H. Williams, Project Manager
Subject:
Request for Information on Phase 4 Independen~, Assessment
Dear Ms. Williarr,
We have received your submittal of April 29, 1985 with preliminary results of your independent assessment of the CCWS, in the areas of Mechanicaland Electrical systems and have performed a limited review of that information.
In order, however, to better understand your technicL1 effort we request response to the enclosed questions.
To best utilize the information requested we would like receipt of your responses on or before May 7, 1985. For any clarification regarding this request, please contact me at (301)492-9439.
Sincerely, w '
Evangel s C. Marinos, Deputy Y
Electrical / Operational Group Comanche Peak Project cc: w/ enclosure J. Redding, TUGC0 J. Ellis, CASE J. Beck, TUGC0 W. Horin (Bishop,Libermanetal.)
l ee !- J -
$ b D c' ) } [o &; f ,
MAY 3 1985 Questions for CYGNA on Mechanical Systems
- 1) List the documents used to develop the checklist.
- 2) In your inspection what is the status of the FSAR? Was it considered a design document by Gibbs & Hill?
- 3) List the calculations reviewed during the inspection.
- 4) List the drawings reviewed during the inspection.
- 5) Describe the method used to review calculations.
- 6) Breakdown (in percentage) the time spent at Gibbs & Hill, N.Y., site.
TUGC0 offices, Westinghouse and home office.
- 7) Describe how the Mechanical Systems aspect of the design was inspected for compljance with the design control attributes described in ANSI-N45.2.11.
- 8) Describe how the correctness of calculational methodology was ascertained, (e.g. runout flow and NPSH )*
R j 9) Describe how the w61kdown played a roll in the overall scheme of the inspection.
l l 10) Describe how the venting scheme for the CCW Surge Tank was considered to satisfy single failure.
- 11) What detailed technical check's were conducted on the calculations reviewed?
MAY 3 1985
- 13) Did Gibbs & Hill have a scheme to identify safety-related calculations I and was there a requirement to periodically review / update them?
- 14) Describe how the inspection verified the inclusion of certified vendor infomation in the design?
- 15) Explain how the inspection verified the adequacy of the surge tank size to accommodate changes in the system water inventory due to temperature chacge and system leakage.
- 16) Explain how the inspection verified the adequacy of the 3/4 in. relief valve on the surge tank.
- 17) Explain how the correct sizing of the surge tank vent valve and vaccum breaker was verified by the inspection.
- 18) How was the basis for the 50 gpm ' system leak rate verified? (MS-01 sht 10/10).
- 19) How was the basis for the 30 minute leakage period verified? (MS-01 sht 10/10).
l 20) Describe how from the vendor curve was used to determine a runout flow of 18,000 gpm . (MS-01sht2/10)
- 21) Did your review of the CCW heat exchanger include all of the requirements of the FSAR comitment to TEMA not just the fouling factor (MS-01 sht2/10)? Explain what was reviewed.
- 22) How was the combination of flow orifices and/or balance valves for the various loads (RHR, CS, etc.) shown to be adequate to prevent flow starvation at any single load?
MAY 3 1985
- 23) Were the inputs and assumptions used in calculations reviewed to
-determine the need for subsequent verification? Describe your threshold on use of undocumented engineering judgements?
- 24) How was it ascertained that the break leakage values were conservative?
(MS-06 sht 2/4)
- 25) Describe the conservatism used in arriving at the 583 gpm leak rate (MS-02 sht 3/7). Explain the conservatism of use crane 410 EQN. 3-21.
- 26) Describe the extent the CCWs heat removal capability was examined. In particular describe the extent input values to CCWs calculations were verified (i.e., the containment spray heat exchanger heat load, the heat removal capability of the ultimate heat sink through the service water system,etc.)
l l
l l
- -r v v
MAY 3 1985 Question for CYGNA on Electrical Systems EE-01 Electrical CCW Pump Motor
- 1) Voltage (a) Was voltage at motor reviewed or at bus (b) Did the G & H calculation include Utility data for system swings (min & max voltage) through both the preferred and alternate sources of offsite power?
Did the calculation include voltage dips caused by loading the D.G. when only the standby source is available.
Did the calculation include distribution equipment as-built data.
Was degraded grid voltage protection reviewed by CYGNA?
- 2) (a) Was the transfer circuitry for the preferred, alternate and standby power supplies reviewed?
What source did CYGNA mean by the "back-up power source"?
- 3) Relaying l
(a) What is the basis for the G & H relaying recommendations?
Was the applicable motor data reviewed (e.g. thermal damage
. curves, acceleration data at min and max voltage).
(b) Was the Short Circuit Calculation reviewed for correct results and was the input data reviewed by CYGNA?
(c) Was the coordination of the CCW pump motor breaker checked with the three incoming breakers?
(f) Was the basis for the en~vironmental and seismic data in the l switchgear spec confirmed by CYGNA and reviewed in the qualification report?
MAY 3 1985
-2
- 4) Cable (d) Did motor spec include electrical data such as minimum starting voltage and minimum accelerating time at minimum and maximum voltage?
(e) Was the routing of the power and control cables reviewed for voltage level separation?
(g) 6.9kV power cable is not limited by percent fill but by spacing, how was this reviewed.
(j) Was the basis for the environmental and seismic input to the motor spec confirmed by CYGNA and reviewed in the qualification report?
- 5) Pump Control (a) Were the isolation relays confined to coil to contact isolation or were they qualified also for contact to contact isolation.
(b) Was the pump control inoperable circuit reviewed by CYGNA for completeness for such things as control switch position, control voltage availability, breaker in correct position, service water system available etc.?
(c) Where is the single failure of the Loop A/ Loop Isolation valves discussed.
- 6) Alternate Shutdown (a) Was the alternate shutdown circuit provided with an alternate power i
supply?
l 7) (b) CCW/SWP pump interface l will (a) the CCW pump start the SSW pump or (b) the SSW pump start
(c) If one CCW loop is nonnally shutdown, are the UPS A/C unit and the nuclear chilled water system 100% redundant and share a comon distribution system to provide cooling for the Class IE Switchgear and Class 1E motors.
l
MAY 3 1985 EE-02 CCW Electrical Valves General - Entire discussion does not address the containment isolation valves or the reactor coolant pump thermal barrier cooler isolation valves.
- 1) (a) Was the MOV voltage confirmed at the motor for starting an running condition.
(b) Did CYGNA confirm that ALL de loads would operate at 90 volts.
Why was the non IE panel XD2-3 included in the review?
- Was the voltage drop in the de system reviewed to other equipment such as Inverters and Switchgear?
- 2) (a) This item addressed the connection of the battery and battery charger to the de bus but did not address the capability of this equipment to supply the design load or the surveillance required to prove the availability to perform its safety function.
- 3) (a) Was the short circuit checked by CYGNA or just the results of the calculation compared with the MCC spec.
(b) Does the referenced spec cover both the de bus and the de power panelboard.
Did CYGNA review the short circuit calc for the panelboard and I
confirm that the short circuit rating was a DC, rating.
(c) Are the overload contacts used to protect the motor during periodic testing as required by R.G. 1.106?
(d) Was the setting criteria and actual selection of the overload heaters (used for alann and/or protection) reviewed by CYGNA for accuracy and basis. Were these in agreement with the MOV vendor's recomendation for thermal protection.
(e) Was the basis for the environmental and seismic requirements for the MCC and DC equipment specs reviewed by CYGNA and included in the Qualification Report?
MAY 3 1985
- 4) Valve Power and Control Cable (a) Was the basis for the G & H allowable cable length confirmed by CYGNA?
- Did G & H include MOV starting current in the voltage analyses?
- How does the G & H calculation / analysis handle the loads inside containment where more than one cable is involved such as CCW valve HV4696.
(c) Does the G & H ampacity calculation include deratings for higher ambients (such as inside containment) flame retardents and fire barriers
- Tray covers on cable tray (d) Was the Limitorque Data reviewed for other electrical data such as locked reactor current and stroke time.
(e) Was the valve specs also reviewed for electrical inputs such as AC voltage range, minimum starting voltage, minimum and maximum dc voltage, termination requirements including limit switch and I
operator environmental conduct seals, and contact ratings?
(f) Was tray voltage level confirmed for cable routing in accordance with'FSAR 8.3.1.4.3?
(h) Was the tray fill basis checked by sampling the actual cables in a given tray section and hand calculating the percent fill.
Was this done for power control and instrument trays which have l different fill restrictions.
Was the basis for the instrument tray fill limit reviewed.
(1) Was the 600 volt power cable specification reviewed?
Did the review include a determination of the required insulation level because the 480 volt system is ungrounded and not tripped on grounds.
Was the cable manufacturer's cable data reviewed and compared to design documents.: a) Cable outside diameter vs. tray fill and ampacity cales. b) maximum pulling tension and side wall pressure vs installation spec. c) cable repair and splice criteria.
, p- - -_ ----_ _ _ - .--.-_-.-. -
MAY 3 1985 (k) Did the power operated valve specification also cover the valves inside containment with its harsh environment.
Did the valve spec provide radiation valves for different plant areas.
- 5) (a) Was the qualification of the " qualified isolator" reviewed by CYGNA?
(b) Did CYGNA question why valves HV 4512 and HV 4514 were not monitored the same if they perform the same function to isolation the CCW A Loop from the B Loop?
1 Why are valves HV 4572 and 4574 not included in R.G. 1.47 3 monitoring to alarm loss of the RHR and containment spray cooling capability?
(c) Valve RV-4508 does not have a Train B counterpart as implied by an x in the "yes" column.
i 6) (a) Was the basis.for the CCW alternate shutdown report input reviewed?
- 7) Functional Requirements
- Was a FMEA perfomed on the control circuits?
(b) Does a sufficient deadband exist on the CCW pump recirc. valve flow 4 control.
(c) Was the basis for the partially open setpoint of valve HV-4572 reviewed for interdiscipline interface. Does this agree with the actual setting.
(e) Does an interlock exist to isolate the safeguards loop on surge tank lo lo level which could be caused by a break in the non-safeguards section of CCW.
(f) Document whose analysis forms the basis for removing the high radiation interlock on valve RV 4508.
h0Mf 3 1985 EE-03 Electrical CCW Instrumentation <
1
- 1) Was the Post Accident Monitoring equipment included on the EQ list.
(b) Does specification 2323-MS-622 cover all temperature elements inside and outside containment.
- arethetemperatureelementsRTD'sorthermocomples(T/C)If theTE'sinsidecontainment(ontheCCWsystem,etc)areT/C i how are they brought out through the electrical penetrations?
- 4) Instrument Power Sources review was not completed in the checklist.
- Was the correct train associated power used?
- Were voltage and current requirements of both the instrument loop and the electronics rack reviewed?
Was Class IE/non IE isolation in the rack electronics reviewed?
l
- Was the Rack supplied by a UPS and was the capability of the inserter reviewed?
Checklist states that #12 conductors are used for instrument cable but list EE-02, Item 4 i lists shielded twisted pair #16 cables.
4 - IF #12 is in fact used are the cables in a shielded twisted pair form.
l
)
e f
l -
MAY 3 1985 Other areas not reviewed but that should have been included:
- 1) Electrical Containment Penetration required for the CCW system MOV, solenoid power and control and CCW instrumentation inside containment.
- Penetration specification inputs for required ampacity, short circuit capability, environmental (incl. radiation) and Seismic requirements for normal and DBE conditions, termination requirements etc.
- 2) Diesel Generator Capability to accept the CCW Pump What is the basis of the loading tabulation
- has the input data been reviewed has the Diesel Generator tests proven the capability of the unit to accept the design basis load.
has the actual motor data for large motor (480V and 6.9kV switchgear loads) been reviewed for starting kys and accelerating times and compared to the diesel generator loading calculation. Were differences justified?
- 3) Field Design Changes in CCW (and other systems)
Do design changes initiated in the field conform to the project specifications, guidelines and calculations.
- 4) 480voltmotorprotectionandcoordination(switchgear&MCC)with upstreambreakers(notcoveredbyCCWsystem).
l MAY 3 1985
. Questions for CYGNA Phase 4 Study - Instrumentation & Control
NRC R.G's, and IEEE standards applicable to CCWs. For each safety-related CCWs component, have the following items been addressed:
(a) GDC 24, Separation of protection and control systems? Where?
(b) GDC 44, Cooling water Where?
(c) GDC 46 Testing of cooling water system Where?
(d) RG1.22, Periodic testing of protection system actuation functions? Where?
(e) RG1.62, Manual initiation of protective actions? Where?
(f) RG1.89, Qualification of class IE equipment for NPPs Where?
(g) RG1.100 Seismic qualification of elec. equip. for NPPS? Where?
l (h) RG1.118, Periodic testing of elec, power & protection systems? Where?
(1) IEEE279, Criteria for protection systems for NPGS? Where?
(j) IEEE338, Periodic testing of NPGS protection systems? Where?
! 2) In CYGNA analysis EE-01(5A), Class 1E relays are used as isolation devices. Is this isolation always achieved by coil to contact isolation; conversely, are any instances contact-to-contact isolation?
Has every isolation device requirement in CCWS been assessed?
- 3) What exact signals make up the " tripped and inoperable" system bypass / inoperative indication on SSI! for CCWs pump train "A" as
{ mentionedinEE-01(58)andEE-02(58)?
- 4) What means have been provided'in the detailed CCWs pump control circuit to assure that the low pressure pump start interlock cross connections between redundant trains meet the requirements of IEEE 279, IEEE 379, and IEEE 3847 Identify specific sensors, power sources, channel components and isolation devices, if used. Ref. EE-01(50) and (78) and EE-03(2C).
1
MAY 3 ISs3
- 5) Describe how the modified normally open surge tank vent valve circuit satisfies IEEE 279 and IEEE 379 if a single power source is provided for this valve. Describe the valve position indications.
- 6) For PAM instruments, compare required versus actual ranges and provide power source for the temperature and flow measurements. Ref. EE-03(1A).
- 7) Elaborate on whether all listed instruments in EE-03(3A) are Class IE, their setpoint values, and adequacy of these setpoints. For items in EE-03(38), elaborate on setpoint values, actual ranges, and required ranges.
i
- 8) In appears that the following items are missing from the CYGNA, Phase 4 analysis. Please discuss their inclusion or exclusion:
(b) Supporting systems needed for CCWs operation in an accident situation.
(c) Instrument rack and cabinet procurement specifications for i implementation of design requirements.
(d) Instrument sensing line physical separation requirements.
l (e) Capabilities for periodic test in the design.
(f) Adequacy of protective action interlock setpoints.
t l
_ , . _ _ , _ _ _ _ __ . ,_ . . - -